I’m late posting this story, but Pseudo-Adrianne’s post earlier today reminded me of it.
Earlier this month, Colorado Governor Bill Owens vetoed a bill that would have required hospitals to tell rape victims about emergency contraception.
The bill would not have required hospitals to perform abortions; the bill would not have required hospitals to dispense drugs they found morally objectionable; the bill would have given health care professionals the right to refuse to participate in procedures they found morally objectionable. The bill would only have required hospitals to let rape victims know that the option exists, so that rape victims would have the freedom to decide for themselves.
Amazingly, Governor Owens had the gall to claim that he vetoed this bill to protect people being “coerced by government to engage in activities” they don’t approve of.
The Moral of the Story: When a pharmacist is “coerced” into doing his job by letting people know of their options, that’s facism. But when rapists and right-wing zealot hospitals collaborate to coerce women into unwanted pregnancies, that’s cool.
They really don’t think of women as anything but incubation machines, do they?
Will, I don’t think it’s news to any feminist that there are plenty of anti-feminist and/or misogynist women out there. Most of us know that not all men = evil and not all women = good. Try again.
My mother’s pro-choice, by the way.
Q Grrl, I think you have the making of a pretty good science fiction novel there. The removal of the testicles would also have implications regarding male aggression, would it not? Older men, the ones who decide we need to have wars over [insert specious rationale here], would lack testosterone and would therefore be less likely to start a conflict.
Although testicle removal is somewhat harsh. Maybe someone could develop a drug that would nullify testosterone, and then it could be administered with men’s breakfast cereal. There’d be no need for you to tell them that’s what they were eating, of course, if your conscience told you that ‘testosterone is bad, so anything that can be done to counteract its effects is okay.’ Men could still have the children they wanted (assuming they found a woman willing to bear them, of course) *and* there would be less violence in the world!
But, whoops, that would interfere with male bodily integrity. My bad.
Thanks, nolo. I realized that distinction after I’d signed off for the day.
No one is obligated, legally or morally, to inform clients of illegal options. A lawyer can’t be sued for malpractice if he fails to say to his client, “You know that nursing assistant we deposed last week? Who was getting out of her car? The one who heard screams and gunshots and then saw you running out of the clinic? Well, accidents happen, and she is the only eyewitness….”
But we’re talking about a perfectly legal option. A lawyer would be in deep trouble if he failed to give his client the best legal advice, because that’s what he has agreed to provide. The client has a reasonable expectation that his attorney will not lie to him about available courses of action, just as a patient has a reasonable expectation that her doctor will not refrain from informing her of a time-sensitive contraceptive method in a timely manner.
Furthermore, the only reason pro-lifers are demanding these measures be taken is that they know full well that they will prevent women from taking advantage of EC. They know that women, particularly women who have been victimized, will not have the wherewithal to ask for it independently.
I don’t like the phrase “unborn child”. For a child to be a child, it has to be born. That’s like saying my 13-year-old sister is an “undermatured adult” and should therefore get all the rights and responsibilities of an adult. We draw lines and distinctions (maybe arbitrary ones, but there it is). It is not a baby until it’s born. A zygote does not get the rights a human being, because it isn’t one yet.
And Will, saying that you were grateful for your mom carrying you around is nice. But, if you had been aborted, you wouldn’t be here to feel greatful or sorrow or anything.
My mother has told me that she thought of aborting me during her pregnancy. It never occured to me to be so selfish as to think that decision had to do anything with *me*.
Will … did you pay your taxes this year?
If so you are an: HYPOCRITE.
Um, Q Grrl? Do I really have a choice there?
How many Hitlers, Stalins, Ted Bundys, Dahmers, and Charlie Mansons, too? Oh yes, by your logic they would have done wonders for our world too.
By your logic then, humans then do not posses rights. By saying that there is a possibility they might grow up to be evil, why on earth do we procreate at all if we’re just going to create more evil human beings? And who are you to decide that because they might be evil humans, that they lack the chance to prove themselves?
But, if you had been aborted, you wouldn’t be here to feel greatful or sorrow or anything.
You’re right. I wouldn’t feel anything at all. I would be dead.
My mother has told me that she thought of aborting me during her pregnancy. It never occured to me to be so selfish as to think that decision had to do anything with *me*.
Of course, by your interpretation your mother was just deciding what to with her “property”. Whether to throw it out with the garbage, or let it actually leave her body alive.
I suggest that Robert will be treated as a troll and ignored as such. (Personally I would like to call him worse names but I’m trying to be civilized, as to prove that I have a brain to go with my uterus.)
I believe he was trying to make a point with the statement. Whether or not he took it too far is irrelevant. You should restrain yourself from calling him a troll. All your trying to do is belittle him, therefore in your mind, reducing his arguments as meaningless. Saying it, does not make it so. Let us please dispense with the ad hominem attacks.
I would think that castration would be an outpatient surgery, so I’m not sure why it should be labeled “harsh.”
It certainly would be considerably less harsh then our current, non-science fiction belief that young women should be forced to carry to term their unwanted pregnancies.
Yes Will. You have a choice to not pay your taxes. You can claim concientious objector status (not that it protects you from fines or penalties, but it *is* a choice).
You seem willing to dictate your morality onto women’s bodies, yet you are afraid of Uncle Sam. Hmmm.
Thanks buddy.
Of course, by your interpretation your mother was just deciding what to with her “property”?.
I’m not that commenter, but: Yup. I’m not disturbed in the slightest by that idea.
Personally, I would be very uncomfortable with the idea that my mother was forced to have me, with no say in the matter and no bodily integrity.
“Personally, I would be very uncomfortable with the idea that my mother was forced to have me, with no say in the matter and no bodily integrity. “
Convenient that you’re alive to say that. Also rather noble of you seeing as your no longer able to be “terminated”.
“Yes Will. You have a choice to not pay your taxes. You can claim concientious objector status (not that it protects you from fines or penalties, but it *is* a choice). “
First Q Grrl, if I were to stop paying taxes, then it would mean I see something wrong with the current situation. There will always be things that I diasagree with, but I would do more to try to change the situation by being a good citizen and paying my taxes. However, you apparently believe that there are problems and that policies are being supported that shouldn’t be supported. Curious Q Grrl, are you paying your taxes?
BTW — the drug currently used for chemical castration is known as Depo-Provera. Apparently, it acts as a form of birth control by preventing ovulation if injected into a woman, and reduced testosterone a lot if injected into a man.
By the way, this talk of castration? Since when did an irreversible removal of an external organ become equated with pregnancy? Last time I checked, no irreversible damage is done through pregnancy…
“Curious Q Grrl, are you paying your taxes? ”
No, I have registered as a conscientious objector with the IRS. I allow taxes out of my paycheck for social programs, but I object to the use of my money (and name) to fund US wars.
RE: castration. In my scenario it doesn’t matter the nature of the organ to the body that organ is housed on or within. What matters is the State’s decisions in regards to the utility and social worth of that organ. Kinda like how conservatives view their access to women’s vaginas and uteri (sp?). It makes as much sense to me as your view of my uterus.
Oh, and also, with State involvement, the “damage” of castration would no longer be viewed as damage and our language and legislation would change accordingly. I would imagine that a word like “duty” might replace “damage.”
“Last time I checked, no irreversible damage is done through pregnancy…”
Are you fucking serious?! You don’t know jack-shit about pregnancy do you? Women can develop diabetes mellitus while pregnant. Some women if the pregnancy and/or labor is catastrophic may have to undergo a hysterectomy or they are rendered incapable having any more children. My sister-in-law nearly died in the middle of labor–that would have been irreversible damage because she and the child would have been dead.
Yes, just keep going on and on about pregnancy and labor is so easy and nothing bad could possibly happen. And you wonder why pro-choicers get rightfully pissed off at you anti-choice guys? Clearly, some of you whether willingly or not choose not to educate yourselves about what really goes on or could happen to women while pregnant and going through labor.
I would like to mention I made no remarks about pregnancy being a risky and/or painful process. With castration, an organ is cut off. You aren’t going to be putting anything back on.
