Tom, please make it stop!

hey, longtime lurker- first time caller. 2 things-
a. this draconian bill sucks and severely hurts and undermines women
b. the initials "MI" refer to Michigan, "MS" is for woman-hating magnolia state

hey, longtime lurker- first time caller.
this draconian bill sucks and severely hurts and undermines women

"anyone performing an illegal abortion in Mississippi would face one to 10 years in prison."

I dont think this geared towards women. This states punishment for the person(s) performing an illegale abortion.

Even if a woman fell under prosecution for receiving one - you cant blame the law, just the criminal.

I dont think we can expect others to follow the laws if subjective reasoning is used to break them.

It's worth noting that an earlier ban in Mississippi got defeated. This time they added an exception for rape, and the bill got through. Governor Barbour is expected to sign.

The full text of the bill is here: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2007/html/ham/Amendment_Report_for_SB2391.htm

They didn't even need to add incest or women's health exceptions - just a rape exception to shut up everybody whining about rape. I think Jessica noted a few weeks back that new fighting words are needed and this is proof.

I still have yet to see any logical explanation from anyone in the "it's a child not a choice" camp as to how a "child" conceived one way (consensual sex) deserves "legal protection", but a "child" conceived another way (rape) does not deserve the same "protection". The inability of anyone to logically explain this shows that the supporters of this bill don't truly believe their own "it's murder" rhetoric, otherwise they could never allow exceptions.

These bans are punitive and controlling, and the fact that they are willing to allow exceptions to women who "haven't done anything wrong" (rape victims) proves it.

Scilian is right. Only the doctor performing the abortion faces 1-10 years.
The women face a minimum of 18 years and 9 months, with the possibility of a death sentence.

Doesn't it have to be voted in by the people of Michigan too? Cause I mean, isn't that just how the SD ban got smacked down? This shit makes me nervous.

Vervain, don't forget the physical torture during the initial prison term.

Then dont have children if you despise them so much.

If you dont use protection, and you get pregnant, it is your fault.

While I feel abortion should be legal, dont absolve all of us from responsibility.

If you have consensual sex and YOUR BODY becomes pregnant - deal with the consequences. If it is signed into law - there is no escape from that.

No one is forcing you to become pregnant - if you have ANY SHRED OF RESPONSIBILITY you will remain unfertilized.

Should drug dealers ignore the laws in place and sell medical users marijuana? I think so. I think its ethical and moral. But I also realize there are penalties in place for doing so. Grow up - we dont live in a perfect world. This neocon country feels we cant take responsibility for our own actions, and restricts our rights when it comes to our bodies.

But condoning vandalism (on prolifer's bought and paid for adverts, previously posted a while back) and acting like this law is an attack on women, does not address the issue at hand.

This bill was specifically designed to attack/hurt women? No, its design comes from a belief that it is a human life and grave sin to commit. To say otherwise is a complete fallacy.

We live in a neocon country. I would love to smoke herb and do with my body as I please. Unfortunately, my husband and I can only do it quasi-legally when we vacation to the 'dam.

But to take anti-drug legislature as a personal attack on my gender or persuit of happiness is paranoid and immature.

wow.

Lindsay,

No, in SD pro-choicers collected I don’t know how many signatures to put on the ballot. It doesn’t automatically need to be voted on by the public to become law.

That's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Again, I feel helpless :(

And for the record I am a very responsible and mature liberal. I believe abortion is my right, and reserve that right in the event of getting raped, ties to an abusive partner, or a life threatening condition. I could not get one in good moral conscience if I forgot a pill or my husband's condom broke.

Your mileage may vary. I dont want to restrict that.

My point? This is not an attack on women this is to preserve a silly notion about religion. If it passes, don't have an unplanned pregnancy in that state. Go out of state if necessary.

But try to show more respect for authority, more compassion to other's opinions and belief, and maybe you might understand where they are comming from, and then maybe you might be able to actually make a difference.

Worst of all, do not perpetuate the behavior we all despise. Rise above it.

“Then don’t have children if you despise them so much.�
Ah! Scilian, you’re finally revealing your troll nature. Who here said we despise children? Because we don’t believe in FORCED pregnancy you figured out that we despise children.
“If you have consensual sex and YOUR BODY becomes pregnant - deal with the consequences.�
Yeah, anti-choicers show their true nature whenever they talk about “consequences�. It is code word for “Keep your legs closed you slut.�
Yeah, you surely are a responsible and mature liberal.

Troll nature? Now you resort to this behavior? I find name calling really ignorant and childish.

Simply throwing the word "troll" into the mix doesnt discredit a word I have said. I thought I brought my point across in a mature manner. Maybe you could pony up and do the same.

“But try to show more respect for authority, more compassion to other's opinions and belief, and maybe you might understand where they are comming from, and then maybe you might be able to actually make a difference.�
Yeah, Compassion. Right. It’s so compassionate when you forces me to carry a pregnancy to term. I really need to respect your OPINIONS when you force me to give birth. I know exactly where you are “comming� from.

When did I say "keep your legs closed slut"?

I specifically said your millage may vary. I do not want to restrict that. For your information, I am a rape survivor and had an abortion.

Show compassion for other's views, thats all I am saying.

If Im not welcome here than Ill gladly leave, sorry to be an individual with a point of view. Just like I have to sometimes apologize to society for being female.

Wonderful.

I seem to be using this word a lot, but it is really immaterial whether the law was "intended" to hurt women or not. The fact of the matter is that it would, were it to go into effect. That alone is enough to justify fighting against it.

Someone else's opinions and convictions, be they religious or otherwise, are not so sacrosanct that they trump my right to defend myself. Nor does it trump the right of women as a group to defend ourselves against things which are harmful to us.

The inability to have access to full control over reproduction is harmful. To say anything else is dishonest. Especially coming from a self-professed liberal.

How am I forcing you to be pregnant?

Can you take responsibility and use protection in a state that outlaws abortion?

If not, than your not capable of being productive in a civilized society.

You are trying to force a negative connotation on me because I have different views?

Well I dont want to engage with people who attack individuals for having a different view. I'm sorry for whatever Ive done to upset you sojouner. This bitch will keep her mouth shut for you.

I wont reply on this further.

You are aware that you are using conservative arguments against abortion, right? I draw no conclusions from this, but I wondered if you were aware.

Pregnancy cannot always be avoided. A friend of mine has two daughters, both conceived while she was on the pill. I myself became pregnant (ectopic, nearly died) due to a faulty condom. I could name any number of other situations that are similar.

To equate unintended pregnancy with irresponsibility, and to go so far as to say that such a person cannot be productive in a civilized society...

Scilian, you don't need me to put negative connotations on you. You've done it yourself with your own words. For someone who talks about having compassion for other people's opinions, you're evincing precious little compassion for other actual people.

ccall points out that: "These bans are punitive and controlling, and the fact that they are willing to allow exceptions to women who "haven't done anything wrong" (rape victims) proves it."

which is an excellent point. and the pill is 99.whatever% effective, so by the 'rape exception' logic: if i took my pills same time every day, there should be an exception for me, since the pregnancy is not my fault. or if my abstinence-only education never taught me how pregnancy happens, same deal. i am NOT trying to cheapen the physical and psychological affects of a rape-related pregnancy. i'm just thinking of other ways to explode the "abortion is legal in the case of woman-as-victim" exceptions.

and Scilian : i sincerely believe anyone that has a child as a 'consequence' of a mistake or whatever is ENTIRELY more likely to 'despise children' (and despise that particular child) than someone who recognizes that a child is much, much more than a consequence (punishment) for a forgotten condom. please.

I feel I am incapable of using abortion as birth control instead of preventing pregnancy.

But I did not say anyone was wrong for doing so Kimmy.

