Abortion

@The Rumor

Your hypothetical situation is a little too detailed. You can't really pick one situation and act like every child feels that way. But, let me say this: How would the child feel if her mother got an abortion? If it's the same child we're talking about--the elder one--then, with its personality, the child may not like the fact of abortion.

No, adoption isn't a guarantee that your child would have a happy life. And if you don't want to take that chance, then that's fine--you're doing it out of the good of your heart. But with adoption, you're also giving them a chance of life instead of no chance at all, by figuring out who you're giving it to.

@ itsy bitsy spider.
The child doesn't get to decide if the mother has an abortion. It's a pretty good situation for her to bring up because the majority of women in the US who get abortions already have at least one child.

And, personally, if I were the woman in that situation and were considering abortion, I would be intelligent enough not to tell my young child about it. It takes a special kind of idiocy to enlist the help of a ten year old on whether or not you should get an abortion.

@for dru's sins.

I never said that it was the child's decision, but since it's her child, it might have some effect. Also, just because you tell your child about it--which I think depends on the age and maturity of your child--doesn't mean you have to "enlist their help." It may mislead trust between the mother and child.

Lots of mothers do already have at least one child, and I don't mean that he/she would dictate whether or not she got an abortion. But the child can feel either way--they don't just have one opinion of supporting or not supporting. If my child completely didn't want me to have an abortion, then I probably take the medium ground and give it up for adoption, if that was what I was already thinking--kind of like a confirmation, again, depending on the maturity and age of the child.

But we're never going to know what lies in the lives of the children put up for adoption. You just have to...make decisions. And that's where I'm pro-choice.

pravda.:

Also, the pro-life feminism logo looks religious and, um, suss.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Womanpower_logo.svg/100px-Womanpower_logo.svg.png

Oh, god. I had my mind in the gutter with this logo
-

Kurtni:

I can't believe he would proudly and publicly use the word "weapon" to describe same sex marriage. He might as well tell Romney to just burn all the fags. The scary part though, is how effective same sex marriage is at energizing the conservative, religious base. Case in point- George W Bush and Karl Rove's reelection campaign.

This is because their campaigns revolve around penalizing abortion and ending same sex marriage (alongside same sex parenting). Really, they rely on these agendas and that's what draws the conservative and religious public.

Did anybody here saw or read about Rep. Lisa Brown and her protesting bills on some restrictive abortion bills and this lead to a comment made by her that goes: "I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but no means no."

Later she was barred from speaking on the House next day because of the word vagina Apparently their "temper tantrums" (as described by Ari Adler, press secretary for House Speaker Jase Bolger) violated the "decorum" of the House and were "inappropriate and uncivilized".

We have people making decisions about our bodies that can't even refer to our sexual organs by their proper name.

@ itsy bitsy spider.
I just think it's harmful to the child's well-being to bring them into that discussion. There are things parents discuss that they don't need to tell their children about.

@ sobre mi cadaver
If you're mature enough to talk about it in mixed company, you're not mature enough to legislate it.

sobre mi cadaver:

Ayepp. One article and Jezebel piece.

pravda.:

Ayepp. One article and Jezebel piece.

That is the first time I read about Byrum trying to pass that legislation. So it's okay for men to make decisions over a woman's vagina, but it's not okay for a woman to simply propose a similar law over a man's penis? This really makes me angry. Thank you for the article.

@ for dru's sins.
Agreed. That was my point, really. I mean, I'm not saying either is the 'right' decision but to me, abortion would be less disruptive to existing children because they needn't know about it. I just always wonder how an existing child might feel to see their sibling put up for adoption. That must be a pretty tough experience and I can understand why a mother wouldn't want to put her child through that. When you already have a family, you can't only think about yourself or the fetus, there are other children to protect as well.

@ The Rumor
Agreed. Just like a mom who might experience a miscarriage (high risk pregnancy) might not want to tell her existing child about the pregnancy until they're sure it'll go to term.

In the last two decades abortion rates have dropped thanks to increased access to contraception. Article.

I would say, Republicans should be supporting birth control then, but I think they just want us to lay back with our legs spread and pop out babies forever so...

^ You forgot to say all that while being married, of course.

I know not many, if any at all, know much about politics in Mexico, but one of the main runners for presidency is "reserving" his stance on the topic of abortion (as well as on marriage for same-sex couples). I honestly think that as someone who is going to represent the people, you should address and take a stance on it, but many are commenting positively on this because these topics are polemical and should be addressed once the elections are over.

He also makes a comment among the lines of "If the people think it's far more important than anything else, well, I'll have to address it."

What do you guys think?

@ sobre mi cadaver
It makes sense. If he thinks those aren't the most important issues and he wants the people to vote on the most important issues, it makes a lot of sense.

I don't think I'd ever forgive myself if I had an abortion, but I will fight to the death for anyone's right to have one, whatever their reason. It's none of my business. And it shouldn't be anyone else's either, unless they are the one with the pregnancy.

@ of dru's being.
I really think he should be addressing his stance, with the laws that senators are trying to pass to ban marriage for same-sex couples and then with other laws enforcing abortion solely if it's therapeutic. This is something I think that any runner for presidency on any country should address, because those are major issues that pertain to the rights of other people.

@ fen'harel.
I just thought they weren't major issues from the way you worded it. I agree with you in that case. I'm sorry. I don't know anything about the politics in Mexico either, but I thought gay marriage was legal in Mexico City so it might not be a major issue.

It is legal, but there are many bills being proposed to try and make it illegal, again. This has been going on and on since it was legalized, much like what is happening in the U.S., but in the U.S. they actually took the initiative to declare it unconstitutional.