My sister-in-law went through 9 months of agony during her pregnancy. Imagine it like this, she had morning sickness, three-times as bad the entire term. (Oh and she never once thought about an abortion. In fact, she would be argue even more passionatley than I could that abortion is wrong. Have you had a child Adrienne?) Yes, pregnancy is difficult and life threatening. And if you’ll take the time to go through my previous posts, adrienne, before going off on me, you’ll see that my position on pregnancy is clear. I hold those women brave enough to go through with it in the highest regard.
Now with regards to castration, I don’t see how it would be a moral issue Q Grrl. It makes little logical sense as well. However, if it was my nuts, versus a infants life, I would be more than happy to part with them. And Adrienne, don’t refer to me as anti-choice.
I don’t see how my pregnancy could be viewed as a moral issue, Will.
Amp has no problem with me refering to you as anti-choice so I will continue to do so. And no, I don’t have any children as I am nineteen and in college. I’ve never been pregnant before, nor do I intend to have children . Whether or not a woman has children or not does not matter, but to guys like you apparently it does. Is that your definition of a woman? You only admire women who live up to your bullshit standards of womanhood? Oh and not that my body and life choices are any of your damn business, though you’re all for passing legislation that would make it okay for the government to invade the privacy of women, and void their civil rights once they become pregnant. I’ve read through your posts by the way, your position is clear.
Convenient that you’re alive to say that. Also rather noble of you seeing as your no longer able to be “terminated”?.
Yes, Will — my mother had THE CHOICE to have me. Get it?
Oh, and the “OMG u aborted Beethoven!” argument is such a poor argument that it’s at Snopes, and no one using actual logic takes it seriously anymore.
http://www.snopes.com/glurge/twoquest.htm
I’m sorry, but these “health care practitioners” refuse to provide information or referrals to those who will provide information on EC to a rape victim because they consider this enabling the sin of contraception (obviously they can’t be claimg a woman is sexually immoral for letting a man rape her) and/or their misguided belief that it’s use may induce sloughing of the endometrial lining containing an implanted embryo or that it has a remote possibility of sufficiently thinning out the currently forming endometrial lining prevent implantation of a blastocyst to cause an abortion (quite the rare and extreme example) completely miss the point and their even bigger and more direct complicity in sin.
If a woman becomes pregnant as a direct result of the rape and conception occurs due to the victim’s inability to obtain information about or access to EC, the “moral health care provider” is directly responsible (100% complicit) for the abortion she obtains. That “healthcare provider” has directly put the woman in the situation that makes her choose to terminate the resultant pregnancy and the sin is therefor significantly greater for that healthcare provider (especially as this scenario that results in abortion is much more likely than the scenario under which they are acting as a barrier to access).
I can’t imagine any legitimate reason to ask a question like that in a reasonable debate. Unless it’s your claim that there are no women who have had children who are pro-choice, the question is of a completely personal nature, and what I suspect you’re trying to imply by it is nasty.
There’ s a simple rule – don’t try to use the personal or home lives of the people you’re arguing with to score points in a debate. Please follow that rule in the future.
Uh, Will, is there even the slightest chance that you will ever be pregnant? I’m guessing not. These policies affect Adrienne on a much more intimate, personal level than you: it’s her body, among many others, we’re talking about. That’s not irrelevant.
Sorry, we cross-posted. In future, I’ll refrain from asking Will about his ovaries.
obviously they can’t be claimg a woman is sexually immoral for letting a man rape her
Oh, don’t count that out just yet. Or maybe you were being sarcastic….
And in my personal opinion, I’d rather use the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” than “anti-choice” and “anti-life”; if you use one, it’s hard to object to people on the other side using the other. In general, it’s more polite to refer to people they way they refer to themselves.
The most technically accurate terms are “pro-banning” and “anti-banning,” in my opinion, but no one uses those terms. :-)
But that’s just my opinion. This isn’t something I’m going to enforce or anything, so y’all use whatever terms you want, within reason.
Heh. I’ve been sitting here on my painful nerve in my hip that hasn’t gone away from my last pregnancy, debating whether I should be posting or getting myself around so my husband and I can go to the store to get a maternity belt to avoid the pain that I know is right around the bend with this pregnancy. You see, I’m pregnant right now. This will be my second child, third pregnancy (I terminated my first pregnancy many, many years ago).
Let me, however, go through a list of things that have changed about my body (which I embrace now, but would not have in the first pregnancy).
– Higher risk of diabetes due to 2 diabetic parents and being 34 years old.
– Hip and ankle joint issues that happened from an early release of relaxin, a fluid the body releases to help relax the joints for child birth.
– A scar from the first invasive surgery that I had to care for and be very careful with, which will have a twin since the option of VBAC would be extremely stressful and an ordeal, if I was even successful at it.
– Coupled with the scar, two surgeries where I’m cut open, given a spinal anesthesa (they sit down and give you all the information – kinda like they should with EC no? – about the risks of having something stuck into your spine).
– Increased risk of hypertension due to age and other factors:
“The effects of high blood pressure range from mild to severe. High blood pressure can harm the mother’s kidneys and other organs, and it can cause low birth weight and early delivery. In the most serious cases, the mother develops preeclampsia–or “toxemia of pregnancy”–which can threaten the lives of both the mother and the fetus.”
– Teeth issues due to calcium loss during pregnancy (extremely common!).
… I could go on and on. Suffice it to say, my body is ABSOLUTELY not the body it was prior to having a child, and those changes are ABSOLUTELY not limited to cosmetic changes.
There is SO much more when it comes to pregnancy and how the body is affected, but that I’m sure is a non-issue to anti-choice people. As far as their concerned, it’s like blowing a balloon up over a 9 month period of time that has no health or psychological reprecussions, and that any rights of the body that goes through this are secondary to the cells within them.
Maybe a good form of protest and empathy would be for anti-choice people to run around with a lamprey stuck to their body for 9 months. No, even then it wouldn’t equal the amount of stress a body goes through having a pregnancy.
Also, child birthing can have the effect (especially if you’ve done so multiple times) of decreasing life expectancy.
“Amp has no problem with me refering to you as anti-choice so I will continue to do so. And no, I don’t have any children as I am nineteen and in college. I’ve never been pregnant before, nor do I intend to have children .”
Look, I don’t refer to your side as pro-death do I? No. So allow me my preferred term for my stance as I allow you yours. Is that too much to ask that my stance be referred to as pro-life?
And as for the question, I was bringing into account perspective. I have recieved comments at least twice throughout this strand that as a male I couldn’t possibly understand anything about this situation. I’m merely showing the other side of that argument.
I don’t see how my pregnancy could be viewed as a moral issue, Will.
Well, apparently at least 30% of Americans see it as a moral issue(according to which poll you use) and another 30-40% think its an issue that needs to be changed so obviously I’m not jsut making this up Q Grrl.
Amp,
IMO, anti-choice is the most accurate clinical term. This debate is about choice, only in the minds of moralists is it about ‘life’, as it’s been long established (a tradition, you might call it, and we know how conservatives love tradition!) that life begins the day you are born. That’s the date on your birth certificate.
The debate rests squarely on whether people will have the choice to avail themselves of pregnancy termination or the choice will be taken away. I don’t like pandering to people who wish to take that choice away by calling them pro-life, and giving credence to an argument that is accurate only in their moralist viewpoint.
“I don’t like pandering to people who wish to take that choice away by calling them pro-life, and giving credence to an argument that is accurate only in their moralist viewpoint.”
Neither do I.
And a zygote that was in the situation of being able to be terminated would say otherwise? Or say or feel or think anything? Or have any ability to be at all aware of its situation? Or care after it was terminated or have or ever had the ability to care? A zygote, a little ball of cells, is not affected by its termination in the same way that I would be were you to shoot me or something I am in total support of a woman not being able to terminate her pregnancy due to her own attachment to it or the zygote or the thought of the zygote or whatever, I’m certainly not saying that a woman is a fool to care about her pregnancy. But to say that somehow the zygote is even able to give a crap about its own existance, and for this reason you should be compelled to carry it to term? No.
Also, to comment on the ‘I’m glad my mom didn’t have an abortion’ line of reasoning: if my mom hadn’t had an abortion when she was in her teens, I probably wouldn’t be here. She’d probably have been done with babies by the time she met my dad in her mid-thirties. So there ya go, two sides of the ‘My mom could have aborted me!’ coin. (Of course, its only because she made these choices that I even exist to care about them. Can’t imagine floating around in a ‘neverborn’ cosmic wasteland getting angry about how she didn’t have that abortion if her choices had been different.)