I never even implied that. But attacking someone over a belief - well its fanatic. Just as this law was not designed on the belief of hurting women, I was not attacking anyone here.

I apologize for my misspelling - I'm not perfect sojourner - but neither are you. I could easily pick out flaws in many of your posts, but I wasnt intending personal attacks.

I am deeply sorry if I offended anyone here, and for the record I'm not a troll. I am a human being with feelings.

Tell me, Scilian, did you actually read anything I wrote? You seem to have missed my points entirely. All of them.

hey folks, don't feed the troll!

Sorry, Jessica! I always slip up on that part.

Yes I read it all. I responded to personal attacks from sojouner. He/she used flawed logic to attack me personally. If sojourner was not expecting similar attacks in return, than this person is very naive. Just like mentioned above, I do have a right to defend myself, dont I?

I dont equate unintended rape with responsibility. You are trying to use a blanket statement over what I said. If a woman does not use contraceptives, and becomes pregnant as a result of sex, and did not want a pregnancy, then yes, that is very irresponsible.

If I intend to pay her mortgage bill, and I forget to mail the payment, will I not be penalized? That is simply my belief. Am I wrong for it? Maybe in some peoples' eyes, maybe not in others.

If you live in a state that outlaws abortions, and you do not use contraceptives, well it just seems to me as grossly irresponsible.

If someone is taking the pill regularly, and she becomes pregnant, how is that irresponsible? I never implied it was.

Everyone who displays this behavior of attacking people because they are in disagreement is truly disturbed and sick. I cannot believe this behavior is condoned here.

What does someone have to do to prove that they are human ad not a troll? Ive reread my posts several times and not one contains offensive language or offending statements.

Scilian, you said the following:

No one is forcing you to become pregnant - if you have ANY SHRED OF RESPONSIBILITY you will remain unfertilized.

Following the logic of your sentence, you will never become pregnant unintentionally if you act responsibly with regards to sex. So, if you are taking the pill, which is a very responsible thing to do if you don't want to become pregnant, you will absolutely never become pregnant? But that is not true -- people do sometimes become pregnant when they were on the pill. Therefore, it is possible to become pregnant unintentionally while acting responsibly. Which contradicts your statement that anyone with a "shred of responsibility" will not become pregnant unintentionally.

Our culture has a very long history of oppression of women. Our society is governed by a patriarchy. Men have done their best to control women's sexuality for thousands of years. In this context, to say that an anti-abortion law does not hurt or attack women is really playing into the hands of the patriarchy. There is no getting around the fact that if abortion is outlawed, the government is controlling women's sexuality. If the government is controlling women's sexuality, then women are being limited from being equal and fully productive members of society. They are not being allowed to make life-critical decisions about their own bodies. How can you say that this is not harmful to women?

I don't think anyone here said that they despise children. But for the record, I think children are so wonderful and special that I want EVERY SINGLE child to be truly wanted. And there is no way that that will happen if abortion is illegal. It may be easy for some people to just hop over to another state to obtain an abortion, but what about the women working at minimum wage, who don't own a car and can't afford a plane ticket?

Anyone who actually posted on here been to Ms? I lived there and became pregnant there. I inteded to have the baby but experinced massive bleeding in the 1st trimester. My southern baptist doctor assured me the baby would be fine. I was in my 16th week when my boyfriend at the time and I made the choice that we simply did not agree with the doctor that the baby would be okay. I asked the doctor about terminating the pregnancy. He said he would not do it nor help me to find someone who would do it. I was then forced to the yellow pages, as there was no planned parenthood anywhere near my town. I was given the oportuntity to have an abortion in either Mobile al. or in new orleans. I went to new orleans. I paid nearly $900 dollars with no sedation for the procedure. My insurance did not cover it. In contrast, several years later I had a "medically nessesary" abortion in California (my home state). It was for the exact same reason. Massive bleeding in the first trimester, only my california doctor thought as I am diabetic that this would not be a viable pregnancy. I was sedated, reassured and helped. It was less dehumanising in California. The point? Really Ms can't get anymore woman hating on this issue than they already are, that's why they have so many teenage moms there. I lived there I know! I almost feel defeated as I read Scilian's posts. I wanted to have a baby, I was excited to have a baby and my doctor and I differed on whether we belived the bleeding would affect the baby. He was willing to put the baby at risk for brain damage, I was not willing to raise a child with brain damage. That does not mean I don't like children, I have a child! Oh woe to Scilian that she has the views that she does when she has never lived in Ms with no access to Planned Parenthood to obtain birth control pills, with drug stores that wont fill your RX even if you do have one as they are morally oppossed. Don't talk about an experince you haven't had it ticks me off. You can agree with abortion or not, that's your business... don't post about missed birth control doses and unwanted pregnancy if you don't know what it is really like to face that situation. You make people like me recovering from that experince as tramatic as the one I went through feel like we should have been more carefull. Grrrrrrr that just makes me so mad!!!!

OT (apologies ahead of time). Are trolls who post every 5 seconds usually paid by some conservative group? I'm really unwilling to believe that they are bored people in basements. Surely they are remunerated for the work they do to undermine feminist blogs...

if you have ANY SHRED OF RESPONSIBILITY you will remain unfertilized.

Yeah, well, I hate to be the first person to point this out to you in your happy world, but women are human beings, and, as you may or may not have noticed, human beings make mistakes. Sometimes birth control fails. Sometimes a woman doesn't use it, thinking "just this once won't matter." Sometimes she's pressured into not using it. Sometimes she thinks she's menopausal and she's not. The fact is, women are people, and people are fallible. The question is whether or not it is acceptable to punish women for messing up, as all humans do from time to time, with forced pregnancy and childbirth and most likely a lifetime of motherhood, or whether we think that's excessive. I happen to think that that's excessive. By your logic, the only people who ever would be allowed to have sex would be those who never, ever, ever make mistakes.

Scilian makes statements that I often see leveled against groups fighting for rights. An example is here:
Everyone who displays this behavior of attacking people because they are in disagreement is truly disturbed and sick. I cannot believe this behavior is condoned here.

Now, what this comment would indicate is that, willy-nilly, we go forth and break into people's homes at dinner and beat them up for having conversations. Or we steal their journals and demand they go to jail for their private thoughts.

No. What we do is become enraged by those with the absolute arrogance to attempt to use the laws to enforce their beliefs on others.

See, what scilian and its ilk do not understand is that it is free to practice whatever it likes in its private life. Just stay the f*ck out my way.

Thank you sbsanon.

Im sorry if that statement was interpreted to mean that. I spoke quickly and should have given more thought to possible interpretations.

I did not mean for it to come across that way. If someone is being responsible and taking contraceptives, Im not against abortion. I am also not against the pill for when condoms breaks or the heat of the moment indulgences.

"Our culture has a very long history of oppression of women. Our society is governed by a patriarchy. Men have done their best to control women's sexuality for thousands of years. In this context, to say that an anti-abortion law does not hurt or attack women is really playing into the hands of the patriarchy."

I agree that it does. I said the law was not designed with the intention of hurting women. All I meant by that was that this law is based off of a flawed religious belief. To truly believe this is intended to undermine or actively hurt women, just seems childish in my mind. I am not debating the potential harm this could cause to women. I feel who heartedly that it could place many lives in danger.

I am for abortion, I never said I wasn't.

alison052579, I'm sorry you have a hard time comprehending what I said. I never said to not have an abortion if the baby was at risk. You are trying to sterotype me for believing that the law is not designed to hurt women. Never once did I say not to get an abortion if the baby was at risk.

"Oh woe to Scilian that she has the views that she does when she has never lived in Ms with no access to Planned Parenthood"

And how do you know I wasn't born and raised Madison? Exactly.

Please stop with the fallacies because my abortion views may have minor difference in comparison to yours.