-continued from Unpopular Opinions #3-

kafka.:

Please don't tell me that you're going to protect my, your female friends and relatives' or any other woman's right to choose by joining the chorus of men who silence women on this issue.

"Joining the chorus" would imply that I'm agreeing with their view that women are "walking incubators". And I'd rather if you credited me with a little more decency than that. Whether the anti-abortion side is predominantly male or not, the fact that my views entirely contradict theirs puts me on a completely different turf.

Quote

And don't expect me to be grateful when you're essentially doing exactly what anti-abortion people are doing

- infantising (because now I need advice about what to do with and feel about my body from somebody else? like I don't know it? like any woman doesn't know the consequences of having an abortion or going through with an unplanned - or planned pregnancy?)

I clearly stated in reply to Dru's comment that I wouldn't ever think it my place to advise a woman what's best for her in the situation of a pregnancy. And in addition, even if she asked, I'd hope it'd be clear to her that my opinion shouldn't take precedence over hers.

Quote

dehumanizing (because now women's bodies, thoughts and feelings become just another subject of ethical / philosophical debate)

I don't see how we could achieve any kind of currently-looked-down-upon ethical justice without some degree of debate.

Quote

and silencing (again, when you say something, people will automatically pay more attention to what you say than what a woman says) women.

So just because statistically (or from wherever you're drawing that statement) men's opinions are listened to more than women's, I should duct tape my mouth shut and withdraw my right to freedom of speech? Just because I share my biological sex with people whose opinions are heard loudly and clearly, I should sit back and let a cause with which I disagree be made worryingly more prominent?

Alex; periphery.:

"Joining the chorus" would imply that I'm agreeing with their view that women are "walking incubators". And I'd rather if you credited me with a little more decency than that. Whether the anti-abortion side is predominantly male or not, the fact that my views entirely contradict theirs puts me on a completely different turf.

When was I implying that you're anti-abortion? When I said you're 'joining the chorus' of men silencing women, I was referring to the fact that men outnumber women in the media as well as in legislative bodies in discussions of abortion - and not by a small margin - which suggests that the pro-choice 'side' is very strongly male as well.

Quote

I clearly stated in reply to Dru's comment that I wouldn't ever think it my place to advise a woman what's best for her in the situation of a pregnancy. And in addition, even if she asked, I'd hope it'd be clear to her that my opinion shouldn't take precedence over hers.

In that comment you clearly said you do think it's your place to advise a woman what's best for her if she's pregnant if she asked for your advice. You might 'hope' that your opinion shouldn't take precedence over hers, but it does - because sexism exists, it's worrying that men think 'hoping' it'll stop existing makes it disappear.

Moreover in the comment you made before that, you complained about how you're ' not entitled to an opinion about abortion' because you're a 'gay male'. I don't understand how on the one hand you can claim that by expressing your opinion on abortion, you're on some kind of brave crusade on behalf of your female relatives and acquaintances because you're getting people to change their minds about abortion - and at the same time claim that when you're expressing your opinion on abortion you're not telling people what they should think about abortion (and by extension unwanted pregnancies). This doesn't make any sense to me, you clearly seem to have no problems telling a woman what she should think about her body if that woman is against abortion.

Quote

I don't see how we could achieve any kind of currently-looked-down-upon ethical justice without some degree of debate.

How does that change the fact that the way the debate is carried out dehumanizes women? Or - should women be expected to sacrifice their humanity for the greater good of humanity - which is to say the greater good of males because humanity now excludes them?

Quote

So just because statistically (or from wherever you're drawing that statement) men's opinions are listened to more than women's, I should duct tape my mouth shut and withdraw my right to freedom of speech? Just because I share my biological sex with people whose opinions are heard loudly and clearly, I should sit back and let a cause with which I disagree be made worryingly more prominent?

Oh, wow, so when women's opinions are systematically dismissed in abortion debates, their right to freedom of speech isn't endangered - AT ALL - they should just accept the fact that their opinions aren't as important as those of men as a mere statistic. But when somebody whose ability to stop you from expressing your opinion is non-existent tells you that you're harming women through what you're saying, they're suddenly impinging on your rights and telling you to 'tape your mouth shut'.

kafka.:

In that comment you clearly said you do think it's your place to advise a woman what's best for her if she's pregnant if she asked for your advice.

If she asked for my advice I would help her out by discussing it with her. Not because I'd think my opinion should sway her (I wouldn't think that), but because I wouldn't think it right to leave her in the dark if she'd just made it clear she wanted me to help.

Quote

Moreover in the comment you made before that, you complained about how you're 'not entitled to an opinion about abortion' because you're a 'gay male'.

I wasn't "complaining about how I'm not entitled to it" at all; I know that in fact the opposite is true. I was pointing out the idiocy of the (surprisingly common) suggestion that someone who's neither a woman nor a potential biological father can't have a valuable opinion on the subject.

Quote

You clearly seem to have no problems telling a woman what she should think about her body if that woman is against abortion.

Uh... what? Again, when did I ever claim that? I have no issue with anti-abortion women refusing to have an abortion if it's their belief that it's wrong, and I don't understand how it can be insinuated that I do so by advocating the right to choose.

Quote

Oh, wow, so when women's opinions are systematically dismissed in abortion debates, their right to freedom of speech isn't endangered - AT ALL - they should just accept the fact that their opinions aren't as important as those of men as a mere statistic. But when somebody whose ability to stop you from expressing your opinion is non-existent tells you that you're harming women through what you're saying, they're suddenly impinging on your rights and telling you to 'tape your mouth shut'.

No, of course not. I understand that sexism exists, and I understand that women deserve the amount of freedom of speech that men do, and that that should be aimed for. I do, however, find rather silly the notion that the way to do that is to imply that men's opinions shouldn't be expressed, rather than to promote women's instead.