RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News



Message

AbsitInvidia -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/9/2008 2:37:18 PM)

If abortion were a 'womens issue' then there wouldn't be so many women, myself included, who oppose it.  In fact I've met more men than women who think abortion should be legal.  Avoiding parental responsibility crosses gender lines.



willing2try1984 -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/9/2008 4:04:03 PM)

I am a submissive but i do not agree with mike huckabee i am also a member is the National Organization of Women...i believe in all those liberal things that scare some men off lol....oh well....i think he's an ape. thats the best way to put it



ShaktiSama -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/9/2008 5:28:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AbsitInvidia
If abortion were a 'womens issue' then there wouldn't be so many women, myself included, who oppose it.  In fact I've met more men than women who think abortion should be legal.  Avoiding parental responsibility crosses gender lines.


Lol.  No, abortion is a women's issue regardless of how the pinkbits of the supporters and detractors work out, I'm afraid.  It is an area of the law that involves the state exercising control over a woman's body; since it has to be made illegal to prevent it, this is by definition a nonconsensual exercise of control.  Refusing a woman the right to an abortion is essentially the same thing as kidnapping her and chaining in the basement for nine months, doing permanent damage to her body because she agreed to have sex with you once.

I suppose it is ridiculous to expect a female submissive to understand why this is objectionable, given that many of you give over control of your bodies to men at all times.  It may be a little difficult to intuitively understand why it's wrong to subordinate ALL women to the patriarchal state, and enslave them universally to be baby-making machines to whoever can succeed in impregnating them--this impregnantion being achieved y guile, accident or force, obviously, since the resulting pregnancy is not wanted.

From my point of view, "parental responsibility" is exercised in the raising of children.  Not in the conception of children.  All you have to do to conceive a human child is ejaculate in a vagina.  This is not a great accomplishment in life for either party, and does not qualify either the owner of the vagina or the owner of the penis to become parents, especially if they do not have a positive relationship with each other.

Not sure why this is so hard for anti-choice zealots to understand, but I'll let it go.  Never pays to argue with the coppertops in the Matrix.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/9/2008 5:37:27 PM)

Troglodyte?  Can I get a troglodyte?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willing2try1984

i think he's an ape. thats the best way to put it



AbsitInvidia -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/10/2008 3:25:54 AM)

I think it has more to do with the fact that I believe life starts at conception rather than the fact that I'm submissive.  Anyone who thinks life begins at birth can't understand opposition to abortion any more than anyone who believes it begins at conception can comprehend why it's okay to have an abortion.

You might say it's just a small cluster of cells, but at the moment before conception, there were a few million sperm floating around that egg.  Any one could have joined.  After conception - that's it.  It's already determined what colour eyes the kid will have, what colour hair, if it's a boy or girl, if it's earlobes are attached or detached, if it will have six toes on one foot, etc.  All that's left is for it to grow into that being - same as a baby will grow into an adult.

I realize this isn't the proper forum to discuss abortion issues but how inane is it that you equate a moral choice against abortion with being submissive?  "Submission to the patriarchal state and enslaving them to be baby making machines?" Honestly now if we were talking about abortion only in the case of rape that's one thing but the majority of abortions are by women who CHOSE to have sex KNOWING that omg sex causes babies.

I wonder what you and other pro-choicers would say to a law that allowed a man to simply sign a paper, pay a couple hundred dollars, and then be absolved of any parental responsibility for the chil.d ever.  Why should men be slaves to not only their biology, but also the choice of the chick they knocked up?  If women can decide not to have the kid then shouldn't men be able to do the same?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

quote:

ORIGINAL: AbsitInvidia
If abortion were a 'womens issue' then there wouldn't be so many women, myself included, who oppose it.  In fact I've met more men than women who think abortion should be legal.  Avoiding parental responsibility crosses gender lines.


Lol.  No, abortion is a women's issue regardless of how the pinkbits of the supporters and detractors work out, I'm afraid.  It is an area of the law that involves the state exercising control over a woman's body; since it has to be made illegal to prevent it, this is by definition a nonconsensual exercise of control.  Refusing a woman the right to an abortion is essentially the same thing as kidnapping her and chaining in the basement for nine months, doing permanent damage to her body because she agreed to have sex with you once.

