A Man’s Right to Choose: The Ongoing Battle over Your Uterus

A Man’s Right to Choose: The Ongoing Battle over Your Uterus

Does it seem like women’s reproductive rights have been at the forefront of virtually every senatorial, gubernatorial, or presidential election debate thus far? Well, maybe that’s because as the parties polarize, more extreme views of social issues become the norm. So, what does this mean for the epic Roe v. Wade? Only time will tell…

Author : Jenn M. Jackson

Author's Website | Articles from

Women’s reproductive rights seem ever complicated as male politicians, pundits, and commentators continue to debate about how much or how little choice women should have in issues concerning rape, abortion, and birth control. Not only that, prominent male figures continue to add to the rhetoric on female reproductive rights as if they are subject-matter experts. Remember when then Georgetown law student, Sandra Fluke, was called a “slut” by radio commentator and right-wing talking head, Rush Limbaugh, for speaking at Capitol Hill about the availability of free birth control? What about a few weeks ago when Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO), who is now running for the US Senate, explained how the female body shuts down reproduction when a woman has been raped? Sadly, the beat goes on where this stupidity is concerned. But, there are major implications for the  Roe v. Wade (1973) and women’s reproductive rights in a general sense. When presidential candidates begin to espouse these very same ideals, things get a lot more serious than one would assume.

Recently, yet another male figure decided to add to the stupidity. United States Senate candidate, Richard Mourdock (R-IN), made some controversial comments about religion and rape. Endorsed by presidential candidate Governor Mitt Romney, his words have fired up pundits on both sides the aisle.

Last Tuesday, in a senatorial debate, when asked about abortion rights in the case of rape or incest, Mourdock explained:

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

And, though these sentiments may appeal to more extreme members of the conservative community, most were turned off by the insensitivity. The real question here is why is a man “struggling” with this for a “long time?” It is almost laughable that a male of any stature would think that women’s reproductive rights present a struggle of a personal nature. And, to say that God intended the pregnancy of a rape victim implies that God intended a woman to be raped. Whether one believes in God or not, this belief minimizes the victimization a woman feels after being violated by a stranger. And, it basically says that God wants the rape victim to bear the child of her aggressor. This is wrong on so many levels.

The Politics of Women’s Rights

Okay, so we all get that what’s been said about women, women’s rights, and victimhood by the likes of Limbaugh, Akin, and Mourdock is totally asinine. Strikingly though, neither of the two political candidates have dropped out of their races. They’ve actually stood by their comments and soldiered forward as if to say that these comments represent the status quo.  But the plot thickens.

Current VP nominee, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), co-sponsored a bill with Rep. Akin just a year ago. And, he has been a staunch pro-lifer who believes that there are different types of rape…sometimes rape may be “forcible.” And, in other cases, I guess, it’s “consensual?” Yes, totally asinine. But, Ryan, running alongside Gov. Romney for the VP nod, hasn’t said much about this issue since being added to the ticket. His likeness to Akin may be disturbing for many women. Both Akin and Ryan voted over 10 times to restrict abortion rights since 2011. Instead of voting to add jobs to the economy, these men have been focused on the female body for an entire year.

In terms of Mourdock, Romney has an ad out supporting the candidate for the US Senate. And, he has yet to withdraw his support. It goes without saying but both Ryan and Romney are very pro-life. And, Romney’s official website even explains that he has the desire to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973). Why such a focus on your uterus? Because extremists have become ever vocal in recent years. And although nominee Romney has seemed to moderate a bit since the debates, primary contender Romney was basically a member of the Tea Party (they have a whole website supporting him). So, both of these extreme attacks on women’s reproductive rights, Akin and Mourdock, are tied to the current GOP presidential ticket. Scared yet? There’s more.

