Bill that bans abortions 20 weeks into pregnancy passes House

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Snip

We're doing the "you could technically survive without it, therefore you don't need it" thing? Well, I guess I don't "need" my tetanus shots then.

You know, every time someone pulls a "this is reality" argument, I struggle to come up with a response other than "Yeah? No shit." This may blow your mind, but I'm actually quite familiar with the mechanics of reality.

Not as tight as I'm making it out to be? You did catch the part where I said some states only have one abortion clinic right? Arrangements have to be made for a lot of people to get to one, it can't be hammered out over a weekend.

Well we're not in Germany and in Germany they probably don't have leaders that try to shut down abortion clinics because you can't fit two gurneys through a hallway, and/or it's too close to a school.

"Instead of?" I flat out said I oppose both. "Instead of" implies I pick one over the other. You seem to be missing a lot of what I'm actually arguing for. So keep that in mind before you tell me to "be smarter about it," as if you've actually made a point.

BeetleManiac:

Gorfias:
The woman should be obliged to advise the man of the pregnancy if known whose it is.

Why? You still haven't told me precisely what rights you do not have that you think you should have. You've even admitted that you don't believe you have a right to interfere in a doctor/patient decision in which you are neither doctor nor patient. I'm seeing a very non-specific victim complex and not substance to back it up.

1. I should have the right to decline child support if I consented to sex but not procreation. At this time, I can be forced to pay child support for up to 21 years, even if I was tricked into impregnating a mom.
2. I have a right to notice that I have sired a child if the mom is choosing to/has already brought the child to term. I understand the limitations on this: what if the mom has no reasonable way of knowing how to contact me or even if it is mine. (NOTE: Only in the event of choosing to bring the child to term. The man should not have the right to interfere in the mom chooses to have an abortion: this is happening in her body. At this time, there is no such legal obligation on the part of the mom of which I know to provide such notice.
3. A man should get first dibs to take sole custody of the child if the mom wants to give the child up for adoption. Given that link, I'm unclear on this one. Seems it is just smart to advise the dad if possible as if you do not, he might come along after the adoption and harm a family that has formed without his knowledge (his child + adoptive parents). I'm unclear of any legal duty of a mom to notice the bio dad if known.

Any reason men should not expect such rights?

Not sure what the issue is. It's not much different from the UK 24 week limit. It's not a ludicrously early limit, and I assume nobody wants to push the limit out much further the other way because that just gets grim. The exceptions are actually kind of rational.

So yay, the lawmaking process?

Baffle2:
Can't you just do a quick list?

Are you sure you aren't EpycWynn in disguise?

The Lunatic:

altnameJag:
]One of those is major surgery typically requiring spinal anesthesia, the other is outpatient surgery and has versions that are reversible.

Just sayin. And I find it constantly hilarious that all of the arguments for why women should have to go through pregnancy are suddenly objectionable when applied to men.

"Men shouldn't have reproductive rights because their surgery isn't painful enough!!"

What?

So you only get a choice in having a kid based on how painful and invasive preventive surgery of it is?

That's exactly, totally, 100% what I'm saying. Dudes already have the easy way out. Condoms are much cheaper, safer, and don't have the side effects of hormone therapy that birth control pills do. And if that's not good enough, snipperthedoodle isn't exactly complicated.

Get a woman preggers, pay for the kid. Rescind all the parental rights you want, but until we have a functional welfare state or cheap and easy access to abortion, you're shit out of luck.

Catnip1024:
Not sure what the issue is. It's not much different from the UK 24 week limit. It's not a ludicrously early limit, and I assume nobody wants to push the limit out much further the other way because that just gets grim. The exceptions are actually kind of rational.

So yay, the lawmaking process?

It's an entire month out of 9, and based on junk science to boot.

That makes it fairly well different,

Catnip1024:

Are you sure you aren't EpycWynn in disguise?

Maybe he is me in disguise.

I should clarify: asking someone for a quick list of their own thoughts on a matter is much easier for me than watching a 15 minute video that may or may not actually answer my question. Wynn's general lack of concern regarding evidence or proof isn't relevant as I was asking for someone's opinion.

altnameJag:

The Lunatic:

altnameJag:
]One of those is major surgery typically requiring spinal anesthesia, the other is outpatient surgery and has versions that are reversible.

Just sayin. And I find it constantly hilarious that all of the arguments for why women should have to go through pregnancy are suddenly objectionable when applied to men.