I suppose it is ridiculous to expect a female submissive to understand why this is objectionable, given that many of you give over control of your bodies to men at all times.  It may be a little difficult to intuitively understand why it's wrong to subordinate ALL women to the patriarchal state, and enslave them universally to be baby-making machines to whoever can succeed in impregnating them--this impregnantion being achieved y guile, accident or force, obviously, since the resulting pregnancy is not wanted.

From my point of view, "parental responsibility" is exercised in the raising of children.  Not in the conception of children.  All you have to do to conceive a human child is ejaculate in a vagina.  This is not a great accomplishment in life for either party, and does not qualify either the owner of the vagina or the owner of the penis to become parents, especially if they do not have a positive relationship with each other.

Not sure why this is so hard for anti-choice zealots to understand, but I'll let it go.  Never pays to argue with the coppertops in the Matrix.



thetammyjo -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/10/2008 5:42:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

quote:

ORIGINAL: AbsitInvidia
If abortion were a 'womens issue' then there wouldn't be so many women, myself included, who oppose it. In fact I've met more men than women who think abortion should be legal. Avoiding parental responsibility crosses gender lines.


Lol. No, abortion is a women's issue regardless of how the pinkbits of the supporters and detractors work out, I'm afraid. It is an area of the law that involves the state exercising control over a woman's body; since it has to be made illegal to prevent it, this is by definition a nonconsensual exercise of control. Refusing a woman the right to an abortion is essentially the same thing as kidnapping her and chaining in the basement for nine months, doing permanent damage to her body because she agreed to have sex with you once.




Also changing the laws would not prevent abortions only increase illegal and likely unsafe procedures.

Abortion has been around since at least the time of the Hippocratic school of thought in the 5th century BCE. In Greece the concern was not about aborting a child or not but about harming the woman and taking away a man's rights to accept or cast out a child -- yes, infanticide was alive and fully accepted. Even without a doctor's aid women could use herbs and techniques to induce abortions and they did.

I am always surprised when some people think that making something illegal solves the "problem" when generally it requires far more.

For example better birth control could also solve the "problem" as could teaching people that intercourse is only one way to express love and one type of sex. Universal health care and better child care could help women feel more secure about bringing another life into the world. A family and community support system to help her emotionally and financially could do the same thing. Not just for the pregnancy and birth for her entire life and the life/lives she brings into the world.

If we did all those things, the question of abortion would lessen because the need or desire for it would lessen.



AbsitInvidia -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/10/2008 6:28:24 AM)

Agreed 100% tammyjo...I just find it sort of sad that a couple centuries ago women would have their children even if their family was already destitute with poverty...before the lower class ever had such things as prenatal care or free daycare.  Now a woman who can afford a child will abort it just because she doesn't feel like having a baby.

It's true that changing the laws won't prevent abortion.  However the fact that murder, rape, and theft are illegal doesn't prevent all occurences of those crimes either.  It simply says "this is wrong - if you do this you will be punished" and as I consider abortion a form of infanticide/homicide/manslaughter I believe a law should be put in place to protect the child.  If 'people are going to do it anyway' is the deciding factor of what makes something legal, we would have no laws on our books at all. 

But at least the crime rate would be lower ;)



Lordandmaster -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/10/2008 6:47:18 AM)

Abortion is a complex moral question and obviously people have impassioned views about it.  But there's an aspect to what you've written here that you haven't considered: namely, that a human embryo cannot survive before a certain point unless its mother carries it, and women, at least in my view, cannot be forced to carry embryos since there is a limit to what the state can tell you to do with your own body.  Besides, there are PLENTY of characteristics that are NOT determined at conception; we're discovering more and more of them, and they're determined in utero AFTER conception.  Sure, the genes are all set, but the person hasn't been formed yet; the person doesn't come to be unless the mother sustains the embryo to the point that it can survive on its own.

