Uterus Now Officially a Dirty Word in Florida
by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
March 31, 2011 - 9:14pm (Print)
Well, if nothing else, it explains why Republicans have been trying so hard to regulate it so much -- a Florida representative was admonished by his GOP counterparts for using the word "uterus" on the floor during a debate.
Via TampaBay.com:
At one point [Democratic State Representitive Scott] Randolph suggested that his wife "incorporate her uterus" to stop Republicans from pushing measures that would restrict abortions. Republicans, after all, wouldn't want to further regulate a Florida business.
Apparently the GOP leadership of the House didn't like the one-liner.
They told Democrats that Randolph is not to discuss body parts on the House floor.
Even better, Randolph was told that he needed to watch his mouth because there may have been guests who were present who may be offended or, more importantly, young children, such as pages, who might be corrupted by such language.
House GOP spokeswoman Katie Betta: "The Speaker has been clear about his expectations for conduct on the House for during debate. At one point during the debate, he mentioned to the entire House that members of both parties needed to be mindful of decorum during debate.
"Additionally, the Speaker believes it is important for all Members to be mindful of and respectful to visitors and guests, particularly the young pages and messengers who are seated in the chamber during debates. In the past, if the debate is going to contain language that would be considered inappropriate for children and other guests, the Speaker will make an announcement in advance, asking children and others who may be uncomfortable with the subject matter to leave the floor and gallery."
To be fair, with the state of sex ed as of late, many of those kids probably wouldn't even know what a uterus is.
Luckily, now the uterus is on Facebook, so teens can get slightly more familiar with them. Yes, I like the uterus.
Follow Robin Marty on Twitter, @robinmarty
"At one point [Democratic State Representitive Scott] Randolph suggested that his wife "incorporate her uterus" to stop Republicans from pushing measures that would restrict abortions."
This man is my hero, much love to him.
Republicans are tortures of women, liittle girls, raped women, and raped little girls. There is not enough physical and emotional pain to befall women, little girl, raped women, and raped little girls to satisfy the republicans.
They go to sleep every night thinking about how they can cause more women, and more little-girls, more pain.
Oh, for crap's sake. He's a grown man who used a term correctly. If other grown men can't take it, well good lord, they shouldn't be trying to legislate the uterus (dude would probably prefer twinkie or perhaps "icky baby holder in her tum tum") in any situation.
Oh, for crap's sake. He's a grown man who used a term correctly. If other grown men can't take it, well good lord, they shouldn't be trying to legislate the uterus (dude would probably prefer twinkie or perhaps "icky baby holder in her tum tum") in any situation.
It's the fact that it was said by a Democrat.
It's obscene, meaning hidden, because talking about it means knowing, understanding and reclaiming. Uterus is indecourous, clinical, matter-of-fact, a part of a woman's body, there with or without purpose. To say it is to know it. Much better for the patriarchs to say "womb": dark, mysterious, purposeful, mystical, crib, waiting to be fulfilled by its one true mission, not really a part of the woman, part of a larger mission.
Or maybe I have insomnia.
Wow. This is just pathetic. I guess I'd be banned from simply being introduced to a Republican because my maiden name is one vowel off from being a female body part 'dirty word', though sounds exactly like it.
This comment has been removed.
RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.
--RH Reality Check staff
Wow, you are just repugnant, aren't you, RWe(Ir)Responsible? Do tell me how a man's medical care is connected to his penis or how his rights and decision-making abilities are abrogated by the presence of same? Yup, that's what I thought, 'responsibility' for everyone else as long as WE (I) get to be as irresponsible as often as WE (I) like!
Positions like yours are what ultimately puts me at odds with the idea of motherhood. Hope you guys are happy with yourselves!
Please delete.
R U responsible for the pointless babbling crap U post?
Unlike male anatomy, the uterus doesn't have a mind of its own, doesn't beg to "bare" babies and doesn't get to do any decision making. Like the gallbladder, it just hangs around until it's needed.
Ahem....
Let me guess, RWR. The total self-sacrifice you implicitly demand of "brainwashed" women is about a "holy" role in a beautiful and mystical plan that God has for all women...no matter the circumstance or personality or individual beliefs. Yes, no, maybe?
a "holy" role in a beautiful and mystical plan that God has for all women
Uh-huh, and the "holy utterance" by which women can make clear their role in this mystical plan is "Moooooooo"
That would be "holy udderance"...preferably filled to a painful degree...
If you've gotten to the stage where you're anthropomorphizing and conversing with your internal organs, you should really lay off the meth.
as well as thinking it was out to get me. Then again, I was also fifteen and pregnant and, well, hysterical. (Look, a time when that adjective actually fits!) Then I had the abortion and it was all better.
This thread had me on the floor!
you should really lay off the meth.
LMAO!
your post is disgusting & offensive on so many levels. personification of just one part of my reproductive system? ugh. how condescending of you. that, mixed with the need to call "woman" beautiful, shows me you have zero respect for women as human beings - we clearly are "othered" in your tiny, ridiculous mind.
and as far as "ME ME ME" - you'd better believe it!! this is MY body, MY skin, MY being, MY one lifespan (that i'm aware of), MY talking non-baby-bearing uterus - and if I want it to be all about ME, that is MY business, not yours!
Actually, equating you to morons is an insult to morons.
I'd have rather that Casey Anthony, Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, et al, ad nauseum had not let their uteruses "be left alone...to bare [sic] little-ones." If you could pull your head out of the pope's arse, you would be able to see that some women are simply not cut out to be mothers. Some of us, like myself, understand that we would suck at parenting and, thus, know we are doing the right thing by not creating children. Some of us know that at certain times in our lives, creating children would be a bad idea, due to lack of finances/abusive partner/no partner, etc. And, as the majority of abortions are performed upon married women, couples come to the decision that their families are the appropriate size and for you to expect them to stop having sex to satisfy your silly superstitions is ludicrous.
It is irresponsible to create life that one doesn’t want or cannot care for. As the creators of new human beings, women have a responsibility to ensure that any children that they bring into the world are cherished, protected, fed, clothed, and educated, that they are are brought forth in a space of joy, affection, and love, rather than drudgery, obligation, and sacrifice.
When we can give every child who would have otherwise been aborted a safe, loving, and nurturing home where they have a chance at a good future, then I’ll understand the concern. In the meantime, I really could care less about the plight of insensate clusters of barely-differentiated human tissue. I'd rather there be a googol abortions than just one actual, born child who is starved or malnourished or resented or neglected or abused or raped or beaten or thrown away or murdered.
That you are awesome, BJ Survivor
You and so many others* are far more consistent and relentless in countering forced-birther batshittery than I. I go through times where I simply haven't the constitution for subjecting myself to their vitriol, god-blathering, and cognitive dissonance. Don't even get me started on forced-gestation *gag* "feminists" ala Marysia and Progo; I despise that particularly cognitively dissonant ideology most of all. As if slavery and involuntary servitude could ever be feminist ideals.
hey, Thanks! :D
And, yeah, I definitely understand the feeling of being overwhelmed by their repetitive nonsense. I'm hoping that one of these days, the truth will start to sink in, for at least one troll. Haha...
The co-opting of feminism by some anti-choicers is sickening to me, too. There's a lot of them around my campus. I've realized some things about faux-feminism, though: 1. they don't really understand feminist theory, so they think that it is enough to claim that their authoritarian beliefs are "feminist" if at least one 19th century woman's rights activist might or might not have agreed with them on abortion and 2. their ideal version of feminism comes from... the 19th century. You know, when women won the right to vote, and that was about it. And then, finally, like you said... you just roll your eyes and think,
As if slavery and involuntary servitude could ever be feminist ideals.
Yes it is my born right to do what I please with own body! Who made you God? Your not God your nobody so just shut up and take care of your damn self and leave us other humans alone. We are not your whipping girls or cattle or your property. Your a nobody!
from the Handmaidens Tale by Attwood ? That is some scary stuff from the dark dark ages RWe!
Great article Robin! I suppose saying the words "vagina, fallopian tubes, clitoris, cervix, etc." are out of the question?
Just as the uterus is a defining member of the female anatomy, a man's penis is integral to his being a man and would seem to be therefore protected and respected. Your family or personal doctor can help you out with that one. Should a man require "medical care" as per his penis--then by all means--make the decision to go seek assistance or not. I think I see what you are pointing out, although the significance of the uterus in this context seems to surpass the equation you make to a penis. Yes, the uterus is really that unique! (not to say a penis is not, but I bet you know where I'm going with this). I would suspect if the article was about a comment like "vagina" in a courtroom or other reproductive term the correlation would be appropriate. The uterus in contrast stands for far more then only a part of the female anatomy; it is THE home of a new life. A penis cannot house a growing fetus. It doesn't work. So as you can see, we are taking about apples and oranges.
My apologies Arekushieru, twas really a mere attempt at verifying that a post would show up. As unappropriate and strange as my post was, so too is the intrinsically misleading value you place on the phrase "medical care".
What is your true conjecture?
Have you considered seeking psychological counseling?
you have been unable to grasp the point of my 'true conjecture'.
Do think about it some more, THEN come back to me, though.
My uterus is not my "defining member." My brain is my "defining member." My uterus is also not the 'home of new life.' It is a body part, like my heart or my lungs. Someday, if I, using my brain, choose to have a biolgical child, my uterus might hold a fetus. But even then, it would not define me or my hopes or my dreams.
Defining "member."
I just had to see this again.
Since she apparently no longer has a "defining member" is she no longer a person? (Don't answer that. I'm afraid of what you'll say.)
My mind is what makes me who I am. My uterus can quite frankly go to hell. I'm done with it; I had three kids. Now it is just an inconvienience what with the developing an endometrial lining each month and then shedding it, rather messily, along with cramps and nasty hormonal fluctuations.
Someone want a slightly-used uterus?
My! Fantastic energy on this blog! My apologies for the late reply...
Arekushieru - I will come back to this once I have thought it through…
crowepps - I absolutely agree; the uterus doesn't have a mind of it's own. I understand that the male anatomy seems to have a "mind of it's own"--a primal urge felt in the loins preceding the feeling men get of sexual arousal. This "mind" of the male anatomy is a trivial notion when one considers that men more often then not become aroused first through the senses, then through the intellect (the brain KJ refers to). When a man DECIDES to act on this feeling of arousal--regardless of how it comes about--then consequentially we have our end result in a plethora of possible actions (i.e. neutrality, masturbation, intercourse). Just as the male anatomy responds to stimuli from the physical and/or psychological, so too does the uterus respond to the physical and/or psychological decisions we make when we decide that the uterus is OR is not needed (i.e. woman becomes pregnant due to her letting her uterus "hold a fetus" as per KJ).
This male "minded" piece of anatomy will always effect the intellect's ability to make responsible decisions… although that's a given. The intellect guides all and is--as KJ has proposed--our "defining member". So this my dear crowepps is really the essence of my blabbing: Our mind makes the decisions, not the penis (or uterus as you agree) but using sexual arousal--inherent not only in males as you wish, but in females to--as an excuse for irresponsibility is ludicrous. I say "irresponsibility" in the sense that--just as men can be irresponsible due to their urges--it would seem irresponsible that people who advocate the whole "stay out of my uterus" movement make the claim when in reality, THEY are the ones who want to "get into" the uterus and do as they please. I will distinguish those persons who claim something is wrong with a uterus out of superficial convenience from those who do ACTUALLY have something wrong (i.e. hysterectomies due to tumours, cancers endometriosis etc.). So being irresponsible in the name of "sexual liberties"--especially when we are such intellectual beings--seems questionable to me .
KJ - Greetings, I appreciate your assertiveness. I agree that you--and all woman over the world--are not exclusively defined by your uteri by any means. My remark was more philosophical then literal. I would ask you:
- how is a uterus different from a lung? (we know they are body parts silly)
- what function does a uterus serve when it is "needed"?
- does a man have a uterus?
Just kill me now.
You're babbling, alright. Because you insist on comparing two completely different organs. A man has nothing even remotely similar to the uterus. A woman does have something close to the penis, though. It's called a vagina. And when used in a mutual, consensual relationship, no one is being irresponsible. It's the same with the uterus. As long as it is being used in a consensual relationship, it's not irresponsible. Which means if the use is non-consensual, terminating it is not irresponsible.
Do you not realize that you are advocating for rape? Especially, every time you equate a uterus with a penis? You are advocating that stopping the non-consensual use of another organ of someone, is irresponsible.
Besides, you don't get to pick and choose who is using their uterus 'responsibly'. If you say it's being used irresponsibly, by not having a fetus, in there, then you're saying EVERYone who isn't using it, is being irresponsible. Really, for all that you anti-choicers like to play the 'responsibility' or 'arbitrary' card, you are both irresponsible and arbitrary.
I believe the prostate is the male homologue to the uterus, and the clitoris is homologous to the head of the penis but I'm not an anatomist.
But yea the anti's use the word "responsibility" to mean "acting in accordance to OUR beliefs (not actual practices, you know, they like to say they're "not perfect.")
But can I say one thing to change the subject? The Uterus is really cool when it's healthy. It's not an empty shell or box, like some imagine it, it's got really thick walls and is a source of pleasure as well. I believe there are uterus-centered orgasms.
Women can be more aware of their uteruses, when present, whereas we are often scared of it. Scared that it will bring us ruin. And there are those who want to make sure that we have no say-so to escape such ruin. That having sperm enter the uterus means you're stuck now. Maybe that's why words for ruin derive from words for sex, like, you know, fucked. How awful. What if Uterus were liberated by a good fuck? Like wow I got a raise! I'm so totally fucked! Yes!
Well, I was talking more about the function than anything else, lol.
I think PCF linked to something about uterine orgasms, once!
whereas we are often scared of it. Scared that it will bring us ruin. And there are those who want to make sure that we have no say-so to escape such ruin. That having sperm enter the uterus means you're stuck now.
