It has come to my attention, ladies, that you are all too stupid to make decisions involving the appropriate use of your genitalia. I cannot see that there are any exceptions: even if you have a PhD in biochemistry, your intellect and judgment still falls short before the testicular fortitude of any man, and you must defer to his logic and wisdom concerning your uterus and vagina.
Yes, your mental capacity may vary, depending on your cycles, your diet and whatever kinds of, shall we say, recreation you might enjoy, but even your best is not good enough. You are simply lacking, and in need of guidance. Always remember this.
The subject comes up because a friend and I recently got onto the subject of the evil racist eugenicist who founded Planned Parenthood. This bad bad person tried mightily to convince us that women should be able to make choices on their own with respect to what is between their legs. Such a deeply misguided effort needs to be exposed for the utter folly that it is.
I got into an endless, futile shouting match with a jerk some while back, and seeing this resurface was infuriating. Clearly people a century ago thought exactly as we do and had the same quality of information about stuff, so their ideas and words (even misattributed or whole cloth) are relevant and pertinent today. So, remember, if you get caught up in this, ladies, the underlying message is: you are just too fucking stupid to be in control of your own lady parts.
I tend to feel slightly disappointed when I find out an acquaintance is anti-abortion, probably akin to hypothetically learning they’re pro-slavery, i.e.* they still make people like you?*
We also clearly do not need to fund birth control (evil!) or women’s reproductive services, because women should never be using those lady parts unless they’re married to a man and he has the insurance to cover it!
No, it is about Planned Parenthood, which some are trying to kneecap. One of the tactics is spreading distortions and bullshit about the founder, who was opposed to abortion because it was illegal and dangerous. The point is, opposition to PP is essentially the same as telling women that they are too stupid to be in control of their reproduction.
And the flipside is that absent similar commitment to abolishing the death penalty and promoting child welfare assurance, the “murder” argument is a strawman used by people who merely want to deny women agency over their own bodies. Given a slight change in circumstances, one can see the authority and legal structures these people seek being used to compel abortions instead of, or as well as, denying them.
Nope. That’s the strawman right there. An awful lot of pro-choice people believe that the unborn child is a human being. That belief isn’t the borderline between pro-choice and anti-choice. The borderline is whether you believe the state should be able to use one human being’s body for another’s benefit, against the first person’s will.
The actual argument from the anti-choice side is that a woman’s body - unlike a man’s - can and should be used by the state for the benefit of another human being, against the woman’s will.
I’ve never heard any opponent of abortion argue in favour of forced blood donation or forced organ donation, even though the act of refusing those undoubtedly causes the death of other human beings. But those practices would apply to men as well as to women - and men have the right to be in charge of their own bodies. But women…well, like the OP says, we just can’t be making our own decisions about our own bodies.
Planned Parenthood is not about abortion. They do not perform or facilitate abortions. Their goal is fundamentally to prevent abortions in the first place, by providing women with the practical means to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and to do as well as possible throughout the ones that they do want. But some assholes oppose even that. Oppose allowing women to be in control of their reproduction.
Why would that be?
What other reason could there be but that women are just too stupid to make even basic contraceptive choices? There can be no other salient argument against allowing women to have control over their bodies.
Perhaps someone can explain to me how denying women free access to reproductive health services and contraception is not calling them stupid?
To be honest, I don’t think the belief behind it is that women are too stupid to make choices. I think the belief is that women just don’t have the fundamental *right *to make choices, not the same way men have that right. There’s a mindset in which men have the *absolute *right to make choices about their own bodies, whether those choices are right or wrong, and any attempt to infringe on that right is unconscionable (with which I agree). Women have the right to make choices about their own bodies, as long as those choices are the right ones.
There are also people who have trouble drawing the line between ‘I believe this is wrong’ and ‘This must be made illegal’, and who don’t think through the moral implications of making it illegal. They don’t think of women as stupid or inferior; they just believe abortion is wrong, so it should be banned. They’d think the same thing if men could get pregnant too.
Viability is the point at which I think abortion should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances, because of exactly what you said: once the foetus also has bodily autonomy, that has to be respected too. If a woman wants to not be pregnant any more at 26 weeks, she’s got that right. But the state has the right to demand that the child be delivered alive, and to take it into care.
The vast majority of abortions are performed well before viability, though, and for those, your post has nothing to do with anything I said. Regardless of what choices anyone made, the state is still using one person’s body for another person’s benefit against the first person’s will. And that’s still not OK.
Say Jimmy needs a blood transfusion right this minute, or he’ll die. Sam is the only possible donor. He says yes, he’ll do it. The doctors hook him up for a donation. Then Sam finds out that this procedure has a solid risk of killing him, or permanently damaging his health, or temporarily damaging his health, or he just changes his mind.
I’m not asking whether he would be right or wrong to demand the donation be stopped. I’m asking whether* the state* should be able to force him to complete the transfusion. And I don’t think it should.
A “human being” who is biologically dependent upon someone else’s body? With the possible exception of a conjoined twin, that’s not a human being, it’s a parasite. There’s a difference between a potential person and an actual person.
The real murderers are the people who cut off life-saving medical services from women.