If someone is being responsible and taking contraceptives, Im not against abortion. I am also not against the pill for when condoms breaks or the heat of the moment indulgences.

But "irresponsible" people should be forced to have babies? Because they make the best parents, or because babies should be punishments, or what?

Scilian wrote: . I said the law was not designed with the intention of hurting women. All I meant by that was that this law is based off of a flawed religious belief. To truly believe this is intended to undermine or actively hurt women, just seems childish in my mind

Sigh. I think you do not understand nor have you spoken with many of the people who support and propose such bills.

If you wish further information, please go to Fundies Say the Darndest Things, and follow any link to the threads that discuss abortion. Causing harm to women, punishing them for their "behavior," is, indeed, a large part of their desire.

I can't say I'm sorry that you've never spoken to folks of this line, because they come quite close to evil, but to say that there is no desire to hurt women in the impitus for this bill is laughably naieve.

In addition to EG's point, it's really unfair to pull the whole "just go to another state" argument.

while in theory, that's an option as long as this doesn't spread and there are still states where abortion is legal, it's not possible for many women.

I've spent some time in MS and it's not a wealthy state. Aside from the fact that abortion is a Women's issues, it's also class issue. Welfare mothers who don't want to have another child or teenage girls or even college students probably can't afford to just hop in the car and drive to another state to have an abortion.

And if we all just rolled over and conceded to following all laws (even those that are unjust) there would never be progress. It would be like telling Rosa Parks that because the law said she had to sit in the back of the bus she should just suck it up and take it. That's not how America is supposed to work. Fighting laws that affect me because I happen to have a uterus isn't much different than laws that oppress based on race, religion, or sexual preference.

"By your logic, the only people who ever would be allowed to have sex would be those who never, ever, ever make mistakes."

Ill dig through all the name calling and outright purposeful interpretations to attack a woman with different beliefs. Its ok, I get this a lot in society.

The first intelligent statement yet.

This one and only statement actually addresses what I said about responsibility.

I can see where my statement would could mean that. Point taken. While I wont say that changes my opinions at first glance, Ill re-evaluate my beliefs on the responsibility aspects. Thank you for pointing that out.

See? Im human after all. Im not looking to argue or offend, just looking for intellectual conversations with other women.

Thanks EG, at least everyone here isnt a complete extremist.

But try to show more respect for authority...

No. NO! I will not show respect for authority that does not respect an individual's right to make decision regarding their own body. This ban is an abomination.

Scilian: It's really irritating when you play the martyr for the cause of the strawking.

I'm still waiting for your response to what I wrote. I'd like to see you actually address a point without whining.

Oh...I forgot something.

Using rape as an exception also makes me nervous because rape victims are already put under a ridiculous amount of pressure to prove they were actually victimized.

So how are they going to enforce the rape exclusion? Does this mean every rape victim has to report her assault? Does it mean immediately following the assault a victim has to go to the hospital and have a rape kit done so there's evidence of the assault so that if she gets pregnant she can have an abortion?

I can just see this leading to a "she didn't get raped she just wants an abortion" argument.

Obviously it's a teeny tiny upside that there's an exception for rape victims, but I feel like, with society being like it is and treating rape victims like lying whores, this is just going to open a door to re-victimize women who've been sexually assaulted.

i want to piggy-back on colleen's statement about access to abortion and ability to cross state lines to add:
access to, and education about, birth control options is often also not as simple or available to all women as it oughtta be.
but that doesn't mean those women should not have sex, or have access to abortion OR solid and honest prenatal care if sex does lead to pregnancy.

I've reread my posts several times and not one contains offensive language or offending statements.

I think you may have pushed people's buttons by using popular anti-choice arguments that we've all grown tired of refuting. Here's a few illustrations:
If you dont use protection, and you get pregnant, it is your fault.
Problem: Completely ignores the possiblity that you did use protection, and it failed. Whose "fault" is it then? Is a woman more "responsible" for getting pregnant via a broken condom than via rape? Many anti-choicers say "yes." Leads into the next assertion:
If you have consensual sex and YOUR BODY becomes pregnant - deal with the consequences. No one is forcing you to become pregnant - if you have ANY SHRED OF RESPONSIBILITY you will remain unfertilized.
Problem: Regards sex as a crime, and pregnancy as a fitting punishment for the "guilty."
The proposed "moral" solution: Just never have sex. For the entire 70-80 years a human woman's projected lifespan. Offers women two alternatives: become nuns, or wives. And how long do you suppose you will stay the latter if you refuse your husband sex on the grounds that you might get pregnant and don't want (more) children? Note: Refusal of sex and/or failure to consumate a marriage may be grounds for an annulment in some cases (I can't remember at the moment.)
At any rate, it's about as reasonable a solution as telling people who don't want to get sick, "Just spend your entire life in a plastic bubble" as if doing so would have NO IMPACT on their lives.
This bill was specifically designed to attack/hurt women? No, its design comes from a belief that it is a human life and grave sin to commit.
...unless that life was conceived through rape.
Problem: Blatantly hypocritical. If you insist you believe ALL LIFE is sacred, and then say, except...people are very likely to call "bullshit" on you. The hypocrisy suggests that your reason is not the real reason, but rather one offered up in its place because it's more palatable and more defensible that the real reason.

I'm opposed to throwing the "troll" label around too liberally. Debate is good. Civil disagreement is good. This is not an echo chamber. Twenty or thirty-odd comments of "Me too!" and "I agree!" would be pretty boring to read. Furthermore, when we hear a dissenting opinion, it gives us a chance to think of a rebuttal, which may come in really handy later on. And finally, sometimes a person inadvertently makes a trollish statement without realizing it. Some topics are particularly incendiary, and a newer commenter might make an old argument without realizing they're not the first to suggest such a thing, and that the older commenters have heard and refuted that same argument dozens of times, and are perhaps a bit sick of repeating themselves, and thus less than gentle with their rebuttals.

Don't feed the trolls, but encourage the debate, and remember to cut the newbies some slack!

I'm an extremist? How very interesting. And here I thought I was making rational, logical arguments from the base-point of reproductive rights for women.

I live in MS currently and am appalled at the lack of response to this. I am jumping out of my skin trying to rally support, and thank goodness for our leading advocate, but the interesting thing ... he's a man.

We have some great women leaders here -- I've met them, but no one shares my passion so deeply here because we have all of these other woes. Like our mayor going jail ... getting out ... breaking into citizen's homes ... accusing the courts of crimes.

If anything, the media needs to look away for a second from a ridiculous mayoral circus and focus on a fundamental right.

If there are any Mississippians, speak out. Love to hear from you.

additionally, in opening up a comment with,
"Then dont have children if you despise them so much.

If you dont use protection, and you get pregnant, it is your fault. "

is a really quick, incendiary way to get folks like those of us that visit this site awfully fired up.

and, upon closer insection, that first command (dont have children if you despise them so much) is actually very pro-abortion, if flawed.

"I'm an extremist? How very interesting."

Well, I consider myself an extremist when it comes to abortion rights, but Scilian implies that I'm not, so surprises all around, then.

If you have consensual sex and YOUR BODY becomes pregnant - deal with the consequences.

Well, exactly. This is exactly why we need to keep abortion legal and accessible for all women. If I have consensual sex and I become pregnant, I will indeed deal with the consequences of that, by having an abortion. Keeping abortion safe, legal, and accessible means is part of providing women with the widest variety of ways of dealing with the potential consequences of sex. Taking abortion away lessens our ability to deal with the consequences.

if you have ANY SHRED OF RESPONSIBILITY you will remain unfertilized.

I'm not a scientist, so maybe someone else could enlighten me.

How do you fertilize a woman? I thought it was just our ol' eggs that got a-fertilized.

:0)

On a more serious note, Scilian, I think Vervain points out the numerous problems with your arguments.

