"Pro-lifers want to control women's bodies" - Okay, but........why?

I don’t want someone killing my family members and friends just because they are unconscious. I guess you can say this is “selfish self-interest”. But that’s as good a reason as one based on"fetal empathy". There are a lot of things I don’t like because they strike me as hateful and wrong that I don’t think the government should ban. Like, I hate internet trolls and I empathize with those who have been harmed by them. But I don’t think it should be against the law to be an internet troll. Because I think that would be government overreach.

Which just goes to show that every society has their own definition of “people”. What makes your definition superior than mine or anyone else’s?

This fetus isn’t smiling. It isn’t learning or dreaming.

Yes, everyone can have their own notion of when a clump of cells becomes human, but that doesn’t mean everyone’s definition is reasonable.

Reasonable people can believe an eight week fetus isn’t a person but an eight month fetus is…which is why late-term abortions are hardly ever performed. But no reasonable person can say that an eight week fetus has the same personhood as its mother.

That’s not the only reason why killing a baby (or any other person) would be wrong, though. I wouldn’t want someone to kill the town bully because I wouldn’t want someone to kill me if I should be perceived as the town bully. And leaving the town bully’s kids without a parent would also not be good for the town. You seem to be picking out the singular arguments I’ve made that rub you the wrong way while ignoring the other points. Why is that?

Do you know why abortion was legalized? Do you think it has anything to do with heinous scenes like this. [NSFW] ould it be that as heinous as abortion was perceived when it was illegal, the horrors of back alley abortions were far more heinous and people realized that they’d rather go with the heinousness that didn’t result in dead wives, daughters, and friends?

But sure, culture is hugely important in framing our morality. If we lived in a society with universal healthcare, guaranteed housing and food and basic income, where unwed mothers weren’t stigmatized, and modern medicine had figured out a way to make pregnancies blissful, low-risk affairs, then I probably would have a much stronger aversion to abortion. But since this is a society where half of the populace believes that poor people deserve to be poor and miserable, then I don’t really give a fuck about aborted fetuses. In fact, I’m kind of jealous of aborted fetuses because at least they don’t have to know how hateful, sanctimonious, and stingy people can be.

Our society is anti-life. We don’t become pro-life by banning abortion. Banning abortion just opens the door for more anti-life laws and attitudes. We don’t need any more of those.

Um, this isn’t the first time you’ve distorted what a poster said to score points, and I wish you’d stop. What I said is that an unwanted baby can be turned over to the state, and this is undeniably true. I have an adopted brother who can attest to the truth of this statement. My larger point, though, is that an unwanted baby can be turned over to someone–state, other parent, family, or stranger on the street–and be protected from harm caused by that unwantedness. An unwanted fetus cannot be protected without denying a woman the right to do what she wants with her own body. That makes protecting a baby a totally different thing than protecting a fetus. Most reasonable people would say that the difference is huge enough to deny a fetus’s personhood and let God (if he exists) sort out who’s going to burn in hell.

What are the consequences for guys, though? Does it not matter to you at all that women have to shoulder all these consequences–including possibly losing her life–while men get to live their completely detached from the whole thing? If a woman can be thrown in jail for killing her fetus, can we throw her boyfriend in jail for being neglectful and lazy and refusing to support her? Or does he get a pass on all of that because of some other Christian belief that isn’t actually codified in the Bible?

All you’ve basically said is, “No one’s gonna make it illegal to drink a glass of wine when you’re pregnant! Don’t be silly!”

But you’re underestimating the human desire to be logical (logic being the basis of our legal system). When black people were freed from slavery, it was inevitable for them to be eventually granted citizenship. Which then opened the door for franchisement and political power (at least the men). I’m sure there were plenty of abolitionists who argued the “No one’s gonna let nigras vote! Don’t be silly!” position, because they couldn’t conceive of it. They would have argued that emancipating someone from slavery is not the same thing as granting them all the rights of citizenship. But they were quite wrong because it turns out that lawyers, judges, and law-makers tend to have very logical, rational minds.