Yup, that's one of the reasons why I never want to continue or complete a pregnancy.
Have any of you seen this:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=55100
I imagine the feeling is ten-fold at childbirth compared to what we feel, here.
What if Uterus were liberated by a good fuck? Like wow I got a raise! I'm so totally fucked! Yes!
Heh. Just because I'm non-sexual, doesn't mean I can't appreciate that sentiment!
Well, I was talking more about the function than anything else, lol.
Yes you made very good points about the functioning, women and men's organs produce pleasure but they don't have the same potential results. I just felt like being pedantic.
Re: maternal mortality in Cambodia, wow, you know, I can't even imagine, and for every death you know there are several disabling injuries. I would so discourage my daughter from even having a boyfriend in that situation.
Heh. Just because I'm non-sexual, doesn't mean I can't appreciate that sentiment!
Hey even more so! You can see the ironies around our slang regarding sex more objectively.
Arekushieru - I think it was crowepps who implied that male anatomy has "a mind of it's own" in an earlier post. This is the reason the "male anatomy" came up.
What I intended to compare was the INFLUENCE that having these anatomy--as male and female respectfully--can have on the decisions we make (irresponsible vs responsible).
Lastly, I wanted to share one line as you put it:
"As long as it is being used in a consensual relationship, it's not irresponsible"
Seems simple minded. You are better than that Arekushieru.
All the best.
My mention of the "mind" of the male anatomy was in response to your giving the uterus an independent voice and an opinion here:
uterus: "can I just be left alone for pete's sake
A woman's desire is not encompassed in or triggered by the presence of her uterus, since it continues full force if the uterus is removed. You have some very peculiar ideas about how the female anatomy works.
crowepps - Yes, female sexual desire is not contingent on her uterus being there or not, fair enough. What I was unsuccessfully attempting to correlate was the decision process brought about by arousal, which leads to a man or woman to respect or abuse their sexuality.
The male anatomy reference was the most obvious example for men. A woman's uterus--being the subject of our discussion more/less--is an indirect example of an organ which can be absolutely effected by the same cause; that cause being sexual arousal. How is that you may ask? Answer: By becoming impregnated
... Impregnated by a man who she DECIDED to have intercourse with. I relate that back to my aforementioned male example because her decision process was more then likely triggered by her arousal.
In your POV, what constitutes "abuse" of one's sexuality?
What I was unsuccessfully attempting to correlate was the decision process brought about by arousal, which leads to a man or woman to respect or abuse their sexuality.
What an extremely odd way to phrase it: "abuse their sexuality". What the heck does that mean? Are you trying to express your belief that the only appropriate use for sexuality is to reproduce? How bizarre! If that were true, women would simply go "into season" and men wouldn't be interested in sex except when the women signaled they were ovulating, like all the other critters whose sex life is restricted to the times when they are reproducing.
The male anatomy reference was the most obvious example for men. A woman's uterus--being the subject of our discussion more/less--is an indirect example of an organ which can be absolutely effected by the same cause; that cause being sexual arousal.
Although sexual arousal may change the state of the clitoris, the vagina and the ovaries, I don't believe it has any particular affect at all on the state of the uterus.
How is that you may ask? Answer: By becoming impregnated
Whether a blastocyst implants in the uterus later has nothing to do with whether the woman was 'aroused' at the time she had sex. I'm afraid I'm just not following your train of thought here. You are aware the location where egg and sperm meet and combine likely is up in the fallobian tubes, right? Two or three days after the actual sex act was completed and everybody's busy doing something else? And that implantation and official 'pregnancy' don't happen for a couple days after that?
Uh, no, it wasn't. The most obvious example was the prostate.
This is reminding me of a comment on huffpost today from a man that thinks women - GIRLS - CHILDREN - should be on birth control as soon as they're ovulating in case they happen to ever get raped or molested.
And that they should pay for it too.
I expect you probably feel the same way.
Ah, yes, here comes the patronizing, pat-me-on-the-head-like-a-good-little-girl pep talk....
Can you tell me a consensual relationship that ISn't responsible?
Can you tell me a non-consensual relationship that IS responsible?
If no to both, then kindly keep your thoughts to yourself, in future.
the clitoris is a small penis. the ovaries are the equal to the balls LOL on men sorry can't think of the correct scientific term!
Testes? ;)
Remember Mr. Rogers and "Boys are fancy on the outside, girls are fancy on the inside"? Well, most the clitoris is also 'inside' -- while most people talk about only the glans at the very tip, looking at an anatomical drawing of the entire thing is quite a revelation! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clitoris_inner_anatomy.gif
From Wiki:
"The clitoris consists of an external short head attached to a long body which is internally located. The body of the clitoris is surrounded by bulky erectile tissue on either side. This bulk contains muscles and is richly innervated with sensory nerves. While the penis is an external organ which is distended, the clitoris is small and is an internal structure."
The anatomy of children who are born intersex, about 1% of children, make it clear that it's not always easy to divide everybody into two groups. The social compulsion to do so, and to insist each group is vastly different from the other, has more to do with culture than anatomy or biology. There is an excellent explanation of early fetal sexual development and the point at which it differentiates (or doesn't) that deserves much wider readership:
http://intersexroadshow.blogspot.com/2011/01/phalloclitoris-anatomy-and-ideology.html
Good evening, "RWe"
After reading your endless word salad, you obviously have come to the conclusion that because a woman has a uterus (its sole purpose being to hold the developing fetus), therefore a woman's sole purpose in life is bearing children.
In other comments, you have repetitively referred to mothers and motherhood as beautiful, as though "beauty" is the highest compliment a woman can receive and motherhood is the highest aspiration a woman can achieve.
Let me clue you in on something, buddy.
Motherhood by choice is beautiful.
Motherhood by coercion is not.
Not all women desire motherhood or "should" desire motherhood based on your insulting beliefs about ~*~ideal femininity~*~. I am not an incubator.
the whole "stay out of my uterus" movement make the claim when in reality, THEY are the ones who want to "get into" the uterus and do as they please.
Um, I think you are the one with the fixation on getting into MY uterus and deciding when/whether or not I use it. It is, after all, an organ within my own body and my body is my exclusive property. I know, that's a terrifying concept for you, isn't it? You don't get to tell me how to use it. In fact, I would say that you are downright obsessed with how women are using their reproductive organs, and deciding whether their usage is meeting your personal little expectations of "responsibility" or not. Let me clue you in on something else, buddy: Get over yourself.
I'm impressed you could decipher his/her nonsense at all.
Oh, yeah, forgot to address that in my last comment. RWR thinks that we're the ones who are fixated on the womb(uterus), when WE're the ones asking everyone BUT the woman to step back from making any decisions about HER body.
La plume assassine - Thank you for your reply. I do say, you are spot on in your terming of my rant as a "word salad". Being new to the whole blog deal gets the better of me and I fire away quite recklessly quite often.
Firstly, I am relieved that you managed to somewhat catch the crux of my post(s). It would seem we agree that a uterus' purpose is to facilitate the development of a child and provide an ideal place for the fetus to gestate before birth. I am no anatomist but it would therefore seem the uterus' main or "sole" purpose is to hold a developing fetus.
Secondly, your assessment of my "conclusion" is interesting. When you use the word "sole" to describe a woman's purpose, you have extrapolated my thoughts incorrectly. The truth of my conclusion on a "woman's SOLE purpose" cannot only rest on the premise that "woman have uteri and uteri are for developing fetuses…". This "sole purpose of woman" is far too deep a subject and a whole discussion in itself. So no LPA, that is not my position on the sole purpose of woman.
Lastly, would you not agree that motherhood is one of the most (if not the most) challenging, interesting and largely rewarding role a woman can aspire to? The most amazing part is SHE/HER/THEY are cut out to do it! They have what it takes if they only make the choice! Only a woman can be a mother! Isn't that profound to you?
If I may focus on your assertion:
"Motherhood by choice is beautiful"
So what is beautiful about motherhood? Do you mean the state and constituents of motherhood itself, or the act of choosing to be a mother? or both?
Lastly, would you not agree that motherhood is one of the most (if not the most) challenging, interesting and largely rewarding role a woman can aspire to? The most amazing part is SHE/HER/THEY are cut out to do it! They have what it takes if they only make the choice! Only a woman can be a mother! Isn't that profound to you?
No.
Speaking as the mother of a super, awesome, wonderful son, I just can't foresee a time when I'll define myself in terms of having had a child. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly elements of being a mother I enjoy... but I look at my education and career as being far greater accomplishments in my life and contributions to the world as a whole.
Lastly, would you not agree that motherhood is one of the most (if not the most) challenging, interesting and largely rewarding role a woman can aspire to? The most amazing part is SHE/HER/THEY are cut out to do it! They have what it takes if they only make the choice! Only a woman can be a mother! Isn't that profound to you?
Motherhood is most certainly challenging and many do find it rewarding. However, I am one of many, many women who find childrearing to be about as interesting and rewarding as watching paint dry. I am fortunate that I realized this prior to allowing my uterus to perform its child-creating function, thus sparing at least two, possibly three, people unnecessary misery. So, no, not every woman is cut out for motherhood. Just ask Casey Anthony, Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, and many, many others. If you can honestly say you are glad that those women did not abort their pregnancies before creating thinking, feeling, sentient children only to torture and murder them, then there is something very wrong with you.
No, it is not profound that only a woman can become a mother. Only a man can become a father. So what?
However, I am one of many, many women who find childrearing to be about as interesting and rewarding as watching paint dry.
This.
I intend to be sterilized, then I'll continue on with my life, letting the willing women in the world take up as much of the mothering business as they like.
i was, i did, and they did.
it all worked out just fine.
go for it!
it's so, so, so completely okay to not want to have children. unlike our new resident tr011's dream girl, i am not so completely enthralled with and dumbfounded by my bodily functions representing my ultimate, supreme self-expression in the world. aside from all that "what a piece of work is (wo)man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties" body-as-machinery stuff, that is.
somehow, when our new gentleman caller waxed all rhapsodic about the uterus and how special and beatutiful it makes women, it sounded ever so much like how you used to hear Certain Types, back in the day, praising the musical and athletic prowess of The Coloreds.
encouraged to honestly assess their suitability/desire for parenthood and act accordingly. Society needs to get over the notion that women cannot be fulfilled unless they create children.
It never fails to drive me nuts when people say, "but what if you regret not having children?" I tell them, "no one can ever be insulated from regret, but I would much rather regret not having a child than to regret a child after I've created it. Besides, I can always adopt should I change my mind about wanting to parent a child." Fortunately, the majority of people who know my stance on child-creating respect my decision, as they understand that parenthood isn't for everyone.
I'll be 41 this month and still no signs of changing my mind about parenting.
Very well said. I particularly liked this:
It never fails to drive me nuts when people say, "but what if you regret not having children?" I tell them, "no one can ever be insulated from regret, but I would much rather regret not having a child than to regret a child after I've created it.
While not having kids seems to be less of a stigma, I still get this occasionally. Despite the number of parents who do regret having kids, or regret having them at the time that they did, nobody ever looks at a pregnant woman and shakes their head with a "don't you worry that you might regret having kids?"
California, but I just don't get anywhere near the same degree of flak that so many of my childfree Internet acquaintances get for their reproductive paucity. Most just nod their heads and say, "Well, motherhood isn't for everybody, and it's good that you realized that." One woman (whose children were long grown and had nearly grown children of their own) told me that if she'd had it to do over, she would not have had children at all, but it was just something one did in her era.
The others tell me, "Girl, you need to have at least one kid," and then proceed to regale me with horror stories about their labor/delivery and their children's atrocious behavior. It's pretty funny, actually.
Likewise in N. Cal., the southern portion that's neither tall trees nor winegrapes. My social group, while producing a fair number of little ones at the moment tends toward people who are planning on two or less, and a fair number who are happy having no interest in parenting at all. With the number of educators in the group and the number of kids that are thus far single children, they're a remarkably well-spoken and well-behaved bunch of kids.
I'm happy to have them around in small doses and know that they go back to their parents afterwards.
When I was at my grandfather's funeral back in the midwest though? So many heads shaking and tongues clucking that I hadn't gone and given my mom grandchildren yet. Plenty of "you'll change your mind," even from my mom who said, "well accidents happen and you never know what you'll decide."
Oddly enough, having thought about it well in advance, having an accident happen didn't somehow change my mind on that score. There's nothing that magically reached into my brain upon implantation and develop motherly leanings. So I'm still childless by choice. Thanks to all my foremothers who fought so damn hard for me to get to make that choice.
Oddly enough, having thought about it well in advance, having an accident happen didn't somehow change my mind on that score. There's nothing that magically reached into my brain upon implantation and develop motherly leanings.
At the time I was pregnant and subsequently procured an abortion, I was only 15 and not yet childfree. I just knew that I was in no way, shape, or form prepared to be a parent, especially not a single parent (sperm donor, of course, long gone and free of any responsibility whatsoever as soon as I told him I was pregnant and would need 1/2 the money for an abortion, as we'd agreed upon before having sex). I would have been willing to complete the pregnancy if anyone in my family had wanted a child, but everyone in my family seems to have remarkable fertility. I was not, though, willing to create a child and then give her to a stranger and an uncertain future. I was amazingly fortunate to have for a mother an unequivocally pro-choice nurse who offered to help me raise the child or help me find an adoptive parent or procure an abortion, depending upon what I decided to do. I am remarkably privileged to have gotten an abortion at the office of a gynecologist my mother knew and for whom she moonlighted in his operating room, so I did not have to brave a gauntlet of god-blathering lunatics at a Planned Parenthood to procure my legal surgery. In fact, Planned Parenthood has only ever served to provide me with the tools necessary to avoid abortion and sexually-transmitted infection, including, at various times in my life, the pill (which killed my libido and induced suicidal ideation), the diaphragm, the cervical cap, the Depo shot (which killed my libido and induced irrational rage), and now my beloved Paragard IUD.