Also, you've raised a lot of non sequiturs. A while ago you said something about how we shouldn't vandalize and shouldn't disobey the law. Um... wha??? When did anyone here say anything about vandalism or about breaking the law??? You claim to be pro-choice, so presumably you would be against passage of this law. That's what we're saying here -- we don't want it to pass. No one has said anything about what should happen if and after it passes. We're saying it's a bad law. Criticizing the law doesn't equal disobeying it. The fact that you associate comments criticizing the law with DISOBEDIENCE suggests you are not as pro-choice as you claim to be.

Taking the position that laws should not be enacted that infringe on women's right to choose, but that we should obey such laws if they exist, is a perfectly respectable position. It also has nothing to do with this debate. SO, Scilian, are you pro-choice or aren't you? If you are pro-choice, why do you take issue with criticism of a law? Last I checked we live in a democracy where such criticism is not only encouraged, it is fundamentally necessary for the proliferation of our system of governance.

"I'm still waiting for your response to what I wrote. I'd like to see you actually address a point without whining."

Who is whining? It actually seems like your the one whining with your erroneous complaints.

But sure, Ill bite on this troll's bait.

"Sigh. I think you do not understand nor have you spoken with many of the people who support and propose such bills."

No I havent. If you have a nice zinger or one-liner to follow that up, you are advised to keep it to yourself.

"If you wish further information, please go to Fundies Say the Darndest Things, and follow any link to the threads that discuss abortion. Causing harm to women, punishing them for their "behavior," is, indeed, a large part of their desire."

I honestly just tried. Here is a copy and paste of the error:
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'

[MySQL][ODBC 3.51 Driver]Can't connect to MySQL server on 'localhost' (10061)

/function_template.asp, line 20

I will check it out when it comes back up, and read through the various postings.

Thank you for this resource.

"I can't say I'm sorry that you've never spoken to folks of this line, because they come quite close to evil, but to say that there is no desire to hurt women in the impitus for this bill is laughably naieve."

Dont you mean "naive" and impetus? I wasnt sure if this was in the feministing spirit or not, apparently sojourner does this with all new posters.

Anyhow - I truly have not. While there may be a few conspiracies that build strong cases for this - I dont believe this law was intended to harm women any more than George Bush ordering the 9/11 attacks himself. I have taken it for face value and the reasoning that made public.

I cannot say my opinion wont change once I read that resource you provided. I simply use logic to formulate my beliefs and morals. I do not buy into things because "its cool" and "its a conspiracy".

So if sound logic and reasoning is used in that site you provided, you may have well changed my opinion. I cant say for sure until I see the site.

Okay EG, your an extremist. Congrats.

"The terms "extremist" or "radical" are often used to label those who advocate or use violence against the will of the larger social body, but it is also used by some to describe those who advocate or use violence to enforce the will of the social body, such as a government or majority constitutency."

Congrats. I find this type of behavior very offensive, uncivil, and unreasonable.

I chose to conduct myself in a different manner.

If you dont use protection, and you get pregnant, it is your fault.
Problem: Completely ignores the possiblity that you did use protection, and it failed. Whose "fault" is it then? Is a woman more "responsible" for getting pregnant via a broken condom than via rape? Many anti-choicers say "yes."

But I didnt say yes so stop generalizing. There is a problem with your logic:

If you dont use protection, and you get pregnant, it is your fault.

Also followed up by:
I did not mean for it to come across that way. If someone is being responsible and taking contraceptives, Im not against abortion. I am also not against the pill for when condoms breaks or the heat of the moment indulgences.

So everything you countered with is a generalization of beliefs. Fine, thats nice, but it doesnt apply to what I said.

Please stay on topic.

Problem: Regards sex as a crime, and pregnancy as a fitting punishment for the "guilty."

No it regards responsibility. Like Ive said several times, Im not talking about failed contraceptives, Im talking about people who use abortion as their primary choice of birth control.

And advising people to use abortion as birth control when there is uncertainty about its health risks - potentially places more women in danger than regulating abortions.

Sound reasoning? Sure. Did I say abortion was wrong? No. I said I find it irresponsible to use as a primary form of birth control.

Problem: Blatantly hypocritical. If you insist you believe ALL LIFE is sacred, and then say, except...people are very likely to call "bullshit" on you. The hypocrisy suggests that your reason is not the real reason, but rather one offered up in its place because it's more palatable and more defensible that the real reason.

I never said I believed that. I said it was based on flawed religious beliefs. I said it was not intentionally designed with the intent of hurting women, but protecting religious views that I dont happen to share. If the lawmakers are being hypocritical in a religious aspect - talk to them about it. If it was designed with the intention of hurting women and not addressing religious concerns, why put in the rape addition? Just leave it out and force pregnancies on rape victims. Your logic isnt making sense at all.

So if sound logic and reasoning is used in that site you provided, you may have well changed my opinion. I cant say for sure until I see the site

The site is a collection of quotes taken from various sources, quotes from the fundamentalist voters themselves. So, it's pretty safe to say that they don't employ logic and reason, however, that doesn't change the fact that part of the reason they want to ban abortion is to punish women for their "sins." This, of course, is reasonable to them due to the fact that their very scripture lists the pains of childbirth as the punishment of eve, to be passed on to her descendents.

Now, would you like to address the remainder of what I wrote? I'll repost it to make it easier:

Scilian makes statements that I often see leveled against groups fighting for rights. An example is here:
Everyone who displays this behavior of attacking people because they are in disagreement is truly disturbed and sick. I cannot believe this behavior is condoned here.

Now, what this comment would indicate is that, willy-nilly, we go forth and break into people's homes at dinner and beat them up for having conversations. Or we steal their journals and demand they go to jail for their private thoughts.

No. What we do is become enraged by those with the absolute arrogance to attempt to use the laws to enforce their beliefs on others.

See, what scilian and its ilk do not understand is that it is free to practice whatever it likes in its private life. Just stay the f*ck out my way.

No it regards responsibility. Like Ive said several times, Im not talking about failed contraceptives, Im talking about people who use abortion as their primary choice of birth control.

Who, exactly, are those people? And how does allowing the rights of over 50% of the population address those people? And, even if you could find a substantial element of the population who did do the above, how would banning abortion do anything but a) punish them for their "sins," and b) create more unwanted human beings?

"Scilian makes statements that I often see leveled against groups fighting for rights. An example is here:
Everyone who displays this behavior of attacking people because they are in disagreement is truly disturbed and sick. I cannot believe this behavior is condoned here."

Yes, when people attack display a gang mentality and fire personal attacks for stating an opinion, I find that sick and disturbing.

You know, like gang rapes. You promote this type of behavior, and it offends someone like me who was raped in my younger years. Instead of just telling me why you felt it was wrong, multiple people decided it was best to humiliate and demean me through spelling corrections and name calling.

If I misinterpreted what you said, I apologize. But the behavior is very disturbing to me. I find myself very scared when they "bullying" type behavior happens in place were people gather.

Maybe you like making women feel this way, I feel threatened. If you find it silly because this is on a web site, fine. But it does bring back very traumatic feelings when I was just voicing my views.

So have it gang leader.

Rip away.

The fact that you associate comments criticizing the law with DISOBEDIENCE

Civil disobedience has a long and proud history relating to progressive change. Just because something is enshrined in the law does not mean it is just, nor that disobeying that law is ethically unacceptable. Slavery was once legal *and* wrong. Laws that limit women's reproductive rights are morally equivalent to laws that support slavery.

I was born and raised in MS. I lived in the Delta until I was 17. Teen women at my high school were practically drawn and quartered when the gossip mill started running about their "looseness." One woman had an abortion two states over and was forced out of the school because of taunts and condemnations by students and teachers alike.

