Ladies, welcome your new status as brood mares

[Boxlicker101]

I still don't know where RG is coming from. Everything you said Box I understood and I know about spontaneous abortion (not because there is a defect with the foetus by the way, implying that a woman's body is capable of detecting deficiency in a bunch of cells)

The Ironside story holds no weight against pro-lifers, only back-street abortions.

The Heinlein quote was used, it seems (out of context, from a character or not) as a pro-choice arguement, which is what I took it as. The text however is not pro-choice at all but, as I said promulgating forced contraception.

I think I was a little bit too subtle with the Germany reference. The reason that there were few if any disabled immediately after the war is not because of any choice but because they (the already born and living disabled) were 'cleansed' from Germany for not being perfect specimins. Shocking no?

As Michael Cane might say "There's not many people know that."

I really cannot believe you said this next:
"If a woman is pregnant and has tests done sometimes the tests show the fetus has a serious defect and, if it is carried to term, the baby will never live anything like a normal life and and will always be a financial burdento his or her family. The family, particularly the expectant mother, will have to decide to either have the baby and deal with the problems or get an abortion and try again later."

There lies a Brave New World.

Gauche

P.S Just to clear any confusion which may arise, Yes I'm pro-life, as my choice but I wouldn't force my choice on anyone else.

Hi, Gauche.
I am glad to see you are pro-choice. People who believe that a woman should be free to choose between abortion or not are pro-choice, whether or not they would choose one for themselves. Personally, I have never been in the position where I had a pregnant wife, girl friend, daughter or anybody else close to me where abortion was discussed.

According to medical journals, a woman's body will sometimes spontaneously abort a pregnancy when there are problems with the development of the embryo or fetus. Yes, there are ways the body can detect such things but I kon't know how.

You quoted me out of context and put an emphasis where I hadn'r put one. Financial hardship is one of the major reasons why a family will decide to abort a pregnancy. If a married couple have several children and their birth control method fails them and she becomes pregnant, it they believe that another baby/child will put too much strain on their finances, they may decide to abort the pregnancy. That is not exactly a secret and they would be much more likely to abort the pregnancy if the fetus has serious defects such as Tay-Sachs Syndrome, Downs Syndrome, or many other serious problems.

 

[gauchecritic]

I should have said that the emphasis was mine, but the sentence that followed the quote was about that emphasis which I'd left in context.

Quoting you again, you say that
"Financial hardship is one of the major reasons why a family will decide to abort a pregnancy."

While this may be true for white middle class America, it certainly is not true the world over.

I notice you disregarded the other part of the emphasis about 'living a normal life' too.

Having worked with Downs kids I know it's also not true (or wasn't true) that foetal defects weren't a consideration of women in the at-risk age group of the 60's and 70's in this part of the world.

I think Minsue probably put it better, and less confrontationally than I did, in that the implication, is that, to quote someone else out of context, "society is to blame". (For society read economic policy and/or a pro-life choice).

Gauche (softening after very little sleep)

 

[rgraham666]

Gauche, I'm sorry I wasn't clear on my views.

On Heinlein's quote, I don't think he was advocating forced contraception. He was saying that it's better that a population controls itself before birth than after. Populations are always controlled, but the methods Mother Nature uses are extremely unpleasant.

But knowing how many people mistake Heinlein for a facist, I can understand why his quote was misunderstood.

As far as the Ironside episode goes, I was trying to communicate the shock I felt. I wasn't shocked by the idea of abortion. I was shocked that she had died because she couldn't get the procedure done properly. Even as a child I knew that was wrong. The status of the fetus never occurred to me. It was the woman's unnescessary death that affected me.

As far as the burden of raising a damaged child goes, the chief burden is emotional, not financial. To put it bluntly, who cares about financial? We're a rich culture and could easily afford to look after all these kids. We just don't have the will to do it.

But all the money in the world will do very little to lessen the emotional burden. The people involved will be carrying a heavy weight for the rest of their lives. Some will be strong enough, but more will not be. This can't be good.

And the child itself will be carrying a heavy burden. Some will lucky(?) enough to not be aware of it, but what about the others who spend all their lives trapped in a body or mind that doesn't work? Is it a kindness to bring them into this world?

To make myself clear, I will prioritise my preferences for population control.

Celibacy: Yeah, I know. A very strange choice to choose on this site. But, it is the safest and most sure of all methods. It's not going to happen, but what are you going to do?