Thanks to all my foremothers who fought so damn hard for me to get to make that choice.
Ramen, to that, L-dan! And many, many thanks to Margaret Sanger for creating Planned Parenthood and subsequently allowing me and untold millions of women to avoid child-creating completely or until the time is right and, thus, to avoid the grinding hopelessness and degrading violence of poverty.
the pill (which killed my libido and induced suicidal ideation), the diaphragm, the cervical cap, the Depo shot (which killed my libido and induced irrational rage), and now my beloved Paragard IUD.
I'm thinking that we need to start a campaign where women exclaim all they go through to find birth control that works for them. We need to be more vocal about everything we go through to find one that's right for us. Anti-choice men seem to think it's SO easy for us to go out and get the pill and stay on it. I smoke and am over 30, so I can't take the pill. I tried the Depo and it made me spot for like 60 days in a row. I was completely miserable. I am very lucky to now be married to a man that got snipped a long time ago so I have nothing to worry about anymore, but man, the things I did do to try to keep from getting pregnant when I wasn't on any birth control. If for some reason I ever find myself single again, it's a tubal ligation or IUD for me!
Of all things available, the condom is the safest, cheapest, easiest, most readily available birth control out there. I'm so tired of men blaming us for being the irresponsible ones.
They really need hormonal birth control for men, if for no other reason than to point out how difficult it exactly is....
I plan on getting a tubal, myself, now that I'm 35, since I have no kids.
Yay condoms.
Can I say, I find love scenes in movies with condoms properly used (extremely rare) to be the most erotic. In the Cut by Jande Campion with Meg Ryan did, and I said Yessss!
I find myself thinking, "Well, shouldn't you be putting on a condom about now, since you hardly know this person and don't know their STD status?"
Shortbus also used condoms appropriately and the scenes were definitely hot in that one!
Of all things available, the condom is the safest, cheapest, easiest, most readily available birth control out there.
But for low-income and poor women and families, condoms can be prohibitively expensive. This is why I believe that ALL birth control, including abortion, should be free of charge. Unfortunately, many otherwise well-meaning healthcare providers are under still under the mistaken notion that the IUD is not suited to young or nulliparous women, even though the WHO debunked the myths underlying those notions many years ago. To get mine, I was counseled to lie about my status, because the PP I went to was still under that notion. For those that the IUD is a suitable method, there is really nothing better, since it is as effective as tubal ligation (which isn't 100% effective), doesn't require surgery (though insertion is quite painful, though short-lived) and entirely reversible. Once it's in, no pro-liar fundie pharmacist can refuse to fill your prescription and lecture you about his or her sky fairy's silly edicts.
Although, hopefully, it is understandable that some women just find the idea of anything inserted so intimately to be a turn-off? ^^; If I wasn't getting a tubal, I think I would get some kind of birth control, myself, one that would help reduce bleeding and cramping and that would be there 'just in case', but not one that would have to be inserted into my body. If that's how it had to be, because my body just didn't respond properly to the medication, I probably would still nix the idea. I don't even like inserting tampons, ffss! Oo How would I be able to insert something like that, especially when I'm such a baby when it comes to pain...? Lol.
Although, hopefully, it is understandable that some women just find the idea of anything inserted so intimately to be a turn-off? ^^;
That would definitely make it unsuitable! There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to contraception. It's too bad they don't offer twilight sedation or nitrous oxide (even better) for IUD insertion or even I would probably be willing to pay extra for it. :) As it is, I will dose myself with 800 mg Motrin at my renewal and possibly ask my doctor for a one-dose Xanax prescription.
To get mine, I was counseled to lie about my status, because the PP I went to was still under that notion.
Hey, thanks for that, uh, suggestion! ;)
I'm having the hardest time trying to get Paragard and encountered a lot of rude & unprofessional people, but I think I finally found a good ob/gyn place to help me out.
I'm thinking that we need to start a campaign where women exclaim all they go through to find birth control that works for them.
I'd add in what didn't work that should have. I'm so tired of the MRAs bitching about those evil women who 'tricked' them by saying they were on the pill and then, whoops, pregnant. While I'm sure there are women who, sadly, think that a baby will make someone they love stay with them, there are a lot more men who just find it unreasonable to be asked to use a condom.
I used the pill through college and early adulthood, despite the libido-killing effects and the fact that it only helped my incredibly nasty cramps for the first 6 months before letting them return to normal. Tried a diaphragm for a bit, but, much like tampons, my body is apparently predisposed to be grumpy about leaving anything just sitting up in my vagina for any length of time. Both would give me cramps for a day or so after. This has made me wary of trying an IUD. (I know, uterus, not vagina, but given the general abdominal sensitivity, it seems prudent to be wary)
But after getting divorced, I decided that a. I didn't want to keep swallowing hormones forever and b. there'd be condoms involved with anyone new anyway and c. I'd done enough research on NFP to determine that it could work reasonably well for me in conjunction with condoms. I was pretty OCD about everything but the basal temp. readings (I am just not that functional first thing in the morning), regular in my cycle, etc. It worked quite well until...
going on progesterone-only-pills as part of figuring out whether the debilitating cramps were endometriosis. Of course, those screw with all the usual things you're looking at with NFP. So I forgot a pill at precisely the wrong time and ended up pregnant. Thankfully, despite that fact that part of me celebrated the absence of my period since I'd been hoping for that 'side effect' of these pills, the time spent getting to know my body via NFP kept pointing out things that didn't quite add up and I picked up a test. Yep, positive.
Thankfully, my insurance through work is good and medical abortion is done through the hospital. Though even here, I was told that the doctor was going to hand me the second set of pills to go take at home rather than writing a prescription for them because women had gotten flack trying to fill those prescriptions.
All of that, plus the occasional circuses when I forgot to refill a prescription until a few days before my month of pills ran out, or wanted to fill one 'too soon' because of a vacation. The pharmacy or insurance won't let you refill sooner than x days after you last filled the prescription. All of that, when I'm incredibly privileged to have had some form of insurance all of my adult life, grew up on a farm and reading a lot of biology books that filled me in on the science of the reproductive cycle, have the means such that condoms are an easy cost to bear, and have health facilities that are easy to get to even when I'm carless.
It makes me very aware of what a pain this is for those without all of my advantages, and furious when idiots with no idea of the circumstances lay out blanket condemnations of 'irresponsibility.'
Likewise in N. Cal., the southern portion that's neither tall trees nor winegrapes. My social group, while producing a fair number of little ones at the moment tends toward people who are planning on two or less, and a fair number who are happy having no interest in parenting at all. With the number of educators in the group and the number of kids that are thus far single children, they're a remarkably well-spoken and well-behaved bunch of kids.
L-dan, it's pretty much the same in my circle of family and friends, immediate or more distant, it's the acquaintances that I get the most flak from. My family is pretty much all about the 2.2 kids and I have cousins ranging from the age of 4 to 42. I adore them, but at the end of the day I am SO glad I get to send them home with someone else.
I miss Northern California. I lived there years ago and miss it. Anyway, L-dan I appreciate what you are saying. I'm childless by choice too. I have no desire and never have had an interest in having children. I so understand what you are saying. Accidents don't (or didn't lead) to motherhood for me. I'm also grateful to my foremothers who paved the way for me to have the choice. I'm supported by many elders and peers who support my decision to not have children.
season, my local state rep went door-to-door in my neighborhood and his campaign flyer showcased his support for marriage equality, women's access to contraception and abortion, education, and programs for disadvantaged youth and the homeless. Made me right proud, it did, and I told him so.
i was, i did, and they did.
it all worked out just fine.
go for it!
it's so, so, so completely okay to not want to have children
Thank you, I was looking for the "like" button as soon as I saw this, haha (my facebook addiction is showing)
somehow, when our new gentleman caller waxed all rhapsodic about the uterus and how special and beatutiful it makes women, it sounded ever so much like how you used to hear Certain Types, back in the day, praising the musical and athletic prowess of The Coloreds.
oh, jeez... You know, I was actually thinking the same thing. ugh. That, and the weird overuse of "beautiful" made me think, "thou doth protest[attest] too much." Hmmm
So no LPA, that is not my position on the sole purpose of woman.
Then do us all a favor and stop implying that biology is destiny.
Lastly, would you not agree that motherhood is one of the most (if not the most) challenging, interesting and largely rewarding role a woman can aspire to? The most amazing part is SHE/HER/THEY are cut out to do it! They have what it takes if they only make the choice! Only a woman can be a mother! Isn't that profound to you?
Short answer, in agreeance with ahunt: No.
Longer: Motherhood is a unique and subjective experience. Not every woman is meant to be a mother, and not every mother personally experiences motherhood as "[one of] the most challenging, interesting, and largely rewarding roles." I certainly don't view it as such, even though I have friends who do. There are many other roles and experiences in life that are equally valid, or in fact surpass the interest-level, challenge-level, and reward-level of motherhood.
If I may focus on your assertion:
"Motherhood by choice is beautiful"
So what is beautiful about motherhood? Do you mean the state and constituents of motherhood itself, or the act of choosing to be a mother? or both?
Personally, although I would never choose to become a mother, I know that women who make the choice to bring new life into the world describe it as beautiful and rewarding because one of their personal goals is being fulfilled. I can agree that their personal fulfillment is beautiful and rewarding -even though it does not mirror my own- since they are happy, and did not feel obligated, coerced, or shamed into the role of being a mother. Choice itself is beautiful, because if pregnancy/childbearing becomes an obligation and not a gift, then it devalues the meaning and significance of motherhood into that of indentured servitude and misery.
Lastly, would you not agree that motherhood is one of the most (if not the most) challenging, interesting and largely rewarding role a woman can aspire to?
If you are referring to motherhood as in being pregnant, no, that is not challenging, interesting or rewarding. Any idiot can be pregnant. Women in COMAS can be pregnant. Women who are totally BRAIN DEAD can be pregnant.
Now motherhood as in raising kids, THAT's challenging, interesting and largely rewarding, but it doesn't necessarily have any connection at all to pregnancy. Women who love and want children choose to love and nurture them and that is beautiful. It doesn't have anything to do with pregnancy.
You're beginning to sound like one of those primitives with the fertility rites and the penis worship and the fixation on how 'mysterious' reproduction is but there isn't particularly remarkable about a biological process identical to that of every other mammal on the planet.
It's a little hard to figure out exactly what you're trying to say by dumping buckets of words sort of randomly into your post, but actually it doesn't matter much anyway. See, the thing is, while you're certainly as entitled as anyone else to have an opinion about what other people should do, and what it means to be responsible, and what the purpose of having various body parts is, nobody else is likely to pay much attention, because your phobias and superstitions, while important to you, aren't important to anyone else.
you really think you sound intelligent - i think you have no idea what a load of babbling crap you're spouting.
and the more time i waste trying to read your posts - the more i'm catching on that you're of the "tut, tut, little girl, let me explain to your tiny lady brain how life, the universe, and everything works".
and i love how you allow men to get away with being intellectually effected by their sexuality - yet, you're confused how women can allow their sexual liberties to effect theirs. so, men are allowed to be whole human beings (by that i mean, they get to have all aspects of being alive - intellect AND sexuality, etc.). but, women are supposed to rise above being sexual? because we got stuck being the gender that carries the fetus, we're not allowed to enjoy sexuality? yeah - you're just a condescending sexist who clearly can't see beyond "beautiful woman" of THE home/womb.
i feel like my replies to "responsible", or whatever it is he's calling himself, aren't ending up in the right place. i don't know if i'm hitting the wrong "reply" button or what. i had minor surgery the other day & am still on percocet - so, i'm a bit cloudy. i think it should be obvious who i'm replying to.
Betty Brown - And a super Sunday to you too!
You commented:
"…i love how you allow men to get away with being intellectually effected by their sexuality…"
Betty, this is just the point; men being responsible are tasked to overcome the chemistry/biology that is effecting their intellectual ability at the moment of arousal. In fact, I guess you could say "I don't let men get away with being intellectually taken advantage of by their sexuality…". Also, I have not forgot the woman in this scenario either as I mentioned:
"Just as the male anatomy responds to stimuli from the physical and/or psychological, so too does the uterus respond to the physical and/or psychological decisions we (as in females) make when we decide that the uterus is OR is not needed…".
So a man responds through his intellect just as a woman responds through her intellect. The outcomes are more/less different but my point is we BOTH perceive our sexuality and act upon it through our decisions. I apologize for not making my gender-neutral comment explicit.
Lastly, I don't quite know why you go off about "men being allowed to be whole human beings…", but you mention something about "woman rising above their sexuality"? I think you read me backwards Betty. It is even more true that MEN have quite a bit work to do as per "rising above their sexuality" as you put it. Men are really more sensitive to stimuli on average then woman. In other words "they get horny really easy", therefore it is generally a more frequent task to behave!... in comes the ol' brain again!
p.s. I'm just figuring out this posting thingy too! Hope my reply gets to you :)
Dude, you're a barking loon, you know that?
TheRealistMom - Hi there! No, you don't have to worry I am not going that a woman who has had a historectomy is not a person. You may be thinking "of course you WOULD say that", and you would be right. Why would I think otherwise? As a mother yourself, I have the utmost respect for the patience, strength, wisdom (amung other wonderful attributes) that you must possess.
I do think that my "defining member" has turned into a one-liner quite quickly! Sorry for the ambiguity. To clear the air, my simple point was that a woman has a uterus for a reason and that fact complements her femininty. In otherwords, men and woman are different. You think that I'm nuts for stating that? Have you ever considered that you RealistMom are a dying breed? I mean, 3 kids? That's so fantastic and rare these days!! I bet we could call that a large family today. So what does that have to do with men and woman's differences? It means that back in the old days when men and woman understood complementarity... Oops! Wait for it!... the flood gates are opening... OK! Have at me everyone!