Feminism is sorely needed in MS, but I'm doubtful of its affects because the whole state is like one big protestant megachurch.

I am scared for the women in MS, because the odds are stacked against them. sbsanon was so right when they talked about this law being a way to control women's sexuality. Not only is your life difficult if you're an "unchaste" white woman in MS, it's 10,000x worse if you're a black woman.

Scilian, to quote Buffy, your logic is not like our earth logic. You say:

If it was designed with the intention of hurting women and not addressing religious concerns, why put in the rape addition? Just leave it out and force pregnancies on rape victims. Your logic isnt making sense at all.

You've kind of got it backwards. The rape exception isn't an example of their religious beliefs. It's an example of their hypocrisy. If they believe, as they say, that abortion kills a living baby with a soul, then the mode of conception would be irrelevent. It wouldn't matter if it was rape, incest, or a loving married couple. The result (an ensouled baby) would be the same, hence abortion would be just as wrong in any of those cases.

However, since they do allow rape exceptions, that shows that they're claimed stance is complete bull. It's not about the baby, it's about the woman and what she's done wrong in their eyes. It's a matter of punishing and restricting women who've done wrong. Raped women are let off the hook because they didn't make the choice to have sex.

You get it now?

""I'm still waiting for your response to what I wrote. I'd like to see you actually address a point without whining.""

Cops use lines like this when trying to discredit a rape victim. In fact, the exact words I was told "Every minute you sit there crying is a minute longer we have to go through this"

Yeah I whine when I feel threatend. Im sorry. Please dont hurt me.

Im trying to get it through my thick skull kimmy, yes.

Ive been very put off by me experience today.

Im sorry for being such a dumb bitch. You were right I was wrong.

Im done, Im not arguing. I should be beheaded like the women in Iran for speaking my opinion.

Im very sorry once again.

It's amazing how you can continue to behave as if I've been attacking you when I merely disagreed with you and showed you how you were wrong. And then you complain that you're being attacked for having a differing view. Is it that you're allowed to have a view that differs from mine, but I'm wrong to espouse a view that differs from yours? I'm a little confused as to your rationale here.

it's friday guys--take it down a notch. i hate banning on fridays.

Yes, when people attack display a gang mentality and fire personal attacks for stating an opinion, I find that sick and disturbing.

And I would agree. Fortunatly, this isn't happening here.

If you want to make an argument, make an argument. make it clear, concise, and readable. Respond directly to statements, using properly formatted quotes.

This is the way in which you engage in a debate.

to Scilian, it was my ms doc's belief that my baby was not at risk that was the problem. I thought the baby could be at risk and I was not willing to take that risk! I like what meg posted about ms... I lived in the Biloxi area, which is far more progressive than the Delta and still when I had a birth control RX had to go to 5 pharm's because it was, at the time, the individual pharms right to refuse birth control RX's if they were opposed. Now imagine I am an underpriviliged 16 year old girl with this RX... am I filling it or am I trying to use a condom with my boyfriend? With no back-up, when I have never been told not to use oil based lube, and that you can get pregnant if he puts the "tip" in just a little... because I go to a school that ONLY teaches me about abstince (sp?)! What I meant with my personal story was you cannot make judgements about irresponsible people if you have never been in their shoes and I seriously doubt, by the way, that you are from anywhere near MS! If you are then you are not looking at the issues that are very very prevalant there as the other MS woman have noted when they posted! Thanx to the MS woman who posted because untill you live in a state like that it is hard to understand that the type of behavior that goes on in MS still goes on in the US in general!

Scilian "I dont equate unintended rape with responsibility. You are trying to use a blanket statement over what I said. If a woman does not use contraceptives, and becomes pregnant as a result of sex, and did not want a pregnancy, then yes, that is very irresponsible."

Just so everyone is aware, there are so many gosh darn exceptions to anything having to do with, related to, or causing pregnancy and/or abortions. This is why an abortion ban is so illogical. My very good friend from highschool had cancer, went through chemo and all sorts of mess. The doctors told her, many times, many different docs, that she would hence forward never be able to have children - the treatments caused her to be infertile. That was about 8 years ago - last year she became pregnant. So she didn't use contraception, but i think you'd be hard up to find ANYONE who believes she was irresponsible - or, for that matter, anyone who would have acted any differently if they were told the same information.

Also, one of my favorite quotes is "He means well is useless unless he does well". Regardless of intentions, if people are hurting other people in any way, it is not justified or right. I honestly don't care what their intentions were for that bill - they are hurting women and it must be stopped. Even more so if they did not "intend" to hurt women (although i don't believe that) because then they must be educated by bringing it to their attention so it can be stopped.

Regarding doing something about this bill, I'm sure NOW has different tactics going on to help stop it - i would check their site out. I personally posted a nice response to someone else's ignorant post on the link Jessica gave - you can see it here:

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/NEWS01/703090303/1002

Feminist Love and Peace.

So everything you countered with is a generalization of beliefs. Fine, thats nice, but it doesnt apply to what I said.

What I said did apply to what you said that I quoted, which was all that you had said at the time that I typed my response. My response (as I'm sure you noted) is rather long, and I got timed out and had to retype it. Your response was posted in the meantime and I did not see it before I posted. I obviously couldn't address the clarification you hadn't yet posted that I hadn't yet read.

Sound reasoning? Sure. Did I say abortion was wrong? No. I said I find it irresponsible to use as a primary form of birth control.

You stated that in a comment made after the one I responded to. See above. With the clarification, it is sound reasoning and I agree with it--to a point. I think making abortion illegal for everyone just because some people might use it as a primary form of birth control is kind of like locking everyone in prison because some people might commit crimes.

I never said I believed that.

Neither did I. My post was was made specifically in response to you asking what you had said that was so offensive. I attempted to point out which of your statements I thought might have provoked the heated response by illustrating how closely your statements mirrored various anti-choice arguments often leveled at us choicers. I never attributed those general sentiments to you personally. I apologize if it felt to you like an attack. It was not intended as one.

If it was designed with the intention of hurting women and not addressing religious concerns, why put in the rape addition? Just leave it out and force pregnancies on rape victims.

They did try it without the rape exception and it wouldn't pass. This "except for rape" incarnation is their attempt to get half a loaf rather than none, and the fact that they're willing to compromise on their "sacred belief" suggests it's maybe not quite so sacred as they claim.

I refreshed and checked for new comments that might have been made before posting, and responded to them, too. See, I'm learning!

Instead of just telling me why you felt it was wrong, multiple people decided it was best to humiliate and demean me through spelling corrections and name calling.

I did none of these things. I did suggest that people back off a little, as not one among us has never posted a poorly-worded comment that was misunderstood by others, and doing so doesn't automatically render one a troll. It just means we didn't articulate our position clearly enough, or we need sleep, or coffee, or what have you. As I tried to illustrate in my last post, some of your initial comments were incendiary, and provoked a very heated response. I don't think you intended them to be. I think some of your later responses are pretty aggressive, but as you've been attacked all morning, I understand you being defensive, and sympathize with your desire to retaliate. I also suspect that half of the ire directed at you today was really aimed at true anti-choicers, rather than a single pro-choicer who didn't state her position clearly enough. Since you've clarified your position now, there's no need to beat a dead horse. Let's all just take a deep breath and back away slowly, shall we? I think we all agree here for the most part, and are just trading blows over hurt feelings, now. Time to let it go. Take a deep breath, and smile! It's Friday!

Thank you very much Vervain.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I am here to engage in good conversation, and wouldnt be here if I didnt want to learn.

If my opinion ever comes across as wrong, misguided, or whatever, please share with me why that is so. I am very receptive to good reasoning, and if flaws are pointed out about my reasoning, I do take it constructively.

For the record - I am not here to troll. Thank you for taking a moment to understand, and I completely see where I was wrong in placing sex as a "for the perfect" only crowd. I didnt realize what I was saying equated to that, but I truly do now.