Condoms: Cheap, convenient and quite effective. The only reason they aren't used more is because too many guys are too self centred and egotistical to use them. I've never understood that attitude myself. Sex is for your partner's benefit, not yours.

The Pill: Not my favourite. We still don't understand the human body well enough to screw with it's hormonal system. But it's a woman's choice and I have no right to decide for her whether to use it or not.

Abortion: I really don't like it. It's an invasive operation involving drugs and/or sharp instruments. So by my standards, it's a last choice for a woman, but it's still her choice.

IUDs: Fuggedabouit! I don't know from personal experience, being the wrong sex, but they have to be uncomfortable. And I regard them as fundamentally unsafe. Again it's a woman's choice but her using one is going to lower her in my regard.

The government legislating choices on any or all of the above: Blow me!

Running out of steam here, so I will comment on designer offspring.

I keep thinking of Wrath of Khan. He was designed. It only made him stronger and quicker, not better. One day we will probably try creating Khan or his equivalant. And we'll probably succeed. Unfortunately, we won't have scriptwriters to pull our ashes out of the fire when this happens.

I'm now remembering a line frmm Michael Chrichton's latest, Prey.

They didn't know what they were doing.
This will be the epitaph on the tombstone of the human race.

 

[Guest]

Amidst the polemics and politics I'd like to add this little story. I do this because I don't care to join a discussion about life and children that does not mention the more profound aspects of being responsible for another human being. Please do not read anything re. choice or life issues into this.

My ballet teacher's teacher was a woman who had danced with Nijinsky at the imperial ballet of old Petersburg. Her husband was Tamara Karsavina's partner. I mention this to give an idea of how these artists 'of the body' might have regarded perfection of the body.

They emigrated to Los Angeles, as did my teacher, and taught classical ballet for the rest of their lives, making just enough money to live ordinary lives.

Madame K. gave birth to a beautiful baby girl who became the light of her life. One day when the child was just a few years old and smiling up into her mother's eyes, Madame K. said to God, "Please let my daughter always be as happy and smiling as she is today."

The girl was later diagnosed as profoundly mentally retarded. Madame K.'s prayer was answered, and she loved to tell that story. She took care of her happy and profoundly loved daughter until the girl died in the body of a middle-aged woman.

Perdita

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Me, I always use condoms, to protect myself against STD's and pregnancies. And guess what I've found out? Sometimes, the damned things break!

So, what should I do to avoid getting knocked up? Celibacy? No freakin', fuckin' way! I love having sex, and I see no reason why I should have to be without it. I can use pills, yes, but you know what? Even they can malfunction! Happened to a friend of mine. She was eating her pills and having her period until she started throwing up and had a pregnancy test done. Yep, she was pregnant, allright!

Female bodies don't always work the way they're expected to. Sometimes, the pill doesn't WORK.

So, if I eat pills, and use condoms, and I STILL get knocked up - am I then to be sentenced to a life time of looking after a child that I didn't wish to have?

I won't accept that. I demand to have the right to deicde over my own body, to be able to have an abortion performed professionally at a hospital. I demand to have the right to pick my own time to say "OK, NOW I feel ready to have a child".

 

[minsue]

'Dita -



- Mindy

 

[Just-Legal]

Okay. *takes deep calming breath* I see we've all managed to skirt around one factor in the decision to have an abortion - the circumstances of conception.

IE: Child of a rape.

As many of you are aware, I was raped. (The person who did this is now nicely rotting behind bars) For what felt like the longest period of my life, I had to wait until a pregnancy test could be performed. In this time, I was forced to try and decide if I could cope with raising the child of the bastard that did this to me.

I *know* that if I had been pregnant it would have been through no fault of the childs... But what if said child had looked like him? If every time I saw my child I saw him instead, and remembered? I'd *never* recover from the psychological effects of the rape if this were the case, and to be honest, I dread to think what kind of mother I would have been. Okay, my decision was coloured by the fact my mental health has been... pretty bad... for a while BEFORE the rape, but even if I had been a model of perfect mental health I don't know if I could have coped.

As for having the child adopted after birth, I read the case of a mother who lived where abortion was illegal. Rather than have a child who had been forced on her, she committed suicide.

Wonder if she'd have been posthumously prosecuted for harming the foetus?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I read about a sad case where a young girl tried to go across the country boarder, since abortion was illegal in her country. Her father caught up with her at the train station and shot her dead for what she was about to do.

