Amendment 62 Arguments Get Stranger and Stranger


Colorado Personhood is pushing hard in the last weeks of its campaign to confer the full rights of a human being on a fertilized egg.  And as the campaign continues, the news that comes from Colorado just gets more bizarre.

First the Amendment 62 people announced that not giving personhood to eggs was akin to slavery.  Now, the rhetoric has been upped even higher, as the leader of the movement states that using the phrase “fertilized egg” is as derogatory as a racial slur.

Via KRDO Colorado Springs:

“I think it’s important to note with the term fertilized egg, that’s the same thing as using the N word for an African American,” said [Keith Mason, the President for Personhood U.S.A.] “Because it’s a dehumanizing term and it’s not based in science. The term would be a zygote, or an embryo, speaking of a unique individual.”

Meanwhile, a Colorado newspaper headline claims that opponents of giving legal rights to fertilized eggs are only against it because it would “kill romance.”

TOWN SQUARE: Personhood foes say measure would kill romance

Foes of Amendment 62 were in Colorado Springs on Thursday with a new take on an old amendment.

Backers of the “personhood” measure say they’re fighting abortion by “protecting human life from the beginning of biological development.” To do that, the amendment would change the state constitution to define fetuses as persons.

Opponents say that method to fight abortion, though, would ban most forms of birth control, causing couples to choose between more diapers or less cuddling.

The opponent’s theory: IUDs and some common birth control pills stop fertilized eggs from attaching to uterine walls, making them illegal if that egg is constitutionally defined as a person.

Why yes, I know my biggest issue with the idea of giving non-implanted, fertilized eggs the same rights and equivalency as a fully formed, born and active outside of the womb human being is that I am concerned that it will be more difficult to get in the mood.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • invalid-0

    I think the better question is why anyone would persist in using the term “egg” anymore.  It’s a technical inaccuracy, as the it ceases to be an egg once fertilized.  It’s like referring to water as “melted ice”.  

     

    The new zygote, which contains DNA from both parents, then “constitutes the first stage in a unique organism’s development” (Wikipedia). 

     

    Our side is attempting to advertise to the world the real humanity of the zygote.  It’s a human.  That’s OUR MAIN POINT.  Therefore, the better question is why your side is so insistent on maintaining the “egg” label.  The truth is, we both recognize the importance of using the correct term – you just like to avoid it because you then have to admit that what we’re actually talking about here is not some feminine discharge, but the first stage of a human life.

     

    Bottom line – the ONLY good reason to use the term “fertilized egg” (as we established, it’s a bogus term) – and to INSIST on continuing to use it (despite more accurate, less scientifically silly, terms being available) – is to have an agenda.  The purpose, of course, is to dehumanize the object of your speech… a human.  That, friend, is a derogatory slur.

  • mechashiva

    Eh, I could see there being an argument for using “fertilized egg” rather than zygote if the assumption is that the audience doesn’t understand the difference between a zygote, a blastocyst, and an embryo. I agree, though, that it’s a technical inaccuracy that should be discouraged. If people don’t understand the differences, they should be educated as to what they are.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Do anti-choicers think about the repercussion of their actions? If 62 passes it will be a legal nightmare. The Colorado Bar Assoc. and the Colorado Women’s Bar Assoc. have denounced amendment 62 as “Bad law, bad policy, a legal nightmare.” Amendment 62 would impact more than 20,000 state and local statutes, complicating property rights, inheritance rights, and more.

    “Almost every area of law would be impacted, including criminal law, family law, trusts and estates, real estate, elder law, tort law, juvenile law, health law and business law,” said Andrew Toft, representing the 17,000-member Colorado Bar Association, which includes three-fourths of the state’s licensed attorneys.

    “The word ‘person’ appears more than 20,000 times in the Colorado Revised Statutes and in Colorado regulations and municipal ordinances,” Toft continued. “To redefine the term ‘person’, as Amendment 62 proposes, would effectively amend all of the statutes in Colorado that contain that term. Furthermore, the jurisprudence which has developed in defining the term would have to be revisited as a result of the proposed amendment.”

    Said Denver attorney Kevin Paul: “Federal law has already settled the issue – the word “person” for purposes of the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution does not include fertilized eggs. Amendment 62 would thus put Colorado on a costly collision course with decades of federal precedent.”

     

    If 62 is passed it would;

    * Ban all abortions, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the pregnant woman’s life.

    * Outlaw birth control other than “barrier methods.” Hormonal/device birth control can prevent the implantation of an egg.
    * Restrict health care. A pregnant woman with cancer could be refused chemotherapy, because such treatment might put the embryo at risk. 
    * Criminalize miscarriage. Because everything a pregnant woman does or does not do affects pregnancy outcome, any miscarriage could be investigated as a homicide or as manslaughter.

     

     

     

  • crowepps

     The purpose, of course, is to dehumanize the object of your speech… a human.

    So you would be totally okay with it so long as the phrase used was “human fertilized egg”?

     

    The average person is grossly ignorant of the facts of reproduction and has no idea what a ‘zygote’ is or why a ‘blastocyst’ is different or how many ‘zygotes’ can’t make the grade to BECOME blastocysts and are flushed by the body or what event triggers the graduation to ‘embryo’.  Using commonly understood terms (like ‘miscarriage’ instead of ‘spontaneous abortion’) is an attempt to describe the issues in terms the average person can actually understand.

     

    I find the protestations that such a law won’t have any effect at all on birth control disengenous at best when there is plenty of ProLife literature out there and lots of doctors and pharmacists who insist that hormonal birth control IS abortion.  Of COURSE such a law will also ban birth control, that’s part of the reason they want it passed.

     

    Lying about the actual effect of the law is stupid — after it has passed and birth control has been outlawed don’t you think people are going to catch on?  And protest?  And get the law reversed?  I suppose alternatively the illegal drug dealers could just add a new product line, as was common in Italy before the politicians started ignoring the Vatican.

  • prochoicekatie

    Frankly, I think “beginning of biological development,” which is the language they’re using, is innappropriate and incorrect medical terminology.

    More so than fertilized egg (or ovum).

    So if they concede and say conception or fertilization then I’d actually believe their commitment to medical terminology being used exclusively (or even intermittently). 

    Furthermore, using official terminology in the law, as opposed to in your explanations of the law to wide audiences seems much more important to me.

    As it stands, though, they officially can’t use accurate language, because they did two years ago and their amendment failed to pass.

  • invalid-0

    Frankly, I think “beginning of biological development,” which is the language they’re using, is innappropriate and incorrect medical terminology.

    I respectfully disagree.  Certainly, “life” is a fluid concept and there’s no “beginning” or “end” of life in the sense of continuous development and growth over time.  The sperm and the egg that formed the human began developing before fertilization, just as the components of those existed before they did.  I agree with that.  But the very clear point here is that – when fertilization occurs – there is no more egg.  There was no human being before.  Now there is.  The zygote (or “fertilized egg”, if you will) is the first stage of life of a new and whole creature, a separate and unique human being.  To refer to that time as the “beginning of biological development” seems hardly inaccurate, even misleading, to me.

    This is an important distinction because pro-lifers are often accused of wanting to give “eggs” rights.  We don’t.  We want to give the rights to “humans”.  Obviously, the potential for play on words here is huge.  Once fertilization occurs, the latter is the more (actually the only) accurate term to use.

  • invalid-0

    So you would be totally okay with it so long as the phrase used was “human fertilized egg”?

    Not really.  Because your use of the word ‘human’ there is as an adjective.  You still refer to it as a fertilized egg, but describe it as human – perhaps to distinguish it from a monkey fertilized egg.

    But again, still insistent on using the ‘fertilized egg’ term for some reason.  A zygote is no more a fertilized egg than you or I am.  I was never an egg.  Just as I was never a “fused sperm”.  An entity cannot be both a human and an egg.  Now, I WAS a zygote at some point.  As were you crowepps.

     

    If I remember correctly, it has never been the contention of the bulk of the pro-choice movement to even bother fighting this fight.  Your strongest points are to focus on the rights of the woman and concede the humanity of the ZBEF’s.  

     

    Maybe you don’t.  If you don’t concede that the zygote is indeed a first-stage human, then please let me know where you believe we are wrong on this.  However, if you concede the humanity argument and continue to play the “fertilized egg” game, you’re officially playing games with words in my mind.  To admit that something is a human being, and then refuse to call it by that name is exactly the point of that the pro-lifers above make when they call out those people that use the term.  You are “dehumanizing” the object of our discussion.

     

    To be fair, I really try to refrain from using the term “killing babies”. I don’t think that’s a fair description, and it over-exaggerates our point.  There, we play word games.  I do refer to the unborn as “he” or “she” when applicable.  I think that’s fair game.  Am I off my rocker here?

  • invalid-0

    To be clear, there IS NO uniform treatment of the unborn in ANY state.  Gifts can be bequeathed to existing, unborn children in many states.  Many states have fetal homicide laws.  If a mother takes drugs during pregnancy in many states, the child may later sue the mother for damage that causes.

     

    I agree that any such amendment would have a huge impact, but no more than any amendment declaring them NOT to be persons.  You have advocates on both sides.  Except our side is in the red zone, going for the touchdown in Colorado.

  • crowepps

     If you don’t concede that the zygote is indeed a first-stage human, then please let me know where you believe we are wrong on this.

    I will agree that all humans persons started off as human zygotes but you are overlooking the fact that not all zygotes created during human reproduction are biologically complete and capable of becoming human persons.

     

    Due to errors in meiosis and fertilization (for instance, two sperm fertilizing one ‘egg’) some zygotes cannot progress to blastocyst at all and some can progress only abnormally because the appropriate chromosomal ‘recipe for human person’ has become garbled.

     

    From what I understand, a MAJORITY of zygotes fall into the category of ‘failed attempt’ and while most of these errors are discarded naturally by the body through flushing or spontaneous abortion, in cases of gross malformation, molar pregnancy, etc., the resulting ‘human but not a person’ must be removed to save the woman’s life/health for future attempts.

     

    Having been pregnant myself in the past, I certainly understand the sentimental impulse to believe that every single attempt at reproduction is ‘a baby’ however my known 50% failure rate has left me pragmatic.  I’m old enough to remember when no one announced their pregnancy until after quickening in the third month because until that point, you couldn’t be sure it had ‘taken’.

     

    Most fertilizations fail to create a ‘human person’ who is born alive and stays that way for an appreciable time.  The only ‘human’ involved in the pregnancy biologically proven as a successful attempt at creating a ‘person’ is the woman herself.

  • squirrely-girl

    Except our side is in the red zone, going for the touchdown in Colorado.

    Just curious if you REALLY believe this or are engaging in some wishful thinking? 

  • crowepps

    If the voters are provided with honest information about the likely ‘huge impact’ it seems to me they will block you from the ‘red zone’, as happened the LAST  time your ‘simple answer’ was rejected.

    “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” H.L. Mencken

     

  • plume-assassine

    I think there is a difference between biologically human and a person/being. Science has nothing to say about personhood because it is a philosophical concept. Actually, the “personhood of embryo” belief is almost always a religious belief and thus has absolutely no place in US law. Even if science somehow stepped into the domain of philosophy, and claimed that an embryo is a “person,” it would not matter. Bodily autonomy is still more important.

     

    Personhood USA self-identifies more with embryos than the suffering and life circumstances of women. What they are seeking to do is incredibly dehumanizing to a group of people — women — because such a law would reduce them to objects (incubators). Unlike the status of a z/b/e/f, the personhood status of woman is not debatable.

  • forced-birth-rape

    Thank you la plume assassine, I like your name it is to cute.

  • plume-assassine

    And thanks, I like your name as well; I agree 100% with it. I also really like your comments on this site, because you bring to light the real-life, raw emotional impact of reproductive justice issues. Too often, people over-intellectualize the struggle and turn it into an abstract philosophy debate, and we forget how these issues impact people on a deep, personal level. Keep it up!

  • crowepps

     Because your use of the word ‘human’ there is as an adjective.

     

    you’re officially playing games with words

    Have to say, objecting to a word because it’s an adjective and then accusing the OTHER person of “playing games with words” is semantics at its most picky!

  • crowepps

    I’d note that corpses are also “biologically human” and nobody asserts THEY have ‘rights’.

  • davewise

    me again, I don’t post a lot but sometimes there is a thread that just begs for it, the BRAIN is the seat of the human soul, eggs, zygotes, all the way until the neural tube closes at around 23 weeks, there is NO brain activity, ZERO ZILCH NADA! even then brain activity is so weak that it could not under the broadest of terms be considered thought! If you believe for whatever non-medical reasons that a THING with no brain waves is “human” then be prepared for a whole new problem, we harvest organs from braindead people every day to save lives, why? BECAUSE THEY’RE DEAD! sure they’re “Technically” alive but the part that makes them human is gone, we are more than cells, we are our minds! and to derail the next argument, medical science (I’m an OR Nurse) does NOT Deal with possibility or probability, the only important question is what is the egg/zygote/embryo NOW? (a question I answered above, until Thought occurs, that spark that separates us from insects, it is a lump of flesh, nothing more)

  • forced-birth-rape

    Thank you Davewise!

  • julie-watkins

    corpses are also “biologically human” and nobody asserts THEY have ‘rights’.

    Just because a corpse is dead/brain-dead doesn’t mean a hospital can harvest organs or even corneas if the the pre-dead person didn’t have an organ donation card signed. I think the family can give permission only if there’s no advance directive.

