The Prenatal Holocaust

[Salodin]

If you're gonna make fun about religion, at least try a little harder =\

[Kerberoz]

There's no need to make fun of religion. It doesn't need any help.

[Ashmada]

Of course it doesn't make sense. It's about souls.

Winrar.

[Kohan]

To me, that sounds a lot like "who cares if the man actually cares about me and wants to discuss options, it's my body and fuck it if he doesn't like it". To me, that doesn't sound like someone who believes in equality between males and females.

No, it means that's her opinion, and if she's going to pair up with a man (which she has), she wants them to have the same opinion. She doesn't give a flying fuck what you think as an individual as long as you aren't infringing on her own independent rights.

Do you think abortion is fucked up? Choose a chick who agrees. Do you think it's wrong for a woman to get one without consulting the man involved? If so, clear that with them ahead of time. If you don't—as I mentioned before—you don't care enough.

Expecting them to give a shit is equivalent to expecting everyone to not have their own opinion. If they don't care, they're not going to talk to you about it. If you care, you should. If you don't, too bad. You deal with the consequences for expecting everyone else to have the same set of morals as you.

As I said originally:

If you're that worried about it, you should clear it with every woman you have sex with beforehand. If you think that's too awkward of a conversation to have, you don't care enough.

Fried baby legs.

[Cream Soda]

To me, that sounds a lot like "who cares if the man actually cares about me and wants to discuss options, it's my body and fuck it if he doesn't like it". To me, that doesn't sound like someone who believes in equality between males and females.

When they put in an equal amount of work towards the pregnancy, then that'd be a viable argument.

You know why they don't get equal say? Because they don't do equal amounts of work.

If the guy was the one who carried the thing for 9 months and had it leech off his vitals, then it'd be 100% his choice, but since it's not, he doesn't have shit say in it, really.

If you want kids, fuck someone who wants kids.

[Indeed]

I'm still missing the part where she said skip out on conversation entirely. Conversation or not, if a woman doesn't want to have a child because the timing isn't right for her for some reason, she may just not agree with her partner over carrying the child. Ultimately, it is and should be her sole decision. She may consider your input, but you have to accept that what you have to say may just not be good enough to convince her to keep the pregnancy. If you don't like that your partner may choose her body over your opinion, then choose a different partner.

[kuronosan]

No, it means that's her opinion, and if she's going to pair up with a man (which she has), she wants them to have the same opinion. She doesn't give a flying fuck what you think as an individual as long as you aren't infringing on her own independent rights.

Do you think abortion is fucked up? Choose a chick who agrees. Do you think it's wrong for a woman to get one without consulting the man involved? If so, clear that with them ahead of time. If you don't—as I mentioned before—you don't care enough.

Expecting them to give a shit is equivalent to expecting everyone to not have their own opinion. If they don't care, they're not going to talk to you about it. If you care, you should. If you don't, too bad. You deal with the consequences for expecting everyone else to have the same set of morals as you.

As I said originally:



Fried baby legs.

Feminist power for the win. People are ragging on me for not reading what was said and "exploding in an outrage" and here you are acting like a hardcore bitch. Nowhere did I suggest that she needed to change her views. I was asking so that I could understand them and offering mine so that she could more clearly understand them instead of hearing a bunch of emotional, uninformed, not-well-thought-out tripe.

I'm done with this conversation. I was hoping to get more input from Sera, but it strikes me as odd that the only one who offered an intelligent remark was CS, while you just went "FUCK YOU YOU'RE A MAN".

edit: Just saw Indeed's post. Count that too.

Adios.

[Greatguardian]

This argument is ridiculous.

The bottom line is always going to be that no one can force a woman to go through with a pregnancy if they don't want to.

But that doesn't mean that completely ignoring what your partner thinks and going to get an abortion on a whim isn't a total dick move. The thing is that dick moves are not illegal, and women are plenty capable of doing worse when they feel like it so if it does happen to you just dump a bitch and move on.

[Ksandra]

so if it does happen to you just dump a bitch and move on.

The problem with that line of thinking is you can't "move on" for the next 18 years if she decides to keep it.

[Greatguardian]

I've yet to see someone actually oppose the idea of a "male abortion", though. That is to say the complete and permanent dissolution of the father's parental rights and responsibilities if he doesn't want to keep the child but the mother does.

