Why I am no longer pro-choice no longer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2013, 07:07 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
Mental health requires the expectation of future self-determination.

If you could end up in prison for between nine months and 18 years for legally engaging in a normal, expected activity, would you think that's okay? Would you make decisions based on your best future interests, or on avoiding immediate consequences?

If, for instance, reading had a measurable, statistical chance of taking away your freedom to do as you wish with your own body, and putting it under the control of doctors, police, bureaucrats, etc., would that be okay?

Of course not. Choosing to engage in reading would become fearful. Accidentally getting caught up in a novel, when at first you just wanted to skim the dust jacket, could have disastrous consequences. You would not be free to read. Teaching your children to read... or even teaching them ABOUT reading... could be seen as putting them at risk.

Sex and pregnancy are, of course, different than reading. No analogy with pregnancy is adequate, because nothing can really compare. That is PRECISELY why reproductive freedom should never be arbitrarily limited, the way freedom of expression or freedom of association routinely are. Reproductive freedom is, as I see it, the ONE freedom that is: a) hardest to attain, and b) least socially acceptable to limit, once attained.

Unless, that is, you don't accept sex as a "normal" activity for a woman. If that's a special, excepted category of life-choice for women (and NOT for men), then maybe you can justify making it carry astronomic consequences.

Of course, if you agree with that, then you also have to accept, as a "natural" consequence, a valid and totally predictable distinction between not-at-risk women (exclusively virgin or lesbian) and at-risk women (spoiled, damaged goods, whores, the unclean).

Furthermore, you have to ALSO accept that some large fraction of women will have lesser mental health, as a result of their having a measurably less predictable level of future self-determination. These on-average, less-mentally-well women will need treatment. From whom? Guess.

You see how quickly removing reproductive choice implies patriarchy?

There can be no abridgement of reproductive freedom that does not then denote an equal abridgement of human (female) rights.

Muffs, I'm not even going to address the issue of whether pursuing a biological urge is or is not a "choice." Whether it's chosen, forced, chemically inevitable, or socially mandated is irrelevant.

The sexual freedom to choose when, with whom, AND with what consequences, is a reality for some fraction of the worlds women, and an aspiration for most of the rest.

Moving that marker backward is not an option in any society that wants to be more, rather than less, free and equal.

In short,
[Image: grumpy-cat-8141_preview_zps9177ab07.png]

I AM he who is called... cat furniture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like I Am's post
08-10-2013, 07:09 PM
Why I am no longer pro-choice.
1. Abortions are not enjoyable. Women generally do not make such decisions lightly.

2. Putting someone into this world is a responsibility. Instead of forcing a woman to have a child when she is
not ready, let her have the child when she ready so that the child can grow up in a safe and secure environment.

3. Forcing a raped woman to carry the pregnancy is cruel. But if you make an acception for that, how exactly would
that work in practice? Would the raped woman have to Prove that she was raped? Would we subject her to invasive tests?
Would she have to tell painful details? If she cannot prove that she was raped, would we force her to carry the pregnancy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like black_squirrel's post
08-10-2013, 07:11 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 07:07 PM)I Am Wrote:  Mental health requires the expectation of future self-determination.

If you could end up in prison for between nine months and 18 years for legally engaging in a normal, expected activity, would you think that's okay? Would you make decisions based on your best future interests, or on avoiding immediate consequences?

If, for instance, reading had a measurable, statistical chance of taking away your freedom to do as you wish with your own body, and putting it under the control of doctors, police, bureaucrats, etc., would that be okay?

Of course not. Choosing to engage in reading would become fearful. Accidentally getting caught up in a novel, when at first you just wanted to skim the dust jacket, could have disastrous consequences. You would not be free to read. Teaching your children to read... or even teaching them ABOUT reading... could be seen as putting them at risk.