  • plume-assassine

    A better example would be a tumor. Biologically human, with its own unique DNA. Some can even grow teeth and hair. But… not a person. And, of course, the argument would be that a z/b/e/f could become a person, and a tumor cannot. However, science does not deal in potentials, possibilities, (or philosophy), as Davewise commented.

    • bj-survivor
      • hydatidiform moles
      • choriocarcinoma
      • tetragametic chimera in which two unique zygotes/blastocysts fuse to form one individual. Oh noes! Is it two persons in one body?
      • fetus in fetu
      • parasitic twins
      • unable to live outside the womb (various and sundry errors in construction and genetic anomaly – too many to list here)
      • spontaneously aborted
  • arekushieru

    Actually, for those who lived and died in your country to defend freedom and endured shame, stigma and isolation to defend the right to vote, there would certainly be MORE impact by declaring fetuses ‘persons’.

  • arekushieru

    BJ Survivor did an excellent analysis of this on the Ordaining a Woman… thread.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Except our side is in the red zone, going for the touchdown in Colorado.

    “Nice” metaphor, a ‘touchdown’ scoring, going all the way. Winning, vanquishing your enemy. Wow, how misogynistic of you.

    Anyway, I digress. What do you propose arex? If 62 is passed, will women who leave the state to have an abortion be charged with a crime? If they leave the state will they be extradited to face trial? Will all miscarriages be investigated? Will all pregnant women be mandated to give birth? How would this be enforced? If they fail to give birth will it be investigated? Will the right outlaw birth control pills and infertility treatments? Will octomom be banned?

    Sure, good luck with this passing, and good luck enforcing it.

  • princess-rot

    In lieu of futuristic techonology to ritualistically scan women to see if there is an egg-person present, our current pregnancy identifying tools don’t detect pregnancy until implantation, when the body itself starts releasing Hcg – the medical point of pregnancy.

     

    So what are we meant to do? Treat all women and girls from menarche to menopause as potential criminals if not currently pregnant and as murder suspects if she fails to “produce” a live infant on time? Routinely test all fertile women and girls and impose a tax on nulliparous women like in Ceausescu’s Romania?

     

    We are livestock to them.

     

    This is about “life”, it isn’t about “babies” – it’s about being suspected of sexual activity and receiving a proper punishment for it, like FBIR says, the punishment is pain and being forced to remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. The child is a handy cipher for this agenda, people will swallow sweet-sounding stuff about “saving babies” and not examine any furthur. Notice that men get off scot free, unsurprisingly. I’ve been tossing around an idea that I may write in full about later – if they were truly pro-life, they’d have identified that the cause of all the “problems” with promiscuity and abortion lies with men and sperm.

     

    In that case, it would be truly pro-life to have mass castration of males and removal of sexual desire, possibly by a microchip implanted in the brain. This law would make no exception for health, race, creed, age, ability, class or sexual orientation or activity – like women under fertilized-eggs-are-people laws, every male would be a suspect IRRESPONSIBLE BABY-CREATOR. Men would have to apply for a license to have the procedures temporarily reversed to engage in procreative-only sex with carefully vetted women in a monitored environment. The restrictions would be put back immediately after a fertilized egg is achieved, regardless of gestational success.

     

    We could save the babies before they are created, and kill off a lot of promiscuity. Use of abortion and birth control would end overnight. We could tell little boys that once they are out of the womb, they have no right to bodily autonomy anymore, because their sex organs are dirty and should be hated and feared, like we do with little girls. I’m sure real pro-life men wouldn’t object to the mass social coercion, political tyranny, medical rape and discrimination nescessary to achieve this aim. After all, we’re only saving lives that are actually important.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Dear Readers,

     

    I want to point out that we deliberately use the term “fertilized egg” at RH Reality Check and feel justified in doing so for several reasons.  And let me point out that we do NOT use Wikipedia as a source for anything.

     

    First is the fact that language has an enormous effect on the public debate and the anti-choice community has persistently and consistently mis-used, misrepresented and twisted facts, terminology, and acts. A zygote is a fertilized egg is a zygote.  period.  These are one and the same.  the implications of the law and the current state of knowledge of the public is such that being as basic as possible about accurate terms is essential, especially in the face of such dangerous laws.

     

    Second is the fact that the use of misleading terms, concepts and arguments by the anti-choice community writ large and persons such as Arex have profound implications for the rights and lives of living, breathing human beings–women.

     

    Given that the public engages in these issues at a very broad and emotional level and that the right wing media machine is so effective at spinning “truth” out of lies, we feel more than justified in calling this what it is: An attempt to confer full human rights on a fertilized egg.

     

    When a sperm and egg join you have a fertilized egg.  Medically, you do not have either a pregnancy until the fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterine lining.  The fact that it is also called a zygote is really irrelevant because these are the same thing.

     

    Experts in the field of medicine and social science agree:

     

    From Guttmacher (emphasis below added by me):

    The question of when life begins is an eternal one, debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries, and likely destined to forever elude consensus. However, on the separate but closely related question of when a woman is considered pregnant, the medical community has long been clear: Pregnancy is established when a fertilized egg has been implanted in the wall of a woman’s uterus. The definition is critical to distinguishing between a contraceptive that prevents pregnancy and an abortifacient that terminates it. And on this point, federal policy has long been both consistent and in accord with the scientists: Drugs and devices that act before implantation prevent, rather than terminate, pregnancy.

    At the state level, however, definitions of pregnancy—generally, as part of larger measures enacted to regulate abortion or prescribe penalties for assaulting a pregnant woman—vary widely. Some of these laws say that pregnancy begins at fertilization, others at implantation. Several use the term “conception,” which is often used synonymously with fertilization but, medically, is equated with implantation.

    To date, none of these laws has been used to restrict access to the array of hormonal contraceptive methods that can sometimes act between fertilization and implantation, but such restrictions are a long-standing goal of at least some antiabortion and anticontraception activists. And although attempts to legislatively impose the belief that pregnancy begins at fertilization have been repeatedly (sometimes narrowly) rebuffed—most recently by Congress in 1998—the current debate over emergency contraception has moved the issue back to center stage once again.

     

    From the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

    When a sperm and egg join you have a fertilized egg.  Medically, you do not have either a pregnancy or conception until the fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterine lining.

    A portion of the statement by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists on Amendment 62 follows:

     

    Summary of Colorado ACOG Perspective (detailed discussion below)

     Medical and scientific evidence as represented by current peer-reviewed journals, reference texts, and medical/scientific curriculum, are not consistent with Amendment 62.

     

    1. The phrase “the beginning of biologic development” is vague terminology that is not typically used in embryology or other medical/scientific fields to define embryologic development.  “The beginning of biologic development” does not refer to any specific point in the process of human reproduction. The standard definition of conception is the fertilization of an egg by a sperm.

     

    1. The growth of an egg and sperm into a newborn baby is an extremely complex process; the majority of fertilized eggs (egg and sperm that have joined together) do not develop into a newborn baby.  There is clear evidence published in peer reviewed journals that the majority of fertilized eggs will not implant in the human uterus and will not result in a live birth. In normal, fertile couples, as many as 70% of fertilized eggs do not implant into the uterine wall, and 15% of documented pregnancies (via positive pregnancy test and/or ultrasound showing a pregnancy) result in a spontaneous miscarriage.

     

    3.      Current medical and scientific practices/procedures that involve the term “person” as defined by Amendment 62, and would be banned or highly regulated if Amendment 62 was to be adopted:

    o    In vitro fertilization

    o    Treatment of spontaneous miscarriage

    o    Treatment of ectopic pregnancy

    o    Treatment of molar pregnancy

    o    Embryonic stem cell research

    o    Safe, legal abortion for any reason (elective, fetal anomaly, pregnancy due to rape or incest)

     

     

    Additional Information: Further Discussion and References

     

    1.      The phrase “the beginning of biologic development” is not a scientific or medical reference point in the process of human reproduction. Developmental Biology is a scientific field that studies the mechanisms of development, differentiation, and growth in animals and plants at the molecular, cellular, and genetic levels.  Developmental biology includes the study of embryology and the complex factors involved in human reproduction which leads to the birth of a human being.  “The beginning of biologic development” has no specific meaning in the context of human embryology and could even refer to the growth of specific human cell lines, for example, in the study of human transplant possibilities and the cure for diseases such as diabetes and spinal cord injuries.

     

    2.      Human reproduction (briefly described as the development of egg and sperm, their union into a fertilized egg (or zygote), then division of the embryo and differentiation into a blastocyst, implantation into the uterine wall, and then growth into a fetus, and then viable newborn) is an intricate and inefficient process.  The overwhelming majority of potential egg-sperm unions do not result in human beings.  The statistics to support the complicated nature of human reproduction include:

    a.       It is estimated that 30%-70% of eggs that are fertilized by sperm fail to implant within the uterine wall.[i] These pre-implanted embryos have been shown to demonstrate a high percentage of chromosomal and developmental abnormalities.  In normal fertile couples who are having regular, timed sexual intercourse, it can take up to 6 months to conceive.

    b.       15% of documented pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)[ii]. The loss of a pregnancy can occur at any stage of pregnancy from early implantation to after visualization of fetal cardiac activity. 

    c.        1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies.[iii] Ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg does not travel to the uterus and instead implants in the fallopian tube.  In the U.S., ectopic pregnancy is the leading cause of pregnancy related death in the first trimester.

    d.       Molar pregnancy occurs in 1/1,000 to 1/1,500 pregnancies.  Molar pregnancies occur when a sperm fertilizes an abnormal egg.  Approximately 20 percent of patients will develop malignant sequelae requiring administration of chemotherapy after initial treatment.[iv]

     

    And if you think that these folks are not after organ donation, think again and read this.

     

    With best wishes, Jodi Jacobson

     

     

  • paul-bradford

    …for your cogent explanation of why those of us who are fighting for justice for the unborn are opposed to the use of the term “fertilized egg”.  I think it makes plenty of sense to use the term ‘zygote’ to refer to the bodies of people who are just beginning their development.  

     

    Would somebody like to offer a reason not to use the term zygote?

  • invalid-0

    Yes, and a lot of toddlers are incapable of growing to adulthood also.  I had a cousin who was born with a birth defect and was not going to be able to live more than a few days.  I just don’t understand why “failure rate” is relevant to the discussion.  Low chance of survival makes you more killable?

  • invalid-0

    “Nice” metaphor, a ‘touchdown’ scoring, going all the way. Winning, vanquishing your enemy. Wow, how misogynistic of you.

    It’s only misogynistic of me if my goal were to oppress women, rather than protect the unborn.  Sorry for the “offensive” sports analogy…

     If 62 is passed, will women who leave the state to have an abortion be charged with a crime? 

     If they leave the state will they be extradited to face trial? 

    I hope so.

    Will all miscarriages be investigated? 

    I don’t see why – people die everyday without there being an investigation into their death.

    Will all pregnant women be mandated to give birth?

    If they can become “un-pregnant” another way without killing the child, they could do that.

     How would this be enforced? If they fail to give birth will it be investigated? 

    See above.

    Will the right outlaw birth control pills and infertility treatments? 

    Only if they act as abortifacents.

  • invalid-0

    You have to admit that passing this would be a pretty big victory, yes?

  • forced-birth-rape

    Pro-choice is not causing women vaginal pain against their will, but like those who sell sex-slaves pro-lifers say to the woman, this is what you are for, you are just a “CUNT!” to bad if you dont like it, get use to it. It hurts to have your vagina used against your will, physically and emotionally.

  • colleen

    You have to admit that passing this would be a pretty big victory, yes?

     

    That was not the question. You appear to be claiming you believe this bill will pass. People here were asking if this is something you actually believe.

     

     

     

  • cc

    Those who oppose a woman’s right to choose object to tax dollars being spent on abortion. Well excuse me, but how about tax dollars being spent on litigating and jailing women who exercise their right to bodily autonomy – which will be abolished by the personhood amendment. Does Arex really hope that women will actually be extradited back to Colorado for criminal prosecution!? What kind of sick mind actually thinks like that. But back to the “fiduciary” aspect. Our jails are already overcrowded and Arex wants to add to the prison population? Wow. This personhood thing is something out of the “Handmaidens Tale” which portrays a world in which all women of child bearing age must bear children – or be deemed gender criminals. But then is the “pro-life” movement which sees women as incubators and chattel. And here’s another thought. If personhood begins with conception then shouldn’t all pregnant women be charged for “two” when eating at restaurants or buying tickets for events or transporation? Why isn’t the blood, expelled in a miscarriage, baptized? And why don’t our birth certificates have our date of conception? And if the birth control pills, that cause abortions, are banned in Colorado, women will be able to get them in surrounding states or even over the internet. Don’t these jokers realize this?

    • bj-survivor

      And why don’t “pro-lifers” hold funerals for tampons and maxi-pads? After all, a “very young human” could be contained therein, and we typically hold funerals for deceased humans, right?

  • colleen

    Well excuse me, but how about tax dollars being spent on litigating and jailing women who exercise their right to bodily autonomy

     

    They will only jail women who cannot afford lawyers. I’m sure that the Catholic church will start up some sort of forced labor camps modeled on the Magdelene laundries.