Okay...it is offically "open season" on me. I would rather die at the hands of friends than humor RWR.
Yeah, you're not the one who understands what complementary means....
Yah A...
Because RWR thinks we are somehow ignorant of gender "roles" as defined by the CBMW, or reactionary Catholics or the SBC. Hell, we've never examined complemetarianism...or whatever the buzzword/doctrine of regulating women to mindless livestock is called...in religious circles.
RWR thinks that all women are stupid. A woman would have to be stupid to believe the utter crap the religious right spews . We see the sad, self selecting results in the voices of the Republican women who post here or, for that matter, every time Sarah Palin or Ginny Thomas says something.
that he also believes in the fallacy that men never abandoned their pregnant girlfriends/wives/families in the days prior to effective birth control and safe abortion.
It never ceases to amuse me that forced-birthers live in a total fantasy world.
colleen - I don't think your stupid. I don't think anyone on here is stupid--on the left or right. I only wish to try and engage other opinions.
p.s. what exactly IS the utter crap the "religious right" spews?
p.p.s. 10 bucks someone pushes the "udder/MOOO" button!
p.s. what exactly IS the utter crap the "religious right" spews?
Disingenuous much?
Well, you could start up there at the article in question, where the word 'uterus' is so disgusting that it can't be said in front of 12 year old girls, who have one.
There are times when my brain cannot dispassionately process the dissonance, and the "evil" comes out, crowepps. I have made a personal commitment to Not Give In, here at RH
.
So instead, let me ask you, RWR...just who and what are obsessed with the "uterus?" And why? Dig deep.
Florida speaker: Uterus is a filthy word inappropriate in front of 12-year olds
RWR: Uterus is what defines woman
Congruence: Women are filth
Crowepps, that is exactly the problem I've been having with RWR's posts under this very topic. Although I am aware that this is a problem I have, I didn't automatically look for it or where the cognitive dissonance was coming from.
He doesn't express his views clearly so it's kind of hard to understand, but it seem like a variant of the Catholic/LDS trope of 'the soul is befouled if the body experiences pleasures'. His showing up to post those views at an article about 'uterus is a dirty word' seems indicative of something sort of kinky. Maybe he googles the internet every day searching for 'uterus' so he can contemplate it's wonderful specialness when orgasm free and fetus filled.
I don't have time to pick through and look at all the posts, but I'm pretty sure he never once addressed the actual subject of the article -- the idea that using the U***S word is equivalent to obscenity.
crowepps - The article isn't interesting. Uterus is not a bad word. Get over it.
You might want to pass your views on to the guy who thinks it's obscene here:
The Honorable Dean Cannon, Speaker
Florida House of Representatives
420 The Capitol
402 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300
A uterus Facebook page was created, and it didn't take long for Randolph's wife, Susannah Lindberg Randolph, to chime in.
"We should start a powerful, secret society known from this day forth as: The Uterati," she wrote.
She followed it up with another post about her uterus forming a political action committee and leadership fund called "U-Pac."
"Who's in?" she wrote. "It's time to bring power back to the uterus."
Women's groups have been smarting from the renewed emphasis on abortion bills and sustained attacks against Planned Parenthood this year. So this uterus rebellion has fallen on some fertile ground
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/cerabino-florida-house-gops-uterus-ban-a-free-1369799.html
crowepps - Earlier you commented:
"Are you trying to express your belief that the only appropriate use for sexuality is to reproduce?"
That's part of it. Human sexuality is a vast and deep topic. I wont be allowed by the moderator to get into it here. If it helps, consider this in the meanwhile as an alternative to a more "appropriate sexuality":
1) Man/woman decides "doing whatever he/she wishes" with his/her body is acceptable.
2) Man/woman decides to experiment with his/her body through masturbation
2) Man/woman decides to sleep with multiple partners because it feels good and it's perfectly fine (protected sex of course)
3) Man/woman decides this is getting boring
4) Man/woman decides to spice things up with with sex toys/porn etc.
5) Man/woman becomes addicted to porn
6) Man/woman never feels satisfied
7) Man/woman develops commitment issues
8) Man/woman feels objectified
9) Man/woman sees his/her body as a toy (naturally)
10) Man/woman has an "oops" moment and ruins his/her life, families life, friends life, etc etc.
11) Man - cannot bare to own up to the responsibility of fathering a child. Too addicted to porn, selfish, unprepared etc, etc
Woman - cannot think to own up to the responsibility of raising a child. Too scared, selfish and unprepared, etc, etc
12) Man goes one way, woman goes to get "medical help"
13) Man - goes back to his computer screen, hits up the rippers
Woman - gets mad at herself and looses all respect for things maternal… drowns her issues with a drink at the same strip-club the guy went to…
This is what you call striving for human sexual perfection? Throw whatever pleasantries into this mix and it wont justify jack. The intrinsic selfishness, complication and distorted view of sexuality ADVOCATED by the so-called "pro-choice" are the building-blocks for disaster.
And yes it is your body to do as you wish… what are you going to do?
- Boy child is brainwashed into the beliefs of anti-pleasure religious cult that worship the penis/reproduction and insist touching his own body is 'dirty'.
- As an adult, is obsessed with what other people might be doing with their bodies and if they are experiencing 'illicit' pleasures. Feels guilty about experiencing arousal and blames it on women for 'making' him feel aroused.
- Annoys everyone around him by harassing them about what they do in private and telling them pleasure is immoral and their bodies are nasty. Is sure immorality is everywhere and blames women.
- Fetishizes virginity and feels the ideal woman was the Virgin Mary because she produced a child without being 'corrupted' by sex. Sees all other women as corrupt because they're not Mary.
- Repression and guilt result in unhealthy and perverted fixations that put small children at risk. Blames that on women as well.
omfg AHAHA Crowepps, you are hilarious, and summed it up FAR better than I did. I can't stop laughing.
Actually, I think it's sad. There's a perfectly normal little boy, with perfectly normal childish impulses, slapped and scolded and told not to touch his nasty body because it's corrupt, trained to feel guilt and shame over his thoughts and his humanity, so that the rest of his life is warped into a pattern of anxiety and guilt.
It's bad enough watching someone deal with obsessions about 'purity' and 'contamination' and being ruled by 'appeasement rituals' and 'praying in vain repetitions' when they actually HAVE obsessive compulsive disorder and are helpless before their compulsions. It is far more horrible to watch a healthy child being trained to act as though he shares that illness because his religion has been distorted by the dysfunction of its saints.
I don't mean to say that I find that situation in real life to be funny in the least; I was laughing at the dead-on nonchalant accuracy.
And I agree that it is sad. It's even sadder that he's trying to foist that warped view of natural humanity, natural sexuality onto the rest of us.
Personally, I don't trust anyone who thinks masturbation and consensual sexuality are shameful, dirty things. I think they are pitiable and miserable people who are hell-bent on increasing the amount of suffering in the world. That they have such a stranglehold on the political discourse in this country is shameful and downright fucking evil.
But looking at his list really just made me laugh. I've been masturbating since I can remember. So has my husband. We both still do. We often help each other. We even watch porn together. Since the explosion of the Internet, we laugh that our kinks are actually quite mainstream. I was a walking hormone in my teens and early twenties (and so were many of my girlfriends, giving lie to RWR's assertion that only men have an all-consuming hyper-sexuality) and acted accordingly. I had hookups, monogamous relationships, friends with benefits, and I even had sex with a woman. I can't say that every experience was wonderful, but the vast majority were and the only one I regret was with the jerk who impregnated me.
I've known my husband since we were in elementary school and now we are just shy of 9 years together (married for nearly 4) and still going strong. Imagine that, huh? We've committed all the filthy no-nos (and still commit many of them) and yet we've still managed to achieve a fulfilling, loving, monogamous relationship, without children, even. And certainly without the spectre of a vengeful, petulant, petty, and misery-loving sky fairy, either.
That they have such a stranglehold on the political discourse in this country
Yeah, who the cares except for
That they have such a stranglehold on the political discourse in this country
Really and truly. I spoke to a young man in his 20's who was defending a protest outside of my local Planned Parenthood. I said to him "you've had sex." He bowed his head and said "I'm not perfect" I said "trust me you're gonna have sex again and I hope you and your girlfriend go to Planned Parenthood to get contraception, check-ups and information." he said "absolutely not!"
Again, who cares, except
That they have such a stranglehold on the political discourse in this country
I don't think masturbation should give rise to any more concern than a person scratching any other sort of itch. It has zero effect on others, has some nice health benefits like decreasing birth defects (from old damaged sperm) and pain relief, and has no downside for society so long as it is kept private.
Obsessing about stamping it out is on a par with the 'purity' concerns in India that demote to 'unclean' people who process feces or handle garbage, concerns I have always thought weird, since all the supposedly 'clean' people apparently aren't 'contaminated' by creating the garbage or having bowel movements.
When in the car this past weekend, 'I touch myself' comes on the radio and the 16 year olds in the car are giggling about it when I exclaim: 'masturbation is healthy! it's good for you!' and they're like OMG TMI! LOL! But all I could think about is how I wish I knew about it sooner when I was younger.
Um, you have a SERiously distorted view of sexuality (before you accuse me of being someone who regrets their 'sexual escapades' of the past and, now, just doesn't want to admit it, I am, and have always been, entirely non-sexual, partly because of the limited views of sexuality that you and so many of the acquaintances outside of my friends and family's tight-knit circles espouse). That has LESS to do with one's sexuality and more to do with the patriarchal archetypes you and your 'ilk' support. Pornography and sex-work are inherently patriarchal systems. Doesn't mean that women's choices should be further limited in either occupation, but it does mean that you don't grasp the finer points of sexuality, conSENSual sexuality, something I addressed earlier, but you have failed to elaborate on. Most likely, in your scenario, the woman was asked to do something she didn't want to, something the man expected he was entitled or privileged to. Eventually, the relationship turns toward more coercive methods, including pornography and sex toys, in order to relieve the man's boredom in the bedroom. In a TRULY consensual relationship, either the man or woman would have realized the relationship wasn't working and moved on OR they would have reached an agreement or compromise that works for BOTH of them.
Which also means that the sexuality you strive for is intrinsically selfish, complicated and distorted. That that is what YOU call striving for human sexual perfection (there is no such thing, btw, since what works for one couple doesn't necessarily work for another).
A woman should be CELEBRATED for choosing motherhood. She should also be CELEBRATED for choosing to remain childfree. I think the ones who have truly rejected anything maternal are those who think pregnancy and childbirth are obligatory and inherently 'beautiful'.
What makes you think that all pro-choicers' love/sex life follows the above formula? Oh, that's right, brainwashing and stereotyping. Actually, it's comedy gold, so thank you for the entertainment, because I am 100% pro-choice and sex-positive... and none of your bullshit assumptions apply to me, my friends, or my life (fortunately!). :)
Apparently, the evil of masturbation is one of the first steps leading to ultimate failure/downfall in life, according to you! How incredibly moronic. Sounds like someone feels a little guilty about his masturbation habits, eh? Or maybe you're experiencing some projection/reaction-formation as a result of your unfortunate porn addiction?
To be honest, I see this kind of thing happening more with people who are sexually uneducated, repressed, and anti-choice more than anything else. They start off being totally monogamous even though it's not what they want, obsessed with the concept of "virginity" (in women) -- as prescribed by their church -- but all the while they feel trapped and overwhelmed by their own sexuality that they both fear and have been taught to hate. Eventually, it comes to the breaking point where they can no longer take it, and they start cheating on their partner or being totally promiscuous without any thought of protection (remember, the religious right tells you to hate and fear any sort of contraception or STD protection), getting addicted to violent porn because a. they've never known what healthy sexuality is and b. have been taught to be violently disgusted by female sexuality, and after awhile even that gets old, so they get might get into drugs (you know, like Ted Haggard's meth / prostitute addiction cycle), and the whole charade spirals out of control. Until eventually, they come back to Jesus and their wife, and they can tell the whole story of their downfall in church, and how they were saved again. But what the others don't know is that they're still hitting up craigslist ads on the side and watching violent porn while their wife is at scrapbooking club. Not saying that this applies to every rightwing fundie or sexually-repressed misogynist, but I've seen it enough to know that it's not uncommon. Nothing surprises me any more.
looses all respect for things maternal
Not that I ever had much in the first place, but I lose more and more respect for you every time you advance the belief that all women are supposed to come with this built-in special maternal drive and that the terrible, evil pro-choicers are to blame for all the women who simply refuse to reproduce. And that women who refuse to reproduce are these terrible drug-addicted sadsacks whose lives have been destroyed. Yeah, right. If it helps you get your rocks off, then keep on believing it. But try to keep that shit to yourself.
dupe
Very, very well said. The sum total of the female, to trog forced-birthers, amounts to a cloaca.
Look it up in your (Latin) Funk & Wagnalls*.
(* mid-60s comedy reference)
Remember in the 2008 presidential campaign, Dems using "Hussein" as their middle name to tweak the Pubs?
I'm thinking we all should use "Cloaca" as our middle name to tweak the trog forced-birthers. We know what they think we are, maybe we should just come out, claim it, and throw it in their faces.
Okay, you can be evil for me, crowepps. I'm good with it. I can do straight woman well.
I would like to know your opinion.
I have been wanting to ask this question somewhere, so why not here?
Because the story is that Jesus'' whole trip was pretty much designed by him, right, he had his whole salvation of humanity very tightly planned. Well what if, while in captivity he was raped, and it turned out, well his being all people in one, that he was actually intersexed, and had a uterus. What if he realized that because the Roman guards raped him, that it resulted in a conception? Would He have given up the crucifixion and salvation of humanity, you know, His plan in life, to carry the baby for nine months and give it up for adoption, in the meanwhile possibly being forgotten about, a change of governership, a commutation, you know, losing the opportunity? Or would he have continued in his path and sponateously aborted, as he most likely had the power to do, or just allowed himself to be crucified while pregnant, which would amount to the same? I believe He would have had an abortion. He would have hated doing it, as most women do, but he would have made the decision rationally. What do you think?