Your analogy of a piece of paper that men should be able to sign in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for a child doesn't work because men aren't obliged to bear embryos inside their bodies.  You're talking about a child-support issue, and women are already every bit as obliged to render child support as men are.  This usually doesn't come into play only because it's very rare for separated women with sufficient income not to retain at least joint custody of their children.  But it can and does happen.

Now, lastly, there's one inconsistency I find in YOUR position: why are the issues any different if we're talking about conception as a consequence of rape?  If you truly believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder regardless of how the embryo was created.  (After all, you wouldn't agree that willfully killing an ADULT who happened to be conceived during a rape would be anything other than murder.)  I'm aware that most abortion opponents support exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and every time some legislature tries to float a NO-EXCEPTIONS anti-abortion law, the people freak out.  But I don't for the life of me understand the reasoning, and it makes me doubt that you truly place abortion on the same level as murder, despite all the rhetoric.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AbsitInvidia

I think it has more to do with the fact that I believe life starts at conception rather than the fact that I'm submissive.  Anyone who thinks life begins at birth can't understand opposition to abortion any more than anyone who believes it begins at conception can comprehend why it's okay to have an abortion.

You might say it's just a small cluster of cells, but at the moment before conception, there were a few million sperm floating around that egg.  Any one could have joined.  After conception - that's it.  It's already determined what colour eyes the kid will have, what colour hair, if it's a boy or girl, if it's earlobes are attached or detached, if it will have six toes on one foot, etc.  All that's left is for it to grow into that being - same as a baby will grow into an adult.

I realize this isn't the proper forum to discuss abortion issues but how inane is it that you equate a moral choice against abortion with being submissive?  "Submission to the patriarchal state and enslaving them to be baby making machines?" Honestly now if we were talking about abortion only in the case of rape that's one thing but the majority of abortions are by women who CHOSE to have sex KNOWING that omg sex causes babies.

I wonder what you and other pro-choicers would say to a law that allowed a man to simply sign a paper, pay a couple hundred dollars, and then be absolved of any parental responsibility for the chil.d ever.  Why should men be slaves to not only their biology, but also the choice of the chick they knocked up?  If women can decide not to have the kid then shouldn't men be able to do the same?



thetammyjo -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/10/2008 8:27:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AbsitInvidia

Agreed 100% tammyjo...I just find it sort of sad that a couple centuries ago women would have their children even if their family was already destitute with poverty...before the lower class ever had such things as prenatal care or free daycare. Now a woman who can afford a child will abort it just because she doesn't feel like having a baby.

It's true that changing the laws won't prevent abortion. However the fact that murder, rape, and theft are illegal doesn't prevent all occurences of those crimes either. It simply says "this is wrong - if you do this you will be punished" and as I consider abortion a form of infanticide/homicide/manslaughter I believe a law should be put in place to protect the child. If 'people are going to do it anyway' is the deciding factor of what makes something legal, we would have no laws on our books at all.

But at least the crime rate would be lower ;)



The question then is who do you punish?

The doctor or the "whatever" who helped?

The woman? Does the conditions under which she became pregnant matter?

The man who helped create the situation? Does the fact he wore or didn't wear a condom matter?

The person who sold the materials needed? Do they need to know that the materials would be used in that way?

The education system that didn't teach them to wait or how to use birth control?

The parents who didn't teach them to wait or use other means to be sexual?

Personally as an abuse survivor I have to say that I would prefer abortion over one child being born who isn't wanted, isn't loved, or can't/won't be cared for. I wish we lived in a world where people did take more responsibility before they did certain activities but we don't live in that world and I don't think making abortion illegal will help that nearly as much as the other things I mentioned before.

Plus if the government can tell you that you must give birth, what prevents them from then saying you can't or you must give up your unborn child when it's born? Or that only people with certain genes can have children or a certain income?

Yes, I would agree that all societies need some regulation in order to function but I think we need be wary of how far that goes.



ShaktiSama -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/10/2008 11:17:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AbsitInvidia

I realize this isn't the proper forum to discuss abortion issues but how inane is it that you equate a moral choice against abortion with being submissive?  "Submission to the patriarchal state and enslaving them to be baby making machines?" Honestly now if we were talking about abortion only in the case of rape that's one thing but the majority of abortions are by women who CHOSE to have sex KNOWING that omg sex causes babies.