     

    I often think about the Handmaid’s tale when I read the folks who post here. Margaret Atwood understands what happens when religion is corrupted by power.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Well at least you’re honest about wanting to FORCE women to give birth. Yep, that’s misogynistic. How much money do you think it will cost to to enforce this? It will be tied up in the courts forever. How much would it cost for women to be extradited back to Colorado for criminal prosecution? I’ll answer that for you, LOTS of money. But hey it’s their tax dollars they’re pissing away. I can just see it now, jails filled with women that exercised their constitutional right to their bodily autonomy. Oh, and how would they know who’s pregnant? Random pregnancy tests for all fertile women? How would that be enforced? Or would they have spies that would watch for signs of pregnancy?
    Good luck with outlawing birth control pills in Colorado. That is seriously funny. Do you know how many women are on the pill? This amendment is a joke. Not only is it unconstitutional and illegal, it’s demeaning to women, and downright misogynistic.

  • forced-birth-rape

    Pro-lifers are the christian taliban, I am extremely scared of them. christians have became so abhorrent, I would rather die then condone their sadomasochistic crap.

  • plume-assassine

    I just don’t understand why “failure rate” is relevant to the discussion.  Low chance of survival makes you more killable?

    I don’t think you understand the concept of pregnancy. A toddler “incapable of growing to adulthood” or a newborn with a birth defect are born, biologically independent people. A human zygote is not a sentient being and certainly does not qualify as a person. We are talking about failure rates because most fertilized eggs don’t make it; they don’t implant in the uterine lining, and therefore the woman is not considered by the medical community to even be pregnant in the first place. Spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) can happen even without the knowledge of the woman. In just such an event, no rational person would argue that “somebody” had just died. Amendment 62, among other things, would go so far as to treat miscarriages as suspicious and criminalize women who use contraception. This is going on right now in other nations. The unenlightened see the continued development of an embryo as more important than the real life circumstances and suffering of women.

     

    And we already know that you want to put innocent women in jail. Sickening. 1 in 3 American women will have an abortion in their lifetime. You might not know it, but somebody close to you could have chosen to have an abortion. It could be your mother, sister, girlfriend, wife, best friend… it doesn’t matter. And I bet you know women who use hormonal contraception, too. About 820,000 US women have had an abortion. And many more have spontaneous miscarriages. You want to put that many women in jail for having control over the reproductive functioning/future of their bodies?

  • mechashiva

    Those are all great points. I also remembered that all the cells are still contained within the zona pellucida until after implantation, as well. So, it’s still the same volume of material as the egg was, and it is contained within the egg’s protective jacket until it “hatches” out following implantation. It sure as heck is more egg-like than person-like.

     

    So, yeah, I retract my statement. Honestly, “fertilized egg” is the simplest lay-man’s descriptor up until implantation actually occurs.

  • bj-survivor

    that forced-birthers couldn’t get any more idiotic, along comes Personhood USA. Good grief! How can calling something what it is, unless one is using profanity, ever be considered a slur?

  • bj-survivor

    is patently asinine.

     

    Might as well claim that bacteria are animals. /eyeroll

  • prochoicekatie

    I am truly disgusted with individuals who believe that methods of birth control that affect implantation are abortifacients. The simple and clear explanation for why pregnancy (and therefore abortion – the act of ending a pregnancy) must begin with implantation is twofold. First, a woman can’t know that’s she is pregnant until implantation occurs. Therefore laws that affect what a woman can and can’t do while she’s pregnant (including ending a pregnancy) can’t take effect until the woman is aware of the pregnancy. This is relevant. Laws that give rights to zygotes/fertilized eggs (I’ve said both now, so no complaints) would create a standard of acceptable behavior for women who are unaware that standard applies to them. 

    Secondly, the medical community agrees that pregnancy begins with implantation. If you insist that I have no rights to my body once a blastocyst attaches, I have the right to do everything I damn well can to prevent that from occurring. Until it is actually sucking nutrients from my body, I should have some autonomy, right? 

    NOPE, not according to personhood.

    And lastly, just to clarify (and entertain a truly absurd hypothetical) – traveling to another state wouldn’t be illegal. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. If I go there, pay to have sex, and come home, I am not arrested. States can’t dictate what is allowed or not in other states (i.e. write laws for other states).

    If I go to Iowa and get myself a homosexual marriage, the state I am in may choose not to recognize it (which is truly stupid, because in all other situations states do have to recognize other states’ marriages) but they certainly wouldn’t be able to arrest my partner and me upon us returning.

    Arex, despite your ‘hope’ to restrict the rights of all women, you won’t with this law. Nope, it would just restrict the rights of Colorado women while in Colorado. 

    Perhaps lastly, there is a distinct difference between saying that something is living that posesses human DNA and has the ability to become a fully autonomous citizen begins with fertilization and saying that something is a person with rights under the law and this begins at fertilization. Many rights are dependent on age and I have no problem with telling 15 years olds they can’t drink or drive and telling zygotes they can only live in me and take nutrients from my body if I want them to. If life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights we bestow to all persons, it is wholly inappropriate to take those rights from people (women) who already have them so that zygotes (not autonomous persons as they are completely dependent on the survival of their host) can have them.

  • robin-marty

    personhood usa doesn’t care that much if it passes. It’s like Prop 2 in Alaska — the point of ballot initiatives aren’t to pass them, but to drive up the republican base’s turnout to help their candidates in tight races. If they somehow manage to pass an initiative, too, that’s just icing on the cake.

  • colleen

    – the point of ballot initiatives aren’t to pass them, but to drive up the republican base’s turnout to help their candidates in tight races.

     

    I agree that this is one method republicans use to energize their base. I believe that ‘personhood usa’ is just another fund raising operation. One of the great things about a political movement which pretends to speak in defense of an invented class of humans who are always located within a (detested) woman’s body is that you can raise all sorts of money and never have to engage in the redistribution Republicans and ‘centrist’ Democrats ideologically oppose.

    Frank Schaffer (who really should know) insists that fundraising in and of itself is the primary motivation of the religious right.

     

  • crowepps

     fundraising in and of itself is the primary motivation of the religious right.

    Checking out these various organizations through their tax filings at places like Charity Navigator, it’s pretty clear that ‘viewing with alarm’ and ‘asking for donations to stamp out’ pretty consistently generates income of $100 grand plus every year.  What easier way to loft oneself into the top 25% of wage earners?  You don’t actually have to have any skills or education or actually do anything useful or prove you get real results, but instead just pick out somebody unpopular as the ‘threat’ and organize a mob whose pockets you can pick while they’re screaming at the ‘enemy’.

  • paul-bradford

    The contention that a single cell is a body is patently asinine.


    I want you to know, BJ, that I’m not silly and I’m not stupid. I mean to say exactly what I’m saying when I take note of the fact that when your body was in the earliest stage of its development you were a single cell, and that cell was a zygote.

     

    The fact that my contention is arresting, and even alarming does not, in itself, prove that it’s not true.  Why is it hard to believe that when you were but one cell you had a body?  It it that you’re used to thinking of bodies as having a certain minimum size?  Is that your objection to my belief that BJ the zygote had a right to life?

     

    I’m not playing games, and I’m far from being an idiot.  I cannot see how BJ the woman has a right to live if BJ the girl didn’t have a right to live.  For the woman to live the girl must live.  Do you see some flaw in my logic?  For the girl to live the infant must live; so, I conclude, the infant must have had a right to live.  The infant only lives if the fetus lives and so on down to the zygote.  This isn’t very hard science, BJ, but it’s not about science; it’s about philosophy.  Is the right to life something that is acquired or is it something that is intrinsic to the life of the one with rights?  If it is acquired, who has the authority to give it to someone else?

     

    This issue has a lot more to it than the simple question of whether therapeutic abortion is morally justifiable.  It comes down to the question of who we are as human beings.  Do you only recognize your humanity from the time you were born (or viable, whatever that means)?  I say it was you, the unique individual who is you, who was living inside your mother’s uterus and doing everything that a person must do to prepare for life on the outside.  The respect I have for you now compels me to respect who you were then.  The respect I have for myself compels me to respect the person I was at that stage of development.

     

    I participate in the conversation here because I aspire to respect the lives of other people, all other people without discrimination.  My goal is to respect everybody with the certain inclusion of you and with the certain inclusion of every heterosexually active fertile woman.  I encourage you to respect all other people without discrimination.  You’re going to respect yourself more when you do.

  • crowepps

    Since the zygote/fertilized egg also contains the precursors for the placenta as well as the ‘bag of waters’, cord, etc., I guess by his logic after birth when the placenta is discarded that must be murder as well.

  • paul-bradford

    Jodi,

     

    I do not support Amendment 62, nor have I supported any of the other initiatives that attempted to legally define personhood.  I do not support any initiative aimed at restricting a woman’s access to abortion or to any other kind of medical intervention.  What I care about is what each of us has to do to respect human life at its various stages of development.

     

    The attempt to use a definition of personhood to determine whether life is being respected or to assign legal penalties to those who violate ambiguous regulations is utterly misguided; but a conversation about the proper way to respect life must be conducted and if you divide the participants in that conversation into ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ you’re building obstacles to learning the truth.

     

    I challenge you to believe that it is possible to be simultaneously concerned about the well being of women and the question of how to show respect for unborn life.

     

    I can think of a very good reason to withhold from the definition of ‘pregnancy’ that period of fetal development that occurs before implantation.  A pregnancy requires the engagement of two separate bodies — the body of a mother and the body of a child.  Before pregnancy the zygote/blastocyst has no engagement with the host body.  As we know, zygotes and blastocysts can be formed outside of a woman’s body and exist there indefinitely.  It’s only when we reach the stage of being an embryo that our development has an effect on our mother’s biology.  From that point on pregnancy is a partnership.

     

    The issues of IVF, of embryonic stem cell research, of abortifacients and the like are all issues that require us to develop an understanding of how to respect human life in the zygote/blastocyst phase.  It is absolutely true that a high percentage never become embryos and it is absolutely true that many have genetic abnormalities.  Do these facts argue that we needn’t respect the lives of those who are in the early phases of development?  I don’t think they do.

     

    Again, I am as aware as you are of the kinds of problems that would come up if legislators crafted precise regulations about the proper treatment of zygotes and blastocysts.  Just the same, though, it’s a legitimate concern for those who want to uphold human rights.  Rather than drawing hard lines between ‘right minded, compassionate people’ and ‘fools and scoundrels’ we all ought to share our vision of respect.  As I’ve pointed out in other posts, the question involves matters that have nothing to do with women’s freedom — both practically (think, stem cell research) and philosophically.

  • crowepps

    Women?

  • arekushieru

    Paul,

     

    What you continue to fail to understand is that ProChoicers already ARE simultaneously concerned about the well-being of women and the unborn.  Well-being concerns a lot more than just one’s existence, after all.  We are also aware that not everyone will be concerned in the same way.  That we cannot impose our morality on others… that would be Greed.  That we must allow each and every individual to make decisions about their own well-being because they are the ones who understand their well-being best.

     

    A woman’s body is involved as soon as a sperm passes into her body.

    • paul-bradford

      That we must allow each and every individual to make decisions about their own well-being because they are the ones who understand their well-being best.

       

      Arekushieru,

       

      Please help me out here!  I’ve received comments like this one many times and, when I do, I feel as if people are talking past me.  Please tell me whether you realize that I WANT women to make decisions about their own well being.  I have no objection to women deciding for themselves about anything that pertains to their own lives.  What a woman does with her own body is her business, not mine.

       

      I am not concerned about how a woman treats her own body or about what decisions she makes for her own life.  Do you realize this?  If you do, please help me to understand why you bothered to make the comment you did — it gave me the distinct impression that you thought I WAS concerned about how a woman treats her own body or about the decisions she makes for her own life and you were making the comment to dispute me.

       

      What I care about, what I care deeply about, is how a woman treats somebody else’s body, and what decisions she makes for somebody else’s life.  You can easily get me to agree that a woman is allowed to do anything she likes with her own body.  Do you see why I’m concerned when a woman feels that she’s morally permitted to do anything she likes with another person’s body — particularly when ‘anything she likes’ includes destroying that body?

       

      As noted in the article and throughout the thread, many Pro-Lifers are concerned that the language used to refer to the unborn dehumanizes them.  Dehumanization is certainly something that I’m concerned about!  Tell me if you believe that an abortion is something a woman does with her own body.  If that’s what you think it shows how utterly and completely you’ve dehumanized the unborn.  You refuse to even acknowledge the unborn child’s involvement in an abortion — even though it’s the event that ends her/his life!

  • crowepps

    Arguments For

    1) Amendment 62 ensures that all human life is afforded equal protection under the law. Currently, this right is not recognized until birth. Amendment 62 acknowledges that a new human life is created at the beginning of biological development and gives all human life, whether born or unborn, equal rights and protections.

    2) The measure may establish the legal foundation to end the practice of abortion in Colorado. The U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States found that the unborn were not included in the word “person” as used in the U.S. Constitution. If each human life, from the beginning of biological development, is recognized as a person under Colorado’s bill of rights, Amendment 62 may provide support for legal challenges to prohibit abortions in Colorado.

    3) Amendment 62 establishes a legal definition of the term “person” as used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of the Colorado bill of rights. Because these sections do not currently contain a definition of the term “person,” interpretation of the word is subjective, which may lead to the rights granted by sections 3, 6, and 25 of the Colorado bill of rights being inconsistently applied.

    Arguments Against

    1) Amendment 62 may limit the ability of individuals and families to make important health care decisions. The measure could be used to prohibit or limit access to medical care, including abortions for victims of rape or incest, and even when a woman’s life is in danger. Amendment 62 may also limit access to emergency contraception, commonly used forms of birth control, and treatment for miscarriages, tubal pregnancies, cancer, and infertility. The measure may restrict some stem cell research that could lead to life-saving therapies for a variety of disabilities and illnesses.