No, a pregnant woman who drinks a glass of wine probably won’t be charged with the same crime as an abortion doctor. But that doesn’t mean she wouldn’t be charged with something, just to teach her a lesson and show her that choices have consequences. Maybe that’s a prospect that doesn’t bother you because there’s no chance you’d ever be harmed by it. But for women, this is a prospect we can’t afford to ignore. It would be stupid for us to ignore something like this, because it is a realistic fear if abortion bans should come to pass.

If you want women to take you and your political side seriously, ya’ll should do a much better job of showing that you understand and sympathize with this fear. Because right now, the only thing I’m hearing from your side is “fuck your feelings and face the consequences of your actions!”

As I am opposing abortions, I must argue that the choice as to whether a woman ‘wants’ a fetus or not becomes irrelevant once the fetus achieves personhood. Pregnancy is extremely stressful and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of pregnant women came down with some form of psychiatric illness during pregnancy. An article in The Independent says the number is one in four. And there are more than a few psychiatric drugs that carry a ‘D’ or ‘X’ pregnancy classification (anxiolytics, hypnotics, antiepileptics, and mood stabilizers). Most contraindicated drugs have an alternative that is less risky, so a trip to the doctor or planned parenthood clinic to work out the medicines would be infinitely preferable to an abortion.

“Not for use with pregnancy” is written all over the drugs. Someone on these medications should talk to a doctor before having sex - if an obstetrician isn’t available, ask the psychiatrist who prescribes the antipsychotic. A schizophrenic woman on atypical antipsychotics with extrapyramidal symptoms (olanzapine) might switch to a less risky alternative such as chlorpromazine[2].

To go ahead and risk a situation where the fetus becomes nonviable due to psychiatric drugs is negligent, as is drinking excessively. And the pharmacist’s executive decision under current ethics should involve asking the woman if she is pregnant and calling the prescribing physician.

The only answer here is that abortion should be illegal without a doctor’s certificate, and the doctor may only certify abortion when absolutely necessary to prevent death or significant and irreversible harm to the patient.

[1] Rischel, C. (January 4, 2018). One in four women suffer from mental health issues during pregnancy. The Independent. Retrieved from One in four women suffer from mental health issues during pregnancy | The Independent | The Independent
[2] Richardson, K. (2013). Antipsychotic use during pregnancy and lactation: optimizing health for mother and newborn. Mental Health Clinician, 3(2), pp. 99-106. Antipsychotic use during pregnancy and lactation: optimizing health for mother and newborn | Mental Health Clinician

Yes, if the child is actually born with problems linked to said teratogens or if the fetus is actually aborted due to such concerns as may arise from teratogen exposure.

Alcohol consumption is not generally linked with medically necessary abortion, although it is linked to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder this is not fatal. I could certainly support legislation dealing with this matter if the child actually develops FASD, but it is not strictly related to abortions.

Absolutely and pharmacists should be doing so even today. At the very least the pharmacist needs to contact the prescribing doctor. If the woman is not actually pregnant (eg: the doctor confirms that her appearance is obesity) a note should be placed on her profile.

Yes, it is inconvenient for the woman. But it is the right thing to do.

Yes, however - a mere miscarriage should not be enough for a warrant. A claim by the husband that the woman killed the baby on purpose, or a tip from a mandatory reporter, that sort of thing would prompt an investigation.

I am OK with all of those things.

~Max

It wouldn’t be a punishment for being pregnant. Punishment implies that being pregnant is a fault you must pay for. Pretty much nobody hate pregnant women and want to make them suffer. It would be society deciding that women have an extreme level of duty wrt their future babies and/or fetuses.

And of course it would be reasonable to be worried about it if it happened (note that the smoke/drink part has essentially already happened, and this during my lifetime, not legally, but definitely socially, and this evolution had nothing to do with opposition to abortion). But banning abortion doesn’t imply such drastic laws.

I mean : do you know real people who are against abortion as opposed to this fantasy of people who want to control women bodies, punish them for having sex, tie pregnant women to a bed so that they won’t move too much, and save the baby rather than the mother if they have to choose?
.

No, I wouldn’t like it. And of course banning abortion would have negative consequences for women. But once again, your sentence only work as long as you’re assuming a fetus to be a clump of cell. The proper answer would be “do you think babies should be killed if they inconvenience you?”

Of course, if you assume a fetus to be nothing more than a clump of cells, with absolutely no rights, that appeared randomly, you have no reason to think that a woman should have to bear any negative consequence, and every reason to think that you should be able to get rid of it for any reason whatsoever.

But if you see him as a tiny baby, with full human rights, loved by god who has appeared as a direct consequences of your actions, then yes, the logical conclusion is that it’s your responsibility to deal with these consequences, even if you would rather not. And that “killing a baby” is of course not an option.
And there’s no conceivable objective way to determine at which point between conception and the moment when the child is able to fend for himself he acquires personhood and a right to life

You realize that a lot of people opposed to abortion are women? In fact all people I’ve known personally who expressed opposition to abortion, as far as I remember, have been women (not saying it’s representative). You realize also that if they aren’t at risk of being pregnant, banning abortion also has consequences on men, like being called “daddy” for the rest of their life, whether they like it or not? And you realize finally that I’m not opposed to abortion?

Ah, sorry. I forgot the original situation that sub-thread was referring to. Having sex anyway would constitute negligence.

That is not to say the woman will necessarily get jail time or be hung or anything - she still gets a trial by jury as to intent, whether the fetus had a reasonable chance for survival, etc. and the judge when sentencing must consider the intense emotional distress caused by the miscarriage. Especially if there was a slim chance that it would survive.

~Max

Well, I disagree. Child abandonment is a serious crime, you cannot simply “decide” to disown your child. Even if you do, that does not give you the right to kill the child. It just so happens with yet-to-be-viable fetuses that a woman cannot remove the fetus without killing it. Even with viable fetuses, this cannot be done without great expense, which the woman is not entitled to except possibly in cases of rape.

Barring rape, the woman made the choice to have sex, and conception whenever it occurs naturally is a direct consequence of sex. If she did not want to risk childbirth, she should not have had sex.

I too would insist on that limitation in the third trimester, but of course I would not be satisfied with that alone.

~Max

By your the logic of your first three sentences, which I agree with, if I argue and convince enough people that a right exists, then it actually does exist and reasonably so.

You can say the right does not exist now, but that does nothing to prove it should or shouldn’t or could or couldn’t exist. This line of thinking can not shut down debate.

~Max

The husband or boyfriend is equally culpable for the act of sex in cases where it is known beforehand that the woman cannot endure pregnancy and would have to abort the fetus.

Similarly, the husband or boyfriend is culpable as a co-conspirator if they conspired with the wife/girlfriend to abort the fetus. And I would not be averse to requiring back-compensation for pregnancy if a dead fetus is linked to a male (DNA or confession or whatever convinces a jury).

~Max

If one day I am allowed to be as physically active and adventuous as I want and then the next day I’m under threat of prison time if I get caught doing the same activities, then HELL YES, I am going to feel like I’m being punished. Why wouldn’t I be? I’m certainly not being rewarded with anything. No, my rights are being taken away from me. In any other context, this would be called a punishment. So it’s a punishment in this context as well.

I’m not talking about social opprobium. We live in a society where you can be shamed for just about anything. I’m talking about legal consequences. Legal consequences can fuck a person up for a lifetime. We already fuck up entirely way too many people’s lives for stupid crimes as it is. Why should we be eager to give authoritarian bastards more power over us?

It opens the doors to such drastic laws, and it is naive to think otherwise.

I have met my fair share of pro-lifers and they all strike me as incredibly naive and simple-minded folk. Not evil, but also not the brightest bulbs. They are the kind of people who seem to have tons of empathy for cute little babies, but have absolutely none for no one else. They think shaming and scolding people for their poor choices is more effective than actually making it easier for people to make better choices.

That isn’t a proper answer because 1) it’s a question and 2) a fetus isn’t a baby. And as I’ve already brought to your attention, a baby that inconveniences her parents can be put in the care of someone who knows how to handle her. So there’s a legal option available for someone who is being driven crazy by a crazy-making baby. With no abortion, a pregnant woman has no legal reprieve. She’s essentially held hostage in a way that her husband or boyfriend never has to worry about. And you can say she made this choice by choosing to have sex, but no one voluntarily chooses to go insane. A person chooses to cross the street, but no one chooses to get hit by a car while crossing the street.

So do you deny that fetuses can appear “randomly” in the form of rape? Are you one of those pro-lifers who concede to the rape exception, or are you one of the ones who think a fetus is a fetus, whether the product of rape or conceptual sex?

And where is this “god” when women are being raped? Where’s the love in that scenario, and why should a rapist’s “baby” have more rights than the innocent crime victim?

And I must have missed where women are being forced to “kill a baby”. We don’t have mandatory abortions here in the US. If you personally view abortion as “killing a baby”, then guess what? No one is going to make you kill a baby. And as far as I know, that option will always be there.

Pro-choice folks aren’t trying to take away options. Only your side is.

I would say a fetus who is too undeveloped to live outside of the womb without the most state-of-the-art NICU is clearly NOT a person. I’m actually quite comfortable with this definition. Probably because I have more important things on my mind than whether the fetuses living in stomachs count as people. There are so many people in this world who live outside of stomachs. The former are sleeping peacefully, blissfully unaware of their own existence. The latter have so many pressing problems and issues and worries. I care more about these things than coming up with the right legal term for something that doesn’t even have a recognizable face yet.

All this means is that women can be naive fools the same as anyone. There were black people who didn’t mind being slaves and thought emancipation was the worst thing that could ever happen. A lot of them were sheltered from the worst horrors of slavery, and a lot of them had simply bought into the idea of negro inferiority. They had accepted their lowly status in society because it fit in with the facts as they knew them and what they had been told their whole lives by authority figures.

A lot of women believe that wives must be submissive to their husbands. A lot of women believe that women are not mentally or psychologically suited for leadership positions. A lot of women believe that women do not belong in the military. And a lot of women think that women need to face the consequences of their sexual immorality, even when those consequences put her life in danger. So no, I’m not impressed by the fact that there are pro-life women. In fact, pro-life women scare me even more than “pro-life” men. At least “pro-life” men have a decent excuse for being so cavalier about the right of women to have control over their own bodies.

It seems strange that you are directing this comment at me, when I wasn’t the one playing the “X is not a human right!” card to shut down debate.

Did I say it was? I don’t even think we have a different definition. What I say is precisely that such definitions are arbitrary, and you can’t just claim “Of course, fetuses are just clumps of cells that suddenly become people with full rights one second after birth, and it’s so blatantly obvious and indisputable that anybody arguing differently is lying and must be doing so because he hates women”.

You realize that we are on the SDMB, where a number of people have been arguing that the right to abort on a whim at 8 months 3/4 shouldn’t be open to debate?

People opposed to early abortion aren’t reasonable, they’re religious, and believe indeed that the 8 weeks fetus has the same personhood as his mother because they both have a soul. Not because they hate women.

Possibly because they rub me the wrong way? I don’t know what argument I ignored.

I’m not sure how it relates to what I wrote, but once again : you realize that I’m not opposed to abortion, and don’t need a course about the reasons why it’s a good thing, right?

I didn’t distort anything. You wrote :“* if a parent doesn’t want to care for their six-month old baby, they can turn the baby over*” and contrasted it to the fact that an unwilling pregnant woman on the other hand would be forced to suffer the consequences of conceiving. Seemingly meaning that forcing the mother to keep the baby (and suffer consequences for conceiving) was a special exception, while normally you can just abdicate all responsibility by turning the baby over.

Becoming dad. That’s a quite big consequence.

Who suffers the consequences has no bearing on whether or not a fetus is a person.

What am I supposed to say? That biology is unjust?

Not sure what you mean by “being neglectful and lazy and refusing to support her?” . Not using contraception? Not paying child support?

I didn’t say that, especially since I think it could well happen, regardless of abortion laws.

But for women, this is a prospect we can’t afford to ignore. It would be stupid for us to ignore something like this, because it is a realistic fear if abortion bans should come to pass.

I certainly didn’t post in this thread to show that I sympathize with women’s fears. This board is filled to the brim with people who sympathizes always, regardless of the issue or circumstances, with any plight whatsoever coming from one of the officially recognized oppressed groups. Nobody needs me for that here. It’s not exactly like there’s a lack of threads or posts about women issues and supportive of women. You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting one.

I posted to point at the inability of these people to even entertain the idea that someone disagreeing with them on anything could have any reason whatsoever to do so apart from general unflinching evilness, deep rooted hatred and ardent desire to persecute.

And I’m not sure what my political side is supposed to be.

That’s the problem with “pro-iife” for me, it is intentionally insulting to my side as we are also “pro-life” and it is insulting to suggest we are not.

but the other side are seeking to deny choice so the implicit “anti-choice” label seems accurate.

That you see no problem putting women on trial just for having miscarriages says enough, thank you.

Pregnant Woman: “Are you free next week to take me to the doctor for a prenatal check?”

Neglectful, lazy, non-supportive boyfriend: “Nope, I’m hanging out with my boys next week. Just take the bus. You’ll be alright.”

Pregnant Woman: “I’m feeling really tired. Could you please make dinner tonight?”

Neglectful, lazy, non-supportive boyfriend: “I’m tired too! Why do I keep having to do all these extra chores? You’re really milking this pregnancy, aren’t you?”

Pregnant Woman: “You only worked 15 hours this week. You really need to get another job if we’re going to raise this baby together.”

Neglectful, lazy, non-supportive boyfriend: “But I’m still in school! You knew that when you had sex with me! Why should I give up my dreams just because the condom broke! Why can’t you get another job?”

Pregnant Woman: “Can you please give me a foot massage? My feet are super swollen.”

Neglectful, lazy, non-supportive boyfriend: “Fuck your feet! I’m going out for beers. And you better cry! You brought all of this on yourself for sleeping with me, you fat slut.”

Where are the consequences for this piece of shit boyfriend?

You’ve made some rather ludicrous arguments in this thread. Like, you would seriously prosecute a woman for having sex while knowingly taking prescribed medication that can cause birth defects? Do you really know how many prison beds we’d need to add to the system if this sick dream of yours came to fruition? And oddly enough, none of the so-called “empathic” pro-lifers here have expressed disagreement over anything you’ve said. That tells me everything I need to know how “slippery” the pro-life slippery slope is.

Nobody’s claiming that.

People are claiming that clumps of cells gradually become people over a process of time. The sharp line at birth is because at that point there’s no longer a fetus essentially dependent for its existence on somebody else’s body, but a physically separate being that is not so dependent.

Laws set an arbitrary monent for adulthood also, because that’s how it’s necessary to write laws. That doesn’t mean that anyone thinks that something magical happens to everyone exactly at midnight on the day that they’re 18, or 21, or whatever age the society picks. Laws likewise have to set an arbitrary moment for legal personhood. The moment at which the new person is no longer essentially dependent on a different individual’s body strikes me as a good one. The moment of fertilization strikes me as a terrible one, for multiple reasons. Nobody that I know of is going around saying that because actual development of adult abilities doesn’t happen in an instant, therefore day old babies must have the right to vote, sign contracts, or consent to sex. Assigning legal personhood to a zygote, blastocyst, or embryo strikes me as doing the equivalent of that. Whether personhood could reasonably assigned at some point during the fetus stage is a different sort of question; but there’s no way, as you say, to pin down an exact moment. As people have pointed out over and over and over again on this board that legal personhood does not in any other case carry automatic rights over somebody else’s body, the moment of birth works quite nicely, because at that point that issue goes away.

Cite, please.

Saying that late-term abortions should be legal when the woman’s doctors agree that the fetus is not viable and/or continuing the pregnancy risks major health consequences or death for the woman is not saying that they should be legal “on a whim”. I haven’t seen anyone calling for abortion on request past the age of potential viability. And the phrasing of “on a whim” trivializes the issue to the point of absurdity.

I will agree that that’s a common motivation; and that there doesn’t need to be hatred of women. I don’t think people who believe everyone outside their particular church will burn in hell forever necessarily hate everyone outside their church, either.

But I don’t think we should be making public policy based on people’s religious beliefs; except, of course, that anyone’s entitled to refuse to themselves get an abortion based on their religious beliefs. Or based on anything else, for that matter.

If there was a utilitarian purpose behind no premarital sex in premodern times, I would suppose that it was because even though fecundity was highly valued, having children without the support mechanism of a husband was a disaster. It wasn’t like there were a lot of economic opportunities for women or a welfare state back then. Even in modern times a father could get very exasperated with having to help out his 25-year old daughter after her third unwed childbirth.

Again, we get into the chicken and egg question of whether morality is ultimately utilitarian, even if not consciously realized as such. And speaking of prostitutes, that harks back to what I said about economic opportunities: becoming a whore often was the only recourse of an unwed mother, getting men to support herself and her children on a pay-as-you-go basis. Not to say that men and women weren’t in grossly asymmetrical positions or that men weren’t hypocrites, but it’s questionable whether subordination was a goal in and of itself. Birth control became widely accepted, not coincidentally, about the same time that having lots of children was no longer economically beneficial and when expanded opportunities for employing women came about.

There are practical reasons for controlling sexual behavior that aren’t rooted in sexism, no doubt. But that doesn’t negate the idea that sexism has influenced how this control is exercised. For instance, the importance of chasity has been impressed upon women for eons and eons, while male promiscuity has been subtly encouraged. In a truly equal society, “slut” would have never been a label almost exclusively applied to women; the shaming would’ve been shared.

I’m not sure I understand the point you are making with this observation. One could argue that men had a vested interest in ensuring whores were available for their pleasure and exploitation, so what you’re treating as a bug in the design was actually a feature. If you got knocked up, you were a whore. And whores get knocked up. Your whorishness absolves men from any responsibility to you or your children.

You don’t think feminism had anything to do with making these things happen?

Life is a human right. A woman has the (human) right to control her body.

I argue that a fetus is a person and thus should have human rights. Therefore, from my perspective:

When a woman is pregnant and does not want to be pregnant, she may claim the right to abort the pregnancy as part of the right to control her body. But this is in conflict with another human right - the right of the fetus to live. So we have a conflict of human rights. I am saying that the fetus’s right to life is more important than the woman’s right to control one’s own body, because, assuming sex was consensual, it is partially the woman’s fault that she is pregnant. She brought this upon herself; she waived the right to control her body when she had sex.

Now if the woman is unable to safely bring the fetus to term, and she knew so much before having sex, that constitutes negligence on her part. She may obtain an abortion if medically necessary, and the licensed provider of that service is free from prosecution, but she (and her partner if he knew) are responsible for negligence resulting in the death of their unborn child.

If she attempts to carry the child to term but miscarries, or it is determined the fetus is nonviable, a legal abortion is warranted with no prosecution of any party. The only exception would be a tip or complaint that the miscarriage was purposefully induced, which constitutes homicide under current law, and that would warrant an investigation.

At the same time I would allow the woman with such health conditions to be sterilized, if she so wishes, if pregnancy is unacceptably risky. That way she could still have sex. If sterilization is contraindicated, she just cannot risk sex without risking breaking the law.

If you disagree, we can debate it.

~Max

Don’t leave! We can still talk!

I wouldn’t put any woman on trial for miscarriage. It would need to be a woman who willfully induced the miscarriage. That also means there wouldn’t be any charges unless someone complained or offered a tip, and then investigators found evidence they think will hold up in court.

~Max

You actually quoted clairobscur, not me.


I wouldn’t prosecute a woman for having sex while knowingly taking prescribed medication that can cause birth defects, I would prosecute her for aborting the fetus or if the baby is born with defects or if the husband/boyfriend claimed she killed his baby. You appear to disagree with me and consider this outrageous, but I don’t share your outrage. I know we are speaking on totally different wavelengths but please try and explain to me why it is so outrageous. That way we can get to the root of our disagreement.

I think the only disagreement here is whether the fetus has the right to life. If I am correct, that is the simple answer to the original post.

~Max

All of that from your perspective comes from your assertion that a fetus should be considered to be a person and have human rights. If I disagree that a clump of cells that is not capable of any sort of awareness or consciousness is a person and thus should be given rights, then none of the rest of what you have decided based upon that assertion matters.

If you are going to make an argument, then make an argument, don’t just assume that you’ve won that argument and move on. Make your case, your secular and non-emotional case, that a thingy without a brain should have the same rights as an adult.

People die all the time, for dumber and more preventable reasons than abortion. It’s sad, but it’s just abstract sad. If it is not your child, or a relative of yours, then what does it matter to you any more than that child in africa that just now died of tuberculosis that you didn’t lift a finger to save?

If you are pro-life, don’t get an abortion. Provide real support and alternatives to pregnant women, don’t just try to trick them or force them to bear unwanted children. Provide for sex ed and birth control to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.