Who was the father of the girl's child? He was.

 

[rgraham666]

As all these stories and examples show, it's not a perfect world we live in. We make our choices, and then we live with the consequences. The consequences make for more choices and so on ad infinitum.

But when it comes to children, the choices don't only affect ourselves so it would be better make the right choices before hand.

Oh hell, humans have been arguing about this for ages. No reason for it to stop now.

And so, enough from me. For now.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I should have said that the emphasis was mine, but the sentence that followed the quote was about that emphasis which I'd left in context.

Quoting you again, you say that
"Financial hardship is one of the major reasons why a family will decide to abort a pregnancy."

While this may be true for white middle class America, it certainly is not true the world over.

I notice you disregarded the other part of the emphasis about 'living a normal life' too.

Having worked with Downs kids I know it's also not true (or wasn't true) that foetal defects weren't a consideration of women in the at-risk age group of the 60's and 70's in this part of the world.

I think Minsue probably put it better, and less confrontationally than I did, in that the implication, is that, to quote someone else out of context, "society is to blame". (For society read economic policy and/or a pro-life choice).

Gauche (softening after very little sleep)

Hi, Gauche.
We are really not much in disagreement. We both believe in a woman's right to choose to end a pregnancy thrugh abortion.

I said: "Financial hardship is one of the major reasons why a family will decide to abort a pregnancy."

And you responded:

While this may be true for white middle class America, it certainly is not true the world over.

I believe it would be true for middle class America in general, without regard for race or ethnicity although religion would probably make a difference. For rich people, there would be no financial hardship and for poor people the increased hardship would probably be small and maybe nonexistent. As for America, the thread is about a bill passed by the US Congress and that is all I am referring to.

As for leading a normal life, people with serious birth defects do not lead what is usually considered to be a normal life. (For that matter, I haven't really led what could be considered a normal life either.) As Perdita pointed out, such people can be happy and beloved but I think all of us know they can also be sad and despised.

If you have worked with Downs children, you know they never fully develop mentally and tend to die young. By the way, I applaud dedicated people like you who work with children like that. Other defects, such as muscle and nerve disorders can be even more serious and the people with these defects frequently require intensive care for their entire lives, resulting in emotional and financial expenditures. Other defects can result in a baby living only a few hours or a few years. Personally, I think it is better to abort a pregnancy that would have these results I describe but I also think it should be the choice of the pregnant woman, preferably after consultation with all adults concerned.

I hope you sleep better tonight.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Okay. *takes deep calming breath* I see we've all managed to skirt around one factor in the decision to have an abortion - the circumstances of conception.

IE: Child of a rape.

I don't think we have skirted this factor. The thread is about the threat to a woman's right to choose. Personally, I believe that if the pregnancy is the result of a rape like you mentioned or incest/rape like Flicka mentioned or if the woman doesn't want stretch marks on her abdomen, all three should have the same rights. They may not all have the same degree of sympathy but all should have the same rights and should all receive whatever services are necessary.

By the way, if it will make you feel any better, the guy who raped you has probably been anally raped many times while in prison.

 

[Just-Legal]

By the way, if it will make you feel any better, the guy who raped you has probably been anally raped many times while in prison.

...It should but it doesn't. I don't want *anyone* even him, to have to go through what I did...

*sighs*

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I doubt I could be as good-heared as you, J-Le, if I had been in your situation. I would have...

no, better not say it.

It belongs in the Extreme Section.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Bush to Sign Fetus Rights Bill
1 hour, 43 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!


By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites), eager to hand another victory to the social conservatives who make up his most loyal base of political support, decided on an elaborate ceremony to sign into law legislation expanding legal rights of the unborn.


AP Photo



The Unborn Victims of Violence Act makes it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. Bush was signing the bill, which took five years to get through Congress, on Thursday in the Rose Garden.


People on both sides of the fetal rights and abortion issue have said the new law will have far-reaching consequences.


Abortion opponents welcome it as a step toward more sweeping protections for the unborn, while abortion-rights proponents say the measure represents the first recognition in federal law of an embryo or fetus as a person separate from the woman.


Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., Bush's opponent in this fall's election voted against the bill.


Bush has said he doesn't believe the country is ready to completely ban abortions; he opposes them except in cases of rape or incest or when pregnancy endangers a woman's life. That position has become a standard line in most of his speeches.