"Men shouldn't have reproductive rights because their surgery isn't painful enough!!"

What?

So you only get a choice in having a kid based on how painful and invasive preventive surgery of it is?

That's exactly, totally, 100% what I'm saying. Dudes already have the easy way out. Condoms are much cheaper, safer, and don't have the side effects of hormone therapy that birth control pills do. And if that's not good enough, snipperthedoodle isn't exactly complicated.

Get a woman preggers, pay for the kid. Rescind all the parental rights you want, but until we have a functional welfare state or cheap and easy access to abortion, you're shit out of luck.

The woman is not some object that only a man acts upon.
She has a mind with which to make decisions and responsibilities that follows.

If she didn't want a child she should have taken her own precautions.
As should the man. If that happens there would be no reasonable possibility that pregnancy can occur at all.

So you are saying I could impregnate a girl, lie about loving her, divorce her as a prank, and if I do so more than halfway into the pregnancy she will legally have to have that baby regardless if she was relying on me for social and economic support? That sounds interesting.

Epyc Wynn:
So you are saying I could impregnate a girl

Honestly, I'm not saying you could do that.

inu-kun:
Isn't that like more than halfway into the pregnancy? Pretty sure if someone doesn't want the kid they would have come into decision by then.

Anyways the OP post conveniently sidesteps the issue that people find people are gainst abortion because they consider it murder, so to make a comparison: It's like calling people who are against police violence against black people hypocrites if they are also against more government benefits for black people because they "obviously" don't care about black people.

It is. At that point an abortion pretty much means forcing labors to start and having the woman give birth to a, hopefully dead, fetus. It is apparently not uncommon for fetuses aborted after 20 weeks to actually live upon birth, breathing and moving before asphyxiating within a few minutes. Whatever gray area you are in about it being murder prior to week 16 or so is definitely gone when the fetus visibly struggles for life.

In Sweden abortions after week 20 needs special approval from the supervisory organ of medical care (Socialstyrelsen), and they are pretty uncommon. It should still be allowed in some rare cases, but as a general rule of thumb, you've had at least 2,5 months to figure out if you really want to have a baby and when the fetus is on the verge of being able to survive with intensive neonatal care, the window for abortion should really be closed.

All in all, I am not seeing the big deal here. If anything, abortions post week 20 are sort of dubious from an ethical perspective as a care giver.

Sounds like we need another thread about male reproductive rights.

I don't think this restriction is likely to bare much fruit. Any woman should find it easy to find a doctor willing to say any pregnancy is a danger to the mom, hence allowing for the abortion to go forward.

Gorfias:
Let me know when they do something reeeeallly radical, like create reproductive rights for men.

Oh, this is going to be good!

Gorfias:

When women want sex and for whatever reason, a pregnancy occurs
The woman can have the child and never tell the man;
The woman can abort and there's nothing he can do about it;
The woman can put the child up for adoption (law is fuzzy: if the man finds out, can he interfere and insist the child be turned over to him? If that happens, can he insist upon child support from the woman?)

There are already laws for that (they vary depending on the State). Besides, there is nothing radical in giving more power to men over the women (lots of laws 60 years ago used to do that, and several still do it nowadays)

CaitSeith:

Gorfias:
Let me know when they do something reeeeallly radical, like create reproductive rights for men.

Oh, this is going to be good!

Gorfias:

When women want sex and for whatever reason, a pregnancy occurs
The woman can have the child and never tell the man;
The woman can abort and there's nothing he can do about it;
The woman can put the child up for adoption (law is fuzzy: if the man finds out, can he interfere and insist the child be turned over to him? If that happens, can he insist upon child support from the woman?)

There are already laws for that (they vary depending on the State). Besides, there is nothing radical in giving more power to men over the women (lots of laws 60 years ago used to do that, and several still do it nowadays)

Started a new thread on this as I felt I was derailing this one.

You do bring up an interesting states rights type of thing (like, before Roe v. Wade, states could decide abortion issues w/o federal interference). Hope to see you in the other thread soon.

erttheking:

inu-kun:
Snip

More basic pattern recognition. If this was a slippery slope, we're a good way down the slope by this point.

This bill doesn't exist in a vacuum. The GOP is pushing anti-abortion legislation wherever it can, you can't just pretend that this bill isn't the latest in a very long line of things they've done. Yeah, it is a deep question, though I have to question how much GOP congressmen actually give a shit. They have a well documented history in eroding access to abortion, I have a hard time seeing this as anything but the next step. And it's pretty rich that the "pro-life" demographic has the most overlap with the people who don't give a damn about starving kids. It's almost like they're not as pro-life as they say they are.