There is SO much more when it comes to pregnancy and how the body is affected, but that I’m sure is a non-issue to anti-choice people.
Yeah. I had (HAD) an online acquaintance who basically felt that pregnancy wasn’t a very big deal, and if you didn’t want to be pregnant, well, you were just selfish, and that was all. When informed of various medical risks and complications, she shrugged them off; she actually said that since she didn’t hear much about women dying in childbirth anymore, it’s not that big a deal. Oh, okay. She also said that there was no way to tell before you got pregnant if you were going to have a pregnancy-impacting condition. Uh. I’ve got a friend who doesn’t intend to get pregnant because she doesn’t have full lung capacity and has a weak heart, but this didn’t faze the first girl a bit. She just didn’t care about medical facts, and that’s not unusual.
Oh, and my mother has had sciatica for 26 years due to pregnancy. Maybe 26 years isn’t permanent enough? Some women become permanently incontinent, as well.
And as for terms, I don’t see a problem with using “anti-choice,” because they are, in fact, against choice. No need to act affronted about an accurate label.
Yep, sciatica is the hip nerve problem I was talking about. My mother has it too, from her own pregnancies. It’s freaking -painful-, sleeping becomes a real exercise in creative body angles when it’s acting up.
BTW, I forgot to mention that chronic headaches go along with the nausea as a common side-effect of pregnancy, as does chronic heartburn. I went through like 3 to 4 costco jugs of anti-acids first pregnancy, and a huge thing of tylenol (can’t take any other drugs). Tylenol barely works though, so I personally end up running around with a mild headache at least 80% of the time. Actually, here’s a list of little things I didn’t know about prior to pregnancy (most just assume nausea):
– Headaches
– Acid heartburn (constant)
– Gas or constipation, dependent on the day, but generally you get to have one or the other.
– Hemmoroids
– Varicose veins that result in the need to wear support hose if you get them (I’m told some women get varicose veins on the labia as well, which is said to be extremely painful – mine thankfully are limited to one leg behind the knee).
– PUPS which is a failure of the body to process liver salts enough which causes itching that is incredibly bad. I mean as in ripping / scarring skin bad. It gets so bad in some women that doctors end up giving them early c-sections.
– Joint pain.
– Ring ligament pain that pretty much makes you incapable of sustained standing and walking without a maternity belt.
– Insomnea coupled with exhaustion.
Those are the ones off the top of my head. Their are tons more, but in my ‘typical and healthy’ pregnancy, I’ve dealt with all those things. Anyone that attempts to portray pregnancy as anything other than life and body altering and potentially extremely dangerous and detrimental to the health of the woman is an absolute fool.
You know, I have just about had it. First, you can’t even grant me one request, (to refer to my side as pro-life), even though I refer to your side as pro-choice. Maybe I will start refering to it for what it is, pro-death. Second, the ad hominem attacks are just really starting to bother me. Have I ever attacked one of you, rather than your arguments? I certainly expected to find a discussion here to be civil, but about the only one who has been civil is Ampersand.
“only in the minds of moralists is it about ‘life'”
mor·al·ist – One who follows a system of moral principles.
mor·al – Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong
I don’t know if that term was meant to be an insult, but I personally found it a compliment. And that fact that you find it repulsive, scares me. The only reason we have laws is that people follow a set of morals. Without them, the world quickly falls apart.
Since it is no longer pleasant to post here I ‘ll pretty much state my position, and where I see that everyone disagrees, and leave it at that and maybe add something later.
I believe that abortion is wrong, for the reasons that it is murder. You believe that is a blob of tissue that can eventually be defined as a “human”. We disagree there.
I believe because its murder that it doesn’t matter that its in your body, its human. It should be allowed to live. You think I’m just trying to “control” your body.
I appreciate the sacrifice that women make when they decide to have a child. I only wish that they would choose beforhand whether or not they are going to have that child so that abortion isn’t necesssary. I also know that rape happens, and its unfortunate. I am against having abortion under those circumstances, but wouldn’t want legislation stating that.
Thanks for the discussion.
What? This doesn’t make any sense. Either abortion is murder, that is, the killing of a human being that deserves life, or not. If it’s murder, than rape is not a relevant extenuating circumstance–a rape victim’s fetus is exactly the same as every other. Why should those aborting women be treated any differently? Why should they be allowed to commit murder?
Gee Will,
#1 you’re conveniently ignoring that the primary topic here is EC for women who have been raped.
Rape : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent
#2 the implantation rate of a blastocyst under normal circumstances is 40-60%, routine contraception may (or may not) “thin” the endometrial layer developed to the point that implantation is impeded (when ovulation occurs). Implantation is by no means impossible in a woman using hormonal contraception if ovulation and fertlization does occur (the progesterone produced by the corpus luteum can maintain the implantation and prevent menstruation). You’d need to provide evidence that use of hormonal contraceptive significantly decreases the chance of implantation in comparison to the rate of implantation in women not utilizing contraception to be able to substantiate the view that hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients.
#3 EC is a high dose of progesterone (to mimic pregnancy) to delay ovulation duringt he period in which the rapist’s sperm are able to reach and fertilize an ova. If a woman was pregnant prior to the rape, Plan B will not induce sloughing of the endometrial lining and terminate the pregnancy. If fertilization & implantation do not occur after ovulation, progesterone (and, I think, estrogen levels) drop to their lowest during a menstrual cycle and induce menstruation. As I noted earlier, the corpus luteum produces progesterone (and continues to do so for a time post implantation); if progesterone dips below a certain level, the pregnancy will terminate. . .one would think EC would possibly aid in establishing pregnancy if it did not prevent ovulation/fertilization, not induce abortion. [if someone reading this is an OB/GYN or reproductice endocrinologist, please correct me if I’m wrong about this; otherwise, I just don’t see how “pro-lifers” can make a claim that Plan B is an abortifacient]
Why should those aborting women be treated any differently? Why should they be allowed to commit murder?
Because his sense of mercy and sympathy is overriding his sense of morality.
Or, in your terms, as a clever ploy to help us right-wing patriarchs further extend our control over your uterus, punish you for having sex, and strip women of their bodily integrity.
Yes, but why?
He doesn’t seem to have any trouble with that when it comes to women who haven’t been raped, even though pregnancy won’t necessarily be any less stressful for them. If abortion is wrong because it’s murder, I want him to explain why it’s okay for anyone, even a rape victim, to commit murder. I want him to explain why abortion doesn’t stop a beating heart if the pregnancy is the result of rape.
I just don’t see how “pro-lifers”? can make a claim that Plan B is an abortifacient
Because it prevents implantation of an embryo as one of its functional modes. It doesn’t always do this, but it does do it sometimes. You are welcome to believe that a person isn’t pregnant until the embryo implants, and that thus the pills can’t be considered an abortifacient. I will be happy to switch terminology, and say that the pills can cause the death of viable embryos if you prefer.
Will,
So it’s bad that we call you anti-choice but ok for you to say that we commit murder? Do you realize that there are women here that have had abortion? Do you feel justified in calling me a murderer?
Don’t let the door hit your sorry ass.
Pingback: The Disenchanted Forest
If abortion is wrong because it’s murder, I want him to explain why it’s okay for anyone, even a rape victim, to commit murder. I want him to explain why abortion doesn’t stop a beating heart if the pregnancy is the result of rape.
As Will clearly stated, he is not willing to pass a law that prevents a woman who was raped from availing herself of an abortion. He clearly did not state, and clearly does not believe, that the abortion becomes morally right in those circumstances, or that the nature of abortion changes in those circumstances. So your characterization of his statement is based on an intentional or unintentional misreading of his view.
As for why he (or other pro-lifers) might be willing to make this exception, it is a fairly common event in human morality to be forced, or to feel forced, to choose the lesser of two evils. It is wrong to kill a human being under any circumstances. It may be more wrong to let a human being, through my own inaction, do something worse. If I see that guy headed to burn down the orphanage and the only way I can stop him is to kill him, then I might have to kill him in order to act morally – but the killing itself would still be wrong. Similarly, it could be viewed as being worse to ask an unwilling woman to bear the child of her rapist than to end that child’s life. (I don’t think it is, but the argument can be made, and when it is made, it is generally made from pity and sympathy.)