In 1973, the United State Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 decision to legalize abortion. But today’s Supreme Court is much more conservative than it was back then. With the very close decision on the Affordable Care Act earlier this year, the GOP may want to get abortion issues in front of the Court while the opportunity remains. Under a President Romney, there would most likely be another appointment to the Court. This means that the Court may get ever more conservative if Romney is elected. What does this mean for Roe v. Wade? Some argue it means nothing at all. Maybe the decision won’t be overturned if Romney is elected. But having a president and vice president in the White House who align themselves with “the female body can’t get pregnant when raped” and “God planned rape so you could have a baby” believers is scary all unto itself.

Overall, it really seems to be a dated issue. If abortion and birth control are legal now, why take us backward? Well, pro-life supporters have their reasons. But those are not up for debate here. The disconcerting facet of this argument is the lack of input women have in the control of their own uterus. Is it a man’s right to choose? Maybe. At least Ryan and Romney seem to think so. And so do Akin and Mourdock. And, don’t be fooled, Limbaugh thinks so too. So, if all these prominent characters believe it, what’s to keep them from winning the battle over your uterus?

Truthfully, a major part of this issue is the fact that women make up less than 20% of Congress. Therefore, the highest legislative body of this land is hardly symbolic of the population it is supposed to represent. At times like this, representation is the best weapon against political actors seeking to strip women of their reproductive rights. But for now, the outcome of this presidential election will have the greatest impact on where this battle goes next.

Be Sociable! Share!
Pinterest


Related Posts


Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Joyce345 1751 pts

I dunno, I just can't make peace with the idea of abortion at all.

starzzzy 475 pts

Here's what I think: If I can't have my birth control then men can't have Viagra. If that was the rule a lot of this crazy talk about women's reproductive rights would stop. 

JennMJack 1270 pts

 starzzzy

 Don't forget, condoms too.

ironcowboy 348 pts

“Abortion rights” is code speak for the Democratic Party power players and racists to actually trick black people into aborting themselves out of existence!  Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) was really good at getting the BC to embrace the genocide against themselves!  True, and factual!

 

It’s kind of breaks down about like this… the Republicans want to save lives (I know you are ripping on the iodic rape comments, I agree with you on that), But the silent truth is that the Democrats want Blacks to abort their babies to the maximum extent possible.   This is why something along the lines of 85% of all Planned Parenthood facilities are located in exclusively black communities.  Blacks abort babies in the 50% greater than any other racial group!  Yet Mexican immigrants have more dire financial considerations in most cases, yet don’t resort to abortion nearly so quickly…Somehow they are able to keep the babies, even when they seemingly can’t afford to.

 

See here:

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/shock-obama-supporter-says-abort-ugly-ass-nappy-headed-kids.html

 

And here: 

http://www.blackgenocide.org/home.html

 

The Democratic Party is really smooth at getting most of the black community to slaughter and interbreed itself out of existence.   Fact:  the rate of black persons in the US are decreasing… being constantly and slowly displaced by Hispanics, Asians, and Whites, and the hybrids of the above races.   Thorough discount abortions and extreme violent crime in the BC, the BC is literally tearing itself apart, culturally, socially economically, something on the order of 50% of blacks simply die off.   The Democratic party is really good at making the BC think the real enemy of the BC is the Republicans and the white Christians, but until this is clearly understood not to be the case, the mind will be in perpetual prison to that party and its insidious racisms.

Alana 2 394 pts

 ironcowboy Many women who have abortions are already mothers, so they have a clear idea what is required in childrearing. As a BW, I'd rather be part of a smaller, thriving community than dealing with the current level of dysfunction in the BC. I bet many of the Mexican immigrants you speak of are part of supportive families, including husbands, fathers, grandfathers, brothers, male cousins, uncles, and the like. BW have NO obligation to bear children if she doesn't think it's the best choice for them.

ironcowboy 348 pts

Imagine a world where a man actually had true equality in abortion! 

 

Example, suppose a man and a woman knocked boots and the girl got pregnant…  But the man can’t afford the baby now, or it’s not the right time for him, or he is just not really ready to be a dad…   you know… all the same arguments the feminist’s say that gives a women a right to have an abortion!