Civil disobedience has a long and proud history relating to progressive change. Just because something is enshrined in the law does not mean it is just, nor that disobeying that law is ethically unacceptable. Slavery was once legal *and* wrong. Laws that limit women's reproductive rights are morally equivalent to laws that support slavery.

Edo, I understand this. My point was simply addressed to the difference between criticizing a law and disobeying it. I'm not saying civil disobedience is bad. I'm just saying that disobeying a law is different from criticizing it. So someone who does think civil disobedience is bad, could still nonetheless criticize a law without being hypocritical.

The Law Fairy. Fair enough. I guess I'm still reacting to Scilian's assertion that we "should show more respect for authority." Given the nature of that authority and its long history of subjugating women, I say we don't have to respect it. Regardless, it's Friday, so have a great weekend!

“I apologize for my misspelling - I'm not perfect sojourner - but neither are you.�
Ah! Apparently all hell broke loose here in a couple of hours.
Hey Scilian, I am sorry I picked on your spelling mistake. As soon as I posted that it occurred to me how immature it was but I couldn’t take it back. I know, I have plenty of spelling errors too. It’s just that, things that you said really really drove me up the wall and I felt the need to be mean. And it’s like the 10th time that I have heard those arguments on here; and it’s like, after around the fifth time I lost my ability to stay calm and argue cool-headedly; just because the arguments are so similar every time, it feels like I am talking to the same person. I just read the last post by Vervain where she says “I also suspect that half of the ire directed at you today was really aimed at true anti-choicers, rather than a single pro-choicer who didn't state her position clearly enough.�. So apparently there have been some clarifications. I don’t have time to read all the other fifty something posts. But when I responded to you I could only respond to what you had said and arguments that you had presented up to that point in your first couple of posts, and I don’t see a way of reading those any differently. However, I do apologize for the misspelling thing….

They did try it without the rape exception and it wouldn't pass. This "except for rape" incarnation is their attempt to get half a loaf rather than none, and the fact that they're willing to compromise on their "sacred belief" suggests it's maybe not quite so sacred as they claim.

No, all it shows is that at times, they're willing to put results above ideological purity. On the contrary, passing a slightly weakened bill after failing to pass one's preferred version is exactly how principled people who are serious about turning their principles into law work. If I were pro-life, I'd consider that a far more reasonable effort than the recurrent third-party campaigns pro-lifers run in Oregon whenever the Republicans nominate a pro-choice candidate, which have bluened what is naturally a purple state.

Edo, happy Friday to you too :) I'm with you on the civil disobedience thing... though I would much prefer that the laws would just stop sucking!! :0)

though I would much prefer that the laws would just stop sucking!!

totally agree! which of course brings us back to the whole civil disobediance thang... LOL

So a state among the poorest and dumbest is going to breed more folks into poverty and no access to decent educations. Great!

“No, all it shows is that at times, they're willing to put results above ideological purity. On the contrary, passing a slightly weakened bill after failing to pass one's preferred version is exactly how principled people who are serious about turning their principles into law work.�

I agree that it shows they’re willing to put results above ideological purity, but I disagree that passing a weakened bill, in this case, shows that they’re principled people trying to turn their principles into law. The operative word is “principled�, and I’m not isolating that word just to idly denigrate.

Their willingness to hold a dual standard on what constitutes “murder� shows hypocrisy, not principle. They’re not coming out and calling it a compromise, but rather, in order to sell the ban (and themselves) are saying that this is the way it should be, and that there is no contradiction.

If talking about tax cuts, compromising against one’s ideology is a smart practice. But when it comes to something a person calls murder, well…. unlike tax cuts, murder is truly all or nothing. You don’t get shades of grey with murder, you can’t give up 5% to make the deal work.

When you decide to compromise or negotiate, you give up that which is least important to you. And for anti-choicers, they have decided to “give ground� for that which is least important (or most detrimental) to them: the punishing of rape victims.

The rub here is that all the other rhetoric is about the “child�, not the woman – except when it’s bad PR, like a rape victim. Then the “child� is suddenly worthless and not important. This shows, to me anyway, that their true “principle� is the controlling and punishing of pregnant women, not concern for the unborn “child�. So I have to extract the word “principled� and dump it when talking about pro-exception anti-choicers.

If people supporting this bill were stating publicly that they think all abortion is murder, but admit that they’re compromising in order to further what they believe in, I would actually have more respect for them, and might actually call them “principled�, though I would still disagree with their principles. And that may be the case in Mississippi, I don’t know. But that’s certainly not anything I’ve ever heard from Bush or McCain, two of the most prominent “it’s murder except when it’s not� proponents.

I don't mean to overplay the semantics here, because if Alon had said "politicians" instead of "principled people" I wouldn't have bothered to post. But I think there's a difference worth noting.

And come to think of it, pro-exception anti-choicers are hypocritical enough to deserve their own acronym, so they are now PEACs. Know them and be aware of what they are doing, and challenge their hypocrisy.

Alison052579 wrote: "He [the doctor] was willing to put the baby at risk for brain damage, I was not willing to raise a child with brain damage."

That is such a hateful thing to say. Glad to see that you're only willing to raise a "perfect" child, designed to your specifications. I'm glad my parents didn't feel the same way.

Alison052579 wrote: "He was willing to put the baby at risk for brain damage, I was not willing to raise a child with brain damage."

What an incredibly horrendous thing to say. Glad to see you'd only be willing to raise a "perfect" kid, designed to your specifications. As a person with a disability, I'm glad my parents didn't feel the same way.

Yeah. Whatever, Silver680.
Are you just trolling or are you really out of your mind?

sojourner, hehehe. I was so tempted to hand out troll food!

I still have yet to see any logical explanation from anyone in the "it's a child not a choice" camp as to how a "child" conceived one way (consensual sex) deserves "legal protection", but a "child" conceived another way (rape) does not deserve the same "protection". The inability of anyone to logically explain this shows that the supporters of this bill don't truly believe their own "it's murder" rhetoric, otherwise they could never allow exceptions.

One of my hard-core pro-life friends explained it thus: "I'm not heartless."

When Andrea Yates drowned her kids and was acquitted, it wasn't because the second jury thought that her kids weren't really dead or weren't really humans; it was just that they felt so badly for her that she was acquitted. From the pro-life standpoint, women who are raped are a lot like sufferers of extreme psychiatric disorders in that we let them do things, without penalty, that we don't let other people do.

To me, forced pregnancy after rape is a lot like forced organ donation. You should at least assume the risk of pregnancy via voluntary sex; at that point, the rights of the baby trump the rights of the woman. Neither the right of the baby nor the woman is absolute; rather, they balance. When a woman is raped, her right to bodily autonomy trumps the baby's right to be alive.

Of course, this all assumes that y'all would prefer a pure pro-life law and NOT allow exceptions for rape...?? Yeah, didn't think so.

sincerely believe anyone that has a child as a 'consequence' of a mistake or whatever is ENTIRELY more likely to 'despise children' (and despise that particular child) than someone who recognizes that a child is much, much more than a consequence (punishment) for a forgotten condom. please.

I do not think that CHILDREN are "consequences" of sex, but PREGNANCY is. No one is forcing you to raise a kid, just preventing you from murdering her.

I'm really not sure how promoting infanticide makes one a good parent, either.

Scilian - you'll never win with this crowd. Best you can hope for is that some of the more thoughtful people here will understand your point as being valid and thoughtful and perhaps understand that pro-life does not mean anti-woman.

My objection to the pro-life party has never been ideological. If they truly believe that abortion is murder, well, they have a right to believe that. Some of them do wish harm towards women, but in those cases being pro-life is secondary to being misogynist. I understand the basis of the objection, and I don't try to tell them that they're wrong.