Setting aside the fact that it would be completely impossible to preserve abortion for rape victims and only rape victims:
In your example, the “worse than,” is saving a bunch of other lives. That’s a pretty clear lesser evil: killing one man–a murderer himself–in order to prevent several other murders. But I don’t see how the trauma of a rape victim is worth more than a life–which, if you’ll remember, Will does not at any point distinguish from a child’s life–but the trauma of a woman with an unplanned pregnancy is worth less.
So Robert and / or Will;
Should I face charges of murder, as a woman who has terminated a pregnancy? Would you feel comfortable with this scenario?
but the argument can be made
Pretty much any argument “can be made.” That doesn’t mean it’s in any way logical or valid.
The guy burning down the orphanage is going to kill a bunch of human beings. Morally, ending one life is less evil than passively allowing the guy to end many lives.
But where is the counter to “ending a human life” in allowing a rape victim to abort? Yes, you can say that we’re being compassionate and it’s awful, but that’s not a real argument. There is no loss of human life on the woman’s side of the equation.
Will is arguing, in essence, that the anguish of the rape victim outweighs the value of the fetus’s life. That’s not a “pro-life” position. That’s pro-choice; it’s just splitting hairs about which kind of choices are morally acceptable and which are not.
Rape is one form of male intrusion. What Will and Robert are doing on this thread is another. You two are no better than rapists. I feel violated just reading your cruel, uninformed opinions. I don’t understand why no one can see the correlation between this kind of behavior and the same kind of behavior that allowes men to believe they can rape with impunity.
Morgan,
On a prior thread, I stated that to me those attempting to force their will upon a woman with regards to what occurs with her body, and force a woman to physically do something that is unacceptible is tantamount to rape to me. My husband suggested that I make a compromise with the the people wishing to be referred to as ‘pro-life’ – which is an implication that the opposite side is ‘pro-death’, and refer to myself as ‘anti-rape’. I mean really, how can they object to me calling myself anti-rape, right? Just because it implies something about them isn’t my problem now, is it?
Uh, morgan, sorry, but being obnoxious or even bullying on a thread is way different than rape. If you want to say they have the same sense of patriarchal entitlement as men who think they have a right to sex with any woman they want, that’s one thing. But to say that a troll is “no better than” someone who physically violates another human being is a little skewed on the perspective front.
I have to go with mythago on the “no better than rapists” thing.
However, Amanda of Pandagon has frequently framed (and I believe said so early in this thread) the “We don’t want women to know aboutor use EC” crowd as being accessories to rape; she provocatively says that to them, it’s more important that a rapist be allowed to continue to inflict trauma, and have a chance to impregnate the victim, than it is for the woman to attempt to regain control over her life.
Okay I am going to restate my position on rape, even though Robert did an excellent job. I believe it is wrong to abort a child which is the product of rape. I would not push for legislation on this issue, because it wouldn’t pass, and I also believe that those who feel abortion is wrong should first make abortions illegal for non-rape victims.
Now I know I will get a lot of passionate blogs about me saying that abortion should be illegal, but that’s what I believe. What bothers me, is that for stating my position, I’m getting labeled as a ” rapist”. Excuse me?
Kim, I’m not calling you a murderer, even though I would consider you pretty much as one. First, I wouldn’t win any points with in doing so, as the whole point of debate is to try to persuade the other side to accept the merits of your case. Second, since the law currently allows you to abort your pregnancy, my main attempt here on the blogs, is to try to dissuade you from having another abortion. Now, I probably will not be successful. But I do want to try.
As for holding you in a court for murder, in my perfect world that might be the case. I certainly wouldn’t want to say anything here about it. I mean, just look at the reception Robert and I have recieved. For merely stating our views, we have been called rapists, a troll, ignorant, etc. We haven’t responded in kind. Now I know you feel passionate, but that doesn’t reflect well on your position. So, Kim, I don’t really want to discuss hypotheticals right now…
Mythago, thank you for referring to my position as pro-life. The courtesy, whether it was intended or not, was appreciated. I still say abortion after rape is wrong, but would not urge legislation for the reasons listed above.
Ok, Robert, so I have to ask you a question: why don’t you think MDs, Pharmacists, and what not should be subject to the same stringent standards that you say a raped woman should live up to? Why should they be protected from the consequences of an unfair world? That’s effectively what you are arguing: that doctors should be protected from the unfairness of life and of being adults who have to live with the consequences of their decisions and choices (note: not to imply that a woman chooses to get raped, but just to make clear that this is all part-and-parcel of the “you’re an adult, life isn’t fair, deal with it” argument Robert is presenting). The logical extension of your argument is that doctors should be permitted to commit malpractice and be protected from the consequences of their decisions.
To become a legally accredited and licensed MD in this country, one has to go through a hell of a lot of training and study, not just of the elements of anatomy and doctorin’, but also of the policies, standards, minimum competencies and responsibilities that are _required_ of practicing medical professionals.
Beyond that, when one accepts a job as such a professional, one goes into that with eyes open and of free will accepts these standards, policies, practices and responsibilities of the job and the accrediting agencies. When it comes to being a doctor, the minimum requirement is to provide the necessary information about all legal and medically efficacious options to the patient so that she can make an informed decision about what actions to take. When you take a job as a doctor, you say yes to this requirement. If you then can’t or won’t do it, you can’t do the job…you can’t be a doctor. A licensed pharmacist is required to fill legal prescriptions. When you accept a job as a pharmacist, you accept this requirement. If you then can’t or won’t do it, you can’t do the job…you can’t be a pharmacist.
And you can’t say that they may have been unaware of these requirements and thus can be excused from them. If you are arguing (as you effectively are) that the average woman have the combined knowledge of an up-to-date Ob/Gyn, a medical dispatcher, and a FEMA manager, then the experts in a field certainly must have an equal or better depth of knowledge.
We put all sorts of minimum restrictions on what professionals must know or do to be allowed to perform a job. They have consciously chosen their profession and what that profession requires. The consequence of that choice is that they provide the necessary medical information to the patient. They don’t have to perform the abortion or provide the prescription, but they do have to provide the information. Not doing so is simple and willful malpractice.
And to deny needed medical knowledge to a patient, particularly a patient who through no fault or action of her own is under your care and dependent upon your knowledge and skill, is beyond immoral. It is evil.
Because it prevents implantation of an embryo as one of its functional modes. It doesn’t always do this, but it does do it sometimes. You are welcome to believe that a person isn’t pregnant until the embryo implants, and that thus the pills can’t be considered an abortifacient. I will be happy to switch terminology, and say that the pills can cause the death of viable embryos if you prefer.
Robert: The “Pro-Life”movement claims it can & does prevent implantation, if you’ve read my entire post you’ll see that I have not seen any scientific evidence (or logical scientific reasoning) to support that a high dose of progesterone would prevent implantation – especially if there is a blastocyst with a functioning corpus luteum that is also producing progesterone (which will keep the endometrial lining lush and welcoming) and will continue to produce progesterone if it implants. It’s when the blastocyst doesn’t implant that the progesterone levels will decrease below pregnancy maintaining levels and start menses (the reason there are so many miscarriages in between first and 2nd trimesters is because there is a shift in progesterone production from the corpus luteum to maternal progesterone production – if that’s not high enough a miscarriage will occur).
Inaccuracy of mechanism of action aside, the person who interferes with access to information to prevent the pregnancy post rape because (s)he believes that on the rare occasion that the lining is inhospitable to implantation due to EC and actually facilitates fertilization that most likely would not have occurred had the victim had the information and access to EC is complicit in sin and is a direct cause of any abortion the victim decides to have after the fact. The latter is most definitely an abortion that you can verify has occured, the former is a hypothetical that even “prolifers” admit is at most a possibility. To further compound the complicity, you have actually intentionally facilitated creation of what you consider to be a sacred life that was “murdered” because you wouldn’t allow delay of ovulation to prevent conception under the circumstances due to the slim possibility that inability to implant was related to EC and not natural factors.
So lemme get this straight, you don’t want to call me a murderer, but you think I am one just the same, but it hurts your feelings that I see your position as akin to rape, and it’s disrespectful to portray my view in that light?