 

So the frightened man goes down to the court house and files a “legal” abortion and the filing fee is say $395 dollars…  After that the baby is dead to him… it’s aborted… gone, poof!  Now he can go on with this life as before the unwanted pregnancy occurred.  He is permanently protected from the mom of that baby for any financial claims… we can even call it a “morning after” filing.

 

Anyone who necessarily disagrees with this statement is not concerned about equality in abortion… but is seeking only to control people using children as a weapon.  The way I see it, men have just as much right to kill babies as women… for the exact same reasons… or for even no reason at all!

SirLoinDeBeef 2645 pts

The biggest thing in the 'old-white-male-mysogny' meme is that none of them have ever been raped - I do wonder what each of them would say after having been worked over by a homosexual-rape-gangbang ... possibly with fears of STDs or HIV-infection ... particularly if caught on video and circulated on the internet  as a viral piece.

DWB 8788 pts

 SirLoinDeBeef Hey, if fantasizing that your political opponents get raped helps you sleep at night, more power to ya...

zipporah 1911 pts

 SirLoinDeBeef that could STILL HAPPEN BTW---to any man.....just be careful guys

SirLoinDeBeef 2645 pts

 zipporah  SirLoinDeBeef I know ... exactly!

ironcowboy 348 pts

 SirLoinDeBeef I was raped and a baby was the result... I'm a man...  So... you are wrong!  I even got an STD during the rape too!

The_Boss 283 pts

The main issue here is the lack of women in positions of authority to shut these tyrannical fools up. Rape wouldn't be an almost consensual act resulting in a gift from the heavens if their daughters or nieces or wives were the victims.

I say vote women with gumption and integrity into congressional offices this November 6th. It's the only way. That includes Val Demings to anyone from Florida reading this.

LionMama 293 pts

Well I'm for abortions for population control. The less educated you and your partner are the fewer children you should be able to have. A major issue that needs to be dealt with soon.

AshleyFisher 397 pts

 LionMama  Not gonna lie. Totally with you on that. Some people should just not be allowed to breed.

DWB 8788 pts

 AshleyFisher  LionMama "Some people should just not be allowed to breed."

 

White supremacists, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others around the world agree!

ironcowboy 348 pts

 DWB  AshleyFisher  LionMama 

Holly Shit… this reasoning is Hitler, Stalin, and Castro rolled into one vile logical position…

 

Do any of you have ANY knowledge or idea about Margaret Sanger, who she is, what her racial motives were, the status of her “ideology,” how and where it manifests today, and who are the “primary targets,” in so much as to the distribution of her organization in contemporary America today?  Where is the Sanger ideology having the largest impact today?

 

Who do you recommend “tests” for your education level, and determines if you have a right to breed or even exist?  My wife has a Ph.D form Yale and does not have a clue what a CV Joint is, let alone the procedure necessary to replace an ailing one… so is she dumb? 

I am a brilliant space launch complex maintenance technician (space shuttle (RIP) and commercial space satellite launch equipment) but can’t tell you very much about women composers of the 1700’s to 1800’s.   Should we be terminated or barred reproduction rights, because in our own special ways we are both “stupid?” Probably according to you?

 

So IionMama… why can’t we start with you and your family?  No doubt you will say, you are smart enough, and I am not… how convenient you… and you call the Christian coalition tyrannical and out of touch with reality!

 

FACT: I am a man, a rape victim, and a baby was the result.  I was denied the ability to terminate the resulting pregnancy, even though I was raped, and a child was conceived.  So don’t tell me that there are no male rape victims and abortion is only a woman’s issue to decide. 

 

PS every time I make a $200 tax deductible donation to Planned Parenthood another black women receives vital “healthcare” services.   I donate $600 per month to the organization to help the cause of black women’s healthcare services.  I’m a Planned Parenthood saint, right up there with Jesse Jackson!

 

So who is evil?

tracyreneejones 3952 pts

If you hate abortions, you're really gonna hate Pepsi douches and coat hanger botched abortion deaths. Everyone had their feelings, but no solutions to the problems that will continue. Fuck Roe versus Wade..... let the bodies hit the floor where they may.