My argument is this: I object to the idea that someone else's personal belief means they can control, via the law, what I do with my own body or what any woman could or should do with hers. That is what I think is wrong. Personally, I could never have an abortion, but my best friend has, and I fully support the right of any woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy if she chooses to. I also fully support the right of any woman to not have an abortion should she choose that way of life. I don't believe either party should be judged for their beliefs or be allowed to force them on the other.

Editing my Andrea Yates/raped woman thing, because I could see how it would be misconstrued. Mostly, trying to say that we allow people who are under severe psychological trauma to act differently than others.

Alon Levy made my general point much better, but what I'm trying to say is that EVERY law has exceptions.

Even anti-drug people don't get too wound up about medicinal marijuana.

Anti-murder people don't get wound up about self-defense.

Even people who believe in rigid enforcement of speeding limits will let a person speed if he is rushing someone to the hospital. Doesn't change the danger to other motorists, but it's not enforced.

There is the famous ethical dilemna of whether a man can steal a drug so his wife may live.

No law is absolute. Laws are generally aimed at allowing humans to live together in a productive, compassionate society. When a law is taken to its logical extreme, it fails to meet that standard; it is either not enforced (because juries won't convict) or has a built-in exception.

With abortion, the former is not feasible, as there is an effective barrier to invoking an exception of the law.

Pro-life does not equate to anti-choice. A lot of pro-lifers are huge proponents of birth control, condoms, spermicide, subsidised health care for pregnant women, prenatal testing, on-campus resources for pregnant students, better enforcement of child support, and a host of other choices for women to make.

When the root of the idea is compassion for women, hy not embrace it? I'm not saying to accept it or to stop disagreeing with it, just stop hating on people who share your goals but have different methods. Rape exceptions tell us that we value human life, but we recognise a compassionate limit to that doctrine.

51% of women agree with such a law. Are they all anti-feminist?

FYI: I'm not sure how incest would NOT be a subcategory of rape.

51% of women agree with such a law. Are they all anti-feminist?

source, please?

also, incest can be consentual. such as a 20 year old woman having sex with her uncle in a non-coercive manner (not saying that this isn't fucked up. and in many cases where this occurs, there is probably some degree of manipulation going on. but it could be legally classified as consentual sex).

also, can someone please ban Silver680? thanks.

Alison, there are horrible people in this world. i think we're all pretty sad that you had to run into one of them here.

WOW! I just have to throw in my $.02 on this one. I was usually wishy washy when it came to abortion, thinking that it shouldn't be used as "birth control" and blah blah blah, until I was faced with an unintended pregnancy.

I had considered an abortion, but decided to go continue the pregnancy, I was getting married in three weeks and we were financially secure, so I figured that there was no reason not to go through with it. I had thought that it was only "those" women who were poor or single who had abortions, not soon to be married women who were homeowners.

I was not ready for a child, I was only 24. Don't get me wrong, I love my son more than anything (except his little brother), but the experience of having children has made me more pro choice than I have ever been. I know that children are a massive responsibility, both financially and emotionally, they are quite a bit of work and any one who is not ready for that, for ANY reason, should not have to, even if they were "irresponsible" with sex, who cares?

No one has the right to judge anyone based on what they do in the sack. It is a joke to think that people actually use abortion as birth control, that is just some dumb argument thrown out there by the anti choice side to evoke disgust. Abortions cost far more money than any birth control, are more painful and are more difficult to obtain. It isn't a choice that anyone goes into lightly, and even if they did, then so what, it isn't your business as to what their reasons are for not wanting to continue a pregnancy. I know that in this point of my life, close to finishing my undergrad and looking forward to starting grad school, if I found out that my pills didn't work and that I was pregnant, I would end that pregnancy, does that mean that I hate children because I know what I can and can't handle?

Has anyone seen "The Last Abortion Clinic"? It was shown in my gender and society class, very good, yet, scary. It was about Mississippi and how they only had ONE abortion clinic left and the anti choice side was trying to get that one shut down. They even had their offices right next to the clinic. It can be watched online at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/
Just be forewarned, that it may enrage you and force you to feel even more adamant about protecting a woman's right to choose, which is a good thing! It talks about laws regarding abortion and some anti choice politicians.

I want to end this with one more opinion of mine, it sickens me to no end that abortion has become a legal issue. It disgusts me that the government feels that it has the right to meddle in my bedroom and doctor's office and to dictate what medical procedures I can and can't have, even when they are shown to be safe. I thought that this was supposed to be a free country.

“One of my hard-core pro-life friends explained it thus: "I'm not heartless." “

That is a completely inadequate explanation, and, within the construct of the “pro-life� arguments against abortion, is in fact a demonstrably false statement:

Pro-life ideology is centered on the belief that a human being is created at conception, and that this “person� immediately possesses all the rights and protections of society, and nobody, including the woman carrying that “unborn child� has any rights which would threaten or take the life of that unborn person.

However, your friend, who is “not heartless�, would nonetheless kill Person A, an “unborn child� who is, by pro-life definition, “an innocent person�, because they felt bad for person B, a rape victim. Within the context of the logic created by pro-lifers, this is the most heartless thing I can think of – killing one “person� because you feel bad for another person?

Pro-lifers have painted themselves into a corner and they know it. All their public arguments are centered on life beginning at conception, yet the heinous public spectacle of rape victims being required to carry the babies of rapists will never, ever survive public outcry, as was seen in South Dakota. Realizing this, the result is a series of half-baked arguments that may insist on compassion but don’t hold up to logic. “We think it’s murder, but we’ll let you do it anyway if we feel bad enough for you.�

On Andrea Yates: “…it was just that they felt so badly for her that she was acquitted.� This is false. She was not acquitted because people felt badly for her. That would make a mockery of our legal system. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity because she was insane and not capable of knowing right from wrong. She didn’t get any kind of ‘exception’. The law says that if you’re insane, the jury must find you insane, and then you go to a secure mental facility where society is protected from you until you’re well, if ever. To depict Andrea Yates’ case as some kind of “pity exception� is false. The jury is instructed to follow the law, irrespective of how bad they felt for her.

“You should at least assume the risk of pregnancy via voluntary sex; at that point, the rights of the baby trump the rights of the woman. Neither the right of the baby nor the woman is absolute; rather, they balance. When a woman is raped, her right to bodily autonomy trumps the baby's right to be alive.�

So the rights of a “baby� to actually remain alive are dependent upon the circumstances of that baby’s conception? That is ludicrous. Pro-lifers say this “baby� is an innocent person. How could the baby’s rights be affected by something over which they have no control? How could anybody’s rights be affected in such a way, such that it becomes okay to kill a person? That’s barbaric, and to try to justify it with “neither rights are absolute; they balance� is clutching at straws, bending who has the most rights in order to fit the illogical conclusion that abortion is murder except when you decide it’s not, because you can change whose rights trump whose mid-stream.

“51% of women agree with such a law. Are they all anti-feminist?�
I’d like to see your source for that but even if it is true, so what?
I assure you that more than 51% in Saudi Arabia believe that a woman should not be allowed to walk around uncovered.
Or that definitely more than 51% of Iranian women believe that marital rape is not , rape, does not exist, and should not be prosecuted.
Does that make it right? Or not anti-feminist?

35% of American women have at least abortion in their lifetime. Anti-choicers’ goal is to criminalize 35% of American women. Are you calling 35% of American women murderers? What percentage of them would you like to see dying from back-ally abortions? Are you really telling me anti-choicers are not anti-women?

“No one is forcing you to raise a kid, just preventing you from murdering her.� I just don’t see how one can have a meaningful discussion with someone who doesn’t differentiate between a kid and a fetus. Sigh.

No one is forcing you to raise a kid, just preventing you from murdering her.