How? If even Sweden sees this as a moral it doesn't seem so down the slope.

But your main thread is about this specific bill.

Also, yeah, I do have strong opinions on how women should act and think. The way they want to, without other people forcing their beliefs on them. Including that of other women. It's called pro-CHOICE for a reason.

Wow, I didn't think you'd actually confess to this kind of sexism. Great to see how you value women as toddlers who can't decide for themselves if others tell them otherwise and that you are entitled to decide for them what is harmful or not. Some top notch feminism.

Gorfias:
1. I should have the right to decline child support if I consented to sex but not procreation. At this time, I can be forced to pay child support for up to 21 years, even if I was tricked into impregnating a mom.

So you want the legal right to prioritize yourself over the child?

Also, tricking men into impregnating women. Is this a thing?

2. I have a right to notice that I have sired a child if the mom is choosing to/has already brought the child to term. I understand the limitations on this: what if the mom has no reasonable way of knowing how to contact me or even if it is mine.

Why?

3. A man should get first dibs to take sole custody of the child if the mom wants to give the child up for adoption.

Why?

Seems it is just smart to advise the dad if possible as if you do not, he might come along after the adoption and harm a family that has formed without his knowledge (his child + adoptive parents).

Such a person probably shouldn't be a parent.

Gorfias:

I don't think this restriction is likely to bare much fruit. Any woman should find it easy to find a doctor willing to say any pregnancy is a danger to the mom, hence allowing for the abortion to go forward.

image

...not a good idea.

inu-kun:
Snip

With all due respect, Sweeden doesn't have the same political situation that America does. I've yet to see anyone properly address how this issue could be compounded by how the GOP does everything in its power to restrict abortions.

Admit to sexism. Oh yes. I think women should be allowed to do what they want without other people forcing their views on them. How sexist of me. Once again Inu-Kun, learn the difference between criticizing ideas and people saying you aren't allowed to have the idea. I've done nothing but the former and you constantly accuse me of the later. It'll make your life a lot easier when you gain the understanding of the difference between the too.

And I'm guessing you've just conceded to me on all points you didn't address?

...No seriously, I'm sexist for saying women should be allowed to do what they want without other people forcing their views on them? Inu-Kun, what's your definition of sexist?

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

That being said, 20 weeks? Whats the problem with that? Have you seen a pregnant woman at 20 weeks? Have you seen a baby at 20 weeks? 20 weeks is more than half the pregnancy. Has the status quo shifted to the point where some chick can decide "fuck my baby" 2 weeks before birth and its perfectly acceptable?

After 20 weeks, women who seek abortions do so almost exclusively because of emergencies. Furthermore, less than 2% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.

So not only would this bill not significantly reduce abortion, but it would make things even more unpleasant for women who are in the midst of a medical crisis and being forced to make the incredibly painful decision to end a wanted pregnancy.

And if the pregnancy was the result of rape, then the burden would fall on the woman to prove that she was raped. Incidentally, Republican state legislatures have recently been slashing funding for rape kit processing, and that's before we take into account the fact that only a small fraction of rapists are actually convicted.

So all this bill would do is punish women for having miscarriages and create perverse incentives for conservatives legislatures to ignore rape victims, while not actually tangibly reducing the number of abortions that occur.

altnameJag:

Catnip1024:
Not sure what the issue is. It's not much different from the UK 24 week limit. It's not a ludicrously early limit, and I assume nobody wants to push the limit out much further the other way because that just gets grim. The exceptions are actually kind of rational.

So yay, the lawmaking process?

It's an entire month out of 9, and based on junk science to boot.

That makes it fairly well different,

At 20 weeks you have had 5 months to make your mind up. Why does 5 months make any difference to 6? What sort of person carries a baby around for 5 and a half months, then goes "you know what, I've changed my mind"?

I mean, I don't have strong opinions either way. I believe abortion should be an option, but that it should be far below birth control and other things of far less hassle. I don't believe that anyone should be aborting at 6 months because that's fucking stupid all round. Why put yourself through six months of morning sickness and hindered movement, and let the thing grow and develop even more?