I am not joking here, this is in the spirit of that song "What if God where one of us?" Our suffering is Jesus' suffering, the silenced, the lonely, the forgotten, the cursed, the soiled, the judged. I would find such a story to be profoundly moving, as a woman who had an abortion, that God could be like me. What do you think?
Well, to be nitpicky, myself, this time, (^_^;) I believe women hate being forced into making a decision, either way. But, that is an interesting question, indeed. A viewpoint that isn't commonly considered, but should be. Since it suggests a reason why he may have chosen the path he did (especially if, as I believe, he was divinely-inspired, not conceived for that purpose). If he was pretty much LITerally all-in-one, being intersexed would make sense.
Btw, here's another interesting, yet more commonly known tidbit: Mary chose to have Jesus.
Btw, here's another interesting, yet more commonly known tidbit: Mary chose to have Jesus.
That's right, and her uterus nurtured and protected Him, thanks to her work. No matter how disadvantaged, she did want Him.
Which is why the anti-choice bringing up of women choosing to birth in disadvantaged situations does not mean what they think it does. It does not mean that, when not given the choice, things turn out well anyway. So let's sway unyielding women to it.
I had a disadvantaged pregnancy: the father was not reliable, and I became homeless living in a campground for free while my baby was 3 months old. But things did turn out well, in no small measure because I really really wanted a baby so badly, I was like the Elephant mom in Dumbo waiting for the stork to come. I wanted, for better or worse, to nurture a child. That's why I honor women like you who know they don't want to go through that, I would never sway someone into motherhood, it's a huge weight to carry, and the only way is to want it. Like saying, Oh you don't like cliff-diving? Just try it, it'll grow on you! Only more so.
Which is why the hypocrisy so overwhelms me when you juxtapose 'the uterus is a dirty word' slogan with 'PP perpetuates black genocide' billboards. Women who are black tend to be more impoverished than their counterparts who are white, they also tend to have more unintended pregnancies. I've also heard that they tend to continue more pregnancies to term, as well. IF that's true, then these women who are quite often at a major disadvantage when it comes to pregnancy, childbirth and child-rearing, choose to carry more pregnancies to term than to terminate them. And, if public opinion can't be swayed to believe that this is evidence against legal abortion, you wouldn't hear a peep from the anti-choice crowd about this, but you would hear about how 'dirty' the uterus is. Which means that the only reason uterus is a dirty word is because these Repuglicans can't hold it against a woman.
female =/= woman =/= feminine
You're conflating concepts that are entirely different, because you believe that anyone born with a vagina and uterus is destined only to serve men, and pop out babies until the body dies from exhaustion.
Like FBIR says, forced birth is rape. Denying full and frank sex education to vagina owners, and denying them access to legal contraception and legal abortion is accessory to that rape.
It is up to every individual uterus OWNER to decide how many children they WISH to bear. No family is too big or too small, or incomplete, if the uterus OWNER is happy with said family.
Get your demented head out of our organs you crazed forced-birther.
elburto - Good afternoon! Hope it's a sunny Sunday in your neck of the woods because your comments are so dreary! Cheer up some!
When you postulate that I believe the "uterus is destined only to serve men, and pop out babies until the body dies from exhaustion", I do not see how that relates to your "elgebra": (please explain more)
"female =/= woman =/= feminine"
Secondly, when you say "forced birth is rape", I think you mean "forced birth can be an effect of rape". In other words, a woman still was raped even if she is not "forced to birth".
On that thought, one thing never ceases to amaze me and that is the unwavering persistence that rape is the prevailing means by which the world's uteri are impregnated. Are you missing something? Better do your homework elburto. As absolutely horrible as rape is, the scary part is it isn't even the issue so grow up!
If I may ask you: What would you say if the government made it illegal to have abortions EXCEPT in the case of a documented rape? According to you, it would serve perfect justice no? If not, you had best be defining "rape".
... and this is coming from you, someone who enjoys writing childish vignettes on the personification of female reproductive organs.
Good afternoon! Hope it's a sunny Sunday in your neck of the woods because your comments are so dreary! Cheer up some!
I'm really getting sick of your transparent, inauthentic cheeriness. It makes you sound incredibly supercilious and I think you will receive better responses if you cut that shit out.
As absolutely horrible as rape is, the scary part is it isn't even the issue so grow up!
If I may ask you: What would you say if the government made it illegal to have abortions EXCEPT in the case of a documented rape? According to you, it would serve perfect justice no? If not, you had best be defining "rape".
Yes, rape is absolutely part of the issue. Consent to sex is not always consent to pregnancy. Sex is not an irrevocable contract of automatic parenthood.
Maybe this will clarify the saying that "forced birth is rape": If I had consensual sex, but some individual or government forced me to continue an unwanted pregnancy and give birth against my will, then I would consider that a horrific violation of my body and sexuality. Having my physical/sexual autonomy destroyed, being forced to gestate an unwanted fetus for 9 months, and having my vagina violated through the excruciating pain of childbirth is equal to rape. If I could not have a legal abortion, I would be desperate to find any way out of such a situation, even if it meant I would risk harm to myself.
a plume assassine - A few points/questions:
1) If "Consent to sex is not always consent to pregnancy", what is it?
2) "...had consensual sex, but some individual or government forced me to continue an unwanted pregnancy and give birth against my will, then I would consider that a horrific violation of my body and sexuality".
I would consider that a paradox. You I'm afraid just consented to all the consequences of having consensual sex. There is no "But..." It's all too simple. Don't you get it?
3) "...my vagina violated through the excruciating pain of childbirth is equal to rape".
Unbelievable! Did you actually say all that? To get this straight: you consented to sex, you got pregnant, you hate your body for getting pregnant as if you never knew it could happen, then you blame a newborn--innocent though he/she is--of raping your vagina?? After YOU consented to the whole shin-dig?
Absolutely pathetic! FESS UP PEOPLE!... WHAT A BUNCH OF WIMPS!
1) If "Consent to sex is not always consent to pregnancy", what is it?
It's consent to sex. It's consent to THAT sex act and THAT time. Nothing else. NOTHING ELSE.
2) .... It's all too simple. Don't you get it?
Simple to a simpleton. Actually, there are zillions of consequences to every action, consenting to driving is not consenting to accidentally driving over your own dog who had run away the night before and was sleeping under it, yet it is a potential consequence. Not a likely scenario? OK how bout this one, you've had sex with a woman, right? Awesome, so have I it was good, huh? Anyways, don't you know that one very possible consequence of hetero sex, is abortion? Oh, it's out of your hands you say? Not your fault huh because it was her evil will that did it. Hah, I'm three steps ahead of you my simple friend, because perhaps 3/4 of all embryos SPONTANEOUSLY abort. Yeah, naturally, without an evil woman to do it. And what caused the situation? Why penis in vagina did. You consented to it because it's a very common consequence. (polishes nails on lapel) Does that mean your hatred of abortion will make you never have PiV anymore? Hm, didn't think so.
3)you consented to sex, you got pregnant, you hate your body for getting pregnant as if you never knew it could happen, then you blame a newborn--innocent though he/she is--of raping your vagina?? After YOU consented to the whole shin-dig?
No she consented to THAT sex act at THAT time. The baby is not the rapist, it has no intentions. YOU forced-birthers are the rapists. Get it now?? And the only one who hates that woman's body is YOU, you hate it for having a mind of its own, located in the brain.
Now I wish you'd comment on my scenario of what if Jesus had an abortion. Cool, thanks.
It's really simple. But, typical, that anti-choicers such as yourself, don't get it. Consent by Human A to Human B's usage of Organ A is NOT consent to usage of Organ B by Human C, in whatEVER context you look for it under.
Now, substitute:
- Human A for woman.
- Human B for man.
- Organ A for vagina.
- Organ B for uterus.
- Human C for fetus.
If consent to sex were consent to pregnancy, then women would always get pregnant from sex, men would get pregnant, women wouldn't have clitorises and there would be no erogeneous zones in the anus.
If I consent to driving, does that mean I consent to no medical treatment, if I get into an accident that I caused? OBviously not. Then just because someone consents to sex and gets pregnant, does NOT mean that they consent to no medical treatment (abortion).
Unbelievable! Oo You mean you aren't aware that someone can rape even in a fugue state? Un-FUCKING-believable. Being aware of the risks doesn't mean a DAMNED thing, when you KNOW it's something that can NEVER happen to you (I highly doubt you're female, after all) and when you KNOW that you've just ENTRAPPED and IMPRISONED every woman in her own body, whether she would have chosen the way it was developed or not. THAT constitutes THE most disgusting, deSPICable, SICKening violation I have ever seen of a woman's body. A woman is NOT a mere incubator. I guess there never WAS any hope that you would even make the ATTEMPT to apply reasoning to understand my first reply to you and what it ACTually meant. How... expected. Where is the corollary that can equally punish, entrap and imprison men in their own bodies after engaging in sex, after all? Whoops? Exposed your ignorance a little TOO easily, eh? A newborn either lacks the capacity to be guilty or innocent or it IS 'guilty', since it perpetrates an act that can cause an unwilling woman, pain.
You ARE a wimp and very pathetic, aren't you? FESS UP!
Arekushieru - OK, you equate consenting to driving with consent to the sex act?
"If I consent to driving, does that mean I consent to no medical treatment, if I get into an accident that I caused?"
What a ridiculous analogy! Do ALL people--regardless if they consented or not--who DO get pregnant by "an accident they caused" become in urgent need of an abortion? Is it a life threatening matter if they don't receive an abortion? Does there need to be an ambulance with a team of abortion doctors ready to perform on scene? The type of medical treatment you WILL receive as a result of a car accident--regardless of any prior "consent" to that treatment--is the diametric opposite to the type you so cavalierly equate with an abortion procedure. Never mind that the latter results in the termination of a developing life. I also noticed something in your statement earlier; you acknowledged the fetus as a human (human C = fetus). More on that later.
"Consent by woman to man's usage of vagina is NOT consent to usage of uterus by a fetus, in whatEVER context you look for it under."
For what it's worth, consent to sex is consent to sex--agreed. People can consent to sex without "consenting" to a fetus "using" a woman's uterus--I guess. Thank you for clarifying that for me. Speaking so masochistically about men and woman "using" body parts for their own autonomous means of "getting off" is your example of "sexual responsibility"? If this is the depth of your reasoning, I strongly suggest rethinking what the men and woman in your life mean to you. How do you see yourself? Reflect.
So you realize pregnancy IS a very real consequence of sex, otherwise you would have no use for contraception and abortion. You believe you can somehow separate the "good parts" from the "unwanted parts" through the simple mind trick you call consent. You assume that human sexuality in the context of bringing about new life is rather a curse to the dignity and autonomy of woman; something to be despised and hated. You try to reserve the right to an orgasm without any clue as to the context or significance within which the human erogenous zones function. How can I accuse you of all this rubbish you ask? I wouldn't say I'm accusing you of anything, rather reciprocating back to you what you have laid bare on this thread. What may be foriegn to you is the lens through which I consider the teleological, ontological and epistemological implications in your humanistic rants.
Why would we have these pleasures you ask, if not for "pleasure in and of itself"? Let's simply use your logic to unpack the mystery. If pleasure is the ultimate end, we would have no need of a complementarity of the sexes; no need for the intricacies of the male/female anatomy; no need of the intellect to contemplate, recognize and discern a truth in our bodies; no need for abortion and contraception; no reason for the female anatomy including a uterus to have evolved; no need for a woman to be loved; a man to be loved; the two to fulfill each other. The notions that "sex for procreation and sex for the sake of sex" are somehow of equal merit cannot be true. If it were true, human nature would have chosen for us long ago; we would have been slaves to our desires and nothing more then mere (irrational) animals. Obviously, the fact WE ARE ALL HERE also speaks to the contrary. It is better that you are here with us today then the alternative of you never existing right? But just so you don't forget, YOU were once a fetus.
But long before blogging with us here today Arekushieru you were a fetus. Whats that you say? the fetus was not you, since you are essentially a person and the fetus is not. But that is untenable. For suppose that the fetus was not you. Let "F" designate that being which the fetus was. Then, either F exists now or it does not exist. (Obviously, even if it exists now, it is no longer a fetus, just as that being that you were years ago, though it still exists, is no longer a child.) Suppose F exists now. Ex hypothesi, F is not I. So what is it? Well, given that F is an organism (that is evident on scientific grounds), and that all the organic parts of the fetus have developed into organic parts of you, it follows that if F exists now, F is a part of you. But, ex hypothesi, it is not the whole of you, since you were not F and hence still am not F by transitivity of identity.
So which part of you is it Arekushieru? Every part of your body has organically developed out of a part of that fetus. Therefore, you cannot separate out some proper part of your body now and say: "That part of me, that is F." Therefore, F now contains all of your body. Moreover, it does not contain anything outside of your body, since it is clear that in F's developmental history nothing developed from organic parts of F that remained a living part and did not remain in you. So, F is an organism whose body is materially identical with your body; the parts of F are identical with your parts even qua organic entities. But there surely cannot be two organisms that have exactly the same organic body parts. Hence, if you are an organism, you are F. But it was assumed you are not F, and so you are not an organism. But this is dualism at its worst. For surely, you Arekushieru are an animal, and to be an animal is to be a certain kind of organism. Surely it is evident that you are an animal, albeit a rational one, and that therefore you are an organism. So we see that we arrive at the absurd conclusion that you are not an animal if we assume that F still exists but you were not F.
p.s.