Jamila 7658 pts moderator

And here's another thing...

 

Just because a person is "pro-life" does not mean that they have to be willing to financially support pregnant women and the babies they give birth to. These are two separate issues, so lets not conflate them. 

 

I think we "should" try to ensure access to adequate health care, the creation of safe and clean neighborhoods, high quality schools...but am I "obliged" to provide those things for women who insist on getting pregnant with babies that they can't afford to take care of in the first place? No, I think not. And actually it reeks of an entitlement complex for when a poor, unwed mother thinks other people are not only obligated to help her pay for an abortion if she wants one, but to also pay to help her raise a child if she wants to do that instead. 

 

If you don't want to hear another person's opinion about what you want to do with your body, don't then turn around and ask that same person for money to help support your lifestyle choices. Fair is fair. 

tracyreneejones 3952 pts

Why the presumption that these same women are poor and unmarried? Or are you referring to welfare and 'social programs'? Either way, like our race discussions.. discussing women is also discussing men, and the children. I don't consider quality of life a 'lifestyle issue' at face value. I would say father's that abandoned or neglect their responsibility is just as much of a 'lifestyle' choice that leaves the mother's and children dependent on access to special programs @Jamila

Jamila 7658 pts moderator

 tracyreneejones  Jamila "Why the presumption that these same women are poor and unmarried? "

 

Because middle and upper class women have always been able to get abortions when they wanted to because those would could pay for their own abortions with a private physician. So the only women who would need state funding for an abortion are, presumably, poor women.

 

"I would say father's that abandoned or neglect their responsibility is just as much of a 'lifestyle' choice that leaves the mother's and children dependent on access to special programs"

 

True, but I think most women who are relying on any sort of assistance to help them and their babies were probably impregnated by poor men. If a poor man can barely take care of himself--and the woman knew this when she got pregnant by him--it's not really him 'abandoning her'.

tracyreneejones 3952 pts

What's your definition of poor? Again, working poor is a majority of people. Should no one but the extremely rich have children then? I know of no profession, or industry that hasn't found ppl having to seek assistance. @Jamila

zipporah 1911 pts

 Jamila  tracyreneejones I always thought women who got RAPED were able to get abortions, no matter what, even before 1973--Roe v Wade just made it able to be treated as 'birth control' instead...and you didnt have to be RICH to get them--just be raped in the street

Jamila 7658 pts moderator

 tracyreneejones  Jamila "Should no one but the extremely rich have children then?"

 

I think that people have the right to have children in whatever in whatever circumstances they see. The question: How much support should people who choose to bear children in a substandard situation get from other people? From the government, from the system? What level of support do we think everyone--no matter how poor--should be entitled to? How much of a safety net is everyone willing to pay for? 

Veron 1412 pts

I think it's also worth mentioning that Ryan supports policies that would massively restrict certain fertility treatments, in-vitro, surrogacy, etc.  Any form of pregnancy requiring manipulation of an embryo would be off the table, which would leave tons of women who actually want to be pregnant without options.  I have no idea that logic behind forcing women who don't want to be pregnant (or may even be traumatized by said pregnancy) to have children, while making it that much more difficult for women who desire pregnancy to utilize the medical care intended to help them.

AshleyFisher 397 pts

I think we should take the European stance on sexual education. But god help the person that says let's teach kids about sex in this country. Their sex-ed is so comprehensive that they're going population decrease (native not immigration)

ChristieRJohnson 1143 pts

These politicians aren't pro life, they are pro birth.  Pro life means to care for all life.  Some of these people are all about the baby, until it is born, than want to cut programs to help out both the mother and baby.  This article explains it better what it means to be pro life:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/op...-pro-life.html

tracyreneejones 3952 pts

More births of poor people mean more means to exploit poor people. Think 'we need slaves', I have no patience for pro-life and partial morality.Ban abortions tomorrow, DNA match the father of each child born, provide better access to healthcare, education and housing for families in general and then we can talk @ChristieRJohnson

ChristieRJohnson 1143 pts

Dang gone link is broken.

