to think America is a frightening place to be a woman right now?

[BornSicky]

Pregnant women facing murder charges

This is bullying at a nightmarish level.

I find it foul and despicable that women are being villified in such a way. How did the Christian right-wing become so powerful?

Truly, truly scary.

How can these bad laws (including the new "inspections" (read closures) of abortion clinics in Kansas) come to be passed? How can they be stopped?

That is horrific, YANBU.

"It may be alive but IT IS NOT A LIFE."

Ooh this will be an interesting distinction - would you care to expand on that?"

Not really. Just my opinion, not interested in a scientific or theological debate.

the foetus may not be a parasite, but it does exhibit parasitic traits (requiring nutrients from its host, unable to survive outside its host)- and whilst it cannot survive outside the human host, then surely the human host should be allowed to make decisions on its behalf? It sure as hell isn't a symbiont in the early stages of pregnancy either - no symbiont would make someone vomit uncontrollably, black out periodically, or stop eating pate.

anyway, the article linked to is horrifying, and I also agree with those who say don't tar all americans with the same brush - there are plenty of fruit loops over there, but also plenty of rational and lovely people. Same as in the UK actually!

"It may be alive but IT IS NOT A LIFE."

A malaria parasite is alive. I would not call it a life though.

A tapeworm is also alive. I would also not call it a life.
And I'm a parasitologist.

Some people here are woefully ignorant about the legal system.

People have rights. Embryos and fetuses are not people. Therefore, they have no rights. End of story.

Right on CoteDAzur!

Embryos have no rights (as far as i know) but foetuses do. They have a right to not be aborted after a certain age in most legal systems.

I am pro abortion when an embryo is effectively a bunch of cells. However, once it is clearly a human being, and possibly a viable one, I am very much against it. Obviously it is within a woman's body and needs that woman to sustain its life but so what? A child needs its parents (or some other responsible adult) to sustain its life too. Set my two year old free on the street outside and see how long he survives. However, I certainly believe he has a right to be cared for and nurtured. The distinction of viability within the body and out of it is an artificial one. There are three perspectives.

1/ All life is precious from conception and no one has a right to terminate it.

2/ No life is precious and parents can do what they want to their children until they are fully viable (aged maybe 10-13).

3/ We have to make a tough moral decision on a cut off point, weighing the woman's rights against the foetus and/or infant.

I subscribe to the third perspective. Where that cut off point is is up for debate but birth does not feel right to most people, nor does conception, except for a religious minority.

Swallowed,

I have no problems with the abortion laws in this country. Personally, I would like to see the limit reduced to somewhere between 18 and 20 weeks, except for exceptional cases (abnormalities etc).

I have a problem with the line some take that a woman should be able to have an abortion up to the day of birth.

SAF my "problem", though I guess it'd be more a concern, is the notion that abortion should be allowed up til birth. And I also find in infuriating that women have to choose when men don't.

not treading new ground in this eternal debate but we don't have unlimited control over our bodies, for example you can't decide to sell a kidney in this country and even a donation goes through very strict processes.

also let's not even start talking about "clumps of cells" because embryos are in that state for only literally a matter of days. there's a heartbeat well before many women know they're pregnant (6 weeks, or rather 2 weeks after missed period).

"And I also find in infuriating that women have to choose when men don't."

And that's the true problem, right in one little sentence.

Until and if we get truly tough about men taking responsibility for their offspring, women are in this alone.

How many single parents are there on MN alone where they never hear from the father of their children? Or where the men hide money, restrict time, etc because they don't want the responsibility or because they are just ass-holes?

And that's not a UK issue. That's a 1st world issue. I cannot speak for the 3rd world, but certainly US and UK are equal in this. A man can spray sperm around like their penis is a hose and damn the consequences and the women bear the brunt of that.

A huge catalyst for the sexual revolution was, of course, The Pill. Secondary to that should have been laws where fatherhood was concerned. It's where, IMHO, the feminists have dropped the ball. And yes, I have fought, in the US, to change those laws, even though they don't affect me in the least. I haven't done anything in the UK as I am not a citizen and do not have the right to vote.