    2) Amendment 62 allows government intrusion in the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship and could limit the exercise of independent medical judgment. The measure could restrict a doctor from using certain medical procedures and treatments. Further, “the beginning of biological development” cannot be easily and conclusively pinpointed. Therefore, the measure may subject doctors and nurses to legal action for providing medical care to a woman of child-bearing age if that care could affect a “person” other than the identified patient.

    3) The effects of Amendment 62’s change to the constitution are unclear. The measure applies certain rights from “the beginning of biological development,” a term which is not defined within the measure, has no established legal meaning, and is not an accepted medical or scientific term. The legislature and the courts will have to decide how a wide variety of laws, including property rights and criminal laws, will apply from “the beginning of biological development.”

    http://www.9news.com/news/elections/article.aspx?storyid=153975&catid=137

     

  • prochoicekatie

    I don’t believe that fertilized egg is meant to dehumanize. I really don’t. I don’t mean to say that zygotes don’t possess human DNA. I am trying to use a phrase that everyone will understand – and know that I am talking about a human ovum fertilized by a human sperm. I don’t think I am misleading people.

    I do think that a zygote is different from a fully autonomous and separate human being.

    Paul, I am sorry if comments here have been malicious towards you. The reason – though not an excuse for hurling insults – is that it is incredibly hard for pro-choice women to understand why someone inherently believes that a zygote should have more rights than we do. Once born, a person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They have the right to bodily integrity. When abortion is not the choice of the woman – and conversely pregnancy is not the choice of the woman – and instead is the choice of individuals who believe that they speak for and know the needs and wants of a fertilized egg (which is wholly unsentient) and believe that these needs and wants supercede the woman’s – we are upset. We feel dehumanized. We feel like wombs. Just wombs.

    Paul, I don’t hear the pro-life community demand people donate blood or organs. These things save lives. But people have a right to bodily autonomy. I see the decision to force women to donate nutrients and uterine space to other developing ZBEFs the same. I am actually, in that sense, treating them the same as I treat people. You can ask for blood donations, for kidney donations, for bone marrow donations, but you cannot demand it. Even if it would save the life of a fully autonomous and completely separate human being. Once that child is born he or she has no right to any bodily donations from his mother, so why should the child have them before he is born?

    Born people should have more legal rights that ZBEFs. And yes, I have no problem declaring the point at which they no longer occupy and demand bodily support and space from another person as the point in which they are given their own legal or human rights.

    • paul-bradford

      When abortion is not the choice of the woman – and conversely pregnancy is not the choice of the woman – and instead is the choice of individuals who believe that they speak for and know the needs and wants of a fertilized egg (which is wholly unsentient) and believe that these needs and wants supercede the woman’s – we are upset. We feel dehumanized. We feel like wombs. Just wombs.

       

      Katie,

       

      Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I hope you will think about what I’m about to say and return with another thoughtful response.

       

      I don’t feel the need to give a woman instruction about whether or not she should get an abortion any more than I feel the need to tell a woman whether or not to donate a kidney to a sister who will die without it.  I believe that women have enough moral sense to sort this out for themselves.

       

      The woman who believes that her unborn child is as human as she is with the same human rights as she has is going to feel awfully uncomfortable getting an abortion.  You may have noticed some of my other posts.  I don’t concern myself with coercing women to do anything.  What I constantly point out is that the legalization of abortion doesn’t cause abortion — it’s the dehumanization of the unborn that does the trick.

       

      Pro-Choice advocates will tell you that the goal of their movement is to keep abortion safe, legal, convenient and affordable for all women.  I see something else.  I see people assisting each other in the desperate attempt to keep believing the lie that a ZBEF is something other than a living human body.  I say, “Keep it safe, legal, convenient and affordable”.  If women climb out of denial and take stock of what they’re actually contemplating, they’ll realize that abortion takes the pursuit of reproductive choice one step too far.

       

      You all pay a HUGE price for dehumanizing the unborn because you dehumanize yourself.  Each one of us started life as a zygote.  The only way the woman Katie could exist is if the zygote Katie lived and developed.  You meant something more, then, that the impact your life would make on your mother and other members of your family.  You meant something in and of yourself.  To view Katie the zygote properly is to see someone with her own destiny beyond whether her existence was an advantage or a disadvantage to others.  To respect Katie the zygote is to understand that it’s wrong to view her life solely in terms of whether it adds to her mother’s happiness.

       

      The fact that sentience came to you at a particular point in your development doesn’t mean that the development you made before that point was any less valuable and meaningful than the developments you’ve made since attaining sentience.  Every human attribute comes along with development — but humanity itself is intrinsic.

       

      I look forward to reading what you have to say.

  • arekushieru

    Paul, you continuously argue that you are NOT talking about interfering with a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, then go on to say that in order to respect fetal life we must grant it a right to life that NO one else has!  Please, explain the disconnect, because it’s getting rather annoying and frustrating….

  • arekushieru

    Has anyone on here heard of Sherry F. Colb?  She does an excellent analysis of laws/bills that are applicable to abortion.  I’m not sure iirc but I think she did a piece on abortion that applies to the second argument against Amendment 62.  It was an analogy where she compared a medical system that regulated a condition known to the entire population of a country to a medical condition that only ever affected a certain segment of a population.  Interfering within one’s medical privacy is bad enough but doing so in a way that affects only one group of humans is even worse and, should be and, is unconstitutional.

     

    Joyce Arthur also wrote an excellent piece on Canada’s laws, that might also apply here.  Enshrining, in law, a person’s right to bodily autonomy, preventing anyone from interfering with a woman’s access to abortion based simply on a personhood amendment.

  • saltyc

    Paul you never understood what I wrote about your need to make up for your membership of the oppressor class in every respect, by ventriloquizing to an imagined oppressed group that can’t possibly tell you you’re wrong because it has no point of view.

    Assisting liberation struggle is about letting the oppressed guide you, not about trying to deliver an oppressed group whether or not you were asked to do it. Your whole approach is irridentist, or an excuse to control others in the name of a group that you pretend to represent.

    What is most insulting about your circular and boring arguments is that they always assume we are selfish (e.g. YOU once were a zygote, I respect YOUR right to life)

    Your appeals to our selfishness fail because we are not selfish. And I already respect the lives of all people without discrimination, but thanks for assuming that I don’t.

    The work I do to scramble up funds for women disenfranchised by the public health insurance system is hard and selfless, and it does make me happy for altruistc reasons.

    Your passive-agressive tactics make my skin crawl. And you seriously need to re-assess your ethics and pull your head out of your stinking ass.

    • paul-bradford

      Your passive-agressive tactics make my skin crawl. And you seriously need to re-assess your ethics and pull your head out of your stinking ass.

       

      Salty,

       

      I’m pretty confident that I can get Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers to agree on this much, what you said to me is plain mean and nasty.  I have to wonder whether you felt compelled to deliver such a low blow because I called you out about being discriminatory or because I am a man.  To put it another way, if a female Pro-Lifer were to come here and be as strident in her defense of the very young as I am, and if she were to suggest some of the same arguments that I do, would you be as rough with her?

       

      This is the way of the world: Men oppress women even though women are equal to men.  The born oppress the unborn even though the unborn are equal to the born.  As we’ve both noted, I’m in the oppressor class in both examples.  Your position is more interesting.  You are in the oppressed class in one instance and in the oppressor class in the other.  What I want to know, and what I’m not at all sure about, is whether you’re more interested in eradicating men’s oppression of women, or in sustaining the born’s oppression of the unborn.  You can’t have both.  We’re either on the path to less oppression or more and you’ve got to decide which side you’re on.

       

      You and I can talk about the conflict between men and women, or we can talk about the conflict between the born and the unborn.  I’m happy to discuss anything.  If we talk about the men/women conflict, we will probably agree on everything.  We’re both opponents of oppression.  On the other hand, if we continue to talk about the born/unborn conflict, we’ll have a lot of differences to iron out.

       

      You accuse me of ‘ventriloquizing’.  That’s an interesting word.  It shows that your sense of the unborn is that they are no better than wooden dummies.  That’s just how much you dehumanize them.  I “understood what you wrote” very well when you pointed out that we need to listen to members of the oppressed classes speak for themselves.  That’s respect.  You don’t listen at all to the unborn.  They’re very existence as human beings speaks eloquently of their right to life, and yet you take the attitude that since they don’t speak in YOUR language that it’s as respectful to end their lives as it is to sustain them.  What kind of thinking is that?

       

      You have a point of view now.  You’re alive and you want to maintain your life.  I’m telling you that you’ve had that point of view since you were conceived.

       

      This issue isn’t about women, an it’s only peripherally about pregnancy.  It certainly isn’t about control.  It’s about whether or not we’re going to take a fully integrated view of human life.  Should we respect the WHOLE of your life, or can we take a slice of it and pretend that, during that part, you weren’t who you are.  You were a ‘wooden dummy’ whose only life came from somebody else.  I say that dummies can’t speak for themselves, but the unborn can.  What do you say?

  • julie-watkins

    Assisting liberation struggle is about letting the oppressed guide you, not about trying to deliver an oppressed group whether or not you were asked to do it.

    Thanks, SaltyC. Very true. In order to help, one must listen, and not prejudge about what help should be asked for.

  • crowepps

    The contention that a single cell is a body is patently asinine.

    I want you to know, BJ, that I’m not silly and I’m not stupid.

    The response did not label YOU silly and did not call YOU stupid.  It referred to your CONTENTION.  Your conversion of her disagreement with your statement into a personal insult is uncivil and unproductive.  Without ANY intent to personally insult you, I agree with the rejection of your STATEMENT.

     

    The single cell is NOT ‘the person’ but rather a biological delivery system for a DNA recipe which might, if effectuated correctly, result in a working placenta and all the other accoutrements of pregnancy as well as, eventually, a viable fetus.  If the DNA isn’t garbled, if it’s possible to access the various necessary ‘supplies’ to assemble a healthy fetus, the exposure to teteragenic substances is minimal, AND the host woman isn’t killed in the process, there is less than a 50-50 chance that it might result in a live infant.

    I mean to say exactly what I’m saying when I take note of the fact that when your body was in the earliest stage of its development you were a single cell, and that cell was a zygote.

    Which is totally irrelevant to anything whatsoever.  Leonard Bernstein was a zygote at one point — that doesn’t mean all zygotes will become composers.

    The fact that my contention is arresting, and even alarming does not, in itself, prove that it’s not true.  

    Your contention is not original enough to be ‘arresting’ and isn’t accurate enough to be ‘alarming’ and even if it were arresting/alarming that doesn’t mean that it IS true.

     

    I understand you come on here to do your philosophical musings in the hopes that you will convert women to “right thinking” and hopefully gain some converts to “Catholic Abnegation (Women First)”.  I’m not interested in arguing philosophy but rather in attempting to ensure that what actually happens in the real world among actual real people isn’t as disastrous as what usually happens when philosophical musings about what other people should do are put into practice.  The antique to which you subscribe results in dead women.  Lots of them.

    You’re going to respect yourself more when you do.

    This kind of comment is NOT respectful and productive conversation but instead patronizing and insulting.  This kind of judgmental, snide comment is the reason I rarely respond to your posts anymore.

    • paul-bradford

      The response did not label YOU silly and did not call YOU stupid.

       

      crowepps,

       

      I want you to know that you matter to me.  I think a lot about the things you say to me, even when I’m off doing other things.  I take seriously your criticisms of me.  I also want you to know that I’m very aware of the fact that, in addition to advocating for the rights of the very young, I’m also exhibiting both the good and bad aspects of my personality.  I struggle against you when we talk about the value of unborn life; but when you comment on the way I come across to you or to others I tend to believe that the less defensive I am the better.

       

      Did I feel insulted when BJ characterized my assertion that zygotes are human bodies “asinine”?  I might have, but I wasn’t thinking about my own feelings or my reputation.  I wanted her, and the others, to know that this belief of mine that zygotes are human bodies isn’t just some remark I make in passing and then think better about when somebody ridicules it.  The belief that zygotes are living human bodies is at the core of what I wish to discuss with all of you.  I may make asinine comments every day, and feel embarrassed later on when someone explains to me how silly or stupid the comment was.  You don’t have to point out to me that that’s different than saying I am silly or stupid; but my response to BJ wasn’t a reaction to ruffled feelings.

       

      If the comment about ZBEF’s being living human bodies, just as worthy of respect as yours or mine, is asinine then I am asinine.  I hold to the belief relentlessly despite all the opportunities you give me to moderate my stance.  In actual fact I don’t believe that the people here think I’m silly or stupid.  If they did, I wouldn’t get as much earnest and thoughtful response as I always do.  I think I’ve given BJ sufficient opportunity to figure out on her own that I’m not silly or stupid and I reminded her of that fact so that she would know that she was in for a fight if she wanted to ridicule the idea of zygote personhood.

       

      If you all didn’t have the opportunity to talk to someone who truly believes in the personhood of zygotes you might conclude that all people who believed such things also believed that the world was created in six days, or that wives ought to be submissive to their husbands.  Those are the ideas of silly and stupid people, and I can’t imagine how you’re supposed to respond to people like that.  There are plenty of silly and stupid people who carry the Pro-Life tag.  Most of them aren’t even Pro-Life.  They generally hold anti-life views on the issues of war, or torture, or the death penalty, or hunger, or homelessness, or health care, or suicide prevention, or domestic violence, or gun violence, or animal rights.