Catnip1024:

altnameJag:

Catnip1024:
Not sure what the issue is. It's not much different from the UK 24 week limit. It's not a ludicrously early limit, and I assume nobody wants to push the limit out much further the other way because that just gets grim. The exceptions are actually kind of rational.

So yay, the lawmaking process?

It's an entire month out of 9, and based on junk science to boot.

That makes it fairly well different,

At 20 weeks you have had 5 months to make your mind up. Why does 5 months make any difference to 6? What sort of person carries a baby around for 5 and a half months, then goes "you know what, I've changed my mind"?

The same person who has to take a trip half the length of Germany to visit a clinic, wait 72 hours, go back again, taking time off of work each time, running the gauntlet of protesters saying she's going to hell, and having the cash on hand to do all of that.

Based on junk science.

Vendor-Lazarus:

The woman is not some object that only a man acts upon.
She has a mind with which to make decisions and responsibilities that follows.

If she didn't want a child she should have taken her own precautions.
As should the man. If that happens there would be no reasonable possibility that pregnancy can occur at all.

...which is why the sperm donor has to pay for the kid even if they didn't want to keep it.

That whole "responsibility" thing. And if the dude wants to keep it but the gal doesn't? Tough luck, should've been born with a uterus. You can't take organs from a dead person without consent, not sure what gives you the right to rent them from living ones.

altnameJag:
Based on junk science.

Or, you know, ethics.

erttheking:
We're doing the "you could technically survive without it, therefore you don't need it" thing? Well, I guess I don't "need" my tetanus shots then.

You know, every time someone pulls a "this is reality" argument, I struggle to come up with a response other than "Yeah? No shit." This may blow your mind, but I'm actually quite familiar with the mechanics of reality.

Not as tight as I'm making it out to be? You did catch the part where I said some states only have one abortion clinic right? Arrangements have to be made for a lot of people to get to one, it can't be hammered out over a weekend.

Well we're not in Germany and in Germany they probably don't have leaders that try to shut down abortion clinics because you can't fit two gurneys through a hallway, and/or it's too close to a school.

"Instead of?" I flat out said I oppose both. "Instead of" implies I pick one over the other. You seem to be missing a lot of what I'm actually arguing for. So keep that in mind before you tell me to "be smarter about it," as if you've actually made a point.

Slow down my dude. I'll answer point by point.

Your tetanus metaphore sucks in just about every way. Firstly, a tetanus shot does not involve a potential other, while abortion involves a fetus/baby, so its already useless. Second, the consequence of not getting a tetanus shot is dying to a rusty nail, while the consequence of not having an abortion usually isn't death if you don't have preexisting conditions (which I already allowed for) and live in a country with decent healthcare (not the US unfortunately, again, so something about that instead of this 20 week rule).

I don't doubt your grip on reality. If you had taken the time to actually read my post - actually read and make an effort to understand what I'm saying - you'd have noticed that. I'm not questioning anyones grip on reality in this case. What I am doing is critisizing a trend where we see the reality of situations but don't accept them, instead trying to bend thing so we can have our cake and eat it. Often this happens at great cost to our moral fibre and future.

I did catch the part about abortion clinics being closed. As I said, I don't agree with this method. Its not effective at preventing abortions in any real way and only does harm, so its a lose - lose thing no matter where you stand. The logical rebuttal however isn't making it so that women can abort their child 28 weeks into pregnancy, its to reopen those clinics. So lobby for that.

Right, so make it more like Germany.

From the last part I gather you're in favor of all the thing I suggested, plus reopening closed clinics, plus removing the 20 week limit? That is quite shocking. First off, if you're never seen an abortion as late as that, catch up. Go look it up on liveleak or whatever, its not hard to find. If you come back without changed feelings you are a very strange human.

Since you're no doubt preparing some kind of "gotcha!" paragraph where you rant about how conservatives usually argue against politics based on feelings or some shit, in the process ignoring everything else in my post and ignoring that I'm not a conservative, heres some more stuff. By week 24, a baby has developed its sex, has hair and nails, the eyes are developed enough to detect light (in other words it can see), the heart is beating, it reacts to noise. Suggesting it is morally sound to abort at this point is ludicrous, especially if all that other stuff you're in favor of is in place.