I still believe that the law should allow women to choose to terminate a pregnancy right up to the moment of birth, for any reason they choose.
and if you don't agree with that, you are an idiot.
Because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU what other women choose to do with their lives and their bodies. It's not up to other people. It's particularly not up to stupid superstitious men, or sentimental bucketheads - why not save your energy for working to improve the lives of born children, like the ones starving in the famine-wrecked countries of the developing world, or those dying from diseases that could easily be cured if there wasn't an acute shortage of funds for their treatment? Why not, indeed, get involved with campaigns and fundraising for better maternity care? Or economic equality for women so that fewer of those who might want to terminate a pregnancy because they feel they can't afford another child, would do so?

But anti-choice activists carry on whining and slobbering about the unborn. Foetus-worship is not about 'saving lives' at all, it's about romanticising your own noble self and exercising your nasty attitudes about women (the anti-choice perspective is alsways that if women are allowed to obtain abortions, the'll all be rushing out to have them all the time, because women are so uncontrollably evil and morally incontinent and not at all trustworthy) and demonstrating that actually, you're pretty sexually dysfunctional.

I'm not an idiot for not thinking that it's all right to choose to terminate for any reason up til birth. Why is a 40 week fetus less able to have life than a baby born at 37 weeks? And I do care very much about born people, and I do give time, energy, and money to all the causes you've mentioned.

I do not have nasty attitudes toward women and I am not sexually dysfunctional. I'm not sure where that comes into play. I'm simply uncomfortable with the notion that it's fine to stop the heart of a being who would survive outside of the womb. And I've never "slobbered" over anything in my life.

SCGB - you clearly are completely incapable of joining in a discussion or debate without being extremist/rude or insulting. Silly woman. If you could present your points in a more reasonable manner they might actually be worth reading.

SGB, you are an idiot if you don't get that insulting people does nothing for whatever cause you're claiming to espouse, but just massages your sense of superiority. It's more than a little ironic that someone who argues for people to make their own decisions, think their own issues through and decide for themselves sets up her own opinions as the only valid ones. Keep stroking SGB if you must, but be aware the rest of us find it distasteful.

Like CheerfulYank, I'm reluctant pro-choicer. I'd rather no one had an abortion, or needed to. But that's not the world we live in.

I often see these debates framed as the life of the woman v the life of the foetus. And apart form the odd loon it's always the woman's life that's prioritised. Proper order, of course. But it's not always life v life, is it? It's often health v life, or convenience v life. That's the real crux, where do you draw that line.

that's the point I was trying to make, SAF, that it's about a hierarchy of rights.
Woman's life trumps foetus life - Fair enough.
Woman's desire to wear bikini (to pick a totally stupid, never be used 'example') trumps 39wk gestation baby's life - No, I would suspect most people would say.
Woman's desire to keep man who wants sons only, happy vs female foetus life - No again, in a perfect world.
Obviously using hypothetical examples.
The pro lifers deem a viable foetus to be a person, and those who are powerless need to be protected. I'd agree with that view.

Now I know that 99.99999% of those who opt for a late abortion are doing it for the most heartbreaking reasons, they're very rare also. But in case there's one who isn't, well that 'baby' should be protected.

It's an awful complicated situation. You're right it's a conflict of rights.

...trails off...

Considering that the woman will actually have to give birth in a late term abortion and the baby would survive unless it was killed in utero then I think it can definitely not be simplified to 'the woman's choice' at that stage. She can choose not to continue growing it (early induction/section) without actually killing it. It is no longer dependent on her for survival so it really should not be her choice to kill what would otherwise be a living baby.

That article reminds me of the attitude in the Salem witch trials. Plus ca change.

Sinicalsal: But if this hypothetical evil selfish bitch who would terminate a healthy pregnancy at 39 weeks just to look good for her hot date or whatever actually exists.... is that really a reason for restricting the rights of every other woman in the world to decide what happens in her life and to her body? What business is is of yours, really? THe number of terminations that take place after about 20 weeks is tiny and nearly all of those are for medical reasons: to demand more and more restrictions on women's ability to obtain an abortion has to be starting from the standpoint that lots of women are wicked, selfish and stupid and it is only the active intervention of men Society that stops them all aborting all over the place for No Good Reason. That's what I mean by antichoicers being misogynists: they can't accept the idea that women are capable of making decisions for themselves. THey can't accept the idea that women should be able to make decisions for themselves.