Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsubaki said:
Again, the decision for that has to be between a woman and the medical professionals that would carry out the procedure if required in the light of the circumstances.

Also FWIW men do not "get what they want all of the time when it comes to reproductive health".
Click to expand...

Ok, so can you give me a single example, in tbe history of humanity when men have had to carry an unwanted pregnancy? Or how many man have died in childbirth?

What consequences exist for men below the age of legal consent? Are they missing any school? What stigma is attached to them?

How many of them are being accused of murder for termination? How many will be threatened with having their phones tracked?

Its not even vaguely comparable.

As for the other point, just so I am clear, if a woman has been raped, doesnt feel able to disclose to a male doctor, you feel he should be able to override what she wants, and make her go ahead with an unwanted pregnancy?

That's pretty disgusting and extreme if you do. The fact you wont unequivocally day, victims of rape should have the right to terminate the unwanted feotus of their rapist, is also alarming.

But you do you. The problem is obviously absolutists, or women who want abortions.
 
catcherintherye said:
Ok, so can you give me a single example, in tbe history of humanity when men have had to carry an unwanted pregnancy? Or how many man have died in childbirth?

What consequences exist for men below the age of legal consent? Are they missing any school? What stigma is attached to them?

How many of them are being accused of murder for termination? How many will be threatened with having their phones tracked?

Its not even vaguely comparable.

As for the other point, just so I am clear, if a woman has been raped, doesnt feel able to disclose to a male doctor, you feel he should be able to override what she wants, and make her go ahead with an unwanted pregnancy?

That's pretty disgusting and extreme if you do. The fact you wont unequivocally day, victims of rape should have the right to terminate the unwanted feotus of their rapist, is also alarming.

But you do you. The problem is obviously absolutists, or women who want abortions.
Click to expand...

It is difficult to argue with you when you respond with a load of scenarios that do not match what you previously said (which was that men always get what they want in reproductive health cases).

As for women who have been raped - again, I don't think it is a matter for the law to pre-emptively say yes or no that they should have or should not have an abortion. I think it has to be a decision made between the woman and the medical staff based on the circumstances of that case - so not the law, not the medic's pre-existing belief system, not the budget at the healthcare facility, not what politicians think will win votes, not what you or I think. I can't honestly think of a scenario where a 12 year old keeping a rapists baby might be an decision that is made, but I don't think its right for me to say that should never happen (edit: or should always happen) when its not my decision.

It is kind of mad by the way that you are the one most angry about these recent developments whilst also advocating the system (of involving other people into these decisions) that brought this ban about.
 
LinekersLegs said:
Click to expand...

Just been reading an article on this.
Like, how do you say something like this and not have every node of logic and decency in your brain scream at you simultaneously?

Gunn said he did not know “what the Legislature’s appetite” would be for ensuring child rape and incest victims could obtain abortions. The state’s 15-week abortion ban does not include rape exceptions, but a 2007 Roe v. Wade trigger law that could become effective soon would allow rape exceptions early in a pregnancy only if the rape was reported to law enforcement—which does not happen in most incest cases.

“No, (the law) does not include an exception for incest,” Gunn said. “I don’t know that that will be changed.”

“Do you think the Legislature should revisit that?” Pettus asked.

“Personally, no. I do not,” Gunn said. “I believe life begins at conceptions. Every life is valuable. And those are my personal beliefs.”
Click to expand...

?
 
DuuuncanHadaPigeon said:
Agreed.

Out of interest are there any states that have banned it completely, even if life of the mother is in danger? I haven't kept up with each states response
Click to expand...
In theory they all have provisions to save the life of the pregnant person although only 5 inlude rape/incest as exceptions.

In practice however the definition of ”save the life” is very murky and generally are not written with any medical knowledge at all eg at one point Ohio’s laws said that ectopic pregnancies had to be re-implanted in the womb (a medically impossible procedure). There will be many doctors who take a riak averse approach for fear of being sued which will likely lead to even higher maternal mortality rates than our already abysmal rates.

www.theguardian.com

Tracking abortion laws across the United States

Abortion is now banned in 13 states, while four have banned the procedure past roughly six weeks of pregnancy
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
tsubaki said:
It is difficult to argue with you when you respond with a load of scenarios that do not match what you previously said (which was that men always get what they want in reproductive health cases).

As for women who have been raped - again, I don't think it is a matter for the law to pre-emptively say yes or no that they should have or should not have an abortion. I think it has to be a decision made between the woman and the medical staff based on the circumstances of that case - so not the law, not the medic's pre-existing belief system, not the budget at the healthcare facility, not what politicians think will win votes, not what you or I think. I can't honestly think of a scenario where a 12 year old keeping a rapists baby might be an decision that is made, but I don't think its right for me to say that should never happen (edit: or should always happen) when its not my decision.

It is kind of mad by the way that you are the one most angry about these recent developments whilst also advocating the system (of involving other people into these decisions) that brought this ban about.
Click to expand...

You refusing to put protections into law, is just letting women down.

Women and girls need protections, and you're unwilling to give it to them. You have your reasons I'm sure.

Under your system, women would be let down. It would be horrendous for women. I doubt you care, but I do, and that's why I wholly disagree.

You cant even say that women should have the right to abortion where rape has occurred, if a doctor thinks otherwise.