       

      I hold myself to the promise to seek a consistent ethic of life.  I think that doing that is good for me and good for the world.  I think that the path of truth, and the path of respect for life are the same path.

       

      You report to me that I’m arrogant, and snide, and patronizing and I well know that you’re in a better position to make those assessments than I am.  You might be wrong about me, but you might be right.  I think that the antidote to all of that is candor.  I want to take you into my confidence.  I want you to know what cranks me up — and that’s the conviction that the lot of you are victims of a pervasive and subtle lie that is responsible for the deaths of 41 million people a year worldwide.  The lie not only takes young lives, it will sap the joy out of your own lives.

       

      Women have always wanted reproductive control.  It’s a good thing to want.  The lie is that the ‘final solution’ to this desire is abortion.  Access to abortion promises women the power to avoid unwanted pregnancy.  What a wonderful thing!  Too bad it’s too good to be true.

       

      I think I’m right and you’re wrong.  For that you call me arrogant.  I say that changing your minds will be for your own good.  For that you call me patronizing.  I say sincere things you take to be sarcastic.  For that you call me snide.

       

      If you were right, and I was wrong, I would be thrilled to conform my thinking to yours.  I want to pursue the truth more than I want the reputation for being right.  You would convince me if you made persuasive arguments; but you don’t.  You’ve reminded me sixty nine zillion times that the majority of zygotes fail to develop into fetuses.  You cite statistics and articles about the high rate of genetic abnormality in aborted fetuses (We can’t know much about failed zygotes and blastocysts because not too many people want to retrieve them.  Just the same, I suspect the same thing that you do — which is that there is a higher rate of abnormality among failed blastocysts than there is among successful ones.)

       

      I don’t like being obnoxious to you.  I certainly don’t intend to be obnoxious.  What I want to do is figure out how in the hell you think the high failure rate of zygotes is a reason not to respect them.  To me, that’s a very very cold attitude.  There’s a higher rate of ‘failed children’ (pediatric deaths) in Third World countries than there is in the U.S.  Is that a reason to give less respect to children in poorer countries than we do to our own?  That’s getting the cause and effect backwards!  Children in poor countries die because we don’t respect them.  It’s backwards to justify our lack of respect on the basis that they’re likely to die.

       

      The way I look at it, the body of an unborn person includes the placenta, the umbilical cord and all the other ‘accoutrements of pregnancies’.  There’s a significant part of our own bodies we only need while we’re preparing to be born.  The accoutrements certainly aren’t part of the mother’s body!

       

      Thank you for giving me the opportunity to contemplate Leonard Bernstein as a zygote.  He certainly deserved to be respected at that point in his life; but not because he was destined to become a renown composer.  He deserved to be respected because he possessed a living human body — which all zygotes do.

       

      “Biological delivery system for a DNA recipe”????  My understanding is that DNA controls biological development, and we’re in the process of developing for the entirety of our lives.  You could call a child a ‘recipe for an adult’ and you would be absolutely correct; but s/he’s also something in and of her/himself.  A human life includes the entire orchestration of biological development.  Why reduce any part of life to a mere prelude to a later phase?  There’s no need to do that at all.  It’s another example of stuff you say that I don’t find to be persuasive in the least.  It’s another example of what I consider to be disrespect on your part.  We all know adults who ridicule and disparage adolescents.  What you’re doing is the same thing.

       

      I’d be more than happy to mend my many character flaws.  It would enable me to be a better advocate for justice than I am now and that would certainly make me happy.  You can criticize me all you want, as long as you’re sincere.  I wish, though, that you would give me the satisfaction of noticing that I’m sincere and not out to hurt anyone.

  • saltyc

    PS I usually write what I want to say, then go back and edit out the saltier phrases, such as stinking ass, but this time I’m not able to edit this last post so please pretend that last sentence ends in re-assess your ethics. 

  • saltyc

    It would be very anti-abortion, guaranteeing a significant decrease on the number of abortions, unlike laws do.

    Plus it would have a smaller physical impact on men than forced birth does on women, and a much smaller psychological impact overall than forced birth does on women. Just look at animals that are neutered at middle age, compared to a breeder females at middle- age, the neutered are much younger physically and healthier, whereas breeders are spent.

    I think we should spend a really long time debating the ethics and logistics of mass castration, in detail. It’s really really important.

    But I have to disagree that it would be pro-life because what the pro-life movement really wants is more birth, that’s why they’re Ok-Dokee with viagara but not with birth control. Romania was A+ pro-life to them. That’s why IVF isnot their target but collateral damage.

  • princess-rot

    But I have to disagree that it would be pro-life because what the pro-life movement really wants is more birth, that’s why they’re Ok-Dokee with viagara but not with birth control.

    Heh, Salty. I know the “pro-life” movement wants more birth, because as we all know any “pro-life” laws effecting family-planning and birth control have the harshest effect the already-disadvantaged. The result is keeping low-income women and their families down, thus creating a vast underclass of poor for the elites to exploit, as has happened in the past.

    I think we should spend a really long time debating the ethics and logistics of mass castration, in detail. It’s really really important.

    That was mainly a tongue-in-cheek reversal, but it was inspired by reading radfem analysis of nineteenth-century feminist writing, which saw penis-in-vagina as the main root of real-life harms of women (and not without good reason), and sought to eliminate it, preferring a different kind of relationship between heterosexual men and women. Men’s entitlement to PIV was often the root cause of poverty, institutional abuse, rape, trafficking, class and workplace discrimination, destitution and, of course, bastardy among women of all classes, especially the working class because they had the least societal privileges.

     

    All I’ve done is twisted current “pro-life” rhetoric to have it’s logical outcomes oppressing men instead of women. It’s hardly Jonathan Swift. I wonder how fast the idea of fetal personhood and their “separate, unique individualism” would die if the burden of preventing their creation fell on the heads of men and not women? How fast would ZBEFs go back to being non-persons if the patriarchy was not supported by deeming ZBEFs persons? Like it was once famously said, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be sacrasanct. I very much doubt there would be a matriarchy even if they could. We would be going to ridiculous and indeed, tyrannical lengths to ensure compliance and ruining a lot of people’s lives in the process, but if it’s to save the babies – even hypothetical ones – who are men to complain?

  • saltyc

    Yes, I agree, (I also had a tongue in my cheek)  because if men’s private parts were layed out for public debate and moral examination in detail the way our uteruses are, they’d know why women feel so much anxiety around our bodies.

  • princess-rot

    Actually, rather than engaging in PIV under a Big Brother environment, a better solution would be to artificially extract semen under sedation, and the woman could use a turkey baster. PIV is not 100% nescessary for reproduction. To furthur remove stress from women, we could also grow babies in vats, like the human-Na’vi clones in Avatar.

     

    Alright, I’ll stop now.

    • saltyc

      You know, I did get a distinctly pro-choice angle from that scene in the movie, with the fetoid Na’vi clone alive but without any consciousness, I can’t believe that James Cameron didn’t have some subtle message there, like he had for every other part of the movie.

  • crowepps

    Since testosterone levels seem to correlate to incidences of violence, crime and reckless behavior, and those are obviously all BAD THINGS, mass castration should solve LOTS of other problems as well.  It could even TOTALLY stamp out prostitution, child sexual abuse and incest.  Hey, I’m all for it.

     

    As for ethics, if men shouldn’t be having sex except for purposes of reproduction, and the effects of testosterone cause so much social harm, society has a right to expect that men shouldn’t be selfish

  • saltyc

    A human egg looks about the same before and after fertilization, it weighs the same, is the same size and has all the same cognitive capacities.

    I really don’t see how Zygote is any more human than egg. The crazies are arguing about how many agels dance on the head of a pin again. When they quit saying abortion kills babies I’ll maybe stop saying fertilized egg.

    • bj-survivor

      It’s dehumanizing to call a fertilized egg a “fertilized egg” because eggs are inherently female. And we all know how much regard “pro-lifers” have for females, especially ones that refuse to kowtow to their infantile ego trips and existential crises. “Zygote,” on the other hand, is neutral and, thus, masculine.

       

      This denigration of the feminine is pervasive and insidious. All the most denigrating terms we use to insult others – “pussy,” “sissy,” “douche,” “cunt,” “bitch,” “queen,” et cetera – are all rooted in the feminine, even if their colloquial use is marginally egalitarian. This is the case in feminist circles, as well, which is a clear indication that we are the products of our patriarchal, female-denigrating environments.

  • crowepps

    A Denver District Judge threw out a lawsuit on Thursday that would have revised language about a ballot measure to outlaw abortion on a state voters’ guide.

     

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/30/personhood-amendments-law_n_745984.html

  • crowepps

    Before the Republican caucuses, Buck answered a Christian family group’s questionnaire and said he supported Amendment 62, the “Personhood Amendment,” on the Colorado ballot.

    Buck said Saturday through his campaign spokesman that he will now vote against the measure. In an earlier interview, he said he did not understand until recently that passage of the amendment would likely outlaw some common contraceptive methods, like the IUD or birth control pills that can reduce the chances of implantation for a fertilized egg.

    “This isn’t how I looked at the personhood amendment,” Buck said. “I’m not in favor of banning common forms of birth control.”

    Read more: Buck softens stance on abortion and “personhood” – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_16114433#ixzz11AIqI3RW

  • crowepps

    The question of the week for reporters is, are any of the 33 candidates who endorsed the Personhood Initiative (the Personhood 33), other than Ken Buck, clued into the fact that the measure would ban stuff like the Pill and IUDs?

    Fellow gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo, also a Personhood endorser, said “nothing has changed there,” regarding his endorsement of Amendment 62.

    Asked if this means he supports banning common forms of birth control like the Pill and IUDs, Tancredo said, “I must admit, on the rest of this stuff, I have to look into it.”

    Cory Gardner, running for CD 4, is another high-profile GOP candidate who’s thrown his backing behind Personhood. His campaign didn’t return a call over the weekend, but the Ft. Collins Coloradoan reported Sunday that Gardner supports Amendment 62.

    Asked by the Coloradoan if he opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest or if the mother’s life is in danger, Gardner replied: “I’m pro-life, and I believe abortion is wrong.”

    http://coloradoindependent.com/62810/like-buck-tancredo-unsure-what-amendment-62-would-do

  • arekushieru

    You are NOT concerned about a woman’s well-being, when you assume that the only criteria for respect/value is simply one’s existance.  If that is NOT how you truly envision it, then you would realize how much you DEvalue women and ‘super’value feoti every time you claim this to be true.  HOW many times do I have to repeat this over and over, again, before you GET it, Paul?  You even completely ignored it when I said it here.  Talk about talking past someone!

     

    How often have you gone up to potential organ donors and told them they are not respecting an indisPUTable human beings life because they are willing to have that individuals body destroyed through death, because they refuse to donate the necessary organs?  That is exACTly what you are saying here to women, after all.

     

    A fetus has the SAME rights that all others have, as it now stands.  But are you promoting this same view to the general public, with organ recipients, now, that they don’t have the same rights as others because people allow them to die without making some sort of sacrifice? 

     

    When an organ donor refuses to give up an organ to an organ recipient, do you think it’s only the organ donor’s body is involved?  NO.  Like the fetus involved in a pregnancy, the organ recipient’s body is involved in organ donation, as WELL.

     

    Your confusion is unacceptable when a woman’s body is only involved through natural means (meaning, without choice) while an organ donor’s body can only be involved THROUGH choice.  That’s rather unfair of you, don’tcha think?  To promulgate entrapment just because someone was unlucky enough to have two x chromosomes? 

     

    Tell me, do you acknowledge that an organ recipient’s body is involved in organ donation?  I do.  But, at the same time, I know they are human, I do not consent to organ donation.  If I do the same for indisPUTable human beings that I do for feoti HOW can you accuse me of dehumanizing the latter?  Hmmm…?         

  • arekushieru

    Nope, I feel that a fetus has the same human rights as I do (as for believing it is just as human, read my reply to your earlier response to me) , and that’s WHY I would have no problem aborting.  Because I believe that no one can use my body without my permission.  I absolutely do NOT permit a fetus, man OR organ recipient to use my body.  If I permitted a fetus to use my body while disallowing the other two, I believe I would be giving the former MORE of a human right to my body, at least within the context you are discussing it (that of sacrifice, whether willing or unwilling, and ‘value’), than either of the latter two. 

     

    Umm, my mother had me beCAUSE of the impact I would have on her life.  For some reason, you simply canNOT comprehend that a woman who conTINues her pregnancy can ALso be considered selfish.  I impacted her life by bringing her happiness.  My mother had something to gain for herself, her OWN happiness, after all….

     

    Why do you continuously ignore the sentience and awareness a woman has by saying she is ‘just as valuable’ as a zygote, whom you’ve acknowledged a zygote DOESn’t have?    Do you FINally see how you, and others, such as arex, Bei, GrayDuck, Panhandler, TonyS and Born, devalue women?  Probably not….

     

    Thanks.

  • rebellious-grrl

    I agree with SaltyC. I don’t think she was being nasty but honest.
    As a man you are have more of a sense of entitlement in a patriarchal society. Men have benefitted from patriarchy. Women have suffered. Women have practiced birth control and abortion for thousands of years. During the burning times of the witchcraft trials, women were tortured and killed for being women. Many women like myself understand the loss of knowledge that was lost during the burning times. Recipes for birth control and abortion were lost and eradicated when women were murdered. Throughout history women have suffered to being autonomous. This continues today.
    So, the way of the world is that women have always strived for their bodily autonomy, strived to control how many children they would or would not bear. What you say has no impact on how we view our bodies or our right to our bodily autonomy.