It’s none of your business what comes in our out of my vagina, fella, got it? The only one besides me that has a right to worry about what is going in our out of my vagina is my husband, fella, got it? Even then, the ultimate say is mine, fella, got it? You’re clearly not here to discuss this to learn more about the pro-choice stance with the idea of expanding your own horizons, and this isn’t a board that is dedicated to anti-choice sentiments, but in fact, just the opposite, so don’t even begin to cry foul for people not choosing to deal with your delicate sensibilities with kid gloves. You jumped into the lions den of your own free will, and just like I’d expect to deal with people of your ilk on a anti-choice blog, don’t act surprised or cheated because some of us refuse to tip-toe around your illogical, insulting and invasive arguments.
I’m fairly certain I’ve reprsented the pro-choice side pretty darn well, considering I’m someone in a position of having been through pregnancy and abortion. My refusing to act like a humble woman to pander to your outlandish and reprehensible implications and accusations and consistent sharing of factual and personal and private information for your edification and examination has been far more civil than I personally feel you deserve.
So in closing, I offer you this bit of not so nice advice so you can say that I’ve genuinely attacked you in an ad hominem manner; Why don’t you go to your room, and think about what I’ve said while you wait for mommy or daddy to finish up dinner before retorting again?
Will,
how can you say this:
after saying this:
You haven’t been responding in kind? You are calling us murderers!
Kim, well said. But really dear, why waste your time and energy with these guys? Let these boys piss and moan about being “victims” while exercising their blatant hypocritical tendancies–inherent within their position–by calling us (whether subliminally or even “politely”) “murderers,” then turn around and cry like babies when people call them “pro-rapists rights activists.” They don’t deserve “civility,” nor do they deserve our time and energy. They’ll just have to live with the painful fact that there are pro-choice women and men out there who don’t pander to their bullshit philosophy on life or womanhood.
Piss, moan, whimper, weep all you like boys on how “morally superior” you think you are, if that’s what gets you off. You can’t stop women from taking control over their bodies no matter how much it makes you cringe. Yep, life is unfair boys. You can’t make pro-choice women and men think and act like you. Devastating (and ego-crushing) I’m sure.
The hell just happen with that?
My point Kim, is that even though I might upset you, the proper thing for a mature adult is to attack the arguments, rather than the person. Since you seem incapable of doing so, I don’t see any point in arguing with you any further. Got it, Ma’am?
Atually Adrienne, this was rather fun. I’ve never felt so sure in my beliefs until hearing you “piss and moan” as you so rightly put it. I’m curious though, would you rather just hear people who agree with you all the time? Personally, I would think that would get rather boring.
(repeated because I messed up the quotes )
Will,
how can you say this:
“For merely stating our views, we have been called rapists, a troll, ignorant, etc. We haven’t responded in kind. …”
after saying this:
“Kim, I’m not calling you a murderer, even though I would consider you pretty much as one….
As for holding you in a court for murder, in my perfect world that might be the case. …Kim, I’m not calling you a murderer, even though I would consider you pretty much as one.”
You haven’t been responding in kind? You are calling us murderers!
No. Sorry to shoot that view of yours of me to shit, buddy-boy. Differing opinions is one thing. Being a condescending, insulting for the sake of pissing people off, self-righteous–ass, as you have been, on purpose is another thing.
Wow.
The original post was about providing EC to rape survivors. We go from that to bandying about the adoption option, humanizing the fetus, and dimsissing the woman. Woman? What woman?
Or in this case, rape survivor? What rape survivor?
I am oh-so-glad that Will and Robert speak out in defense of the doctors and pharmacists whose tender feelings are hurt by the horrible spectre of women getting EC. Why, the very idea of providing such information is just so–so–oppressive! It’s so heartening to know that enforced pregnancy with all of the mental, emotional, and physical trauma is acceptable, that a fetus is so revered, and that the well-being of a girl or a woman is lower than that of a slug.
I-do-not-give-a-shit-about-fetuses. Especially in cases of rape, when a woman does not want to be pregnant. I don’t particularly care if Robert or Will volunteers to draw and quarter the rapists and raise the child themselves. There is another person in this equation, the rape survivor, who may not want to be pregnant at all, period, amen, end of story. A woman who has been violated, whose rights have been violated, whose body has been violated. A woman whose right to control her body was taken away quite brutally, and whose right to regain control over her body (and her life) would continue to be withheld in the name of conscience, or fetuses, or fairness to men, or whatever.
Many of those women are friends of mine. Some may be posting on this thread. And before I hear another fucking self-righteous lecture about the sanctity of life and a dismissal of the real agony rape survivors go through, know this: there is another person affected here, and your dismissal of her is quite telling. Pretty damned misogynist.
Woman? What woman? Oh, just go along and give it up for adoption, it’s just like giving away a pair of shoes, and forty weeks of pregnancy is no big deal. And if the only hospital around is a Catholic hospital that refuses to provide or even educate you about EC, tough shit. You should have known better. You should consider the fetus, which can’t speak for itself, and doesn’t have a choice. Of course, you didn’t have a choice in what happened to you, either, but it’s not like you matter, silly woman. You’re nothing. Now let’s keep talking about the rights of doctors and pharmacists to refuse care, the rights of fetuses, and the rights of men to debate what should happen to those incubators with legs that carry fetuses.
Heaven forbid any rape survivors read this thread and lose their tempers and point out that they have rights as well. Heaven forbid that anyone point out that Will and Robert will likely never be raped, and will never have to worry about being pregnant from a rape. IOW, let’s not mention that someone already had plenty to say about what the rape survivor’s rights were when he RAPED her, and being refused medical information is another statement about her (non-existent) rights. Let’s not acknowledge the fact that maybe a traumatized woman might like to take some control of her body back, that maybe she does not want to be pregnant, does not want to carry and birth her attacker’s child, does not want to put her body through ten weeks of pregnancy with all of the risks that have been pointed out several times in this thread.
You know, because it’s not about the raped woman at all. She apparently doesn’t matter, or even exist.
No. Sorry to shoot that view of yours of me to shit, buddy-boy. Differing opinions is one thing. Being a condescending, insulting for the sake of pissing people off, self-righteous”“ass, as you have been, on purpose is another thing.
My God, the hat e that eminates from you…passion is one thing…pure all out hate is another. No wonder there aren’t many people who show up here with differing views. By the way princess, and this might be splitting hairs but, all those ad hominem attacks were brought up before I ever said anything to Kim. And Kim asked me what I thought, otherwise I would have never brought it up.
For shame I bring up different views and try to have a debate here, since I am apparently raping by doing so…any logic there?
I still say abortion after rape is wrong, but would not urge legislation for the reasons listed above.
Then you are no more “pro-life” than I am.
Excusing murder of a living human being because of the circumstances of that human being’s conception is not “pro-life.”
A truly pro-life person excuses abortion when necessary to save the mother’s life–i.e., in self-defense. “It would be mean to rape victims” is not a pro-life attitude. It’s a wishy-washy excuse for having an inconsistent moral framework.
You know what? I’m sick to death of men debating what I can and cannot do, and what medical care I can expect, even if I’ve been raped.
Your “debate” ignores the central part of the original post–it’s about denying any information about EC to women who were raped.
Their rights have already been up for grabs enough. You’ll just have to forgive me if I shed no tears over your hurt feelings.
Who said anything about hurt feelings Sheelzebub? I’m just wondering why you can’t be civil, that’s all. Oh, and if you are tired about having men debate about what you can and can’t do then you have a serious problem considering the amount of men in Congress.
Bulletin for all you Women out there: Men are not out to get you. It was men in Congress that voted for every equal treatment of women out there from suffrage to equal treatment in the workplace. We are not your enemies.
Mythago, you want to say that I’m wishy washy. But, if according to your description I’m pro-choice whats the problem? Isn’t that what you want anyway? Wouldn’t everyone around here actually be civil if they found out I actually agreed with them?