The majority of abortions are also caused by MEN who CHOSE to have sex KNOWING that "omg sex causes babies".  These men don't want to be responsible for the care and welfare of the woman or the baby that might result.  Exactly how does the law punish them for this error in the use of their genitals?  And exactly how well is any such law, even the minimal obligation toward paternal child support, enforced by the state?

My answer would be:  the law does not punish the male who causes an unwanted pregnancy.  The consequences of unsuccessful birth control, as WELL as rape, incest and deliberate lying and deception ("I love you baby, I want to marry you and we will be together 4 Ever More"), all fall on the woman with extreme severity, while the men pretty much get away scott free--there are far more men in North America who make their car payments every month than who make their child support payments. 

The fact that most people have a poor conception of human embryonic biology and the innate medical risks of pregnancy and delivery doesn't help, but really I think the belief that "life begins at conception" is religious.  This is why the scientific facts, when they are discussed, have no persuasive force--it is a matter of faith rather than reason.

Underlying the religious belief in "ejaculation=life" is a patriarchal vision of the universe.  This includes the notion that women are innately inferior to men, both morally and physically, and that women were essentially created by God for no other purpose than to serve and be impregnated by men.

Many abortion opponents will grant the provisional right to abortion for a woman who was impregnated by a man of poor moral character--because the life of the fetus is not really the issue at stake.  What is really at stake here is the male entitlement to impregnate, regardless of female choice!  All men are basically entitled to impregnate women and force them to bear children whether the children are wanted or not--unless a man has LOST his right to impregnate unwilling women by violating a major sexual taboo, i.e. committing rape and incest.

Merely abusing the woman's trust or being an irresponsible jackass who creates babies that he can neither love nor support as a parent, of course, is not sufficient to rescind his right to impregnate and a woman's obligation to gestate. 

*shrug*  Anyway.  There is a reason that I oppose legislation against reproductive choice.  I do not believe the state is entitled to write laws that force sexual submission or slavery without consent on anyone, male or female.  And a life in which major decisions like whether to become a parent or not are out of your hands IS slavery, whether it is "traditional" or "sanctioned by God" or not.



AbsitInvidia -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/10/2008 4:24:06 PM)

Shakti,

Whoa there.  I didn't say ejaculation=life, I said that conception=life.  In case that's not clear enough, conception requires both sperm and an egg.  Equal input from men and women.  Ejaculation is just a bunch of sperm swimming around the egg but like I said before once they are joined then the child's physical makeup is more or less determined.  It can still be affected by nature, but the processes are already in motion to determine gender, hair and eye colour, approximate height, bone structure, etc.   That is why I believe life begins at conception and it is based in science rather than religion. 

And if you're saying that women have no purpose but to be impregnated...that would only make sense if you say that men have no purpose other than to impregnate women, which is a very primitive outlook.  As far as saying men are entitled to impregnate women and force them to bear children I really don't know what that has to do with abortion.  Since you made the exception for rape and incest, you're basically saying that this entitlement only applies to women who consensually had sex knowing that sex was designed by nature to allow the organism to reproduce.  That's why dogs, cats, and monkeys have sex...humans happen to enjoy it a bit more but regardless the purpose of sex is procreation. Same with orgasms - the male orgasm is designed to release and propel semen, while the female orgasm is designed to contract the vaginal muscles so the semen is pushed up further into the body - thereby increasing the chances of conception.  The fact that they feel good is just a side effect.

I'm getting a serious misandrist vibe when you say that a man impregnating a woman is "abusing the woman's trust or being an irresponsible jackass who creates babies that he can neither love nor support" - would you say that a woman who got pregnant accidentally was just an irresponsible slut?  As far as abusing trust...um...not all men lie to get into women's pants.  And nowadays quite a few women lie too...they say things like "yes we can keep this casual" when in reality they are trying to lure a man in with sex.  Not all women of course, in fact not even the majority...but then again it's not the majority of men who lie to get sex.  Most men are generally up front about what they're looking for - the only women who get "lied to" are the ones who spread their legs on the first or second date.  A man just looking to get laid isn't going to wait around for 3 months for the woman to be sure ofa commitment.