  • colleen

    I’m pretty confident that I can get Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers to agree on this much, what you said to me is plain mean and nasty.

     

    No, she was being honest. Go grind your axes somewhere else. You make my skin crawl too.

  • julie-watkins

    includes “agreeing to disagree” when appropriate.

  • arekushieru

    I’m pretty confident that I can get Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers to agree on this much, what you said to me is plain mean and nasty.  I have to wonder whether you felt compelled to deliver such a low blow because I called you out about being discriminatory or because I am a man.  To put it another way, if a female Pro-Lifer were to come here and be as strident in her defense of the very young as I am, and if she were to suggest some of the same arguments that I do, would you be as rough with her?

     

    To answer your latter question, YES.  Because at the same time she is being oppressed, she is collaborating with the patriarchy to oppress OTHER WOMEN.  This really underlines your inability to understand what patriarchy, oppression, oppressed and oppressor mean, together OR separately, btw….

     

    HOW can I oppress the unborn if I treat them exACTly the same as I treat the born?  Hmmm…? 

     

    If we stay on your path, we WILL remain oppressive to the born, and women, especially, forEVER. 

     

    In regards to your third point.  Yes, you want to remain on the path of oppression for the born, while we want to eliminate oppression (for the unborn/born) altogether.

     

    And who do you think a woman is listening to when she chooses to give birth?  The unborn?  ROTFLMFFAO.  She’s not listening to ANYone but herself.  Why?  Because the fetus doesn’t HAVE an oPINion.  In other words, even going by your logic, the woman is forcing the fetus to be BORN.

     

    Essentially, they aren’t any better than wooden dummies, but you would have us believe that women are no better than that, either.  You constantly tell us that you know the fetus isn’t aware or sentient, but then you bring up comments like this and talk about a ‘point of view’ that a fetus has and attempt to equate women with the former and latter.  But all that does is tell us that you want to grant divine status to feoti while dehumanizing women.

     

    Here you go, again, contradicting yourself, right in the same paragraph as the one I am responding to, above.  You say that a woman has the same right to bodily autonomy as everyone else does then go on to say that a fetus has MORE of a right to life than anyone else.  Which is it?  You can’t have it both ways, after all.   The latter coincides with the oppressive ProLife movement.  The former with the non-oppressive ProChoice movement.

     

    I DO think it’s just as respectful to end a life as it is to sustain them.  I think it’s disrespectful to ALways sustain them.  That is a particularly HEINous form of Greed, after all.   Forcing others to live the way you wish them to live even WHEN it is the OTHER that will suffer, NOT you.  THAT is not only DISrespectful but SICKening.  I guess you agree with the man at the end of the episode of Law and Order where the woman committed infanticide to prevent her baby from experiencing extreme pain and suffering within a  short life span, due to Teay-Sachs disease.  Where he said that he would do everything he could to prolong her life, even though it would not be he himSELF who is suffering?  If so, I’m glad neither a man like you OR him is my father.  Because that would mean I would have to experience pain and suffering just so you could be smugly satisfied that you did the ‘right thing’.  Like I said, SICKening.  Robert Latimer is NOT such a man.  If you don’t know who he is, GOOGLE him.

     

    Uh, actually it IS about women and about pregnancy.  You can’t just disappear the woman, simply because it’s inconvenient to your argument.    Even IF abortion constituted disrespect to the unborn, the fact that pregnancy takes place INSIDE A WOMAN, means you would have to disrespect the WHOLE of her life, disrespect the WOMAN, by claiming that only her body and its functions, things that are out of her control, dictate (as opposed to taking into account factors beYOND the physical and are in her control) what that respect for a fetus means.  Especially since it isn’t done ANYwhere else, IS it?  Nope, it’s not.

     

    You certainly try to take a slice of someone’s life and attempt to lead us to believe that this represents the whole of someone else.  You attempt to make NO distinction between a fetus and a woman, yet, AS I said above, a fetus can’t speak for itself but a woman can.  When you say that a woman is the same as a fetus, you’re SAYing that she can’t speak for herself, how is that other than respecting just a slice of someone’s life, rather than the whole?   Hmmm…?  Oh, what’s that?  It’s not…?  You’ve just exposed your whole oppressive ideology, Paul. 

     

  • colleen

    I wish, though, that you would give me the satisfaction of noticing that I’m sincere and not out to hurt anyone

     

    Why be dishonest? The fact is that for years your responses to people pointing out that you most certainlyare deeply offensive, deliberately so and are out to hurt people are

    1. denial and belittling

    2. insincere and pretentious lectures about how “everyone must sacrifice”

    3. endless spin

    Indeed it’s ABUNDANTLY clear that you and your unspeakably vile clergy wish to hurt a great many people. There’s not much any of us can do to break through that wall of cognitive dissonance and denial but the notion that we should LIE to you so that you’ll feel better is absurd.

     

  • crowepps

    I don’t see that there is any particular virtue in being ‘sincere’ or that a strong belief in something totally wrong-headed justifies the fact that your posts DO hurt people.  Making remarks like ‘you’ll be a better person if you do’ is a passive-agressive way of shaming other people and then excusing yourself.

     

    Your character flaws are your own responsibility.  It is not my role in life as a moral person to concentrate on improving you or anyone else but instead to concentrate on making moral decisions myself and mending my OWN character flaws.  Until you stop making judgmental, arrogant statements like “It’s another example of what I consider to be disrespect on your part” I’m not going to waste my time.

  • arekushieru

    Paul, perhaps you might consider the reason you believe no one has presented you with a ‘compelling argument’ is because you simply ignore the ones that you would find compelling?  I have never referred to the failed status of most pregnancies, yet you have never offered your own compelling arguments to refute those replies I DO make.  You concentrate SOLEly on the ones that you don’t think prove our point.

    The final solution is NOT abortion?  Then you’re saying that just because I’m a woman who has no desire to EVER be pregnant (and, unless you truly believe that every woman wants to be a mother, you ARE going to find MANY women like that, in fact moreso if you, at least, verbalize that exact line of thought, because that is one of the very REAsons I don’t want to be pregnant and I don’t believe I’m alone in that) I don’t have the right to bodily autonomy.  (Because, how ELSE would I maintain my rights as it currently stands, then, withOUT being able to have an abortion?  Hmmm…?  Oh, what’s that you say?  There IS no other way…?  You are correct!  Such disrepect you show for women, simply because they were unlucky enough to have developed a uterus within their bodies….)  Even if I had a relatively healthy pregnancy, was financially stable, emotionally mature enough, etc, etc… I would STILL choose to abort. 

    It’s much like saying that the final solution isn’t to deny consent to sex, in order to prevent rape.  Or the final solution isn’t to protect the rights of black people in order to keep them recognized as equal under the law.  After all, I have already addressed the part about respect being more than just showing respect for one’s existance, NUmerous times, so now I move on to points analogous to your own that you fail to show similar regard for.  

     

  • forced-birth-rape

    “You are in the oppressed class in one instance and in the oppressor class in the other.”

    ~No Paul, the fetus is using the pregnant woman, pregnant little girl, or pregnant rape victims bodies, causing them extreme emotional pain, physical dicomfort, and terrorizing them with fears of future vaginal pain, the fetus is the oppresser!
    Pregnant women, pregnant little girls, and pregnant raped females in El Salvador are being opressed right now. A woman, little girl, or raped female gets an abortion to protect her self from future poverty, future genital agony, or current mental terrorism of the thought of being pregnant. No female any where in the world is oppressing the unborn. “I” oppressed my mother while she was pregnant with me, while she gave birth to me, and after I was born.~

    “I’m pretty confident that I can get Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers to agree on this much, what you said to me is plain mean and nasty.”

    ~I agree with SaltyC 100%!~

  • plume-assassine

    Then you’re saying that just because I’m a woman who has no desire to EVER be pregnant … I don’t have the right to bodily autonomy.  (Because, how ELSE would I maintain my rights as it currently stands, then, withOUT being able to have an abortion?  Hmmm…?  Oh, what’s that you say?  There IS no other way…?

     

    Even if I had a relatively healthy pregnancy, was financially stable, emotionally mature enough, etc, etc… I would STILL choose to abort. 

    Arekushieru, I strongly agree with you. I do not have any desire to have children– not now, not ever. It takes a strong woman to choose motherhood and I have the utmost respect for my friends who choose that path in life. But I simply do not have any maternal interest or instinct. I do all that I can to prevent pregnancy, short of being sterilized (no doctor will sterilize me because I am “too young”). But if an accident ever happened, I would need to have an abortion at the earliest possible convenience. Plain and simple. And people like Paul want to take that away from me, believing that I have no right to bodily autonomy or reproductive freedom if a mistake happened. They try to tell me that if I don’t want children then I shouldn’t have sex (BS — consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy). They believe that a fertilized egg is more important than my life circumstances or suffering. And I will not stand for that! I believe in motherhood by choice, not chance or coercion.

  • panhandler

    I can’t help but feel that what you call “reproductive freedom” is really misandry disguised as equality.

  • bj-survivor

    How dare you walking uteruses reject our Holy, Almighty Sperm!

     

    Sing it with me, women, “Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great..”

  • mechashiva

    Yeah, not wanting to have kids is totally the same thing as hating men. And men who never want to have kids just really hate women too, right? So, have kids to prove you don’t hate the opposite sex.

     

    Personally, I prefer the one my mom always gave me. “People who don’t have children are selfish, because they aren’t making enough little taxpayers to help take care of everyone when they retire. Having children is the best/only acceptable way of giving back to the community.” Followed up by a rant about how motherhood isn’t what she expected, and she wishes she’d never done it in the first place. Reproduction is an obligation, and it is horrible, but I’m a “bad person” if I don’t do it. Oh boy, sign me up!

  • panhandler
    Feminists have no problem in asserting that a consent to sex is not a consent to pregnancy and that one shouldn’t have to give up their “reproductive freedom” if they don’t want children. However, as soon as an individual applies the same arguments to men– pointing out that if a consent to sex is not a consent to pregnancy and, as a result, motherhood, then a consent to sex is not a consent to fatherhood, either– those same feminists turn around and argue that the man is up SOL because he chose to have to sex. They are perfectly willing to point out that a man makes his choice before sex, and that if he did not want children that he should have kept his pants zipped up, but are equally unwilling to acknowledge the same thing of women or apply the same arguments to women. And not only are they unwilling to acknowledge the same thing of women or apply the same arguments to women, but they scream misogyny when someone even hints at the otherwise radical notion that both men and women should be held to the same, not differing, standards. Apparently, it’s only misogyny if women are not held to a lower standard then men. It should be no wonder then that to many outside of feminism, which is the majority of people, feminism comes off as an incredibly hypocritical movement to which most people want no affiliation.
  • mechashiva

    Nice strawfeminist.

     

    What does it have to do with your insinuation that not wanting to have children means you hate the opposite sex?

     

  • forced-birth-rape

    “but they scream misogyny when someone even hints at the otherwise radical notion that both men and women should be held to the same, not differing, standards”

    ~In nine months is the man going to have extreme genital pain?~

    “incredibly hypocritical movement to which most people want no affiliation.”

    ~A lot of people are leaving christanity because it is a itincredibly hypocritical movement to which most people want no affiliation. exchristian net website~

    ~I left christianity this year and became a feminist, christian men are such closet-wifebeaters, the main ones are the pastors.~

  • beenthere72

    I’d think we’d sooner say:  stop spilling your seed into women’s vaginas if you don’t want babies.    There are other ways to prevent pregnancy than just not having sex.      You can’t go around willy nilly impregnating women and walking away just because you tout equal rights to be/not be a parent.    

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Apparently, it’s only misogyny if women are not held to a lower standard then men.

     

    Women and men are held to the exact same standard: If there is a (born) child, then its parents are responsible for providing for it. What, you want the government to pick up the tab or something?

     

    feminism comes off as an incredibly hypocritical movement to which most people want no affiliation.

     

    The Civil Rights Movement wasn’t looked on too kindly by many people, either.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Right there with ya MechaShiva,

    I’m childless by choice. I’ve never wanted to have children. I feel I’ve never had that “maternal instinct.” I don’t feel the least bit guilty about not reproducing. I don’t think parenthood is right for everyone and it’s certainly not right for me or my husband. Luckily my parents and family are very supportive with my decision not to have children. In turn I’m supportive of people who are childless by choice.

  • crowepps

    I know women who hate men and hate kids.

    I know women who hate men and love kids.

    I know women who love men and hate kids.

    I know women who love both.

     

    Interestingly, almost all the women who hate men came to that conclusion due to their experiences with an abusive man, whether father, brother, boyfriend, husband, teacher or fellow employee/boss.  If the ‘Male Rights’ advocates want to have men accepted as equal citizens, perhaps they ought to do a little missionary work and get it across to the minority of their fellow men that continuing their centuries old campaign to prove they’re ‘superior’ to women through rape, abuse and domestic violence is giving them all a bad name.

  • panhandler

    Your ability to construct a straw man and then proceed to claim that someone else is constructing a straw man doesn’t mean that someone else was constructing a straw man, but rather that you constructed a straw man. Par for the course, I guess.

  • panhandler

    Women and men are held to the exact same standard: If there is a (born) child, then its parents are responsible for providing for it. What, you want the government to pick up the tab or something?