By the way Willie, before you go and jerk-off a “job well done”……
As a co-blogger I have access to the “moderation of comments” section of this site. I can delete comments if I wanted to. Including a shit-load of yours. But you know what, I DIDN’T FUCKING DELETE THEM! I like discourse. I allowed YOU (and Robert when his comments would pop up, but they usually don’t because he’s a ‘regular’) to spew your very much so, as Sheelzebub so beautifully put it, devaluing of the rape victim/woman’s pain and rights–comments. Occassionally, though rarely, your comments would pop up under the moderation thing and I would ‘approve’ of them. No matter how infuriating they were to me. So no, differing views aren’t a big deal. By the way, this is a blog leaning towards the Left of the political spectrum and is pro-feminist. What the hell were you expecting when you came here?! A pat on the head?!
Um, you were going on about hurt feelings, Will, namely, your hurt feelings.
And kindly spare me the lectures to be civil. I am frankly sick to the teeth of the passive agressive pseudo-civil BS I see whenever the subject of rape or abortion comes up. It’s pretty telling that while you wouldn’t stop a raped woman from getting an abortion, you and Robert focus on the rights of the fetus, the doctors and pharmacists, the hospitals. . .anyone but the raped woman. Just ignore her as much as you can.
Not very civil, that.
“Men are not out to get you.”
More bullshit. Certainly not all of you–not even close. However, anti-choice men (along with their anti-choice Stepford women) who just happen to be on Capitol Hill and in the White House are out to restrict women’s choices and control our bodies. That is going after women. Your ideological buddies, many of whom are male politicians who wield a large portion of power over the rest of us, are our enemies. And the whimpering for civility is bullshit, as that is a tactic used especially by anti-choice folks to silence the other side of the argument.
Look Adrienne; If you want to delete my blogs go ahead. You seem pisssed off so I will stop posting on this subject, and I’m sorry to have made you upset. I am sincere in that. I hope you don’t mind if I go and post elsewhere. No I didnt expect a pat on the head. But I have had a discussion like this where I wasn’t called a rapist.
Oh and Seelzebub. Find my statement that “my feeling are hurt”. Which comment did I say that?
No. I will not delete your previous posts. I don’t have that power, only Amp does. I will not delete your comments or Robert’s if I happen to see them under moderation. I and Mister Amp (mostly Amp), will approve of them and allow these very heated discussions over feminist/reproductive-rights/cultural/social/political issues to continue. Flame wars are fun, anyway. I will follow Amp’s example as this is his blog really. He invited me to be his co-blogger so I will follow his rules when it comes to controlling comments. The comments of anti-choicers, conservatives, anti-feminists will NOT be deleted so long as they aren’t overtly or just beyond offensive. Amp holds us “Lefties” to the same rules too. And I’ve probably broken a rule or two of his on this thread too, as others probably have.
Kim:
Should I face charges of murder, as a woman who has terminated a pregnancy? Would you feel comfortable with this scenario?
Murder is a crime which requires a specific state of mind. If you believed that your fetus was a human person, and if you believed that having an abortion was killing that human person, then yes, you’re a murderer. If you did not believe that your fetus was a human person (a position with which I disagree, but which I recognize is not currently a consensus value in our society), then it’s not murder. (And I suppose that if you believed that it was a human person but that having an abortion somehow didn’t kill that person, that wouldn’t be murder either, but I can’t envision a way that someone could think that.)
Should you be charged? No. There is no law against murdering a human person who has not yet been born, so even if you thought that was what you were doing, you have no legal liability.
Should the law be changed? Probably not. As has been noted elsewhere, there is a right to choose whether the law respects it or not – women can and will abort children that they do not wish to carry. I believe that a changing of people’s hearts and minds is the method that will end abortion, not legal prohibitions on it.
Bulliten for you Women out there: Men are not out to get you.
Will, kindly put that back in the dark hole from which you pulled it. Seriously. I like fish, but I don’t much care for red herring.
Oh, and Seelzebub. Find my statement that “my feeling are hurt’> Which comment did I say that?
Oh no, no direct comment, just a lot of assertions that anyone who doesn’t agree with the majority here is falsely accused of being a rapist or a troll, that we aren’t civil. (By the way, no one said, “Will, you are a rapist.”)
And the civility lectures wear thin after we hear how women who are denied information about EC should have the brains and the responsiblity to get it themselves (the implication being that if we didn’t think to do that after a rape, we were stupid and irresponsible). We were told that providing information about EC was facilitating evil and that EC and abortion was murder. Yet turning the argument around and stating that denying EC aiding and abetting rape (and likening enforcing a pregnancy to rape) is somehow uncivil.
My goodness, you spend all day drawing comics rather than being on the internet, and look what you miss!
I guess it’s a bit late for me to ask everyone to cool down a little…
Robert wrote:
Sorry I said you felt otherwise, waaaaay back at the beginning of this thread. Frankly, if all pro-lifers felt the way you do about legal prohibition, I’d have very few objections to the pro-life movement. (Not none. But way fewer).
What do “Alas” readers think should be done with a thread like this one, by the way?
It’s not a solution to say I should moderate more – I’ve got other things to do (like draw comics or do my job, occasionally). So it’s not always possible for me to be on top of things.
Should I close the thread after it’s become a combat zone? Or do people enjoy the flamefests enough so I should just let the occasional thread be kinda a flamewar and not worry about it?
(And for the record, Will: You’ve given as good as you’ve gotten in this thread. I really don’t think your “I’m such a victim, everyone here has been rude but me” stance is the best one for you to take.)
I don’t see how the trauma of a rape victim is worth more than a life”“which, if you’ll remember, Will does not at any point distinguish from a child’s life”“but the trauma of a woman with an unplanned pregnancy is worth less.
Yes, it’s not a logically defensible position. It is emotionally defensible, though.
SDM:
Ok, Robert, so I have to ask you a question: why don’t you think MDs, Pharmacists, and what not should be subject to the same stringent standards that you say a raped woman should live up to? Why should they be protected from the consequences of an unfair world?
As I have said previously, in plain language, I don’t think they should be protected from the consequences of an unfair world. I think that the appropriate locus for the decision as to what information should be distributed by a medical practice, or what kind of medical ethics will rule a medical practice, or what kind of pills a pharmacy should dispense, etc., is the individual business unit, corporation, or hospital board – not the legislature, not the governing bodies of the field, not Pope Benedict, not Pseudo-Adrienne – except insofar as the legislature, the governing body, the Pope, or Adrienne have their own hospital or pharmacy. Because of the nature of medical practice, there are a lot of people who will decline to perform some controversial actions; they should have to face the consequence of their decision. (Which may, and probably should, entail finding employment with someone who has compatible values.)
They don’t have to perform the abortion or provide the prescription, but they do have to provide the information. Not doing so is simple and willful malpractice.
But this is not a consensus value. It does not have the force of law. It is what is being argued, not the premise from which the argument is derived.
The reality is that there are multiple viewpoints on medical issues, most particularly in areas surrounding the creation of life. Although I am a partisan of one particular viewpoint, I recognize that not everyone shares that view. There is a pluralism of intellectual, spiritual, emotional perspectives; my values will not always prevail. Accordingly, although I think my values are correct, I seek a legal regime wherein pluralism is the norm. That is generally going to involve deference to the freedom of conscience of health care providers – in all directions, whether that freedom is going to uphold or undermine my own values.
Will,
I came in on this a little late, but here it is: You wish to be called pro-life, but I cannot in good conscious call you this because you don’t seem to be all that concerned about the life of the pregnant women/rape victim. You seem to be in favor of limiting the options women have avaliable, IE you are anti-choice (or limited choice if you prefer).
Will and Robert,
As it stands, abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. No pregancy, no abortion. EC prevents pregnancy; either prevents conception or in very limited situations, implantation. I cannot see how you can see something that is 32 cells big as life. I kill more cells when I skin my knee: all of them have human DNA in them too. I kill more complex life when I swat a fly.
If a women wants to give over her body for 9 monthes and then give over the rest of her life to being a mother, that is her decision. If she does not, then it is forced labor, and slavery.
We make value choices every day on what someone’s life is worth. If someone is threatning my life and health, I do not hesitate to kill her. If someone is coming at me with a knife, and I had a gun in my hand, she would be dead or severely wounded on the ground. Well, a zygote is a clear threat on my health and my life, so I have no more qualms about getting rid of it than I would a tapeworm.
Also, my mom didn’t have the option of aborting me, and I wish to hell she would have. She and my dad weren’t ready for kids, her life was in serious jeapordy when she had me. All bearing me did was make her less healthy and put a finacial/ psychological/ emotional strain on the family. If she would have chosen to had me, I would be more appreciative of the life she gave me, but she didn’t have the option.