"A newborn either lacks the capacity to be guilty or innocent or it IS 'guilty', since it perpetrates an act that can cause an unwilling woman, pain."
REALLY? How so? Because you say so? Reflect. Think before you type.
What a ridiculous analogy! Do ALL people--regardless if they consented or not--who DO get pregnant by "an accident they caused" become in urgent need of an abortion? Is it a life threatening matter if they don't receive an abortion? Does there need to be an ambulance with a team of abortion doctors ready to perform on scene? The type of medical treatment you WILL receive as a result of a car accident--regardless of any prior "consent" to that treatment--is the diametric opposite to the type you so cavalierly equate with an abortion procedure. Never mind that the latter results in the termination of a developing life. I also noticed something in your statement earlier; you acknowledged the fetus as a human (human C = fetus). More on that later.
Strawman. I wasn't comparing life-saving medical treatment to non-lifesaving medical treatment. I think one really needs to learn just HOW dangerous the medical condition known as pregnancy IS. Besides that, I was only comparing two forms of medical treatment, FULL STOP.
A fetus is not 'a' human. It is simply human.
For what it's worth, consent to sex is consent to sex--agreed. People can consent to sex without "consenting" to a fetus "using" a woman's uterus--I guess. Thank you for clarifying that for me. Speaking so masochistically about men and woman "using" body parts for their own autonomous means of "getting off" is your example of "sexual responsibility"? If this is the depth of your reasoning, I strongly suggest rethinking what the men and woman in your life mean to you. How do you see yourself? Reflect.
How is consent, masochistic, in and of itself? Rape is sadistic, in and of itself. Rape fantasies are masochistic, in and of themselves. Both deny autonomy to an individual. As, apparently, you would have us do.
So you realize pregnancy IS a very real consequence of sex, otherwise you would have no use for contraception and abortion. You believe you can somehow separate the "good parts" from the "unwanted parts" through the simple mind trick you call consent. You assume that human sexuality in the context of bringing about new life is rather a curse to the dignity and autonomy of woman; something to be despised and hated. You try to reserve the right to an orgasm without any clue as to the context or significance within which the human erogenous zones function. How can I accuse you of all this rubbish you ask? I wouldn't say I'm accusing you of anything, rather reciprocating back to you what you have laid bare on this thread. What may be foriegn to you is the lens through which I consider the teleological, ontological and epistemological implications in your humanistic rants.
Again, OBvious strawman. That anti-choicers such as yourself would use solely women's biological functions against them is what I named the curse against the dignity and autonomy of women. GET. A. CLUE.
Why would we have these pleasures you ask, if not for "pleasure in and of itself"? Let's simply use your logic to unpack the mystery. If pleasure is the ultimate end, we would have no need of a complementarity of the sexes; no need for the intricacies of the male/female anatomy; no need of the intellect to contemplate, recognize and discern a truth in our bodies; no need for abortion and contraception; no reason for the female anatomy including a uterus to have evolved; no need for a woman to be loved; a man to be loved; the two to fulfill each other. The notions that "sex for procreation and sex for the sake of sex" are somehow of equal merit cannot be true. If it were true, human nature would have chosen for us long ago; we would have been slaves to our desires and nothing more then mere (irrational) animals. Obviously, the fact WE ARE ALL HERE also speaks to the contrary. It is better that you are here with us today then the alternative of you never existing right? But just so you don't forget, YOU were once a fetus.
Again, STRAWman. Sex can be used both for the sake of sex AND procreation, whichever a couple chooses. Derrr.... Homosexuality, look it up. It's present, naturally, in humans and 200 species of other animals. Homophobia is present, unnaturally, in only one.
But long before blogging with us here today Arekushieru you were a fetus. Whats that you say? the fetus was not you, since you are essentially a person and the fetus is not. But that is untenable. For suppose that the fetus was not you. Let "F" designate that being which the fetus was. Then, either F exists now or it does not exist. (Obviously, even if it exists now, it is no longer a fetus, just as that being that you were years ago, though it still exists, is no longer a child.) Suppose F exists now. Ex hypothesi, F is not I. So what is it? Well, given that F is an organism (that is evident on scientific grounds), and that all the organic parts of the fetus have developed into organic parts of you, it follows that if F exists now, F is a part of you. But, ex hypothesi, it is not the whole of you, since you were not F and hence still am not F by transitivity of identity.
I no longer fit the definition of fetus. I did once. That's what all your fancy words boil down to, that the fetus exists as a part of me, now, and that I was once a fetus. The latter is OBviously true, the second is not true, since fetus is simply a stage of development. You fail.
So which part of you is it Arekushieru? Every part of your body has organically developed out of a part of that fetus. Therefore, you cannot separate out some proper part of your body now and say: "That part of me, that is F." Therefore, F now contains all of your body. Moreover, it does not contain anything outside of your body, since it is clear that in F's developmental history nothing developed from organic parts of F that remained a living part and did not remain in you. So, F is an organism whose body is materially identical with your body; the parts of F are identical with your parts even qua organic entities. But there surely cannot be two organisms that have exactly the same organic body parts. Hence, if you are an organism, you are F. But it was assumed you are not F, and so you are not an organism. But this is dualism at its worst. For surely, you Arekushieru are an animal, and to be an animal is to be a certain kind of organism. Surely it is evident that you are an animal, albeit a rational one, and that therefore you are an organism. So we see that we arrive at the absurd conclusion that you are not an animal if we assume that F still exists but you were not F.
You obviously do need to go back to biology 101. I do not have an umbilical cord or fetal placenta that I did as a fetus. Since I lack those, I AM NO LONGER able to fit within the STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT known as fetus.
REALLY? How so? Because you say so? Reflect. Think before you type.
So, your table is innocent? And it's guilty when it falls on you? Reflect. Think before you type.
I can't believe the head-slapping ignorance that gets spouted by anti-choicers. He doesn't even know rudimentary embriology, they always act like science is on their side but only are interested in the bits they read from their "pro-life" pamphlets.
When he says that having sex for pleasure is "animalistic." He is ignorant of the fact that Humans, unique among animals, use sex for far more than procreation, which is why women don't have estrus. Us and very few other, exalted animals do. Then he talks about you in a way that's oblivious to the fact that you've stated repeatedly that you're asexual, which is one color in the spectrum of healthy human proclivities, including trans-sexuality, homosexuality, heterosexuality, etc. Which also distinguishes us from animals: You can't tell by looking at someone what they'll respond to, unlike most animals.
He really picks and chooses what to respond to here, but the one thing I wish he'd respond to is the fact that reproductive sex has as a consequence abortion, spontaneous abortion because most embryos fail. So either you say that procreation itself is wrong, or you have to accept some number of abortions. And saying "well it's in God's hands" is a total cop-out. You could say that about any act that leads to a consequence you don't like, including induced abortion: I just wanted the embryo out of my body. That it failed after that is in God's hands."
I just wanted the embryo out of my body. That it failed after that is in God's hands."
ExACTly. It's telling that when it comes to the fetus, anti-choicers are all about, " Don't 'punish' the fetus! It doesn't 'deserve' to die because of the inseminator's crimes! You can't 'execute' a fetus, because it lacks intent! It's not mine or the fetus' responsibility that it depends on the woman's body for survival! (etc...)" but when it comes to the woman they're all about, "The 'slut' should have kept her legs closed! The woman should have known the risks of engaging in sex and taken her 'punishment' like the 'slut' she is! It's not mine or the fetus' fault that pregnancy is sometimes a result of sex within the woman's body! It's no skin off my nose if a woman dies during pregnancy, she SHOULD sacrifice her life for the fetus! (etc....)". Very telling, indeed. Their stances are very hypocritical, especially given the fact that, if one should be given more responsibility in the absence of intent, that responsibility should NOT be placed on the one who is deserving of more respect, value and agency.
Dolphins have sex for pleasure as well. Do you know what else dolphins have in common with (most) humans? High intelligence. That's right, the conservatard "appeal to nature" actually leads to the conclusion that non-procreative sex means you're smart. On second thought, that might explain why they're against it.
Arekushieru - For what it's worth, Yes! My table is innocent… even when he falls on me. So to is my sofa and my lamp stand… My microwave? No, he's not innocent… he nukes things for a living and that's not very nice! Guilty I say!
"Strawman. I wasn't comparing life-saving medical treatment to non-lifesaving medical treatment. I think one really needs to learn just HOW dangerous the medical condition known as pregnancy IS. Besides that, I was only comparing two forms of medical treatment, FULL STOP. A fetus is not 'a' human. It is simply human."
No, you first stated that consenting to drive does not entail consent to "no treatment" in the event of an "accident I caused". True enough! Next, you compared that with a woman's consent to sex not entailing consent to "no treatment" in the event she gets pregnant. Not so true! You think--rather strangely-- that by NOT consenting to the pregnancy (or the car crash), this fact necessitates consent to abortion/medical treatment after the "accident" in both cases. In other words, who would't consent to medical help after an accident? You thereby assume it's only natural that DUE TO CONSENT people have a right to abortion just as they have a right to emergency medical assistance regardless of the type of "accident" they caused. That is an incorrect comparison not because of the fact the person "consents" to the act and not the consequence, but due to the nature of the consequences you are attempting to compare.
All I did was inform you they are TOTALLY DIFFERENT examples.
"How is consent, masochistic, in and of itself? Rape is sadistic, in and of itself. Rape fantasies are masochistic, in and of themselves. Both deny autonomy to an individual. As, apparently, you would have us do."
Missed my point. It's got nothing to do with consent, fantasies, etc. Your use of language is masochistic Arekushieru. "Usage" of organ A? "Usage" by person C? Segregating and using the body parts of woman for ones OWN selfish endeavours is not ideal. I assume you are speaking of a man using a woman correct? Well you can substitute any old noun(s) in there and it changes little. We cannot look at woman and men as objects with objects in the bigger objects which make up the thing called "human". Furthermore, thinking and speaking of people in such a way so as to USE them for whatever reason (i.e. your pleasure), encourages nothing more then further oppression, objectification and separation between the sexes. Being frank, this mentality could even plant the seeds by which sick minds grow so obscured that even RAPE becomes an ends to a means. All they want to do is get off on "person C's" organs right?
"Again, OBvious strawman. That anti-choicers such as yourself would use solely women's biological functions against them is what I named the curse against the dignity and autonomy of women. GET. A. CLUE."
I would say that I stand for letting woman AND men's "biological functions" serve them in the most beautiful ways possible; natural ways. There is a context to this. Decisions and sacrifices are apart of this. You assume woman and men are not intelligent or strong enough to know truth and meaning in sexuality and to act accordingly. You would have us throw condoms and packs of pills in their face and elate: "BE FREE". Nice Arekushieru, real nice.
"Again, STRAWman. Sex can be used both for the sake of sex AND procreation, whichever a couple chooses. Derrr.... Homosexuality, look it up. It's present, naturally, in humans and 200 species of other animals. Homophobia is present, unnaturally, in only one."
Derrr…. Indeed!
"I no longer fit the definition of fetus. I did once. That's what all your fancy words boil down to, that the fetus exists as a part of me, now, and that I was once a fetus. The latter is OBviously true, the second is not true, since fetus is simply a stage of development. You fail."
You became into your "nowness" from all the information comprised in the cellular constituents of the fetus. I passed. So did you.
"You obviously do need to go back to biology 101. I do not have an umbilical cord or fetal placenta that I did as a fetus. Since I lack those, I AM NO LONGER able to fit within the STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT known as fetus."
True. Very good Arekushieru! You did pay attention in biology 101.
Let's tighten the automotive accident analogy. They really aren't as different as you seem to think.
Imagine that accident. I went out driving knowing that such a thing was possible. I didn't mean to let my attention stray at just the wrong moment...after all, attention strays all the time while driving without consequence, it's just when it happens at the wrong moment that problems occur.
Now first, of course I'm going to be treated, regardless of who is at fault and regardless of the severity of my injuries. So even though my broken arm is the result of my own inattention, even though it's an inconvenience rather than a life-threatening event, nobody is going to say that I should be responsible and deal with the consequences of my actions by leaving my arm unset.
However, even that isn't quite as precise an analogy as I'd like. What about the other person involved in the accident? (keep in mind that this analogy only works for those who have the odd view that embryoes are persons...which I don't...but I'm trying hard to argue from that viewpoint since it still leads to the conclusion that forced gestation is immoral.) Imagine that the person in the other car is hurt and needs blood. I happen to be the right type! Am I morally required to donate to them? I mean, it might be nice and neighborly. And a pint or two doesn't really cost me much. So, while the law doesn't force the issue because it falls on the side of my right to my bodily integrity over someone else's right to life in this case, it can be argued to be the moral decision. But is refusal immoral? That's a harder case.
But that's still not as precise an analogy as we can get. Imagine that the other person is rather badly injured. They need something more major, say a kidney or piece of liver. Miraculously, I'm a match. Is there anything wrong with me refusing a major surgery, recovery period, loss of time at work, and possible complications that could affect me all my life? Not only does the law not require me to go through that, even if the other person in the accident is going to die, but general opinion is that donating would be going well above and beyond my obligations here.
This is a lot closer to the idea that an accidental pregnancy obligates a woman to gestate for nine months, with the accompanying risks to life and health, the loss of work time during pregnancy and likely during recovery from birth, and the physical toll of giving up part of your physical substance to another.
We don't argue that anyone needs to give this level of support to other, indisputable people, why should we argue that it's required for potential people?
As for your arguments about usage. Do you not think that allowing a fetus the use of a woman's body, when that woman is unwilling to have her body used in such a way is immoral? How, precisely, is this different from rape? If you don't like the word 'usage' do you have a better one?
And that's as much of your wall of text as I'm up to engaging with today.
But hey, I do have one small bone to pick with Arekushieru. I'm equal opportunity today. :)
Rape fantasies are masochistic, in and of themselves. Both deny autonomy to an individual.