     

    And what about when there is an unborn child? Before you get a born child, you have an unborn child. If men and women were held to the same standard, then feminists would push the responsibility angle on women as they do men, as it’s rather disingenuous to claim that both men and women are held to the same standards whilst ignoring the fact that they are not, as a woman will only reach the point of there being a born child if she wants there to be a born child, while the man regardless of what he wants. But they do not, nor do they attempt to do so. It’s actually rather easy to see, though those who consider themselves among the ranks of the true feminists seem to be blind towards it. It’s really not all that shocking, all things considered.

     

    The Civil Rights Movement wasn’t looked on too kindly by many people, either.

     

    Most people fully support the principles of the Civil Rights movement. Feminism? Not so much. I would ask you why that is, but you’ll probably blame “The Patriarchy” (which sounds like some kind of conspiracy theory).

  • arekushieru

    Because you apparently believe that a man’s body is involved in pregnancy.  If you DIDn’t, you would realize that the argument feminists make is based upon the usage of one’s BODY.  THEREfore, the argument that men only have rights up until the point their body is no longer involved (meaning when the sperm leaves their body) is RATIONAL.  YOUR, et al’s, view are the ones that are OBviously IRrational.  Derrrr…. 

  • prochoiceferret

    And what about when there is an unborn child?

     

    Then women have to deal with all the morning sickness, the hormone swings, stretch marks, having all their organs pushed aside, metabolic strain, aggravation of existing disorders, possible complications, childbirth, and the potential of dying somewhere along the way. Would you like to share that burden equally?

     

    as a woman will only reach the point of there being a born child if she wants there to be a born child, while the man regardless of what he wants.

     

    The woman can refuse to lend her body to the purpose of building a child, yes. So can the man, for that matter. Of course, the involvement of each’s bodies in the process is a little different.

     

    But they do not, nor do they attempt to do so.

     

    If you want to build children using your body, you are entirely free to attempt to do so. Feminists are not there to make your Junior fantasies come true.

     

    Most people fully support the principles of the Civil Rights movement. Feminism? Not so much.

     

    Oh sure, no one badmouths the Civil Rights Movement now. That wasn’t the case a few decades ago. Feminism has achieved a lot of goals over the past century, and it marches on. How many people fully support voting rights for women?

  • rebellious-grrl

    Can men get pregnant? No. End of discussion.

  • saltyc

    Hey Paulee-wallee, I wonder why you take such offense from “Stinking Ass”, is it because, like most Americans who lack a bidet, your ass actually does stink?

    Well that’s about as accurate as your options of why I was nasty to you, either because I actually discriminate, or -what else? Oh, yeah, you’re a MAN.

    Maybe it’s because you graduated from M.I.T. and I am stuck with a public university degree.

    Or maybe it’s because after all the debates, you still think you know better than any woman whether it’s time for her to carry a pregnancy to term. I have done both: delivered a baby and had an abortion, and you’re an asshole if you say that my abortion was “a preventable death.” What you’re saying is that the course of my life was preventable, that my choice of partner, career, health and social standing, are no more important than speeding or smoking, other causes of preventable death.

    If we talk about the men/women conflict, we will probably agree on everything.  We’re both opponents of oppression.

    If we put aside that little matter of reproductive rights.

     

    On the other hand, if we continue to talk about the born/unborn conflict, we’ll have a lot of differences to iron out.

    Paul, sit down, I have some bad news for you. Can you hear me? You sitting down? OK, here goes: There IS no born/unborn conflict. None, zip, zilch, nada.

    The conflict is actually between people who want to control the bodies and reporoduction of others, which is abhorrent, and people who want to support the right of women to steer their own lives and trust them with it.

     

    you take the attitude that since they don’t speak in YOUR language that it’s as respectful to end their lives as it is to sustain them.

    What?  What language do they speak, do you talk to plants too?

    And again you make an ass out of you and me when you say my attitude is that it’s as resepectful to sustain as to as you put it “end their lives”

    I think this is a confusion caused by the unfortunate necessity of the term ‘choice’. You see, it’s not like either/or is fine, no. Women who are pregnant and go one way or the other are following the best course for their personal and their family’s lives. Respect and obligation for future children counts heavily here (yes even without your advice) and it doesn’t feel like a choice, but the only possible course.  Women who have abortions do so because it’s the only thing they can do. The same way a motorist steers the wheel, but keeps it going forward, not like any turn is as good as any other, like choosing beverages in the fast food place, no, it matters and in the motorist’s mind it’s the correct way to go.

     

    Existence does not count as language. That’s what I mean by your irridentist drive: Bolivians exist in Chile, that’s enough of a call to arms. Feti exist in a woman, that’s enough of a cry for help. My original example, where Augusto Boal wanted to help the poor by preaching at them that they were oppressed, was taking their existence as poor as enough. Well, happily for Boal, he learned that to participate you must act and speak, why he invented arena theater, in which anybody can act and speak.

    The unborn do not act or speak. Hello? I wonder sometimes whether you are made of wood.

    You have a point of view now.  You’re alive and you want to maintain your life.  I’m telling you that you’ve had that point of view since you were conceived

    This is pure fantasy, my friend. It’s simply not true in any respect. You can’t impose your fairytale woo-woo on everybody and pretend it’s liberation. I’m telling you that I came from a cell, not I used to be a cell. What you say is utter nonsense to me.

  • crowepps

    Both men and women have equal rights to use a method of birth control during sex and attempt to prevent their personal germ cells from beginning a pregnancy.

     

    Both men and women also have an equal right to remove a pregnancy from their own body.

     

    Neither men nor women have a right to insist that another person use/forego birth control or sustain/remove a pregnancy.

     

    Both men and women are responsible to financially support a live child to whom they made a genetic contribution.

     

    There you go, all completely equal.

  • beenthere72

    I had an interesting conversation with a very religious friend the other day that declared to me that ‘feminism is evil’.     This was in the same conversation about how all wives should be submissive to their husbands.    

     

    I find this friend rather fascinating … and completely nuts.    But I’m sure *you* would agree with him. 

  • rebellious-grrl

    FBIR said this in an earlier post but I think Panhandler should read this again.

    ~NO! Men do not die!, men do not split open vaginally, men do not get cut open vaginally, men do not have vaginal “pain” while giving birth,
    men are not the ones who worry and wonder while pregnant for nine months how painful thier giving birth is going to be, men are not pregnant for nine months having their bodies “USED”.~

  • plume-assassine

    It’s already (nearly) equal.

    Both men and women are responsible to financially support a live child to whom they made a genetic contribution.

     

    Basically: being pregnant for 9 months and enduring pain and risk of maternal death ≠ the “torment” of paying monetary child support for a born child.

     

    Panhandler’s belief that my desire to be childfree = MISANDRY is an extremely hilarious leap off of the edge of reason.

  • crowepps

    Panhandler’s belief that my desire to be childfree = MISANDRY is an extremely hilarious leap off of the edge of reason.

    Don’t believe panhandler has ever approached the edge of reason closely enough to be able to leap from it.

     

    The whole ‘if you don’t want to be pregnant you hate men’ meme is based on the bizarre assumption that the only purpose men should find for women’s existence is impregnation and therefore women who fulfill their ‘natural role’ of making themselves useful to men are eager to be impregnated.  Ipso facto, women who don’t want to have children are both useless and hostile to men’s interests, since it is dangerous to allow them to evade their ‘natural role’ of being useful to men.  Pretty typical thought pattern in homosocial organizations.

     

    http://jmm.sagepub.com/content/10/3/339.abstract

  • mechashiva

    I didn’t make a strawman. You actually did make that insinuation. Nice way of avoiding the fact that you rambled off on a tangent that didn’t have anything to do with the actual thing we were debating.

     

    Par for the course for you, if you’ll recall that’s why you were banned before. Seriously, the mods should just ban your IP, since it is obvious you aren’t going to improve your behavior from what you displayed with previous screennames.

  • mechashiva

    Yes, men, based on their biology, have fewer opportunities to make procreative decisions… because their bodies are less impacted by procreative processes. The issue of abortion is one of right to bodily integrity, not one of “right to parent or not parent.” 

     

    Decisions concerning adoption or parenting effect neither of the parents bodies, but have equal impact on other aspects of their lives. This is why laws concerning adoption, custody, and child support are generally designed with the intention of equally dividing legal obligations to the child. This is because it has been deemed that a child has the right to a certain percentage of each parent’s financial resources.

     

    Both men and women have the right to exercise reproductive decision-making within the domain of their own bodies. Because pregnancy has such a massive effect on the woman’s body, pro-choicers argue she should be given the right to decide whether or not to continue gestating. The man has no say in her decision, because his body is not effected.

     

    Similarly, according to a pro-choice standpoint, a man has no right to make a woman use hormonal birth control. They might both agree that they don’t want children, and using hormonal birth control might be the best way of accomplishing that goal. However, because her body is the one effected, only she can go get herself a prescription, and no one can make her do it if she decides not to. There’s a big market out there for temporary male contraceptives, but unfortunately scientists haven’t quite got it together yet.

     

    The male reproductive system has a steely resiliency against outside influence. Soon, though, we’ll crack the code and men will have more capacity for reproductive control. Yay, everyone wins! Now, if we can eventually figure out how we can get men to gestate…

     

    I’ll say it again for emphasis. Yes, men, based on their biology, have fewer opportunities to make procreative decisions… because their bodies are less impacted by procreative processes.

  • mechashiva

    I actually haven’t made up my mind about eventually having a kid or two, but I don’t need to. If something inspires me to reproduce before age 36, then great. If not, then I’ll have a fabulous time enjoying more freedom than everyone else I know. Either way, it will be what I decide is best/most exciting for me.

  • panhandler

    Really? You construct a straw man yourself, and then accuse me of engaging a straw man, as if I didn’t know what I typed out the first time? Your inability to understand what I typed out doesn’t mean I engaged in a straw man. Now, if you must know, I typed out what I typed out in response to something LPA typed out. If you don’t like it or think it was relevant, then tough. No one asked you to respond to what I typed out. And let the mods check my IP. I have nothing to hide, since you think I’m running around with multiple screen names or something.

  • arekushieru

    If you don’t like it or think it was relevant, then tough. No one asked you to respond to what I typed out.”

     

    Hmm, right back atcha, ‘doll’.   Btw, how is it not a strawfeminism when we CLEARly illustrated for you that you were creating an argument out of completely thin air and attacking it as if it were the real argument?  Oops.  Guess MS didn’t do what you accused her of.  But you certainly did (what you were accusing HER of).

  • panhandler

    Then women have to deal with all the morning sickness, the hormone swings, stretch marks, having all their organs pushed aside, metabolic strain, aggravation of existing disorders, possible complications, childbirth, and the potential of dying somewhere along the way. Would you like to share that burden equally?

     

    Not terribly, no. Of course, if I had a kid I wouldn’t want to go to work every day in order to feed it, clothe it and care for it for 18 years, but I would do so because it would be in the best interest of that child for me to do so. That’s called being responsible. This, though, brings me back to my initial question. What about the unborn child?

     

    The woman can refuse to lend her body to the purpose of building a child, yes. So can the man, for that matter. Of course, the involvement of each’s bodies in the process is a little different.

     

    Which would mean that the women’s interest in preventing the situation from occurring in the first place should be greater, yet it is less. In fact, the entire burden of preventing pregnancy falls on the man, even though he gets no say as to what happens to it. Do you really not see the problem there?

     

    If you want to build children using your body, you are entirely free to attempt to do so. Feminists are not there to make your Junior fantasies come true.

     

    No. Feminists are just “there” to claim misogyny where there is none, fail to see misandry when they use it and blame “The Patriarchy” for everything they perceive to be wrong.

     

    Oh sure, no one badmouths the Civil Rights Movement now. That wasn’t the case a few decades ago. Feminism has achieved a lot of goals over the past century, and it marches on. How many people fully support voting rights for women?

     

    A few decades ago, the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing. So was the whole feminist movement. Well, the second and third waves, anyway. Since that time, the two movements have completely diverged. Few people today decry the tenants of the Civil Rights movement. Not so with the feminist movement. Most people scoff at second and third wave feminism, while being a lot more receptive to the early feminists and their ideas. While the three might have some interchangeable parts, that has to do a lot with the fact that second and third wave feminism is just so damn hypocritical, overly hostile and out of touch with the very women they claim to speak for.

  • arekushieru

    Not terribly, no. Of course, if I had a kid I wouldn’t want to go to work every day in order to feed it, clothe it and care for it for 18 years, but I would do so because it would be in the best interest of that child for me to do so. That’s called being responsible. This, though, brings me back to my initial question. What about the unborn child?

     

    Then you can just walk away, like so many ‘deadbeat’ parents (mostly dads) do.  A woman canNOT walk away from her body.  *Gasp*  SOMEone really needs to go back and re-read his biology book, specifically the section on pregnancy, if he really thought that pregnancy and childbirth occurred in some minute, extradimensional space like he appears to have, doesn’t he?

    Which would mean that the women’s interest in preventing the situation from occurring in the first place should be greater, yet it is less. In fact, the entire burden of preventing pregnancy falls on the man, even though he gets no say as to what happens to it. Do you really not see the problem there?

     

    So a female has to take greater responsibility just because something beyond her control placed her in the role she takes in the natural world?  Tell me, where are males forced to take greater responsibility just because something beyond his control placed him in the role he takes in the natural world? That’s right, they’re NOT.  Thanks for proving you’re an MRA with no real clue as to what misandry is or what a misogynist you are.