“Should I close the thread after it’s become a combat zone? Or do people enjoy the flamefests enough so I should just let the occasional thread be kinda a flamewar and not worry about it?”
Up to you, Amp. I’ll admit that I help screw up this thread (that was your post) with my own ‘flames’. This is your blog so, yeah, do what you want.
Robert,
“THE protocol? Or A protocol?”
Yes, *the* protocol, as in the standard of care as per ACOG*, and AMA**. [Both ACOG and AMA recommend that physicians treating rape pts inform women about EC, and offer the pt EC.]
“There are an awful lot of hospitals that don’t follow that – in fact, that say it’s wrong.”
Most hospitals that don’t adhere to the standard of care are the Catholic ones; they do that because of ideological, not scientific reasons. Religious dogma is not one of the criteria used to establish/evaluate the standard of care.
All,
Just so we’re clear on the actual medical facts [aka “Just because one believes EC prevents implantation doesn’t mean it actually does”]:
“Recently, treatment with either 10 mg mifepristone or 1.5 mg of levonorgestrel has emerged as the most effective hormonal method for emergency contraception…
When summarized, available data from studies in humans indicate that the contraceptive effects of both levonorgestrel and mifepristone, when used in single low doses for emergency contraception, involve either blockade or delay of ovulation, due to either prevention or delay of the LH [a hormone released from the brain] surge, rather than to inhibition of implantation.”
*American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 242 Educ. Bull. 3 (Nov. 1997).
**American Medical Association, Strategies for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Assault (1995).
Robert
I just don’t see how “pro-lifers”? can make a claim that Plan B is an abortifacient
Because it prevents implantation of an embryo as one of its functional modes. It doesn’t always do this, but it does do it sometimes.
And so does alcohol and stress. So, is having a drink after getting laid the same as taking EC?
. I believe that a changing of people’s hearts and minds is the method that will end abortion, not legal prohibitions on it.
Robert, you’re failing bigtime. I don’t think you’re capable of changing anyone’s hearts or minds here. If anything, you’re firming up my resolve.
Actualy, I don’t think you’re interested in changing hearts and minds unless they somehow end up being little clones of your heart and mind.
If you really wanted to reduce the number of actual abortions (and not failed implantations of a zygote like plan B causes) you’d be out pushing plan B, contraception, comprehensive sex ed, and cheap available contraceptives to every amn womena and child.
I can prove, with actual statistics, that this is what happens in every country and location in the USA where contraceptives, plan B, and comprehensive sex ed becomes available.
It’s not even worht aarguing, it’s as much of a fact as any social science can come close to proving. Sort of like the idea that poverty encourages crime. What I just mentioned makes a noticable dent in abortions and unwanted pregnancies.
You could also push for massive funding for college education for women, because that too puts a huge dent in abortions and unplanned pregnancies.
But that’s not what you are doing. So I’m forced to conclude that you’re either repeatedly trying something that fails to work and exepcting different results, or this is all just part of some ‘have fun debating with the liberal feminist’ fetish of yours, and you don’t give a shit.
I’m leaning towards the alter, ebcause I’m sure these points ahve been made to you before
Oh, the many shades of irony. I went home last night wondering how long it would take on this thread before the calls to “civility” came out. For those of you playing along at home, it might behoove you to remember the three weeks that CrysT and I (and others) argued about the links between rape, male social benefits from rape, and men’s calls to civility. It’s alarming how predictable the pattern is. But this is why I firmly believe we live in (and men benefit from) a rape culture. Rape (and women’s needs for abortion) are theoretical to men, subject to debate, and subject to rules of civility. Rape is a physical reality (as is abortion) that obviously does not fall within male defined paramaters of civility. How could it? I could be civil ’til the cows come home and it would never, never stop a man from raping me — or from trying to take away my right to an abortion.
Will, you say: “Second, since the law currently allows you to abort your pregnancy, my main attempt here on the blogs, is to try to dissuade you from having another abortion.”
What a strange thing for you to do. Wouldn’t it make much more sense for you to support State sanctioned (or even private-choice) castration? A woman does not get pregnant by sex (as evidenced by women becoming pregnant through rape — and as evidenced by all the sex lesbians have together that never results in pregnancy) — a woman becomes pregnant through, and only through, male ejaculate. So, the moral issue of unwanted pregnancy CLEARLY is an issue of a lack of male responsibility in regards to his ejaculate. Had the male not ejaculated into or on the woman there would be no pregnancy. So why all the hand wringing over abortion? Clearly if men were responsible for their bodies and the actions of their bodies we wouldn’t have to put the onus on women for their personal choices. [and see, if we inserted the civility argument into this, I could claim that men are not civil towards women when they don’t control their ejaculate, but then moralize what women do as a direct result of male irresponsibility].
You can’t have it both ways Will — a society that praises male ejaculate as the “money shot”, but yet condemns women [calls them murderers!] for having to clean up the money shot.
Don’t like abortion; chop your nuts off.
Robert, you continue to misstate the law. I don’t know why, but you do. “I didn’t regard what I killed as fully human” is not an excuse for murder; it does not mean that you were incapable of formulating the required intent.
Yes, it’s not a logically defensible position. It is emotionally defensible, though.
May I assume that, in the future, you will acknowledge the validity of any argument that is emotionally defensible but logically indefensible?
What mythago said. Dehumanization is often a necessary component of murder. Manslaughter is when you didn’t have specific intent to kill, isn’t it? Except in cases where no one could reasonably believe that your actions wouldn’t lead to deaths (e.g. driving into a crowded public square). If the law considers what you intentionally ended to be a human life like other human lives, then it’s murder–it doesn’t matter if you hold unorthodox opinions on who is and isn’t fully human or fully alive.
Will’s absolutely right. Let’s all the women on this thread just take a moment thank Will’s male ancestors for taking the courageous stand that women deserve some say in who leads their country and makes their laws. Down on your knees, girls, and show some gratitude.
Women’s suffrage is eighty-five years old this year. My grandma is older than the right of American women to participate in American politics on the most basic level. And those men in Congress–which is still overwhelmingly male–only voted for suffrage after strenuous activism from women helped to change public opinion. So please don’t use that example to argue that sexism isn’t pervasive.
Also?
*cough* wage gap *cough*
I’m always amused by the “Gosh, y’all are rude and uncivil!” crap. I’m supposed to go out of my way to be polite and civil to nosy, ignorant people?
I’m sure one could say “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar” or whatever, but if people don’t think I have bodily integrity, and think that they know better than I the medical decisions I should make (by the way, conservatives certainly seemed to have dropped that whole “Big government out of our lives!” thing), I don’t see why I should bother being nice.
Robert says:
That’s all well and good in your (nonexistent) world in which every patient has complete and accurate information about all medical standards and policies, the locations of all regional practicing doctors, hospitals, pharmacists, and their guiding ethics and policies, and is able to choose who to go to and when. Oh yeah, don’t forget that they’ve already planned for whatever contingency and have stocked up on all possibly necessary medicines, in the correct dosages.
But that ain’t the real world (we rely on doctors to have the medical information we need; we rely on electrical engineers to have electrical engineering information, etc. That why specializations exist in the first place). In a totally consensual situation, your oh-so-moral doctor or pharmacist can do whatever they want and, most importantly, the well-educated patient would have chosen to go to said doctor.
But we’re not talking about consent or choice in any form. We’re talking about a world in which a person has been assaulted and raped, is in an emergency situation and doesn’t have the option to choose where she ended up or which doctor she has been brought to. The woman did not consent to be raped and assaulted and needs to know all the medical options. The doctor does not have the right to withhold the necessary medical information (commit malpractice); the pharmacist does not have the right to deny needed medicine (commit malpractice). If their moral beliefs prevent them from doing what is required to help this patient, then they should accept the consequences of their beliefs and quit being medical professionals. Or get a job at Liberty Baptist Quack Clinic.
Mythago, I’m not referring to someone’s opinion, i.e., “I think lawyers are subhuman, and thus it isn’t murder to kill one.” I mean a legitimate belief that the creature being killed is not human – as in the manslaughter example. “I thought he was a deer” is a perfectly legitimate defense to a homicide charge.