You didn't answer my main question, which is do you believe that men should be able to give up their parental rights/responsibilities before the child is born?  Wouldn't forcing a man to pay child support to a child he wanted the woman to abort be just as much 'slavery' to his reproductive organs as forbidding a woman to abort the child?

Edited to add: I also think that current child support laws should be more rigorously enforced.  It does bother me that there are so many 'deadbeat dads' in the world - I think that their child support payments should be automatically deducted from their paychecks if they make a habit of not paying it.  But I also think that as long as abortion is legal, a man should have the right to terminate his paternity - basically tell the woman "I don't want this child - you can abort it or raise it yourself" and then sign a paper waiving all legal rights to custody.  That would give him an equal ability to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Of course I would rather have abortion be illegal, or at least overturn Roe v Wade so the states themselves can decide...but as long as it is legal I think it should be fair.  It's already bad enough that a woman can kill a man's unborn child without his consent.  But allowing termination of paternal responsibility as a male equivalent to abortion will at least make it less likely for a woman to skip a pill or poke a hole in a condom to try to convince a man to marry her.

Tammy Jo,

I would punish the doctor who performed the abortion and the woman who had it.  I would also punish the man if he was aware of the abortion and supported the woman getting it.

Blaming the educational system is ridiculous as if it were to blame then every single child who was in her class would also be not only getting pregnant before marriage but also aborting the baby.  Just because you get knocked up doesn't mean you have to kill it.  As far as blaming the parents I would only blame them if the woman in question were a minor and the parents took her to get the abortion.  If she is an adult, her life is her own to live.  There comes a point where you have to stop blaming everyone who was a bad influence on you, and say "this is my life, from here on out I will own it, take charge of it, and make it what I want it to be."



aidan -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/10/2008 5:57:04 PM)

Absit, forgive me if I come off as rude, but it seems obvious that you are taking Shakti's post out of context to avoid rebutting her points.

As for the question of whether forcing a man to pay child support is similar to forcing a woman to give birth...No. There's more than a subtle difference between cutting a check every few weeks and the physical, psychological, and social trauma a woman can endure from an unwanted pregnancy.

And refering to the option of terminating paternity...Men can do that now. You just duck and run. Lo and behold, a child's still there regardless. What's been ended other than his responsibility?



ShaktiSama -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/10/2008 10:13:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AbsitInvidia
That is why I believe life begins at conception and it is based in science rather than religion. 


You need to learn a lot more about science, then.  You are missing a rather large body of facts about the human body and its fertility.  For example, a sizable percentage of the eggs successfully fertilized by sperm in the course of a woman's life are spontaneously aborted naturally by her body; they do not automatically implant into the uterine wall and develope into a fetus.  It is this process which is mimicked by the famous "morning after" pill, which causes a woman to menstruate immediately before a fertilized egg can implant into her uterine lining.

Many of the wonderful state legislatures that you just adore have denied the use of this pill to rape victims, by the way, because they consider it a form of abortion.  Apparently God loves the fetus produced by rape much, much more than the woman victimized by a rapist.  WHAT a surprise!  That'll certainly teach HER a lesson about responsible behavior, won't it?  Next time she'll know better than to be born a woman...[:'(] 



AbsitInvidia -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/10/2008 11:39:52 PM)

Aidan,
If you would like to paraphrase what point you think I'm missing I would appreciate it.  I feel like I did reply to her points.  If there's anything I missed, please point it out.

I agree that the first 9 months are pretty much all on the woman to bear.  That's simple biology though, nothing political.  As far as 'duck and run' that isn't the equivalent to having an abortion - that's the equivalent to a mother leaving a baby in a basket on church steps.  Duck and run is not a legal solution...unless you, as an abortion advocate, are also advocating denial of paternal responsibility in that manner.  My point was that there is no legally sanctioned way for a man to terminate his paternal responsibility unless the child is being adopted by someone else. 