Look, I get pro-choice, I really do. I know the arguments, I don't think its a clear cut issue, I don't want a blanket ban on abortion, I'm not even sure I know what I'd like the law to look like. But I do know that if you think aborting a 20+ week pregnancy is fine we're not going to find common ground. Good riddance.

renegade7:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

That being said, 20 weeks? Whats the problem with that? Have you seen a pregnant woman at 20 weeks? Have you seen a baby at 20 weeks? 20 weeks is more than half the pregnancy. Has the status quo shifted to the point where some chick can decide "fuck my baby" 2 weeks before birth and its perfectly acceptable?

After 20 weeks, women who seek abortions do so almost exclusively because of emergencies. Furthermore, less than 2% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.

And if the pregnancy was the result of rape, then the burden would fall on the woman to prove that she was raped. Incidentally, Republican state legislatures have recently been slashing funding for rape kit processing, and that's before we take into account the fact that only a small fraction of rapists are actually convicted.

Do you have any sources with solid numbers on that first claim?

The second bit has nothing to do with the topic.

Catnip1024:

altnameJag:
Based on junk science.

Or, you know, ethics.

No, I mean junk science.

And it's unethical to use bad science to try to end around abortion being legal by piling on restrictions to the point abortion is legal in name only. While advocating your mistress get one, as at least one of the fucknuckle "pro-life" co-sponsor has done, while simultaneously allowing funding for a children's health insurance program to expire, leaving 9 million children in a lurch.

altnameJag:
No, I mean junk science.

There's a lot more to the whole debate than a selectively chosen study on whether foetuses can feel pain.

And it's unethical to use bad science to try to end around abortion being legal by piling on restrictions to the point abortion is legal in name only.

Yes, because how will people ever be able to arrange an abortion in the preceding 20 weeks? The inhumanity...

Unless of course you are trying to wrangle other things into the conversation. But that would be completely irrelevant and nothing to do with it, so I'm assuming you aren't doing that.

While advocating your mistress get one, as at least one of the fucknuckle "pro-life" co-sponsor has done, while simultaneously allowing funding for a children's health insurance program to expire, leaving 9 million children in a lurch.

Ah, pointless unconnected ad hominem.

erttheking:

inu-kun:
Snip

With all due respect, Sweeden doesn't have the same political situation that America does. I've yet to see anyone properly address how this issue could be compounded by how the GOP does everything in its power to restrict abortions.

Admit to sexism. Oh yes. I think women should be allowed to do what they want without other people forcing their views on them. How sexist of me. Once again Inu-Kun, learn the difference between criticizing ideas and people saying you aren't allowed to have the idea. I've done nothing but the former and you constantly accuse me of the later. It'll make your life a lot easier when you gain the understanding of the difference between the too.

And I'm guessing you've just conceded to me on all points you didn't address?

...No seriously, I'm sexist for saying women should be allowed to do what they want without other people forcing their views on them? Inu-Kun, what's your definition of sexist?

But it falls flat because you try to go against something that is legit.

No, the sexism comes both from looking at women like they need protection ("white knighting") and entitlemnt to thinking you know what is better for women than actual women. When you write "I do have strong opinions on how women should act and think." you flat out telling you wish to enforce on women your values.

So insted of telling women they should wear dresses and be polite you tell them they should act like and think like and dress it up as they have freedom when in truth you already decided what is "wrong" for them to think.

inu-kun:
Snip

Define your terms. What is "something" in this regard?

So I'm sexist because I disagree with the women who thought that women getting the vote would bad thing, because by your logic, that's me thinking I know what's better for woman than women...oh. I see what you did there. You tried to paint me as thinking I know better than all women. All women. When in reality I'm only disagreeing with some. So tell me Inu-Kun. Whenever a woman talks about an issue around women, I'm supposed to bow to her logic and not question any of it lest I be sexist? And when another woman expresses views utterly opposite to the first woman, I will bow to her logic as well. Because according to you, that's how you aren't sexist. Even though just about every time you talk to a woman about woman's issues on this website you disagree with them, I'm sexist and you're not because moon logic. And Inu-Kun, I'm starting to think that you honestly have no idea how opinions work. When I pointed out that my opinion was that women should do what they want, you somehow made the jump that that meant I, somehow, wanted to enforce my will on women. Uh-huh. At this rate I'm just waiting for this to be made into proof that Free Masons run the country.

I'm sure it seems that way to the Erttheking that exists in your head, who probably rapes puppies and then eats them alive, because you'll come up with any twisted bullshit to paint me as being the bad guy in this situation. I notice a couple of people on this website who keep doing that. When they can't properly format arguments, they just insult me on the filmiest of pretenses. I'm sexist because I have a strong opinion that women should be allowed to do what they want. How desperate are you to make me the bad guy here? If you've gotten this far, that you're making accusations that out there, I think we both know it's because your arguments never had a crooked leg to stand on and you're trying to distract from that.