"We stand for a culture of life in which every person counts and every person matters. We will not stand for the treatment of any life as a commodity to be experimented upon, exploited or cloned," the president told GOP donors to his campaign at a fund-raiser in Washington Tuesday night.


Bush has taken several actions that have pleased anti-abortion advocates.


As one of the first acts of his presidency, he reinstated the "Mexico City policy" that bars U.S. money from international groups that support abortion, even with their own money, through direct services, counseling or lobbying activities.


He has signed legislation that bans certain late-term abortions and that amends legal definitions of "person," "human being," "child" and "individual" to include any fetus that survives an abortion.


He has increased federal support for abstinence education, adoption and crisis pregnancy programs; placed severe restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research to only a few existing cell lines; and extended state health coverage to "unborn children."


The measure Bush was signing into law on Thursday is limited in scope, applying only to harm to a fetus while a federal crime, such as a terrorist attack or drug-related shooting, is being committed against the pregnant mother. The legislation defines an "unborn child" as a child in utero, which it says "means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."


A number of states have similar laws.

Fetus right's bill.


-Colly

 

[KarenAM]

We stand for a culture of life in which every person counts and every person matters.

Except, of course, for those people already born who happen to be in the way.

 

[Guest]

I've tried to stay out of this, but I just have to say:

If I was pregnant and assaulted and the assault resulted in the death of the fetus (my baby), then I would want the bastard to pay (and rot in hell in the process).

I think it's pretty obvious that I am pro-life, though not militantly so. I also thinks that puts me in the minority here and I already feel pretty out of place as it is.

I am not into politics, and I don't really enjoy debating (gets way too heated for me), but God forbid a woman should have justice if some bastard kills her unborn child.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I've tried to stay out of this, but I just have to say:

If I was pregnant and assaulted and the assault resulted in the death of the fetus (my baby), then I would want the bastard to pay (and rot in hell in the process).

I think it's pretty obvious that I am pro-life, though not militantly so. I also thinks that puts me in the minority here and I already feel pretty out of place as it is.

I am not into politics, and I don't really enjoy debating (gets way too heated for me), but God forbid a woman should have justice if some bastard kills her unborn child.

I don't think anybody is in disagreement on this one, CM, except that we would want the bastard to rot in jail for the rest of his life and then in Hell after he died. However, we would want this to happen because of the violent rape he committed, and the injury to his victim, NOT because of injury to the fetus. In other words, the fetus should not have status as a human being while still in-utero. This is seen as an attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade.

 

[Belegon]

though not militantly so

Here is why you versing your opinion should not and will not be a problem. In my opinion the members of the AH are pretty good about opposing viewpoints as long as they don't dip into the absurd.

It's people who think it's OK to chuck a bomb at a doctor because he works in a clinic that are the problem, not well-intentioned people with whom we have a difference in belief.

 

[KarenAM]

I suppose I should clarify my point. I'm not going to get into the abortion debate, and my post was not intended to be a part of that debate. I simply find it ironic and morally troubling that Bush is willing to say that he believes that every person counts and every person matters when he won't adequately fund his own educational reforms for children who are already born so that he can spend huge sums of borrowed money buying weapons. What is it about a trip through the birth canal that makes him care less for a child?

Simply put, I believe that Bush is a hypocrite.

I had no problem with the proposed alternative to this law, which as I understand it made assaulting a pregnant woman more serious, not because it accorded special status to the fetus, but rather to the mother. This would have had the same effect without bringing up the contentious issue of abortion.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Cm: There are already laws in place that would have the perpatrator of such a crime rotting in jail. If you have followed the laci Peterson case at all you know the husband is charged with killing both the woman and her unborn child, Connor, I believe they had named him.

This law does not strengthen existing law to fight crime, it simply confers upon a fetus the same rights as you or I have. In doing so it reduces the rights of the mother and lays the groundwork for declaring abortion illegal, in point of fact making it murder.

No one here favors letting an animal off easy if he were to do this, but at the same time, those of us who are worried about the government's curtailing of our civil liberites and rights, espeically those of us who are women, see it for what it is. A thinly veild attempt by the far right to reduce us to the status of second class citizens.

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

That's like saying if your sister and her friend were murdered, it makes no difference if the murderer is charged with both of there deaths, or just the friends-- OR that charging the person with the friends death somehow belittles your sisters importance or rights.