Shakti,

I'm aware of the fact that both newly formed zygotes as well as developing fetuses are occasionally spontaneously aborted (miscarried) but the difference is that there was no intent to kill.  For whatever reason the womb was not hospitable to life at that time and the baby was lost.  That's far different from paying someone to scrape the fetus off your womb for you.  There are babies who die of SIDS - that's not the same as a mother suffocating the baby with a pillow. One is a natural death, the other is an intentional infanticide.

As far as the morning after pill, I'm not familiar enough about the mechanics of it to give an opinion.  I will just say that even though something might happen naturally, artificially inducing that same process is not 'natural' selection.

The discussion up until now has been limited to consensual sex, and not matters of rape victims wanting abortions.  I can understand why a rape victim would want an abortion and I can sympathize.  I still think abortion is murder.  For me this is one of the moral dilemmas that I can find no resolution for.  On one hand you can take 9 months away from an innocent woman, forcing her to prolong a trauma she was a victim of, on the other hand you can deny a fetus life.  I think both of those are immoral and I can't say which is the lesser of two evils.  In any other case most people would say the murder of an innocent is worse than a year's imprisonment of the innocent.  But they both just seem so wrong.



Shawn1066 -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/11/2008 9:30:54 AM)

I guess this is kind of an update:

In a 90-minute debate that touched on economic issues, foreign policy and immigration, Huckabee drew the loudest applause of the night from the audience when he was asked about having quoted a Biblical passage saying a wife "has to submit herself graciously" to her husband.

A Baptist preacher before entering politics, he said he was "not the least bit ashamed of my faith," but didn't impose it as governor and wouldn't as president. He said the citation is from Ephesians, and "the point is that as wives submit themselves to their husbands the husbands also submit themselves" to their wives.

"That's why marriage is an important institution, because it teaches us how to love," he concluded.

Source: CNN http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/11/gop.debate.ap/index.html




AbsitInvidia -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/11/2008 9:36:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Abortion is a complex moral question and obviously people have impassioned views about it.  But there's an aspect to what you've written here that you haven't considered: namely, that a human embryo cannot survive before a certain point unless its mother carries it, and women, at least in my view, cannot be forced to carry embryos since there is a limit to what the state can tell you to do with your own body.  Besides, there are PLENTY of characteristics that are NOT determined at conception; we're discovering more and more of them, and they're determined in utero AFTER conception.  Sure, the genes are all set, but the person hasn't been formed yet; the person doesn't come to be unless the mother sustains the embryo to the point that it can survive on its own.

Your analogy of a piece of paper that men should be able to sign in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for a child doesn't work because men aren't obliged to bear embryos inside their bodies.  You're talking about a child-support issue, and women are already every bit as obliged to render child support as men are.  This usually doesn't come into play only because it's very rare for separated women with sufficient income not to retain at least joint custody of their children.  But it can and does happen.

Now, lastly, there's one inconsistency I find in YOUR position: why are the issues any different if we're talking about conception as a consequence of rape?  If you truly believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder regardless of how the embryo was created.  (After all, you wouldn't agree that willfully killing an ADULT who happened to be conceived during a rape would be anything other than murder.)  I'm aware that most abortion opponents support exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and every time some legislature tries to float a NO-EXCEPTIONS anti-abortion law, the people freak out.  But I don't for the life of me understand the reasoning, and it makes me doubt that you truly place abortion on the same level as murder, despite all the rhetoric.



Sorry for the delayed reply - I only saw this now.

First of all I didn't say that abortion isn't murder in the case of rape.  I said that it's irrelevant to talk about "sexual slavery to the patriarchal state" if the sex in question was consensual.  Because it's not "sexual slavery" if nobody forced her to have sex.