Not that you'll ever be honest enough to admit it.

altnameJag:
That's exactly, totally, 100% what I'm saying. Dudes already have the easy way out. Condoms are much cheaper, safer, and don't have the side effects of hormone therapy that birth control pills do. And if that's not good enough, snipperthedoodle isn't exactly complicated.

Get a woman preggers, pay for the kid. Rescind all the parental rights you want, but until we have a functional welfare state or cheap and easy access to abortion, you're shit out of luck.

So your entire argument hinges upon the fact it's easier and that men should just "Not sleep around as much" if don't want their genetic material spread?

Huh. Weird, I mean, I figured you'd see the overlap between what you're saying, and what pro-life people have being saying about women for years.

But, I guess the defining factor in if a group gets reproductive rights is economic factors, as opposed to things like human rights or anything.

It's amazing how early babies can survive outside the womb with modern medicine. I think the current record is 22 weeks.

Catnip1024:

altnameJag:
No, I mean junk science.

There's a lot more to the whole debate than a selectively chosen study on whether foetuses can feel pain.

Not when we're talking about the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, there isn't. If these fucks want to outlaw abortion, they can come out and say it. But they can't, because Roe vs Wade, so they use data not backed up by research and try to add extra hurdles every year or so, slowly whittling down access.

Catnip1024:

And it's unethical to use bad science to try to end around abortion being legal by piling on restrictions to the point abortion is legal in name only.

Yes, because how will people ever be able to arrange an abortion in the preceding 20 weeks? The inhumanity...

Shit happens Catnip. Maybe gather dude they were with turns abusive or ghosts. Maybe they have a change of heart. Maybe their life falls apart around them.

You don't know, I don't know. Humans are complicated and messy.

Catnip1024:

Unless of course you are trying to wrangle other things into the conversation. But that would be completely irrelevant and nothing to do with it, so I'm assuming you aren't doing that.

While advocating your mistress get one, as at least one of the fucknuckle "pro-life" co-sponsor has done, while simultaneously allowing funding for a children's health insurance program to expire, leaving 9 million children in a lurch.

Ah, pointless unconnected ad hominem.

So? Pointing out the people pushing this crap are hypocrites is necessary. They don't actually give a shit about a fetus feeling pain.

The Lunatic:

So your entire argument hinges upon the fact it's easier and that men should just "Not sleep around as much" if don't want their genetic material spread?

Huh. Weird, I mean, I figured you'd see the overlap between what you're saying, and what pro-life people have being saying about women for years.

But, I guess the defining factor in if a group gets reproductive rights is economic factors, as opposed to things like human rights or anything.

My entire point of the argument is that women are already shouldering, and are eepected to shoulder, a vast majority of risk involved with childbirth, at every level, and that affords them more leeway on the subject. For reasons of bodily autonomy, if nothing else.

altnameJag:
My entire point of the argument is that women are already shouldering, and are eepected to shoulder, a vast majority of risk involved with childbirth, at every level, and that affords them more leeway on the subject. For reasons of bodily autonomy, if nothing else.

Right, so, Risk defines your rights.

I guess male votes should count as 1.3, as men generally have riskier lives. Or women should get paid less, as they don't do as risky jobs.

The Lunatic:

altnameJag:
My entire point of the argument is that women are already shouldering, and are eepected to shoulder, a vast majority of risk involved with childbirth, at every level, and that affords them more leeway on the subject. For reasons of bodily autonomy, if nothing else.

Right, so, Risk defines your rights.

I guess male votes should count as 1.3, as men generally have riskier lives. Or women should get paid less, as they don't do as risky jobs.

Let me know when people without uterui have a chance of dying during childbirth.

altnameJag:
Let me know when people without uterui have a chance of dying during childbirth.

Let me know when women stop outliving men due to their easier and less stressful lifestyles.

Well, this seems like empyrical proof that the GOP is largely comprised of dicks.

Let women decide, I say. They're the ones who have to carry the child.

Hey guys, check this out. One of the family values/pro-lifers pushing the bill knocked up his mistress and tried to pressure her into having an abortion.

http://www.newsweek.com/abortion-murder-says-representative-who-wants-abort-his-baby-677115

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here