[Ksandra]

I've yet to see someone actually oppose the idea of a "male abortion", though. That is to say the complete and permanent dissolution of the father's parental rights and responsibilities if he doesn't want to keep the child but the mother does.

I never said anyone did. It doesn't make child support no less than a current reality, however. In other words, we can approach the whole "move on" issue when male abortions are actually put into place across the country. Until then, your words about moving on are meaningless.

[Greatguardian]

Just as meaningless as the opposing notion that women have free reign over their bodies.

Right now, they do not. In many states, it is illegal to perform "surprise abortions" without informing and gaining the consent of the father.

We need to clarify if we're talking about how things are or how things should be. If the latter, the state of modern abortion law is absolutely irrelevant.

[Kohan]

Feminist power for the win.

Are you retarded?

People are ragging on me for not reading what was said and "exploding in an outrage" and here you are acting like a hardcore bitch.

By telling you that you need to be responsible for living your life according to your own views, and that it's unreasonable for you to expect other people to abide by them, that's being a bitch? I suppose you are retarded, then. Granted, I've told you to suck it up and stop being such a crybaby, but at the same time, I've agreed that men should be able to sign their way out of child support. If you're looking for someone that's being sexist, you're searching in the wrong place.

Further, you think it's unrelated commentary, but it isn't at all. You take issue with the idea of a chick getting an abortion without consulting their man. That's your personal opinion, and you've made it very clear, so what I've said has everything to do with it.

You have a problem with that idea? You clear it with the woman beforehand. You don't expect her to give a damn about something than you do. And while this discussion is related to sexes by default, since a guy can't get pregnant, the type of responsibility has nothing whatsoever to do with gender. Haven't you ever worked with someone else? Don't you understand the importance of planning? Or are you just an irresponsible, bumbling fuck?

Since you're being a blockhead about it, I'll lay it out for you in gender-neutral terms:

Two people come together and decide to carry out a task. It's the only goal they discuss. When it's through, things can carry on for them in any number of ways.

Person number one has a specific, planned response to one potential outcome, but they don't share this information with the other party. It's very important to them, but they assume that the other person will agree, and decide against talking about it. Instead, all that they discuss is the immediate task at hand.

Meanwhile, the second person doesn't care about this outcome, hence their not bringing it up. It's a complete non-issue for them. They're focusing on the task, and when they're through with it, that's that for them—anything that follows is unrelated and unimportant.

Coincidentally, the exact result is the one which the first individual planned for. They were thinking ahead to what the future could bring, imagining the task to be one that had a significantly larger scope than originally implied. The second person, however, paired up with them for the sole purpose of accomplishing said task, and didn't intend to conduct any other work with them in the future. They had no plans for the future, and since the first individual didn't bring up their thoughts, they had no reason whatsoever to change this.

What happens at that point?

Well, nothing, probably. The first person never finds out that their plans weren't realized, as the second person doesn't consult them. They don't have any reason to, after all; the other party never made any indication that they were interested in the aftermath, and they weren't concerned with it themselves.

Moral of the story: if you want things to go a certain way, and it's something you can plan for ahead of time, you should ensure that they do. If you work with people who have different ideals than you, and then get mad at them for acting differently after the deed is said and done, that's on you.

If you still think that's unreasonable, and that it's strictly related to sex, you're one dumb son of a bitch. Truthfully, the fact that I had to lay it out for you in so many paragraphs is disappointing enough.

Nowhere did I suggest that she needed to change her views. I was asking so that I could understand them and offering mine so that she could more clearly understand them instead of hearing a bunch of emotional, uninformed, not-well-thought-out tripe.

I'm done with this conversation. I was hoping to get more input from Sera, but it strikes me as odd that the only one who offered an intelligent remark was CS, while you just went "FUCK YOU YOU'RE A MAN".

I understand. It's too hard for you to have a conversation with a chick about what will happen in case there's an unintended pregnancy, but it's unreasonable for her to be just as "careless" and have an abortion without your consent. She better give a damn, but it's cool if you don't. This has nothing to do with your being male, and has everything to do with your being a dick that makes assumptions. You've heard about what assuming does, haven't you?