     

    Btw, MOST women who have had abortions were using some form of contraception and they took contraceptives by CHOICE, not because they HAD to, as your misogynist mind would dicate.

     

    No. Feminists are just “there” to claim misogyny where there is none, fail to see misandry when they use it and blame “The Patriarchy” for everything they perceive to be wrong.

     

    No. You are here to claim misandry where there is none, fail to see misogyny when you use it and blame feminists for everything you perceive to be wrong.   (As PCF would say: There I fixed that for you.)  If you aren’t misogynistic, then why do you base rights on the expression of organs and their functions in the case of a female, while basing the expression of organs and their functions on rights in the case of a male?  Oooopppsss.  And once again, this epic logic fail brought to you by… PANHANDLER. 

     

    A few decades ago, the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing. So was the whole feminist movement. Well, the second and third waves, anyway. Since that time, the two movements have completely diverged. Few people today decry the tenants of the Civil Rights movement. Not so with the feminist movement. Most people scoff at second and third wave feminism, while being a lot more receptive to the early feminists and their ideas. While the three might have some interchangeable parts, that has to do a lot with the fact that second and third wave feminism is just so damn hypocritical, overly hostile and out of touch with the very women they claim to speak for.

     

    No, the early feminists lived in a different time.  Abortion was dangerous and it was seen as a tool of control by… wait for it… the patriarchy (yes, that word you took exception to earlier.  WOW, I’m sure, now, you wished you would have waited before touting the ‘First Wave’ as a superior example of  feminism, don’t you?).   And no ProLifer can be feminist, just in case you decide to go there….  Hypocrisy reigns, though, which is why ProLifers are accepted as role-players of feminism while ProChoicers aren’t, btw…. 

  • prochoiceferret

    Would you like to share that burden equally?

     

    Not terribly, no.

     

    Well then, I guess you’re not that interested in equality after all.

     

    This, though, brings me back to my initial question. What about the unborn child?

     

    The woman’s body is in the process of building it, of course.

     

    Which would mean that the women’s interest in preventing the situation from occurring in the first place should be greater, yet it is less. In fact, the entire burden of preventing pregnancy falls on the man, even though he gets no say as to what happens to it. Do you really not see the problem there?

     

    Yes, of course. Having sex with women who leave the entire burden of preventing pregnancy to the man is a rather dumb idea. I would not advise it.

     

    No. Feminists are just “there” to claim misogyny where there is none, fail to see misandry when they use it and blame “The Patriarchy” for everything they perceive to be wrong.

     

    Hmm… this is interesting…

     

    No. Men’s rights activists are just “there” to claim misandry where there is none, fail to see misogyny when they use it and blame feminism for everything they perceive to be wrong.

     

    Yep! That fits to a T!

     

    Most people scoff at second and third wave feminism, while being a lot more receptive to the early feminists and their ideas.

     

    It’s called progress. Give it some time, and most people will be scoffing at fourth- and fifth-wave feminists, while being a lot more receptive to waves 1-3.

  • forced-birth-rape

    “Of course, if I had a kid I wouldn’t want to go to work every day in order to feed it, clothe it and care for it for 18 years, but I would do so because it would be in the best interest of that child for me to do so. That’s called being responsible.”

    ~Every one I know who has turned eighteen already works every day to care for them selves. Unless their mama still takes care of them, never their fathers. Women I know work, go to school, come home cleen the house, cook, and takes care of the kids. Their husbands just work, come home, set in his chair and watch TV.~

    “Which would mean that the women’s interest in preventing the situation from occurring in the first place should be greater, yet it is less.”

    ~Not where I come from, she is expected to be on birth control and he is expected to wear a condom. You should know the pro lifers are against birth control, condoms, and knowledge to prevent unwanted pregnancy.~

    “In fact, the entire burden of preventing pregnancy falls on the man, even though he gets no say as to what happens to it.”

    ~ I have “NEVER” heard the burden falls on the man, never.~

  • forced-birth-rape

    “No. Feminists are just “there” to claim misogyny where there is none, fail to see misandry when they use it and blame “The Patriarchy” for everything they perceive to be wrong.”

     

    ~There is more then is known or talked about, misogyny and patriarchy is rampant in christianity which is all the pro lifers. I have lived this and you are lying! My Grandfather and Uncle were southren baptist preachers, my great grandfather told my grandmother and her sister, girls do not go to college they get married after high school and have kids. My Uncle the southren baptist preacher beat my aunt, my bible thumping great grandfather “HER OWN FATHER” would not let her leave her wife-beating husband because the bible is against divorce for anything other than adultery, this is in the seventies. My grandfather always quoted bible verses that were demeaning to women, and he told all the girls in the family Eve was made from Adems rib, which is symbolic that women are half of what men are in gods eyes. I was the first female on my mothers side of the family not to get married before eighteen. The republican party, American christanity, and the pro lifers are saturated in misogyny, and patriarchy. If you want to argue about misogyny and patriarchy in christanity and the pro lifers, I have some negative thuths for you, as you pretend misogyny and patriary are not true. I am scared of men because of the hateful, relentless, consistent, bullying, harassing, raping, and abusing they did to all the females in my family, litlle girls included. We learned very early that we are nothing more then baby-machines, sex-machines, punching-bags and maids for men, given to men by the wonderful god of the bible. Why would James Dobson, and all the other pro-life-christians leaders always say be submissive to your husbands and if he hits you, you can not divorce him, if they were not misogyny and pro patriarchy?~

     

    “feminism is just so damn hypocritical, overly hostile and out of touch with the very women they claim to speak for.”

     

    ~ Are you a woman,  feminism is more in touch with women then christanity, I promise you that. ~

  • princess-rot

    I never understood the specious non-logic behind that argument: you are bad and selfish for not having kids so bad and selfish people go and have kids!

     

    Oh, sure, it’s all about the children and nothing at all to do with social validation of persons whose bodies are considered public property and are considered lesser if they don’t perform certain expected roles.

     

    Also, I have absolutely no time for anyone who takes umbrage at the idea that not every woman fits his preconceived notion of what women should be like or ought to do, and gleans from that because those women don’t act like he thinks they ought to, they must hate him and everyone like him.

     

    This is in no way a criticism of you, Mecha, we all fall into the trap, but it bitterly amuses me that female training to reassure men of their superior status is so ingrained we must hasten to point out that that was an unfounded attack and we do not hate men, even when the accuser’s argument is so piss-poor and illogical it practically refutes itself.  It was Panhandler who felt the need to attack la plume, whose reproductive choices have nothing to do with him, because her decision not to have children and abort if she became pregnant doesn’t mesh with his idea of what women are like, which is maternal and sacraficing. Panhandler, in short, needs to be told to piss off and stop making things that have nothing to do with him about him.

  • princess-rot

    Which would mean that the women’s interest in preventing the situation from occurring in the first place should be greater

     

    We know this, you patronising ass, we live in the world as fertile women. Woman as gatekeeper is as old as the world itself. The “situation” you refer to is procreative sex, which cannot happen without the input of a man. He, by far has the easiest way out: he has not for centuries, been expected to act as gatekeeper. He is not blamed for his actions because the onus is on the woman to both prevent PIV and prevent conception.

     

    I seriously do not know what MRAs are whining about. You have it so easy you don’t know it, and then when asked to take a little more responsibility for where you put your own genitals you pout and whine. The literal burdens of potentially-procreative sex are not on you, yet paradoxically it is you who has the easiest means of preventing that burden. When feminists tell you that it’s easier for you to put a raincoat on it or do something else, it’s not a choice between sprouts and shit for dinner, it’s just common fucking sense that makes everything easier all round.

     

    Someone once said to me that men in a patriarchy cannot separate entitlement from desire – they give the task of managing that desire to someone else so they don’t have to, then they feel entitled to act upon that desire then resent the person who is stuck in the unenviable position of safely navigating a fucked-up model of sexuality while trying to limit collateral damage to all.

     

    …yet it is less.

     

    Is it really? Where is your sexual double standard?

  • rebellious-grrl

    The only one who is out of touch is you Panhandler. It’s clear from your statement you have no clue what feminist theory or philosophy is. I doubt you have ANY basic understanding of feminism.

  • mechashiva

    That you constructed an exaggerated, hyperbolic, unsubstantiated, inaccurate, easy to knock-down, practically-satirical version of your opponent’s position means that you constructed a strawman… by the very definition of “strawman.” Apparently, you not only need reminding of what you said, you need reminding of what a strawman is.

     

    Or maybe I’m giving you too much credit and you really do think that pro-choicers, particularly those who don’t want to reproduce, just hate men. Regardless, your arguments’ substance and style are amazingly similar to what we’ve seen from several handles before you. You’re either a member of Homo sheepian misogynae, a subspecies of humanity comprised entirely by clones with Groupthink, or you’re an old troll staying true to his roots.

  • crowepps

    Which would mean that the women’s interest in preventing the situation from occurring in the first place should be greater, yet it is less. In fact, the entire burden of preventing pregnancy falls on the man, even though he gets no say as to what happens to it. Do you really not see the problem there?

    It seems to me that the parties have an equal responsibility to prevent the situation by controlling their own germ cells if they don’t want to conceive.  Women who don’t want to get pregnant have 100% of the responsibility to use birth control.  Men who don’t want a pregnancy to start have 100% of the responsibility to use birth control.  There is zero down side if BOTH of them use birth control at the same time.

     

    In addition, both parties have an equal responsibility to be sure that their partner shares their views on reproduction, birth control, parenthood and abortion.  If the other person’s views are too far away from yours, don’t have sex with that particular partner but instead choose one whose views are compatable with your own.

     

    Anybody who ASSUMES that she/he can ignore that 100% responsibility and instead depend on the OTHER party taking up their slack surrenders power and control at the point where they individually can most effectively steer the situation to the outcome they desire and puts their future in the hands of someone else.  In reproduction, as in any other situation, this is just a 100% dumb thing to do.

  • crowepps

    If you start from the premise that:

    ‘Women are disposable breeding stock and men are entitled to use them as such’

    and then in the real world

    ‘Women resist being reduced to the status of disposable breeding stock’

    then it is only logical to arrive at

    ‘Women in denial of their ‘true nature’ are unreasonably resisting men’s reasonable treatment of them’.

     

    A person totally incapable of grasping the truth of

    ‘Women resist because they are not breeding stock’

    can come no other conclusion than

    ‘Women resist because they hate men’

     

    Since they can’t see that their paradigm of ‘womanliness’ is a false construct totally unrelated to reality, they insist it must be personal.  Because, of course, in this and every single other issue you can come up, it’s always ALL ABOUT THE MEN!

  • arekushieru

    I’m a ProChoice Christian.  Personally, I don’t believe that ProLifers of the Christian faiths can actually exist (just like I believe there is no such thing as ProLife feminism), even though organized, religious Christian ProLifers certainly can (I make a distinction between religion and faith, just for future reference, lol).  I (personally) believe that organized, religious beliefs are inherently patriarchal.  That current ProLife ideology inherently leads to misogyny.  That Jesus was not a misogynist.  He was a feminist. 

     

    However, I am absolutely aware that people have an understandably negative perception about Christianity (especially when considering the absolutely awful, horrendous stories, such as yours, that come about as a result of Christian religions).  And it should be up to those relatively few within the Christian community that DO support feminism and equal rights to step up and change this perception caused by the majority of Christians.

     

    Lastly, although one would think that organized Christian religions would indeed constitute all ProLifers, it is sad but true that there are atheist ProLifers.  Although it boggles the mind.  Feh.  Just got a horrible taste in my mouth.

     

    If any of that sounded like Christian-splainin’ or a too-defensive response to a poster PLEASE let me know.  Thanks!  (I definitely did NOT want to sound like that.)

  • forced-birth-rape

    “If any of that sounded like Christian-splainin’ or a too-defensive response to a poster PLEASE let me know. Thanks! (I definitely did NOT want to sound like that.)”

    ~No sweetie you sounded adorable, thank you! I am sorry if what I said offended or hurt you.~

    ~I agree Jesus was a feminist. I believe abortion and homosexual protest is a perfect example that they do not worship Jesus, because Jesus never said a word about either. I believe the christians I know, and the christians we hear about all the time worship, penises.~

    ~Jesus did not criticize, harass, bully, manipulate, intimidate, terrorize, or condemn women, he never told a women to go home and get pregnant, go home and give birth, or go home and get married, he always got mad at the men, and took-up for women. He was friends with women and would never treat them the way pro lifers do, or talk to them the way pro lifers do. I do not believe the Jesus of the bible would harass women, or force them to give birth. ~

  • arekushieru

    I am sorry if what I said offended or hurt you.

    Just had to let you know that you didn’t offend or hurt me in any way.  I happen to agree with you 100% that organized, religious, patriarchal institutions are a disease and blight to the entire population of this planet.

  • crowepps

    Which brings us to the ballot issues this year, which are making me a big fan of the quaint system of having a republic, where we elect people to make laws after hearings and thoughtful deliberation, rather than all this direct democracy.

    We can start with Amendment 62, the “personhood amendment,” which would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs. It’s almost identical to Amendment 48, which was soundly defeated two years ago. Apparently the zygote zealots plan to circulate petitions every two years until we get sick of voting it down and they manage to slip it through.

    You can have a small, frugal government, or you can have one that monitors every woman of child- bearing age to be sure she’s protecting the legal rights of any fertilized egg she may be carrying. But you can’t have both.

    http://www.denverpost.com/quillen/ci_16389556