What the article explains is how pro life should mean pro life.  Having services that support both mother and child, like in some foreign countries, would lower the likelihood of abortions.  

Having good sex education classes in schools would lower abortion rates.  What are people so afraid of when it comes to teaching sex?  Look, I understand teaching abstinence; but, that can't be it.  Pro life means taking care of life, all life, cradle to grave. Unfortunately, so much of your life depends on where and to what family you were born into.  

tracyreneejones 3952 pts

I'm sure women who support abortion would be less inclined to do so if there were things in place to assist the mother, father and child... you know...like quality of life. Ignorance is bliss when one can spout ideological nonsense as a way of exercising a false sense of community. Fathers and the women that marry them utilize abortions. If you think the kids that are wandering around are causing strife, I dare you to take away abortions. America should be ashamed of themselves for having the gall to conduct a 'civilized' society such as this. My suggestion, while swirling, is to find a man far the fuck from this bloated bipolar pseudo moral nation or for women to get off their ass and think for themselves, then make changes. Women behave like second class citizens even when given the freedom to participate in their own self determination.

AJ2011 2310 pts

I agree with Jen. Having such a low representation in Congress, if not in gender then on issues, is pretty much stacking the deck. I don't know if anyone remembers the idea that sexual arousal or response during a rape could have been enough to prove consent until 2004.

DWB 8788 pts

 AJ2011 Men are more likely to support abortion than women:

 

"More recently, a 2009 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 40% of men and 37% of women felt "abortion should be generally available" while 20% of men and 24% of women felt "abortion should be not permitted."

 

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/08/22/do-men-and-women-view-abortion

 

Why? (Hint: It ain't because they're all feminists.)

zipporah 1911 pts

 DWB  AJ2011 WOW ....of course!! men would want more abortions--so they didn't have to be responsible for THEIR actions (hugh hefner somebody...?)--OTOH some men would want to raise the child the woman got pregnant with, but hes complelly powerless in stopping the woman from aborting the baby

dani-BBW 1840 pts

I don't understand it... there were also comments about how having a child born of rape isn't such a big deal as well as more bizarre science that due to medical advances, the health of the mother is never threatened these days from pregnancy.  I still have NO IDEA what Todd Akin was even trying to say with the whole "if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that thing down." He apologized for "misspeaking," but what in the HELL was he trying to say?? Someone who is pro-life, please explain that to me. Like, I really want to know what he meant, cause I can't think of anything logical that's even close to what he said.

 

Anyway, that's four or five GOP guys in the span of a couple of months saying really harsh and in some cases odd and medically inaccurate things about rape, pregnancy and abortion. It's quite frightening to me.

 

I also don't understand why birth control should be treated differently (i.e. not covered by tax dollars) than other medications, if it's used to treat a medical situation and not as a contraceptive. I know several women who have endometriosis or hormonal issues and birth control is what their doctors have prescribed for their particular situations. So birth control to prevent someone from blacking out due to extremely painful menstrual cramping shouldn't be covered, but the government can pick up the tab for some guy's Viagara??

tracyreneejones 3952 pts

I have endo and elected to not take BC for it. BC pills can be used to treat acne, too. Its just medicine and medical, though we don't have this criticism directed at the Viagra crew. The gender disparity is abominable @dani-BBW

SirLoinDeBeef 2645 pts

 tracyreneejones Other than the costs involved (travel there and back, housing, physician, etc.), what are your views about getting the BC 5-year-long implant in Canada?

This is a serious query.

LadyLittlefoot 664 pts

 SirLoinDeBeef  tracyreneejones Why Canada? I got one when I was still on Active Duty. Are IUDs  covered by insurance?