It's not pointless- there are two victims, and the number of victims effects the sentance of the criminal.

I do agree that the ultimate agenda of those pushing for this law is anti-abortion. I also resent the whole 'brood mare' comment.

-Sweet (proud mother of 3, count them 3 children)

Seems pointless to me. All I get out of it is that it belittles the mother's rights/importance.

If someone attacks her and is comitting a federal crime, what the fuck difference does it make if there is a second victim? Isn't it enough to put the attacker away for a long time/for good? Why must there be dual charges?

~ R W (liking Karen AM's style)

Sadly, the little citizens of which everyone speaks are not important to anyone (after they've arrived) in the government until they can pay taxes and vote.

 

[sweetnpetite]

This is seen as an attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade.

Why not- Roe V. Wade circomvented existing law at the time. Courts arent supposed to make laws and policies, they are supposed to uphold them.

 

[KarenAM]

Actually, courts are supposed to interpret existing laws, including whether those laws are in accordance with the highest law of the United States, which is the Constitution. If they deem that a local law, like the ban on sodomy in Texas, is not in accordance with the law in the Constitution, they may declare the local law invalid.

This is why people keep trying to amend the Constitution; they don't like the way the Supreme Court or lower courts have interpreted existing laws, and since the Supreme Court cannot overturn the Constitution itself, that's what they go for. The other, easier approach, is to simply try and stack the judiciary with judges who agree with them and who will interpret the law their way.

So courts do not initiate policy, since they cannot write laws themselves, but they do make policy by interpreting those laws. It's part of the whole checks and balances thing that the federal government is supposed to have.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Why not- Roe V. Wade circomvented existing law at the time. Courts arent supposed to make laws and policies, they are supposed to uphold them.

In Roe v Wade the court found a state law against abortion was unconstitutional, and overturned some convictions in that court. That's not making law; that is invalidating existing state law. That is one of the jobs of the Supreme Court. They also interpret the Constitution to see that laws are not in conflict with it.

If my wife and sister were murdered I would want and expect the killer to be charged with both murders. Both women are humas, fully formed and viable. Under the new law, if the murders were committed under certain circumstances, and one of the women was found to be pregnant, even if the conception had ocurred just hours before, the killer would now be charged with three murders because the zygote would be considered to be a human being, just as the two women would. That is where our complaint comes from.

The Peterson case involves the murder in an advanced state of pregnancy, eight months or more, and is included in a state law that is similar to the federal law but new law is much further reaching.

 

[Raging Whoremoans]

That's like saying if your sister and her friend were murdered, it makes no difference if the murderer is charged with both of there deaths, or just the friends-- OR that charging the person with the friends death somehow belittles your sisters importance or rights.

It's not pointless- there are two victims, and the number of victims effects the sentance of the criminal.

I do agree that the ultimate agenda of those pushing for this law is anti-abortion. I also resent the whole 'brood mare' comment.

-Sweet (proud mother of 3, count them 3 children)

My point was not that the murder of the fetus was unimportant, by any means. My point was simply that if someone has commited a federal crime against a woman then they should be tried, convicted and punished as such.

If I had any faith in the judicial system, I could go with your argument that more victims would effectively raise the punishment. But the simple and shameful fact is that life sentences, no matter how numerous, are sometimes completely ineffective at keeping criminals behind bars. And in my opinion, this is exactly what Colly says it is: A lightly veiled attempt to assign a full host of rights to an unborn child.

We all hate that these things happen, but the fact of the matter is the legislation is a stepping stone to a larger agenda that I personally disagree with wholeheartedly. It sickens me that they parade around a bill such as this to tug at people's heart strings and line up all their ducks, so that in subsequent years they can force all kinds of decisions on people (women) to suit their own religious agenda.

Mind if I ask why you resent the brood mare comment? (Not directed at you individually anyway.) That's essentially what we'll all be when the far right has their way and removes all options from women. Sure, it'll start out with fetal protection laws such as this. And as you've already agreed, it'll move into abortion bans. And before you know it there will be no pills and no condoms and it will be the burden of the woman to deal with whatever happens during sex. Couldn't deprive the world of another child, could we? That would mean that we were interfering with God's plan! *gasp* And at that point, I think brood mare is a pretty accurate description.


~ R W (also a proud mother...by choice, not legislation)