??? Technical question: I thought the uterus was the permanent, structural part of the body – sort of like the cervix – there’s only one per woman, and it doesn’t regrow. Isn’t the placenta the part that gets regrown with each pregnancy? (And there’s another term for the part that grows and is expelled with each menstruation, but I don’t remember it…) Anyway… Am I remembering my anatomy lessons wrong? Wouldn’t three uteri be like three pancreases?
Has nothing to do with the actual debate, where I am totally in agreement with you. Let’s make a law saying he has to have his nuts cut off, to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Hey, it’s in the state’s legitimate interest, and that always trumps personal individual rights. Pffff.
I think she is likely referring to her own uterus and her daughters (which she technically grew inside her own uterus when she was pregnant with them).
I have two very darling little girls that I love very much even when they throw up in my hair, write on the walls on and eat my last three thin mints.
So I’ve grown three uteri. Forget penis envy. I really think some men have a serious case of womb jealousy.
This whole issue is just so complicated. Most women don’t sit around and make it without thinking. Frankly any woman that does is probably not ready to be a mother. The last thing all of us need in the meantime is male legislators or male bystanders overruling us.
Ha. The shorthair has made peace with them despite the fact that the little one has picassoe’d with him various writing implements multiple times. The Maine Coon is much the warier. She will only come out of the basement when she thinks the little one is asleep or away.
Ah! I could, obviously, be mildly pedantic, but no need. My confusion is allieved!
Absolutely true. Many men do indeed. The power to bring new life into the world is overwhelming. Many men also have breast envy, for the power to nourish new life. (Also, 'cause breasts are, like, way cool. Envy can be silly that way!)
Total agreement. Vive le difference, and leave people alone. The “personhood” of a fetus is a matter of opinion, not a meaningful fact. If one believes that fetuses are “people,” then at least have the grace to recognize that others honestly and with full integrity hold a different opinion.
Meanwhile, this burdensome regulatory crap that they’re using these days – doctors have to have admitting privileges at hospitals, and ultrasounds must be invasive, and must be shown to the patient – are obscenely offensive.
If I want to have brain surgery – far more invasive than an abortion – there’s no law that says I must be shown the cranial X-rays.
(We could cranially X-ray the legislators in question, and the film would be blank…)
Unfortunately women have health risks regardless of whether or not they continue their pregnancies. According to a 90s era study by the WHO (which is the newest I can find, unfortunately), in the US .6% of legal abortions result in maternal death and .2% in Canada; and if I’m doing the math correctly this is held against a rate of maternal death after live births of 1.3% in North America (but the latter also includes Mexico, which might account for this number seeming high to me).
I mentioned way back in this thread that our local city council has moved to create a human life ordinance that would effectively ban abortion. Since I posted, I’ve actually founded a local pro choice organization, created an event, talked to the media, and done a ton of research. Let me tell you: the more I’ve read about this ordinance, the more horrified I am.
First, it was brought to the city council by this pastor who likes to picket outside of Planned Parenthood and harass women. Our Planned Parenthood doesn’t even do abortions, but that doesn’t stop this tool and his ilk from harassing women who are trying to get cancer screenings or prenatal care. Oh, he runs a Quiverfull home school, just in case you needed another reason to hate him.
The best part, though? He isn’t even a resident of our city. He lives in Tehachapi, which is a mountain town a solid 45 minutes outside of city limits. He literally is in no way affected by what our city (ours, not his) does or doesn’t do with regard to reproductive rights. Yet, for some bass ackwards reason, our city council (all men and one 74 year old woman) is entertaining the ramblings of this nut bag.
So, his actual ordinance? It’s so awful. You can read it here on our Facebook page. The way it’s so vaguely written basically creates a financial penalty for using or distributing birth control pills. Or giving or getting a tubal litigation. Or condoms! As someone even pointed out on our page:
The city attorney flat out told the council that this would never work. They will get sued. They will lose. Several folks said that’s fine, the city has money to spend on this. It’s insanity.
You assume a total lack of obligation or responsibility on the part of the pregnant mother. But at some point doesn’t the mother assume responsibility?
Bricker might say the mother assumed the responsibility when she engaged in consensual sex.
I would say she assumes responsibility after 6 months.
We both agree that the woman can have an abortion at any time to save her life or health.
You seem to be saying she can expel a fetus from her body whenever she wants no matter how far along she is for any reason whatsoever.
But I don’t believe your claim that it would prohibit giving or getting a tubal litigation, or condoms. That seems like a false statement to me. Can you explain?.
Just wondering, do you work at or near a clinic? I haven’t seen an anti-abortion protestor in years, and that was only when I drove past one without knowing.