DWB 8788 pts

 dani-BBW While I agree that Catholics (and others) have the right to lobby for their position that tax dollars should not go to contraception, they are IMO wrong and I believe that they should be covered (as long as they do not take a human life.) That being said, the government does not have the authority to make insurance companies cover them if they do not want to, that is a market decision (and the market seems to have decided to cover them as I believe the vast majority of insurance companies have some level of  coverage.)

dani-BBW 1840 pts

 DWB What's the difference between making an insurance company cover birth control used as medication and making an insurance company cover medication due to a pre-existing condition? The market had previously decided (inappropriately it seems) not to cover that section of the population. In all practicality, generally speaking, you can't have unchecked free markets, otherwise you'd quickly have chaos. I am okay with limited government intervention in the markets, to prevent things like price gouging during disasters, or diabetics becoming indentured servants to pay for outrageously priced insulin because as a price inelastic good, the market dictated it was worth about 3 years of slave labor. 

 

I am interested in the libertarian islands experiment that is or was in process. You can't exercise free market ideology to the point that it disrupts people from living. While initially I think it will be great for business because there will be little, if any regulation, eventually it will collapse because a populace needs protection beyond the sort of "blind eye" of the market or a government. Government can't just allow the market free rein, it has to consider other things that may be important to civil survival in a global society. One example would be a strong ag industry (vs the market dictating it is most efficient if grain is imported), hence the idea of domestic farm subsidies. 

 

There's a government-market balance that must be maintained. History has shown that extremes in either direction result in societal collapse. I get worried that many fiscal conservatives stay focused on "ideological purity" when it comes to capitalism and fail to see the human and societal side of things.

DWB 8788 pts

 dani-BBW I, against my greatest principles, support states mandating coverage only as part of a reform that returns market forces that will bring prices down via competition. The three areas that have seen the highest inflated prices (education, housing, medicine) have also had the most government intervention -- this is no accident. When we start to interfere (beyond laws preventing fraud, promoting safety) we open a Pandora's box that invites ever more intervention. Where does it end? Government already pays for close to 50% of medical care today and people are still pushing for government health care.

 

I think that there should be more jazz and progressive heavy metal on the radio ... sadly, not enough people agree with me. Shall I tax you to provide for my tastes? Shall I tell Burger King to sell tofu because Misty Rainbow Smith down the street wants it?

 

Most insurance companies provide BC because of market pressure (enough people complained!) The market is you and I, just because my taste is better than yours ;-) does not mean we should chuck our freedom for instant gratification of telling people what to do.

dani-BBW 1840 pts

 DWB So it sounds to me like, aside from "laws preventing fraud, promoting safety," you see government intervention in the marketplace as "chucking freedom for instant gratification." That to me is extremist and I have to disagree. I would not compare government intervention for the literal matter of life and death regarding someone getting insulin or insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions to things that are a choice and price elastic, like radio stations or fast food. People are pushing for government intervention because the price at which the market has settled out for health care is catastrophically high and unsustainable for a large part of the populace, which is leading to social unrest. So the government MUST step in (otherwise, what's the point in having a government).

 

I would draw the line for government intervention in the market at goods and services that are price inelastic and critical to day to day societal functioning (gas, medication, etc) in the US, as well as relevant sovereign interests (i.e. a strong ag base, so that food does not have to be imported in). I don't like my tax dollars being used to prop up farms that wouldn't make it on their own, but I understand the sovereign interest in preventing the US farming industry from collapse. Releasing barrels from the US Petrol reserve a few years ago was "interfering in the market" but the pending societal unrest from such high gas prices had to be calmed.

 

Do you see the difference between these actions and intervention for things like radio stations, ice cream, etc? 

DWB 8788 pts

 dani-BBW I see health care the same as I see any other good (food, medicine, health care products) or service (services from a doctor, lawyer, auto mechanic.) All of these are delivered at the best quality and at the lowest price via the free market. I personally believe in a small safety net at the state level to provide basic services to those who cannot take care of themselves. The Catholic church and other non-religious organizations do a good job at proving the very basics.

 

There is no right to health care. I have no more a right to health care (the services of a doctor, nurse, etc...) than I have the right to the services of an auto mechanic, a farmer or a beautician.