Rape fantasies are actually very common and quite normal. They are the opposite of denying autonomy (and really, the opposite of actual rape) in that, being fantasies, they are completely under one's control. They are an illusion of nonconsent wherein everything that happens is scripted and designed by oneself.
I wasn't saying that masochism denies autonomy. But I was saying that the rape fantasies, themselves, involve a denial of autonomy, to some extent. That is why they, in and of themselves, are called *rape* fantasies, after all.
I would also like to add this: Pregnancy and childbirth versus organ donation. The former is much more time-consuming and expends far more energy and resources in the development of a potential person than the latter does in the maintenance of an indisputable human being.
But when we're talking fantasy, it's an imaginary loss of autonomy, not an actualy one in any sense. It has no more force than imagining putting your fist through your annoying boss's head, or the fact that my mom told me "you don't know how many times I thought about picking one of you up and putting your through a wall." Both are pretty awful in reality, but bear no real weight when they're just thoughts. The former doesn't involve battery, the latter doesn't involve child abuse any more than a rape fantasy involves denial of autonomy. I nitpick because I hate how many women I've heard who are mortified to have fantasies about something that, firstly, so many other women have suffered from in reality, and secondly, seems so very, very far from what a 'good' feminist (or even a good woman) should be thinking. When in reality, lots and lots of perfectly sane, solidly feminist, women happen to be really turned on running that scene in their head--where they're actually still the ones in complete control.
Totally agree that organ donation is generally less of a big deal than pregnancy is going to be. Add in that you're talking about existing rather than potential people, and I see a stronger argument for requiring organ donation than for banning abortion. I'll continue to fight either one, however, when we continue to have a society that seems to think that asking people to allocate their bodily resources to save lives is ok, but asking them to allocate financial ones is not. That's all kinds of bass ackwards.
But that's why I said I'm talking about the fantasies, themselves. And that that is simply what makes it a rape fantasy, envisioning a loss of sexual autonomy. No one is saying someone has to be ashamed of that. I believe a loss of autonomy is all right and good, as long as it's mutually and consensually agreed upon by all parties that will be involved, before the act takes place. If that includes just the woman, then her agreement is all that is needed. But that doesn't mean that rape fantasies or displays of S&M, themselves, don't involve some loss of autonomy.
No, you first stated that consenting to drive does not entail consent to "no treatment" in the event of an "accident I caused". True enough! Next, you compared that with a woman's consent to sex not entailing consent to "no treatment" in the event she gets pregnant. Not so true! You think--rather strangely-- that by NOT consenting to the pregnancy (or the car crash), this fact necessitates consent to abortion/medical treatment after the "accident" in both cases. In other words, who would't consent to medical help after an accident? You thereby assume it's only natural that DUE TO CONSENT people have a right to abortion just as they have a right to emergency medical assistance regardless of the type of "accident" they caused. That is an incorrect comparison not because of the fact the person "consents" to the act and not the consequence, but due to the nature of the consequences you are attempting to compare.
All I did was inform you they are TOTALLY DIFFERENT examples.
No, they're not. Why is it that a fetus dies? Because it is incompatible with life upon separation from the uterus. Any other reading portrays the woman as being responsible for her own physiognomy. Meaning that it portrays her as responsible for the way intercourse, ovulation, ejaculation, fertilization, implantation and childbirth connect two otherwise completely disparate organs; vagina and uterus. That is misogynistic, especially when one considers that there is no male equivalent, nor is anyone even coming close to suggesting such a thing would be moral, not even anti-choicers, in fact, they would deem it explicitly IMmoral. And especially when one considers that women have no more choice in the design of their bodies than men do.
Missed my point. It's got nothing to do with consent, fantasies, etc. Your use of language is masochistic Arekushieru. "Usage" of organ A? "Usage" by person C? Segregating and using the body parts of woman for ones OWN selfish endeavours is not ideal. I assume you are speaking of a man using a woman correct? Well you can substitute any old noun(s) in there and it changes little. We cannot look at woman and men as objects with objects in the bigger objects which make up the thing called "human". Furthermore, thinking and speaking of people in such a way so as to USE them for whatever reason (i.e. your pleasure), encourages nothing more then further oppression, objectification and separation between the sexes. Being frank, this mentality could even plant the seeds by which sick minds grow so obscured that even RAPE becomes an ends to a means. All they want to do is get off on "person C's" organs right?
Do you even know who human C is? Human C is the fetus. How is anyone getting off on its organs? You do know that the utilitarian term of usage comes from a LACK of consideration on your part about consent, right? Using someone is only utilitarian if they are capable of consent and have been unable to do so, in the circumstances. Otherwise, pregnancy would be using the fetus in a utilitarian manner, whether or not one ascribes to the belief that pregnancy is a foregone conclusion for any woman. (So, now, we see who really uses the abhorrent message of utilitarianism. Hint: It's not me.) You do know that the difference between rape and sex is consent, too, right? You mean you can't look at a man and woman as objects with objects in the bigger objects because it gets in the way of your ignorance about the biological differences between male and female.
I would say that I stand for letting woman AND men's "biological functions" serve them in the most beautiful ways possible; natural ways. There is a context to this. Decisions and sacrifices are apart of this. You assume woman and men are not intelligent or strong enough to know truth and meaning in sexuality and to act accordingly. You would have us throw condoms and packs of pills in their face and elate: "BE FREE". Nice Arekushieru, real nice.
It's not beautiful, if it's not consensual, moron. It's utilitarian. And you are supposing that sex is always natural and that there is no such thing as rape, by your own logic. It's abhorrent and immoral. Decisions and sacrifices that in NO way impact the man. How convenient, eh? Truth in sexuality and acting accordingly, are far beyond the utilitarian aspect of it, as you would have us believe. Sexuality and acting accordingly include emotional, physical and moral agencies according to everyone's individual beliefs.
You became into your "nowness" from all the information comprised in the cellular constituents of the fetus. I passed. So did you.
Meaning I passed from the fetal stage of development to the newborn stage to the toddler stage to the adolescent stage to the adult stage? Yes. Which means I am no longer a fetus. So, your last comment was to admit that you HADn't been paying attention? How odd... for you to admit the truth, that is....
Don't usually bother to respond to long patronizing rants (think -- consider -- reflect), but really can't let this pass:
What may be foriegn to you is the lens through which I consider
Actually there was not one single 'foreign' thought in your post. It was straight out of the point by point checklist put together by the Bishops and James Dobson and Liberty University. Even the lens wasn't foreign -- I think they actually have an on-line course about it entitled Women Should Do What The Menz Want. We have had numerous posters on this very board over the past several years who have posted exactly the same drek for us silly little women who have been discussing this for years and years without it every once occurring to us to think, consider or reflect.
The thing you seem to be missing is that most women take reproduction very very seriously. Unlike men, who seem to see pregnancy as "Look guys, MY PENIS WORKS!", women are concerned about their responsibility for the child AFTER he or she is born, fulfilling upcoming physical needs, providing healthy circumstances, support from the rest of society, a responsibility taken so seriously that 'there's always adoption' is insulting, with its implication that any individual mother is no more important than any individual sippy cup -- all are easily interchangeable.
REALLY? How so? Because you say so?
Exactly. The person who has the uterus gets the say so. Every time. This particularly female situation always has been and is and always will be because she says so.
First of all, your pedantic, patronizing novel-writing ultimately boils down to this single point: Ladies, just accept that you are an incubator. Reflect! Think!
So, I will respond in kind with my own novel-writing, since you seem so bent on selectively flooding this thread with your word saladry.
What a ridiculous analogy! Do ALL people--regardless if they consented or not--who DO get pregnant by "an accident they caused" become in urgent need of an abortion? Is it a life threatening matter if they don't receive an abortion? Does there need to be an ambulance with a team of abortion doctors ready to perform on scene? The type of medical treatment you WILL receive as a result of a car accident--regardless of any prior "consent" to that treatment--is the diametric opposite to the type you so cavalierly equate with an abortion procedure. Never mind that the latter results in the termination of a developing life. I also noticed something in your statement earlier; you acknowledged the fetus as a human (human C = fetus). More on that later.
Is it so ridiculous, given the multitude of risks to life and health associated with pregnancy, especially in the case of an unwanted pregnancy? Unwanted is the key word here because, yes, it CAN create an urgent need for an abortion. And in some cases, abortion can save a woman's life.
Speaking so masochistically about men and woman "using" body parts for their own autonomous means of "getting off" is your example of "sexual responsibility"?
Here, you are deliberately distorting what Arekushieru said. Go back and think before you type.
You believe you can somehow separate the "good parts" from the "unwanted parts" through the simple mind trick you call consent.
Anyone who minimizes the concept of consent to that of "a simple mind trick" is a very dangerous person. From a man who obviously thinks that forced pregnancy/childbirth = no big deal, then I would not be surprised to find that line of thinking also applies to non-consensual sex (read: RAPE). I highly suggest that you start reading up on consent before you spout off such unfortunate ignorance. Secondly, this is not a mere belief. It is a practice and it has always been part of everyday life. Women have always been able - in one form or another - to control their own fertility and sexuality. I highly suggest that you get over it.
You assume that human sexuality in the context of bringing about new life is rather a curse to the dignity and autonomy of woman; something to be despised and hated.
Fail. Another deliberate distortion on your part. Human sexuality CAN be used for procreation - it is only ever a curse to dignity and autonomy when pregnancy/childbirth is no longer a gift. It is only something to be despised if it becomes obligation, a mandate, and an act of force that must result from every instance act of sexual intercourse.
You try to reserve the right to an orgasm without any clue as to the context or significance within which the human erogenous zones function.
Another fail. It's not about "the right to an orgasm" or the "right to pleasure." It's about the right to NOT be physically and psychologically punished for having sex, or being raped. It's about the right to determine HOW and when you will use your reproductive/sexual organs -- without interference from a government or another individual -- or whether you will even decide to use them at all. If someone decides only to use their reproductive and sexual organs for sexual pleasure, then they have the right to be left alone. If someone decides only to use their reproductive and sexual organs for procreation, then they have the right to be left alone. If someone decides not to use their reproductive and sexual organs at all for either purpose, then they have the right to be left alone.
What may be foriegn to you is the lens through which I consider the teleological, ontological and epistemological implications in your humanistic rants.
Your distortions are not foreign; they stem from a borderline maniacal desire to control and an authoritarian desire to exert that control and impose your beliefs on others.
If you have such disdain for "humanism" (A.K.A. the RIGHTS AND EQUALITY OF YOUR FELLOW [WO]MAN), then I highly suggest that you move to a nation that supports authoritarian/theocratic rule and holds a similar level of disdain for human rights.
If pleasure is the ultimate end, we would have no need of a complementarity of the sexes; no need for the intricacies of the male/female anatomy; no need of the intellect to contemplate, recognize and discern a truth in our bodies; no need for abortion and contraception; no reason for the female anatomy including a uterus to have evolved; no need for a woman to be loved; a man to be loved; the two to fulfill each other. The notions that "sex for procreation and sex for the sake of sex" are somehow of equal merit cannot be true. If it were true, human nature would have chosen for us long ago; we would have been slaves to our desires and nothing more then mere (irrational) animals.
Your absolutist, black/white thinking is showing again. Humans have the unique capacity to use sex for pleasure AND reproduction, or one over the other, or neither. They are of equal merit.
If it is true that sex is only meant for procreation alone (as you assert in all of your astounding ignorance), then: human beings would not have erogenous zones that are not located in/on the sexual organs (why are there so many nerve-endings in the anus?), there would be no homosexuality (a normal biological variation that occurs in hundreds of animals and does not facilitate reproduction), there would most likely be no orgasm (or the possibility of a clitoral orgasm), and humans would have an "estrus" and there would be no sexual activity outside of estrus (a specific time in which a mammal is receptive to breeding.)
The prescense of a uterus does not signify a biological mandate to reproduce. It is there if needed/desired. And oftentimes, a woman who conceives may have a spontaneous abortion without even realizing it.
I should also mention that the "intricacies" of male/female anatomy are not as dyadic as you would believe. There are many, many normal variations on male and female anatomy, and some variations of the genitalia lead to an "intersex" state that may not facilitate reproduction, but still allow for a state of sexual arousal.
And returning to this:
we would have been slaves to our desires and nothing more then mere (irrational) animals.
This is another revealing statement that display your ignorance of biology. Animals are not slaves to any sort of "desires." Most Animals are slaves to their biology and only have a drive to reproduce. The capability of desiring something and imagining that desire is almost exclusively limited to human beings. The sexual pleasure of orgasm is almost exlusively limited to human beings, with the exception of some higher animals (such as dolphins, for example). So, in that sense, our unique capacity to desire and feel heightened sexual pleasure actually steams from our rationalism and is a sign of transcendence from animals. That you would like us as human beings to be slaves to our reproductive biology without exception (like animals!), is extremely telling of your low opinion of (wo)man.
Obviously, the fact WE ARE ALL HERE also speaks to the contrary. It is better that you are here with us today then the alternative of you never existing right?
Do I need to remind you that miscarriage and non-implantation are also extremely common? So, the fact that "we are all here" is not even a fact and does not speak to anything other than chance, genetic favorability, a wanted pregnancy, and/or medical intervention.
But long before blogging with us here today Arekushieru you were a fetus. Whats that you say? the fetus was not you, since you are essentially a person and the fetus is not. But that is untenable. For suppose that the fetus was not you. Let "F" designate that being which the fetus was. Then, either F exists now or it does not exist. (Obviously, even if it exists now, it is no longer a fetus, just as that being that you were years ago, though it still exists, is no longer a child.) Suppose F exists now. Ex hypothesi, F is not I. So what is it? Well, given that F is an organism (that is evident on scientific grounds), and that all the organic parts of the fetus have developed into organic parts of you, it follows that if F exists now, F is a part of you. But, ex hypothesi, it is not the whole of you, since you were not F and hence still am not F by transitivity of identity.