I do think abortion is murder no matter how the child is conceived.  I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way - the reason that abortion is allowed in cases of rape is sheer politics.  They want the law passed - it will never be passed without that concession - therefore they make the concession.  I have met quite a few people who do hold the position that you posited (that abortion is wrong unless the mother is raped) and generally they are against abortion more for the sake of taking personal responsibility for one's choices than because they believe life begins at conception.  However that is NOT my position - this was the statement I originally made and it was regarding the idea that forbidding a woman from aborting a fetus is the equivalent of holding them in sexual slavery:

quote:

"Submission to the patriarchal state and enslaving them to be baby making machines?" Honestly now if we were talking about abortion only in the case of rape that's one thing but the majority of abortions are by women who CHOSE to have sex KNOWING that omg sex causes babies.


And it is true that the embryo can't survive outside of the womb.  That in my opinion doesn't make it any less alive.  A newborn kangaroo can't survive outside the pouch for weeks...that doesn't make it any less alive either.  And while it is true that not all of the fetus's traits are determined through genes at conception, and some are formed in utero, it's also true that others are affected way after the child is born.  A malnourished child won't be as tall as a well fed one and so forth.  However the basic framework is determined at conception and can't be severely altered - if the sperm and egg say XX instead of XY then you will NOT have an XY baby.  There's a one in a billion chance you might have a boy...with XX genes...but regardless you will have an XX baby.  That is why I think life starts at conception - because if and when genetics progresses to the point that we can read genes as a form of code - it might someday be possible to look at that cluster of cells and predict if you'll have a blonde, blue eyed Anna or a brunette, dark eyed Jason.

Also - the earliest premature baby born who survived was born at 21 weeks.  Regularly, extremely premature babies are born at 22-25 weeks.  A percentage of those also survive.  Outside the womb.  While it is true that most abortions are performed in the first trimester, it is not unheard of for them to be performed in the second.  From abortion.com:

Abortion in the second trimester - from 13 to 24 weeks - is generally performed using a procedure called Dilation & Evacuation (D&E).

Like I said earlier, most abortions are performed in the first trimester though and as you said the child can not survive outside the womb.  I realize that the difference between abortion and adoption is that adoption requires the mother to bear the child to term.  Many people seem to think that is an unfair burden for the woman to bear - and their main logic is "men don't have to get pregnant and women do so we should compensate for that by allowing women to terminate their pregnancy through artificial medical means so that women can be as "free" as men from their biology."

Personally I see that as nothing more than fostering irresponsibility.  It's more like "Men are able to be shitheads and not take responsibility for their offspring so rather than forcing them to do so through DNA testing and automatic child support deductions we should instead encourage women to maintain that same level of irresponsibility for their actions."

And yes that doesn't apply in the case of rape.  However just as I conceded that my point about 2nd trimester abortions being able to survive outside the womb isn't AS effective because it's the minority of cases, I will also point out that "but what if she was raped" is also a minority.  Most abortions are not a product of rape - in fact, even though they are a small percentage to begin with, the number of women who report rape at an abortion clinic is actually considered slightly erroneous since some women might say the sex was not consensual so that the doctor "doesn't think she's a slut." 

Like I said in the last post it is hard to determine if one person's right to freedom trumps another person's right to life.  With most abortion legislation however that is a null issue as like you pointed out, they all tend to make concessions for rape victims.  To be honest I would not protest those laws if they were effected simply because I'm not Solomon - I can't choose the lesser of two evils here.  I would still think the abortions performed were murders...but I would understand that the world isn't perfect and either way someone gets screwed over.  And it would make me sad but I wouldn't be disgusted as I am with the current legislation.



Amaros -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/16/2008 6:11:59 PM)

Right, technically, life begins at conception - conception, however, does not occur for at least 24 hours after ejaculation, and it can take up to three days. And yet, the availability of morning after birth control pill, or combination that accomplish the same thing are still not widely available, there is still a huge amount of resistance to other prophylactic measures, sex education on these measures, etc.

The reason is because it's not about sex or conception, it's about control. You are welcome to your views AbsitInvidia, and observe them for yourself - I don't think abortion as a particualarly desireable form of birth control myself, but no one has the right to force these choices on others, or deprive them of the right to make their own reproductive choices.