 

If we don't export most of the food that we produce, I no in many we come pretty close. The government artificially elevates prices of many things (wheat, corn, milk and sugar for example) as a political pay off to corporations (the days of the family farm are, sadly IMO, gone.)

 

Medical care is obviously one of the most important service that can be provided, thus my support for it at the state level as part of the basic welfare program (meant to be temporary, not a way of life.)

Jamila 7658 pts moderator

I think that unfortunately both of the political parties have become so extreme in their abortion stances that neither party represents what most Americans actually believe. The Democrats stance is that all abortions are OK right up until birth; the Republican platform says no abortions are ever OK, not due to rape, incest, or birth defects incompatible with life outside the womb. Both sides have been fighting each other for so long and have driven each side to the farthest extremes. 

 

When it comes to a man's rights: Once he release the sperm into a woman his rights are over, she can pretty much do whatever she wants to do after that. Unless the couple had some written agreement that he would not be responsible for any child conceived, then I believe a man has no leg to stand on when it comes to saying he didn't want a baby. Sex causes conception which causes babies. Unless the man is retarded--seriously, I mean he has to be so mentally retarded that he does not understand where babies come from--he should not be let off the hook for creating a baby. 

heyimPearlilikefries 2104 pts

 Jamila  I wish the parties would at least try and work together and I mean actually try. Both sides have their benefits and both have drawbacks. Nobody agrees whole with one party.. I know I don't. I confused people with my views on politics. lol 

Blackberry 1228 pts

@Jamila I think you've order simplified the democrat position. Democrats support the viability demarcation as outline in Casey v Pennsylvania. Beyond that the only exception democrats support is the emergency exception, i.e. the life of the mother. Many democracy's support the partial birth and late terms bans. I have always thought of reproductive freedom as all of nothing concept. How one gets pregnant (in or out of wedlock, in vitro, surrogacy etc) and how one prevents pregnancy (contraception , abstinence, vasectomy etc) and how one terminates a pregnancy (ru 487, abortion etc). What I find most interesting we don't really talk all that much about (politically) about the legality and morality of how couples try to get pregnant. By extension society doesn't treat these issues like they are related in any way. I personally would like to see more dialogue in the fertility arena.

Jamila 7658 pts moderator

I consider myself pro-life. I believe life begins at conception. 

 

Now, having said all that, I think a woman has the last and final say on what she does with her own body--within some limits. I don't think the needs of a fetus can be elevated in importance above the needs of the woman carrying the fetus--unless of course the woman willingly chooses to put the life of her fetus above her own health care needs, but that is a decision for her to make, not me. 

 

I think partial-birth abortion should be banned because it is inhumane. Once any part of a fetus/baby is outside of the womb, it is a person, and--I think--should be treated just as any baby would be treated. 

heyimPearlilikefries 2104 pts

 Jamila  I don't understand why anyone would wait that long to get an abortion like that! Wouldn't that make it even more dangerous to your health?

tracyreneejones 3952 pts

@astringofpearls @Jamila all you need to understand is that you don't. Partial birth abortions are a medical procedure that can also be used to save the life of the mother. By using flame words and no explanations or examples, no one is clear on what's being said unless they choose to become VERY knowledgeable about it. It scares me to think that I and my child would be left to die due to a moral restriction that determines which of our lives are more valuable. They'll end up killing us both.

Jamila 7658 pts moderator

 tracyreneejones  astringofpearls  Jamila "Partial birth abortions are a medical procedure that can also be used to save the life of the mother."

 

This isn't true.  Partial-birth abortions, real name "intact dilation and extraction" is not done to save the life of the mother--it is done to either 1) kill the baby before being fully birthed or 2) on a fetus that is already dead (or close to it.) and is being removed through the birth canal rather than than via c-section. 

 

The federal government upheld a ban on almost all partial birth abortions and something like 20 states have also banned it. 

Trackbacks

  1. [...] is this exciting, it helps to assuage some of the issues prominent male politicians have had with women’s issues this election cycle. And, the House of Representatives remained under Republican control though the [...]