Do you want to know what your hilarious philosophical musings about fetal identity tells me about you? It tells me that you self-identify more with non-sentient human embryonic/fetal life than you self-identify with sentient human persons. It tells me that you expect us to self-identify with the fetus over a woman. And, finally, it tells me that you care more about the philosophical potential of a fetus - the imaginary ego/identity of a non-sentient organism - than you care about that of an actual person. How sad. How incredibly limited a philosophy of life you have.
You see, there is no question among us here that an embryo/fetus is alive and is human. But those qualifiers do not make it a person. Here, I will make it clearer for you:
"I" was not an embryo/fetus any more than "you" are your DNA or your individual cells or your fingernail clippings. Biologically, yes, your DNA and your cells and your fingernail clippings are part of "you" and "you" come from your DNA. And biologically, yes, "I" came from an embryo/fetus. But it is philosophically (and scientifically) inaccurate to claim that a non-sentient, developing, and incomplete organism is equal to the state that "I" am in right now. It is also insulting to give precedence to that (fetal) state of development over the state of an adult woman. It is also quite revealing not only of your opinion of woman, but that in life, you sadly value potentials over actuals.
a plume assisine - You commented:
"Ladies, just accept that you are an incubator. Reflect! Think!"
You miss my point(s) entirely. This is not a reasonable position to hold and you know this as well as I do. How absurd to think such nonsense. I will leave it in your court to seek out the depth in anything I have said. Continuing on…
Your tirade is unfortunately that of an extremist any way you break it down. It is self-evident and useless to go point-by-point. This paragraph pretty much sums [your position] up.
"If someone decides only to use their reproductive and sexual organs for sexual pleasure, then they have the right to be left alone. If someone decides only to use their reproductive and sexual organs for procreation, then they have the right to be left alone. If someone decides not to use their reproductive and sexual organs at all for either purpose, then they have the right to be left alone."
…but I shall continue la plume assassine…
If someone wants to cut their wrists, then they have the right to be left alone; if someone wants to mutilate their reproductive organs, they have the right to be left alone; if someone wants to cut silly designs on their face with a knife, they have the right to be left alone; if someone wants to take a crap on their dining room table, why not? they have the right to be left alone; if someone wants to hang themselves in their apartment, SURE! they have the right to be left alone.
The question then becomes:
"What am I by my rights choosing to do with my body?"
Then:
"Is that ABILITY TO CHOOSE a valid reason to choose that which I have a right to choose?"
Then:
"Is that which I have chosen by my rights a proper and promotable choice?"
As you have clearly stated your relativistic ideology, it would seem you have no interest in the common-good or dignity of woman. You care nothing of what harm a woman's choice regarding her body may potentially bring. It is impossible as nothing you have said is objective or true--rather hearsay. Furthermore, any truth lying within what we humans choose to do or not to do with our bodies, cannot be sought using the logic you espouse; it is circular and holds no intrinsic value.
As this is not a forum on "right vs wrong", suffice it to say "there is no such thing anyways". The uterus "is what it is" and woman have the RIGHT to choose to disrespect it or cherish it. What does it mean to respect or disrespect the uterus and/or human sexuality in it's entirety? Well, I guess no one is interested in that question here.
p.s.
What does "left alone" even mean? When was it a "right" to be "left alone"? Talk about a strawman!
"Is that which I have chosen by my rights a proper and promotable choice?"
Oh! you don't think women should be tricked, forced, compelled or coerced to stay pregnant, you are only after hearts and minds, eh? Bull-Shite.
I have a question for you, RWe,
Do you or do you not favor the government compelling women to stay pregnant against theur wishes or best interests?
Easy yes or no.
Because if you don't favor it, you should write your members of cogress and representatives that you object to the DC abortion funding rider in the budget agreement, which caused 28 women who had scheduled abortions to cancel their appointments. They would have terminated, now they are forced to stay pregnant. Are you in favor of that? Because if you do it's hard to say that you don't agree with this statement:
"Ladies, just accept that you are an incubator. Reflect! Think!"
not so ridiculous, eh?
salty c - You asked:
"Do you or do you not favor the government compelling women to stay pregnant against their wishes or best interests?"
Simple yes or no? Not quite. Thats just the problem Salty C.
Short answer = your question is ambiguous
The government has no business telling the people what their best interest are and neither do I. I say the government has a duty to protect the life of it's countries inhabitants. Life starts at conception, therefore I think the government needs to protect that at all costs. Why? Because to respect conception is to respect the entire woman including the baby. Conversely to "split hairs" and say life begins at birth leads down a disastrous road of "so what about this and that?" You want government bureaucracy? How ironic that nitpicking the definition of "when life begins" leads to all this intervention. But anyways, since you intentionally word your question such, I say "it depends".
In 99.99% of situations, LIFE is better then DEATH. If that helps, my answer is LIFE. Let the baby LIVE then proceed accordingly. If the mother's "best interest's" do not allow for the new life to live, then they are not really the mother's "best interests". Why? Because LIFE is not intrinsically bad. This is PARAMOUNT. RESPECT FOR LIFE. The mother is sentiment and alive, therefore the baby comes first. IT"S FUNDAMENTAL.
I know the whole "What if the MOTHERS LIFE is in dire straights?" situation. This is a huge red herring and such a rarity that I challenge you to find a medically documented case of such a situation (such that the baby NEEDED to be aborted to save the mother). I would be really interested on reading it.
What exactly was the situation of those 28 mothers you mention? What is their story? I personally know a woman who carried to term "unintentionally" and was "magically" changed by the FACT that inside her body was growing a new member! Whats so "magical" about that? It so happens that that member was it's own entity (it had a separate heartbeat). Pretty cool huh? Well she thought so… realized what the reality of the situation was and along with all the profound philosophical realizations, she became chemically and biologically changed in addition. She now has a son, finished her dissertation, works a full time job and is dating a pretty good guy. Incubator my left foot!
So what? So it means LIFE changes the whole situation. That realization is like a TON of bricks in the face!
Also, if I my ask, please name even ONE thing that is more important then the LIFE of a human without a voice?
I do not speak for SaltyC, but here's my take on your answer:
Life starts at conception, therefore I think the government needs to protect that at all costs.
So, in that case, would you advocate for conception certificates as opposed to birth certificates? Would you investigate miscarriage as negligent homicide? Would you like the government to have "forensic vagina inspectors" (just like in El Salvador!) to investigate any suspicious gynecological infection or miscarriage? Would you like to have 1/3 of American women jailed for having abortions? Maybe you would like women to hold full-service funerals for their aborted blastocysts or miscarriages? How about the criminalization of all contraception devices (since it prevents a "person" from coming into existence)? Or Jailing high-risk pregnant women to their hospital beds?
Because I can guarantee you that these are real extensions of your desire for the government to "protect life from conception."
Why? Because to respect conception is to respect the entire woman including the baby.
If you value the continued existence of a fertilized egg over me, then that does not respect my wishes or life at all. I do not want to be pregnant and I do not want children. If I became pregnant, I would abort by any means possible. Even if it was illegal, I would find a natural way. Women will always find a way.
In 99.99% of situations, LIFE is better then DEATH.
There are some things worse than death, and that is suffering.
Let the baby LIVE then proceed accordingly.
I don't know if you were homeschooled and missed high school Biology or something... but a developing embryo is not a baby.
If the mother's "best interest's" do not allow for the new life to live, then they are not really the mother's "best interests".
That's because you think that women are irrational, immoral children who need to be controlled and go through behavior/thought modification about pregnancy & childbearing. You think we need to be gently informed that our "highest purpose" is motherhood. You have no respect for women. You do not trust me with sex, you don't even trust me with my own body. And I ask you, if you cannot trust me with reproductive choice, then how could you trust me with a child?
I know the whole "What if the MOTHERS LIFE is in dire straights?" situation. This is a huge red herring and such a rarity that I challenge you to find a medically documented case of such a situation (such that the baby NEEDED to be aborted to save the mother). I would be really interested on reading it.
Bullshit. It's not a rarity. Ever heard of ectopic pregnancy? Hypertension? Uterine rupture?
You are profoundly ignorant of the health consequences of pregnancy. And you are a misogynist who thinks that we deserve to die if our bodies can not complete a pregnancy. There's a commenter on this very website (by the name of Heathen) who gave a harrowing account of his wife's ordeal at a Catholic hospital. Her uterus was in danger of rupturing (certain death) and they were refusing her that life-saving care! Here's some more reading material for you:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/12/how-a-lateterm-abortion-saved-my-life
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/02/04/protecting-life-bill-says-women
http://belowthewaist.org/2010/09/ectopic-pregnancy/
I personally know a woman who carried to term "unintentionally" and was "magically" changed by the FACT that inside her body was growing a new member!
So your personal account of ONE woman is supposed to apply to all women everywhere? You do realize that all women are different and we are not a collective hive mind, right? Or am I hoping for too much here?
"That realization is like a TON of bricks in the face!"
Not for the women over at http://imnotsorry.net (Nice violent word choice, by the way.)
La Plume Assassine, I 'd say you do speak for me pretty well.
I would add that RWe seemed very squeamish about admitting that he does favor the government forcing women to stay pregnant against their will or best interests. He says that my very clear-cut question is ambiguous, which is ludricous. At least he tried answering my tough question, I hadn't thought he'd even do that given that he ignored previous questions I had asked him, such as: since most, possibly 3/4 of all conception fails, therefore most abortion is spontaneous, therefore abortion is a natural consequence of PiV intercourse, then is someone who engages in PiV responsible for abortion? Probably blew his mind.
Also, he minimizes the lethality of pregnancy when over seven hundred women a year die of childbirth or pregnancy complications in the US, three to four thousand in Brazil a year. Abortion is illegal in Brazil but legally there are supposed to be exceptions to save the woman's life, which exceptions are rarely carried out. (there are a lot of Catholic hospitals in Brazil.)
His most offensive presumption is to speak for a woman he knows whom he claims carried an "unintentional" pregnancy. Let her speak for herself. I myself gave birth to a child though I was unmarried and the guy was a loser whom I ditched, but I wanted the baby. There was no magical reversal of intention on my part. I don't believe him when he says there was one on hers either, unless she says so herself.
Also, I hate it when "pro-lifers" talk about children whose mothers didn't want them. What a cruel thing to say to a child.
Let a woman who was really forced to stay pregnant against her will speak, like one of the 28 in dC whose appointments were cancelled thanks to the government.
Procreation is a messy business. God who is supposed to be pro-life, made it that way. Most of the time pregancy failures happen naturally, in a minority it's the pregant woman's terrible job to see to it herself. For some women this is a sad thing and for others it's horrible, like when George had to kill his friend Lenny in Of Mice and Men. The government and busybodies don't help by trying to relieve her of this terrible duty, rather they add to the burdens she has to carry, all the while enjoying the benefits of sex (even pro-lifers fornicate) and refusing to lighten the load women silently carry. All they manage is to shame and guilt women into not complaining.
RWe's bullshit stinks.
Very well put.
I personally know a woman who carried to term "unintentionally" and was "magically" changed by the FACT that inside her body was growing a new member!
I personally know a woman who insists that the FBI is putting messages into her head through her radio, and another one who insists that fairies and unicorns are real and live in her woodshed. For those of us stuck in boring old reality, however, getting competent safe medical care is really important, and we're not going to sit around waiting for the *magic* to happen.
Out of the 33 industrialized countries, the United States come in at last place, the worst of the group, in maternal mortality. The maternal mortality rate in the United States isn't just bad in comparison to other countries, it's bad in comparison to our OWN history, since in 1987 the rate was 6.6 deaths per 100,000 births and by 2006 it had DOUBLED to 13.3 deaths per 100,000.
Women die every day from pregnancy complications or during labor, at least 600 of them every year, and since those deaths are not required to be reported, the true number is believed to be higher. 34,000 women suffer 'near-misses' which require doctors to act to save their lives. The fact that you are ignorant of those deaths and those close calls demonstrates that you are totally unfit to direct any changes in the laws that allow doctors to save those women.
amnestyusa.org\deadlydeliveryreport
Also, if I my ask, please name even ONE thing that is more important then the LIFE of a human without a voice?
The voice of the sentient live human woman in question is more important, every time, and her continuing life is far more important than the slim possibility that a particular DNA recipe may result in a live birth. Your religiously based belief that because she has a uterus she should WANT to be breeding stock is misogyny.
Certainly the idea that you can justify FORCING her to be breeding stock because if she just sits around waiting *magic* will happen and she will be "chemically and biologically changed" is ludicrous.
What does she change into? A *rainbow*? With *sparkles*?
In 99.99% of situations, LIFE is better then DEATH.
Also, if I my ask, please name even ONE thing that is more important then the LIFE of a human without a voice?
Is keeping both your kidneys more important than someone else's life? A lot more people would be alive today if the government forced people to donate. You know, cause nothing could possibly be worse than death. Life is always the answer, even if it has to be imposed by force. I propose we also make bone marrow donation mandatory: if you haven't donated something you can live without, then you don't get healthcare. But seriously now, since those people saved by mandatory donations already have lives and social connections, it would do more societal benefit than forcing women to create people they're not ready for.
And I hear bone marrow donations are quite painful, even when using sedation (without which I was forced to endure a facsimile of, ala House. So, is it any wonder I can't stand the show, anymore?). I wonder if they would be so willing to force women to donate their uteruses and vaginas to pregnancy and childbirth if they were forced to donate bone marrow?
So according to RWeResponsible, whether or not someone decides to have sex for pleasure and/or procreation, or not have sex at all, is comparable to whether or not someone decides to commit suicide by hanging.
*ferretshrug* I guess that makes about as much sense as anything else the anti-choicers have to say....
ALL HAIL THE POWER UTERUS!!