If you legitimately believe that what you are killing isn’t human, then it cannot be murder. Your belief may be appropriate, as in the deer hunter with bad eyesight, and thus you cop to a lesser charge. Or your belief may be completely delusional, as in the case of the schizophrenic convinced that all the humans in the world have been replaced by cats with the mysterious power to assume a human shape, in which case you’re locked up for the protection of both you and the community, but are found not guilty of the murder by reason of insanity. But you have to actually believe it, not just state it as an opinion; if the prosecutor finds out that you knew damn well it wasn’t a deer, you fry.
Robert:
So others must pay a penalty because someone intentionally states a belief (misguided belief, since there is no reason to believe EC has any abortifacient properties, or is lying for other purposes) that EC induces abortion on rare occasion?
In the context of the original debate, the “healthcare” provider is not only abrogating his/her responsibilties to ensure a patient is fully informed or refer her to someone who will because that “healthcare” provider does not trust her to make a decision (s)he thinks morally correct and is, therefor, putting that patient at higher risk of physical (and emotional) repercussions to her attack. If someone cannot be a healthcare provider in that setting without abrogating his/her responsibilities to the patient, that provider had best find a setting in which (s)he is capable of doing so or find another field altogether.
I’m getting very disillusioned with pro-“womb filling” nutters this week.
I’m at Oxford University, and two days ago, one of the colleges discovered someone has been going through the public condom supply and poking holes in them with needles (after threats to this affect from the CU before Xmas). To stop us committing the “sin” of using contraception. It’s nice to know people have such concern for our souls.
Right, I’m going to go off and become a doctor now, and because of my deep rooted, moral objections to these anti-contraception idiots, I will refuse to treat them for anything life-threatening. I won’t even tell them there is a cure for whatever ails them, because then I’d be aiding them in getting well, and frankly I think the world is better off without them.
Of course, they will support my veiws on this, if they knew about it, since it would be wrong to oppres me by forcing me to do anything to aid the treatment of someone I morally objected to… right?
Robert, much earlier in the thread:
No, it’s not. “Abortion” is a medical term, referring to the premature termination of a pre-existing pregnancy (when that termination doesn’t result in live birth). Emergency Contraception works in one of two ways, depending on matters of timing and chance: either it prevents ovulation from happening at all, or else it prevents a blastocyst from implanting in the placenta when it reaches the uterus. (Pregnancy — another medical term, mind you — does not begin until implantation.) In neither of these cases is there a pregnancy to be aborted; in neither of them is there an abortion. EC does not cause abortions; it is not, therefore, an “abortifacient.”
You may think that Emergency Contraception has something morally in common with induced abortion; you may oppose it for precisely the same reasons, and so think that there should be a common term to cover everything that you oppose for whatever those reasons are. That’s fine; innovation of that sort is something that competant speakers of the language do all the time. But “abortion” is a term that already has a perfectly good meaning, and making up new meanings for it to inject into public discourse, without making it very clear that this is what you have done, amounts to telling lies about EC in order to try to get people on board with your agenda.
Telling lies is wrong.
Q Grrl said:
Will responded:
When a woman decides what she wants to do with her own body. Women’s bodies belong to them, not to you and not to “the public”. You can keep talking about what other people ought to do as long as you want but you haven’t got any right to demand that a woman listen to what you have to say about it. Period. Sorry.
Great. I think that male anti-choice commentators should be forcibly sterilized and publicly branded with hot irons because of their immoral political beliefs. This clearly affects the society I live in. So let’s debate! Let’s put it up for a vote! You’re not against democracy and intellectual discourse, are you?
Right, I’m going to go off and become a doctor now, and because of my deep rooted, moral objections to these anti-contraception idiots, I will refuse to treat them for anything life-threatening. I won’t even tell them there is a cure for whatever ails them, because then I’d be aiding them in getting well, and frankly I think the world is better off without them.
Of course, they will support my veiws on this, if they knew about it, since it would be wrong to oppres me by forcing me to do anything to aid the treatment of someone I morally objected to… right?
VK – You want to treat them during your OB/GYN and Urology rotations during which you can use your morla and religious views to support your right to force abortion and sterilization on them because you don’t approve of their morals and would consider it morally reprehensible for them to procreate.
Hmm, a “legitimate belief”. Apperently, it’s only a legitimate belief if lots of people believe it and it’s based on a really, really old book.
To me, a legitimate belief needs to have good evidence of cause and effect. You have to show me a clear consequence that has a negative effect on society before you can legislate against it.
Antigone, you might want to follow the threads a little closer. The “legitimate belief” in question is the idea that a fetus is not a human person.
Women’s bodies belong to them, not to you and not to “the public”?.
That’s true.
The thing is, there are a lot of us who think that it’s also true for the people who are living inside women’s bodies.
I can do whatever I want with my body – up until the point where it impacts someone else’s life. At that juncture, things like ethics and politics and morality and public discussion all come into play, as we attempt to reconcile people’s contradictory rights and privileges in a messy, often contentious, and rarely entirely satisfactory way.
It’s certainly a coherent and defensible point of view that fetuses have no independent existence and no human rights, as such. It’s just not the point of view that most people have adopted. Most people adopt a view that the fetus is a person, or at least a potential person, and deserving of more consideration than the charming “I don’t give a shit about the fetus” expressed by Sheelzebub.
A lot of the people adopting that fetuses-are-important-too viewpoint do, in fact, come down in favor of the woman carrying the fetus having the greater right. They accept abortion reluctantly, as being an unfortunate and ugly necessity, while working to minimize it. (Good for them.) A lot of other people with that view think that the fetus ought to get higher priority than the woman, usually from a philosophical starting point that the most helpless should receive the most protection. (That’s where I’d fall.) A relatively small number do indeed hold the views, in varying strengths, about women’s agency that ardent fetuses-are-worthless proponents ascribe to everyone who doesn’t unequivocally support free abortion-on-demand.
So there’s really very little debate over the question of whether you have agency over your body. Most of us agree that you do.
The question is how that agency should be exercised or constrained when it intersects with the rights of others. And that is indeed a valid – indeed, fruitful – subject for discussion, for women of childbearing years as for every other human on the planet. Agency is not absolute for any human.
nd that is indeed a valid – indeed, fruitful – subject for discussion
Absolutely. I would hardly call catty swipes about “ardent fetuses-are-worthless proponents” fruitful, or discussion, as I imagine you’d say if I suggested “A relatively small number of fetus-hugging woman-haters do ascribe those views to everyone who doesn’t think the Pill is murder”.
I mean a legitimate belief that the creature being killed is not human – as in the manslaughter example. “I thought he was a deer”? is a perfectly legitimate defense to a homicide charge.
A woman who goes in for an abortion, thinking that the doctor is removing a benign uterine cyst and not a fetus, can make that argument. “I didn’t think a fetus was human” is not a ‘legitimate’ belief, from the pro-lifer’s point of view. (What did she THINK the fetus was– a rhododendron bush?)
Only a woman who believes a fetus is not human–say the woman who believes it is an alien creature implanted during abduction by UFOs, and not a baby-to-be–can really raise that defense. Everybody else is going to have to admit that, yeah, they’re clear on this whole idea that the fetus is going to be born and be a baby in nine months, and therefore it’s human.
If women are required to bear children against their will, then women are reduced to slavery, regardless of whether the fetus is a person or not.
Everybody else is going to have to admit that, yeah, they’re clear on this whole idea that the fetus is going to be born and be a baby in nine months, and therefore it’s human.
OK. Then they’re committing murder, at least in the legal-theoretical sense, if not the legal-statutory sense.
No, in the legal-statutory sense. A white supremacist who genuinely and sincerely believes that a black person is a sort of talking animal, not a human being, is not going to be able to plead the “I thought I was shooting a deer” defense. A woman who claims she had no idea that the fetus she was carrying, which was conceived through sexual intercourse with another human and which will be born as a human baby in nine months, was human, is going to have similar results in a pro-life universe. It’s not the same as “I really, really thought that flash of white in the trees was a deer”.
But we’re not in the pro-life universe. The original questioner asked if I thought she should be prosecuted for having had an abortion. Last time I checked, this is still the ordinary universe.
(Yep, just looked in the mirror…no little pointy beard.)