Sex and pregnancy are, of course, different than reading. No analogy with pregnancy is adequate, because nothing can really compare. That is PRECISELY why reproductive freedom should never be arbitrarily limited, the way freedom of expression or freedom of association routinely are. Reproductive freedom is, as I see it, the ONE freedom that is: a) hardest to attain, and b) least socially acceptable to limit, once attained.

Unless, that is, you don't accept sex as a "normal" activity for a woman. If that's a special, excepted category of life-choice for women (and NOT for men), then maybe you can justify making it carry astronomic consequences.

Of course, if you agree with that, then you also have to accept, as a "natural" consequence, a valid and totally predictable distinction between not-at-risk women (exclusively virgin or lesbian) and at-risk women (spoiled, damaged goods, whores, the unclean).

Furthermore, you have to ALSO accept that some large fraction of women will have lesser mental health, as a result of their having a measurably less predictable level of future self-determination. These on-average, less-mentally-well women will need treatment. From whom? Guess.

You see how quickly removing reproductive choice implies patriarchy?

There can be no abridgement of reproductive freedom that does not then denote an equal abridgement of human (female) rights.

Muffs, I'm not even going to address the issue of whether pursuing a biological urge is or is not a "choice." Whether it's chosen, forced, chemically inevitable, or socially mandated is irrelevant.

The sexual freedom to choose when, with whom, AND with what consequences, is a reality for some fraction of the worlds women, and an aspiration for most of the rest.

Moving that marker backward is not an option in any society that wants to be more, rather than less, free and equal.

In short,
[Image: grumpy-cat-8141_preview_zps9177ab07.png]

Very well put!

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 07:11 PM
Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 06:41 PM)nach_in Wrote:  So you're saying that carrying the foetus to term should be the legal penalty for a women who had sex?

I wonder how it would feel like for the child to be its mother's punishment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes black_squirrel's post
08-10-2013, 07:35 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
While the health of the mother is always a determining factor, viability seems like the right line to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 07:47 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 07:35 PM)BryanS Wrote:  While the health of the mother is always a determining factor, viability seems like the right line to me.

At week 2 or 3, how does one determine viability?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 07:57 PM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2013 08:25 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
It's long past time that men, straight or gay, stop telling women what they need to do with their bodies.
If you don't approve of abortion, then don't have one.

The point about "potential baby" was not addressed, really. The POINT was, if a clump of cells which is a "potential baby" cannot be aborted, than where does it stop, with respect to "potential babies" ?

Outlaw masturbation, I say. That's the ticket.
Billions of potential babies being destroyed.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-10-2013, 08:51 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 07:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's long past time that men, straight or gay, stop telling women what they need to do with their bodies.
If you don't approve of abortion, then don't have one.

The point about "potential baby" was not addressed, really. The POINT was, if a clump of cells which is a "potential baby" cannot be aborted, than where does it stop, with respect to "potential babies" ?

Outlaw masturbation, I say. That's the ticket.
Billions of potential babies being destroyed.

That's why christians say masturbation is a sin! IT'S GENOCIDE!!! they were right all along!! D:

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
08-10-2013, 09:39 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 07:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The point about "potential baby" was not addressed, really. The POINT was, if a clump of cells which is a "potential baby" cannot be aborted, than where does it stop, with respect to "potential babies" ?

Outlaw masturbation, I say. That's the ticket.
Billions of potential babies being destroyed.
But in all honesty, sperm is only half of the required DNA, and sperm don't perform cell division.
But a fertilised egg, represents the full DNA of a unique human indivdual.
If you kill it, then that unique human will no longer get to live.

But I don't consider human life as sacred, so I don't consider it my obligation to stop a mother from terminating her own pregnancy.
I don't need to debate whether it is a human or not in order to justify allowing people to kill them, although, clearly it is human. A human fetus as opposed to a human baby, a human toddler, a human teenager, a human adult...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 09:40 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
Muffsy, again love you...

But you haven't a clue what I've seen. The path I've walked. I'm on the inside looking out, not the other way around. I've escorted women into clinics wearing a flack jacket.

And that is just the tip of the iceburg.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: