Excuse me? It’s part of the whole issue of women having a say in the language and in how she allows people to use her body. Either way, you’re saying that she doesn’t realy count.
“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
Not going to engage further in this hijack.
A bumper sticker is not a debate argument. As noted earlier, the number of pro-life women is about the same as pro-life men. This isn’t about men vs women. It’s about pro-life vs pro-choice. Two political stances based on a different set of assumptions.
The world has changed since the 1950s, and men aren’t pulling the all the levers of power any more.
This could be be an interesting thread if we got rid of the pro-life means anti-women crap.
I am, frankly, gobsmacked by this. I know of very few circumstances under which people disobey the law, because they feel unhappy about it. And it goes well beyond mere legal disobedience, if one accepts the idea that most women will know the father and probably not want to get them sent down for 7 years. Nor do I think for a minute that women would see this as an anti-woman issue.
The idea that an anti-abortion law amounts to “dedication to woman’s torment” is so far from common sense that words fail me.
Heck, even real rape doesn’t guarantee a 7-year sentence, or even a conviction, but let assume a woman who really wants an abortion has to claim rape to some degree - doesn’t that just invite vague minimalist claims along the lines of “I might have been slipped a roofie six weeks ago, and I don’t remember anything else” ? Is she a victim or a liar? How would a police officer know? How deeply is he required to study the case? Is the fact that she filed the report (whether or not the police belived her, whether or not they could or did take any investigative action) sufficient? Can she walk out of the station with a photocopy of her report and straight to a clinic? If not, why not?
And if the aborted fetus is DNA tested and the father identified (assuming we’re in CSI-fantasyland where DNA tests take minutes instead of waiting in a backlog for years), what keeps her from then saying “Oh, now I vaguely remember sleeping with Jim and it was consenting. Maybe it wasn’t a roofie - maybe I just drank a lot of alcohol afterward.”
What ethical prosecutor would take such evidence to trial, against him for rape or against her for filing a false police report?
The funny thing is, it’s the honest women who will feel regret about having to file the useless report and possibly snaring a male friend in a possible tangle, just to complete the legal hoop-jump quickly and quietly and get on with her life. A woman who is a feckless immoral slut eager to avoid responsibility and toss her babies (as the stereotype is sometimes depicted in pro-life propaganda) would be glad to name names and embellish details and make a huge mess if she thinks it’ll serve her needs the fastest. Picture what a Crystal Mangum and Mike NiFong could “accomplish”; now picture it happening 1000 times a year (generously assuming that only one-abortion-seeking woman in a 1000 will go to such lengths). 1000 innocent men charged with rape… yay. With any luck, only half will actually be convicted and maybe get 7 years.
You don’t have to get the father sent down for any period of time. All you need to do is tell the plice that while you were ovulating you had sex with the person you know to be the father, and also you might have been raped, but you have no idea of the person’s face/name. Now it is 2 months or so later, there is zero physical evidence. All we have is the DNA of the fetus - the accuser knows that will match the person with whom she had consensual sex, but the system doesn’t know that at all… So - allow the abortion or not?
After the abortion, you do your DNA testing on the fetus, and lo and behold it comes up that the person with whom she admits to having consensual sex is the father. Do the authorities now know she wasn’t raped? Of course they don’t.
There’s just no need to get anyone in trouble here.
And for a moment, lets forget the spectre of false reporting. What of the girl who had consensual sex and actually was raped during her fertile period. Does she get an abortion? Should the fetus be tested in utero to see if it is that of the consensual lover, and if it is, the abortion denied? Should he have the right to demand such a test be done?
Heh, even better. “I had consenting sex with Jim, then maybe I went clubbing - I don’t remember the details…”
And I’m sure the internet will be a handy source of scripts a woman should recite to just barely satisfy the “police report” standard, along with strong advice to absoutely not embellish or add details of any kind, despite any leading questions the cops might throw your way. If it’s not in the script, stick to the standard “I don’t remember.”
The scripts will carry the standard disclaimer “For information/entertainment purposes only”, lest anyone start making noises about “aiding and abetting” charges.
Ok, fair points.
Bryan/Villa - are you men or women? I suspect you’re men.
I’d like to hear from a few women: would you make up an allegation of rape, to get an abortion?