It does strike me extremely hypocritical to me to wring your hands over a blastocyst while torturing people, dumping depleted uranium and cluster bombs on them, and calling it patriotism 'cause you want their oil, nor does it strike me as particuarly moral - it's fucking degeneracy of the worst sort because it's just opportunism using morality as an excuse, it's sociopathic.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/65/23060

Religion doesn't corrupt politics, politics corrupts religion.



fluffyswitch -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/16/2008 7:41:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Asherdelampyr

Maybe im an ass for saying it but I truly belive that after a certain point in time, the women's lib movement started hurting rather than helping. example:  A friend of mine used to come over and "take care" of me, she did things like laundry and dishes and the like, not because I asked her too, but because she enjoyed it, she got more pleasure out of "doin things for her man" than anything else. So one day while she is at my house a missionary? for womens lib comes over, I have a policy of allowing anyone to  come in and talk about thier beliefs so I let her in, when she saw what the girl was doing she literally started screaming at me for *forcing* her into doing so and at her for accepting it. needless to say I wanted to throw her the hell out of my house, but I was beaten to it, by the girl. First time I ever heard her yell at anyone, I was shocked.


it depends on what type of feminism you follow. the thing about the third wave is that it is so splintered that you can be a feminist and follow a doctrine that is completely different from other branches. Mackinnon is/was (i'm assuming that she's still alive) was so feminist and so antiporn and antiBDSM that she thought that anything portraying BDSM should be illegal. Rubin on the other hand is just as feminist and proporn and one the most vocal feminist supporters of BDSM in the feminist community. however as a feminist i've been in the same position as you and your friend. i've left organizations before because apparently i wasn't a 'real' feminist or 'feminist' enough because i didn't believe exactly what they wanted me to believe which apparently meant that i wasn't good enough for them or hadn't truly rejected patriarchy. so what if i like doing the dishes or cooking for my dom? lol.



fluffyswitch -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/16/2008 7:48:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AbsitInvidia

Agreed 100% tammyjo...I just find it sort of sad that a couple centuries ago women would have their children even if their family was already destitute with poverty...before the lower class ever had such things as prenatal care or free daycare.  Now a woman who can afford a child will abort it just because she doesn't feel like having a baby.



to each his own and i respect your right to your opinion--however my partner and i both are in agreement that if i were to get pregnant we would abort. it's not as simple as saying we don't feel lilke having a baby--because even if we don't want to have a child it's a lot more of a complicated decision than that what it might seem like on the surface. and honestly i find it almost ironic that you mention rape in the same sentence as outlawing abortion---if i were to be assaulted again i wouldn't want to have to have that child if it were too emotionally damaging to me simply because other people felt that i 'don't feel like having a baby.' and yes i could put it up for adoption but i feel that for myself that should not have to be my only option.

i guess with regards to the abortion arguement i'm pro-choice in that it's really easy to talk a good game until you have to face the issue yourself, and then you have to make the choice that's best for YOU and YOU are the only person who can truly make that decision for yourself. and the thing with outlawing abortion is that you don't stop it you just drive it underground where it may potentially start killing women. i would rather have it legal and safe than illegal and dangerous.



PeggyO -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/17/2008 6:10:54 AM)

Hello,

As far as Huckabee is concerned, marriage may be an important institution because it teaches how to love - but apparently learning how to love is only important if you're heterosexual.

He staunchly opposes gays "learning how to love".  Apparently love in a relationship is only important if you're heterosexual.

I think that's sad.

Be well,

Peggy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shawn1066

I guess this is kind of an update:

In a 90-minute debate that touched on economic issues, foreign policy and immigration, Huckabee drew the loudest applause of the night from the audience when he was asked about having quoted a Biblical passage saying a wife "has to submit herself graciously" to her husband.

A Baptist preacher before entering politics, he said he was "not the least bit ashamed of my faith," but didn't impose it as governor and wouldn't as president. He said the citation is from Ephesians, and "the point is that as wives submit themselves to their husbands the husbands also submit themselves" to their wives.

"That's why marriage is an important institution, because it teaches us how to love," he concluded.

Source: CNN http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/11/gop.debate.ap/index.html





Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625