I'll tell you what it does: it makes for some delicious grilled baby burritos.

[Qalbert]

The issue of a woman getting an abortion without telling her partner is less of an abortion issue, and more a sign of relationship issues, namely trust and communication. I mean if it's a one night stand and she goes and gets an abortion without telling you, that's one thing, but if you have been in a relationship for a significant length (incoming 3 pages fighting about what significant means) then not sharing it with your partner suggests a problem. Anyways, just my opinion, grain of salt, etc.

[Acturus]

The issue of a woman getting an abortion without telling her partner is less of an abortion issue, and more a sign of relationship issues, namely trust and communication. I mean if it's a one night stand and she goes and gets an abortion without telling you, that's one thing, but if you have been in a relationship for a significant length (incoming 3 pages fighting about what significant means) then not sharing it with your partner suggests a problem. Anyways, just my opinion, grain of salt, etc.

Agreed, and the difference in discussion around this point center on how each of us views abortion. It's very easy to compartmentalize abortion to a purely physical act the way that we compartmentalize sex as a purely physical act, but the two can most certainly be expanded into small portions of larger relationships.

Of course, we all want a black or white, right or wrong banner to get behind, but shit's complicated whether we choose to acknowledge the complication or not.

[Kohan]

The issue of a woman getting an abortion without telling her partner is less of an abortion issue, and more a sign of relationship issues, namely trust and communication.

Which I agree with. If you're in a serious relationship with someone, you should communicate about the things that are important to you. Assuming and expecting means you're asking to get screwed.

Of course, we all want a black or white, right or wrong banner to get behind, but shit's complicated whether we choose to acknowledge the complication or not.

I don't give a flying fuck about a "banner to get behind." Abortion shouldn't be made illegal because some people disagree with it. If they don't think it's morally right, they shouldn't get one. Their feelings, however, shouldn't trump anyone else's. Just because the option is there doesn't mean everyone has to take it, but it gives them all the opportunity to make their own decision; meanwhile, taking the choice away means that some people don't get a say in the matter, and that's unfair.

This, of course, brings us back to the whole "it's my body" thing—and it is. If you don't like abortions, don't get into a serious relationship with someone who hasn't a problem with them.

Also, baby souffle.

[Indeed]

Yeah, the key there is really communication. You can't just assume someone knows your stance and agrees with you, and vice versa. It may be an awkward conversation to have, but so are most relationship-centric conversations. It doesn't make them any less important. Things like whether or not the woman in the relationship is ready, what it would take (that you as a man can have an affect on, like financial stability) to make her feel prepared to have a baby, expectations that each of you have for each other should unplanned pregnancy occur, etc are all important topics that can't be inferred or assumed. People often fail to have discussions that really are central to successful relationships, and don't have any idea why they end up unsatisfied. This is part of it.

[archibaldcrane]

Just as meaningless as the opposing notion that women have free reign over their bodies.

Right now, they do not. In many states, it is illegal to perform "surprise abortions" without informing and gaining the consent of the father.

We need to clarify if we're talking about how things are or how things should be. If the latter, the state of modern abortion law is absolutely irrelevant.

really? name one

Since Roe v. Wade, some states in the United States have attempted to enact laws requiring spousal notification or consent. All of these laws have been ruled unconstitutional, spousal consent in the 1976 decision Planned Parenthood v. Danforth and spousal notification in the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

You neither have to gain the father's consent, nor inform him that an abortion is being performed, in the United States.

[Greatguardian]

really? name one


You neither have to gain the father's consent, nor inform him that an abortion is being performed, in the United States.

I fail at reading apparently. Upon re-checking my original sources, it seems that such laws don't exist any more.

Oh well. The question and point of clarification still stand. Are we talking about the way things are or the way things should be? Personally, I think the former is fairly irrelevant compared to the latter.

[MaachaQ]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but this story seems related...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...mpted-feticide

Woman Who Tried To Commit Suicide While Pregnant Gets Bail

by Julie Rovner

04:16 pm

May 18, 2012
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012...337370747&s=15

Bei Bei Shuai, seen in a file photo, was charged with murder in the Jan. 2, 2011, death of her 3-day-old daughter Angel Shuai, after eating rat poison.
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Dept./AP

Bei Bei Shuai, seen in a file photo, was charged with murder in the Jan. 2, 2011, death of her 3-day-old daughter Angel Shuai, after eating rat poison.