I am not convinced many would. I may be wrong. But this argument is predicated on the idea that false rape claims will be made, to get abortions. I have not met a woman who would do that. Maybe that’s too big a generalisation. Maybe I’ve been lucky to meet women who aren’t in extremis. But really. I can’t imagine any of them lying, about something so dreadfully, life-changing-ly, serious, even if the outcome is a needed abortion. It surprises me to see the view, that the lie would be told almost as a matter of course. Maybe I am naiive.
Well, yes, guilty of possessing a Y chromosome, if it matters.
Anyway, a million women a year in the U.S.? I’d speculate on the following:
[ul][li]Outcome 1: Some women will find other means to induce the abortion themselves, without legal sanction. The fortunate ones will get a medically safe abortion in Canada or at the hands of a skilled and sympathetic local practitioner. Some will use drugs or herbs. A few will die or be seriously injured.[/li]
[li]Outcome 2: Most women will tell the most minimal lie possible, trying to just barely satisfy the police and hoping it doesn’t go any further than that. Of the unfortunate subset that find the police are unwilling to just rubber-stamp, I figure most will back out and either have the kid or end up in the Outcome 1 category, above.[/li]
[li]Outcome 3: “That’s the man who raped me, officer!” A small group of women won’t even hesitate to tell the police whatever they want to hear. Some men will do jail time.[/li]
Outcome 4: Some women, perhaps as many as half, won’t be willing or able to try any of the above and have their child, resulting in more poverty, crime, child abuse… some happy endings along the way, I guess. Those will be the anecdotal cases cited to prove the restriction was worthwhile all along.[/ul]
I’d describe that as slightly more than a “minor inconvenience”.
Something for anti-abortion men to consider. There are women like me who would rather risk sending an innocent man to prison rather than be forced to gestate a fetus.
Bryan, I think that’s a fair assessment. Don’t disagree with your general view. I was challenging the idea that the false-rape-accusation syndrome was in and of itself a reason to ban abortion; your description identifies the problems, without saying it’s definitive, so I can deal with that.
That was the view I was hoping to hear. It’s pretty scary, but absolutely on point. Do you think you represent a majority view? I really don’t know the answer, so am listening with interest.
Nor are men, as I pointed out in the very quote you are trying to twist into an anti-woman statement. The progress of women’s rights has always been opposed by women as well as men.
The “assumption” in the case of “pro-life” being that women are evil and should be punished, especially if they have sex. These people simply do not show any real interest in stopping abortions; they consistently push for laws that will cause the maximum harm to women, not for laws that lower the numbers of abortions. They don’t really care about abortions, except as an weapon to beat women down with.
It’s a form of mass assault, no different than rounding up the women of a captured town and gang raping them. Worse if anything, since gang rapes don’t usually last nine months.
Saying that it’s not illegal is saying it’s legal. Saying it’s legal is saying it’s not illegal. Doing one is the other.
Especially when you remember how the state says things are illegal or not. It says things are illegal by making laws against them. It says they’re legal by…saying nothing. If the state makes no laws on a subject, or repeals laws in place against it, then that means it’s legal.
It’s kind of like you’re saying you don’t want to be “dry” - you want to be “not wet”. You’re looking for a third option that simply isn’t there.
You can want laws prohibiting or limiting abortion, or you can be pro-choice. That’s the only two ways to be.
Really? I can’t see it. Saying that you have to have the baby that results from a rape might be analogous. But it the conception is consensual, I don’t see the gang rape point at all.
Gang rape: utterly unwanted sexual assault; any consequences equally unwanted
Consensual sex: umm… the opposite… any consequences might be unwanted, but might have been avoidable with contraception, or planning, or whatever.
So the pro/anti abortion position applies equally? I just can’t see it.
In both cases, you are declaring your ownership of her body, to use as you see fit. You are reducing her the the status of property; your property.
This is undoubtedly false for the vast, vast majority of anti-choicers, who are doubtlessly opposing abortion primarily for a combination of the two following reasons:
- When they think “abortion” they think “dead baby” and have a not-incomprehensible moral objection to the “murder”.
- Because they were told to oppose it, by their family, friends, and pastors.
It would probably be equally correct to say "Atheists want to kill all christians’. So yeah: get off my side, or at least put a cork in the obvious nonsense.
Is it “her” property? Is there an argument that once she is pregnant, that child is beyond the mere idea of “her” possession? Has the man no say in it? Can society not express a view about it? Especially if society takes the view that the thing is so far advanced that it has “person” status?
Does the idea of “her property” trump these things?
ETA: in response to DT @ 9:43
I can’t offhand think of a better trump, nor the need for one.