You're views are extreme and dangerous. My view, that any woman who wants an abortion should have access to one, in line with bodily autonomy, is anything but.

I have given you scenarios, within the context of child rearing, how men and women are treated wholly differently. I appreciate its hard for you to respond. I also appreciate, you dont think women should have even the most basic of rights enshrined in law, so this will not be a concern for you. It's an absolutist position, but it's your right to hold it.

I have no idea how I, who wants a clear, unequivocal right for women to abortions am responsible for them losing their bodily autonomy. The reality is, people like you, who refuse to defend womens right to bodily autonomy are the problem. It leads to slippage that gets exploited. You give these people an inch, and they take a mile. The mistake was giving an inch on the question of women and children's bodies and lives, in favour of worthless, unwanted fetuses.
 
catcherintherye said:
You refusing to put protections into law, is just letting women down.

Women and girls need protections, and you're unwilling to give it to them. You have your reasons I'm sure.

Under your system, women would be let down. It would be horrendous for women. I doubt you care, but I do, and that's why I wholly disagree.

You cant even say that women should have the right to abortion where rape has occurred, if a doctor thinks otherwise.

You're views are extreme and dangerous. My view, that any woman who wants an abortion should have access to one, in line with bodily autonomy, is anything but.

I have given you scenarios, within the context of child rearing, how men and women are treated wholly differently. I appreciate its hard for you to respond. I also appreciate, you dont think women should have even the most basic of rights enshrined in law, so this will not be a concern for you. It's an absolutist position, but it's your right to hold it.

I have no idea how I, who wants a clear, unequivocal right for women to abortions am responsible for them losing their bodily autonomy. The reality is, people like you, who refuse to defend womens right to bodily autonomy are the problem. It leads to slippage that gets exploited. You give these people an inch, and they take a mile. The mistake was giving an inch on the question of women and children's bodies and lives, in favour of worthless, unwanted fetuses.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing process for reality here.

As we have just found out, "protections put into law" only work if you can't then change the law. If the law can be changed, those protections disappear.

What would be better (and given where we are now, I find it hard to believe you are still banging the drum for such an obviously flawed system) is that the law stays out of this debate; it should be a decision taken between her and the medical staff in light of the circumstances of her case.

... but obviously, doing that wouldn't allow people to carry out the usual performative behaviours on this topic, so it must be bad.

Finally well done on pretending you aren't an extremist in a post you end with "in favour of worthless, unwanted fetuses".
 
tsubaki said:
I think you are confusing process for reality here.

As we have just found out, "protections put into law" only work if you can't then change the law. If the law can be changed, those protections disappear.

What would be better (and given where we are now, I find it hard to believe you are still banging the drum for such an obviously flawed system) is that the law stays out of this debate; it should be a decision taken between her and the medical staff in light of the circumstances of her case.

... but obviously, doing that wouldn't allow people to carry out the usual performative behaviours on this topic, so it must be bad.

Finally well done on pretending you aren't an extremist in a post you end with "in favour of worthless, unwanted fetuses".
Click to expand...

The American system is a bizarre one. The SCOTUS can make changes outside of politics.

There needs to be systemic change at that level.

In that system though, there is still no protection is there. We need a mechanism that clearly protects womens rights.

I'm sure you're well motivated enough. But women need legal protections. If they are not protected, slippage happens.

I'm surprised that you wouldnt defend women to have control over their bodies. But you're entitled to your view as much as anyone else. That's what matters to me, women and girls. Not foetuses.
 
catcherintherye said:
There was a report out last year, that looked at treatment of women, and specifically black women in childbirth in the NHS, and found structural problems.

I think Bell Hooks has also written about it. It's a relatively new area of research, so there will be increasing texts coming forward as we go. Womens experiences, and certainly women close to me, report a complete lack of care in relation to womens health from the health establishment.

What I'm suggesting, is I cant see any medical benefit, from the trauma, risk and danger that comes from carrying an unwanted feotus for 9 months, and then having to give birth.

There may well be subsequent benefits from having birth to a human. And where the pregnancy is wanted, there is a good argument that the benefits of having a child, outweight the medical drawbacks of pregnancy and childbirth.

However this is a separate argument to strictly looking at the medical wellbeing of the woman, with an unwanted feotus. I cant see how that wouldnt be a medical problem. I cant see a single medical upside.
Click to expand...
If you’re looking for inequity in healthcare between men and women, you can’t focus on a situation that only women will ever find themselves in. In your prior post you suggested it was written at length and widely established. Now it’s a new area of research and more will be coming out?

You’re passionate about this issue and that’s fair enough but your comments and arguments jump all over the map. We can just agree that choice should exist for the woman, and I’ll leave it at that.
 
BlueTX said:
So your father forced your mother to have you? Did your mother have a say or if your father instructed her to have an abortion, would she have complied?

My mother was 19 when I was conceived and unmarried at the time. She and my father chose to marry and have me. That experience, while I'm certainly appreciative, has literally zero bearing on the decisions made by anyone else. That's what freedom is and what rights are all about.
Click to expand...
My mother didn't want to carry on with the pregnancy but my father's faith is why I'm alive to this day. My mother was 22 and was a university student. This is why I'm incredibly grateful for everything.

You should read up stories about our military base out in Ramstein, Germany. A lot of our military guys have got babies with European women.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top