Bei Bei Shuai is a step closer to leaving jail for the first time since March 2011, when she was arrested for the murder of her 3-day-old daughter Angel.

The girl, who was delivered by cesarean section, died after Shuai's unsuccessful suicide attempt in December 2010, while she was pregnant.

Today a state court in Indianapolis granted the Chinese immigrant $50,000 bond in the case, which has mobilized advocates for women's rights and abortion rights nationwide. They say the case could set a dangerous precedent for the prosecution of pregnant women whose infants die.

Meanwhile, Shuai herself has no money. "And she's had no chance to earn any because of being in jail for more than a year," Lynn Paltrow of the group National Advocates for Pregnant Women, which is among the groups representing her, told Shots. It will take $5,000 to get Shuai.


At issue are laws — now in force at both the federal level and in at least 36 states — that make it a crime to cause death or injury to a fetus. The idea driving passage of these measures was to recognize a second victim in crimes against a pregnant woman. In fact, the federal law is technically known as "Laci and Connor's law," in recognition of the murder of the pregnant Laci Peterson, a much-publicized crime in California in 2002.

"These laws were passed by the legislature to protect women from third-party violence, not to be used against women themselves," Emma Ketteringham, one of Shuai's lawyers, said, in a media briefing.

But the Indiana Court of Appeals didn't agree. In a 2-1 decision in February, the court, said Ketteringham, "made it quite clear that pregnant women are no different than third parties when it comes to their pregnancies."

Then last week, the Indiana Supreme Court refused to consider the case, letting the Appeals Court ruling stand. The Supreme Court, however, did order the bond hearing, which resulted in today's ruling.

The facts of the case are not much in dispute. In December 2010, Shuai, then 33 weeks pregnant, was devastated when her boyfriend abandoned her. She left a suicide note saying she intended to take her own and her baby's life, then ate rat poison.

Friends intervened and took Shuai to the hospital, where, her attorneys said, "she consented to every test and every procedure that she was told would ensure the safety of her baby."

The baby she named Angel was delivered by C-section on Dec. 31. At first everything seemed to go well, but Angel soon weakened and was taken off life support a few days later "with Ms. Shuai's consent and died in Ms. Shuai's arms," Kettering said.

After the baby died, Shuai suffered another breakdown and remained in the hospital for a month. She recovered and returned to work, but was arrested in March 2011 and charged with murder and attempted feticide. She has been in jail ever since.

Those who are fighting for Shuai say the case has serious implications. "The principle seems established for now that if you do something intended to end your pregnancy ... that is murder," said Paltrow. "A suicide attempt will be treated as a public health problem for everyone except pregnant women and for them it will be treated as a crime."

But it's not just suicide that could be at issue. The way the law is being interpreted, the American Civil Liberties Union argued in its friend of the court brief on Shuai's behalf, "any pregnant woman could be prosecuted for doing [or attempting] anything that may put her health at risk, regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy."

Indeed, the brief said:

"according to the ways the laws are being applied here, the state of Indiana believes that any pregnant woman who smokes or lives with a smoker, who works long hours on her feet, who is overweight, who doesn't exercise, or who fails to get regular prenatal care, is a felon. And the list of ways these laws could be construed to unconstitutionally prosecute pregnant women goes on and on."

While prosecutors have said they have no intention of applying the law in circumstances like those, the abortion-rights group Reproductive Health Reality Check hosted a media call with Christine Taylor, an Iowa mother of two who was charged with attempted fetal homicide after falling down the stairs following an argument with her then-husband.

Although the charges were eventually dropped because her pregnancy was not far enough along under Iowa's law, the story made the local newspaper under the headline "Mother throws self down stairs to try to kill unborn baby," Taylor said. Even without a prosecution, she said, "my reputation, my good name was ruined."

Meanwhile, the groups now fighting to have women spared from prosecution under fetal homicide laws are turning to those who advocated for them in the first place — anti-abortion groups. Those groups, however, have been uncharacteristically quiet.

Neither of two of the more outspoken groups, the National Right to Life Committee nor the Susan B. Anthony List, would comment on the issue.