What they're forcing you to do is to endure, against your will, 9 months of pregnancy in which your entire body is taken over by a force you do not want and are powerless to resist, to endure all the assorted side effects and risk all the potential complications, to accept that some other being's need to use your body is more important than your own bodily integrity and autonomy, and then to endure extended, painful labor. And then, either to be faced with a lifetime of motherhood, or to give up all rights to the child, which as has been documented, results in a very high rate of deep unhappiness.

So, you know, a walk in the park.

it really scares me that other women feel that way. -- that a fetus is more important than the women who is carrying it. it downright terrifies me, actually.

As EG notes, this is about way more than just not "murdering" a kid (and talk about fucking inflammatory language, btw). The woman has to carry the fucking thing for 9 months, which is uncomfortable and inconvenient and, oh, life threatening.

Let's say the anti-choicers get their way (and yes, it IS anti-choice. Just because you are not against ALL choices doesn't mean you're not anti-choice. Bottom line is, as an anti-choicer you are trying to take away at least ONE choice from women. You don't want to give women the choice of abortion. That's anti-choice. Don't like it? Don't be it.) Then let's say that, in my monogamous, committed relationship, in which I take the pill religiously because I DON'T want kids and in which we've both been tested for STDs so we have condomless (but pill-guarded) sex. I fall into that 1% of times when the pill doesn't work, and wind up pregnant. I just plain am not fit to be a mom, I don't want kids, but suddenly the law has decided that me making a responsible decision and not subjecting the kid to our fucked up foster system and a life of wondering why his mommy didn't love him enough to keep him, is unacceptable, because I have a vagina, which keeps me from thinking straight (as we all know).

So I don't get the abortion. But BECAUSE I don't plan to keep the kid, I'm unable to make myself give a fuck about its welfare. So I continue to drink like a fish, swear like a sailor, smoke pot, eat lots of sushi and prosciutto and moldy cheese, and generally just live my life like any other selfish autonomous adult. Kid's born with severe brain damage. I don't want it, never did, so I leave it at the steps of the fire department. Kid spends his life being miserable and learning disabled and unhealthy and no one ever wants him because he's a special needs kid and at the age of 23, unloved and alone and bitter at society for not caring, he walks onto a train with a bomb strapped to his chest and blows the whole damn thing to pieces, along with hundreds of innocent people on board.

Yeah, that's "pro-life" all right.

Bottom line is, people who don't wanna be parents, just might not be the sort of people who should be carrying kids. You CAN'T take the woman out of the equation. We're more than incubators.

EXACTLY! Insanity doesn't change whether or not you killed someone - that person, with a right to life, is still dead. Why acquit people, then? Maybe because the law has compassion for those who are mentally ill. Hence the insanity exception. If y'all's reasoning was taken to its logical conclusion, a person who kills another while speeding to the hospital to be with his dying wife would still be convicted of vehicular manslaughter; Andrea Yates would have been executed by now; and there would be no exceptions in the law for anything. In short, only a rare crime would even have a mens rea requirement.

The country can't tolerate raped women who are forced to be pregnant, although most of them believe abortion is murder? Yeah, we're not heartless.

EG - well, abortion isn't a walk in the park for the fetus, either:

Suction aspiration: A hollow plastic tube with a knifelike edge is inserted into the uterus. Suction is used to remove the fetus [which is cut apart as it goes into the tube] and the placenta is cut from the uterine wall.

D&C: In this technique, the cervix is dilated or stretched to permit the insertion of a loop shaped steel knife. The body of the fetus is cut into pieces and removed and the placenta is scraped off the uterine wall.

D&E: "Used to abort unborn children as old as 24 weeks, this method is similar to the D&C. The difference is that forceps with sharp metal jaws are used to grasp parts of the developing fetus, which are then twisted and torn away. This continues until the fetus' entire body is removed from the uterus. Because the fetus' skull has often hardened to bone by this time, the skull must sometimes be compressed or crushed to facilitate removal. If not carefully removed, sharp edges of the bones may cause cervical laceration." Often, the body parts are reassembled to ensure that none are left behind.

Oh, yeah, a walk in the park for the fetus. (Eye roll.)

Stating the obvious: pregnancy involves the woman's body... and abortion necessarily implicates the baby's body - and life. I simply cannot reason with people who look at medical terms like "skull" and "limbs" and not see a human.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/survey.htm

70% of women who abort did not use any form of birth control. Um, yeah, that's abortion as birth control, which is freakin barbaric. We aren't talking about a thousand abortions a year when redundant methods of birth control all fail; we're talking utter lack of concern about one's body and health, and then the desire to finally take care of one's body by killing the baby who resulted from said negligence in the first place. Really, folks, don't want to get pregnant? Use the Pill, a condom, and gels - and you have a one in a quarter-million chance of getting pregnant in a year. Don't want the hassle? Don't bitch about being pregnant.

“Oh, yeah, a walk in the park for the fetus.�
Heh! I didn’t know fetuses could walk in parks.

70% of women who abort did not use any form of birth control.

where the fuck did you get that statistic?

and let's pretend that you're right: how is forcing these women- "freakin barbaric" women who have an "utter lack of concern about one's body and health" to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth to a baby and raise it? or carry pregnancy to term, give birth to a baby and then give it up for adoption, thus over-crowding an already stressed system? if you think that women who have abortions are so fucking stupid, why on earth would you want them to have CHILDREN?

I simply cannot reason with people who look at medical terms like "skull" and "limbs" and not see a human.

You must not get along with many veterinarians...

doublefantasy, hehe. Notice no rejoinder yet to my learning-disabled bomb baby scenario.

I've come across a stance on abortion we should all agree with.

Whether we think it's a good idea or not, I think it's safe to say that no one wants that choice to be the government's decision.

That's why I'm against bans.

eat lots of sushi and prosciutto and moldy cheese

mmmmmm.

I love your scenario. Other cases will not be that severe but the point remains that a lot of people with children did not want children. Half of pregnancies are unexpected.

Andrea Yates was mentally ill. She was treated for severe postpartum depression and psychosis two years before the murders, had been hospitalized for attempted suicide and was on anti-psychotic medications. She was on Haldol two years before the murders and abruptly stopped taking it two weeks before the murders and abruptly changed her medication two days before the murders. (Haldol is crazy shit. I've been on it before.) She lived in a trailer with five kids and wasn't she pregnant with another one? She and her husband belonged to a cult that encourages as many children as nature allows.

The fact she was on Haldol for two years says something. That shit is scary. And her doctor abruptly changed her medication again two days before the murders.

Oenophile, you have helped prove my point that banning abortion is merely punishment for “irresponsible� women, and that allowing exceptions is reserved for women who “haven’t done anything wrong.� (Neither of which deal with when “life begins�)

Your examples of “exceptions� deal exclusively with the *punishment* meted out to a person committing a crime. Insanity defense, speeding to the hospital and accidentally killing ….these are examples where a *perpetrator* won’t be *punished* as severely because of the circumstances. You are correct, and I believe these laws to be good.

But rape victims are not perpetrators, and thus not in any need of an exception to any standard punishment. Right? *UNLESS* you consider withholding access to abortion a form of punishment, which your analogies directly correlate-i.e., if found insane, you get exception to the punishment of death penalty; if speeding to the hospital you get exception to punishment of jail sentence. Thus, the rape victim, who “hasn’t done anything wrong�, deserves an exception to the punishment of being denied an abortion – a punishment that’s okay for “irresponsible� women.

"70% of women who abort did not use any form of birth control. Um, yeah, that's abortion as birth control, which is freakin barbaric."

i'm not sure where this stat comes from, but I am going to say two things in response.

1. see my post above about the fact that not everyone has access to effective means of birth control and should not be forced to carry to term because they get migraines, or cannot afford pills, condoms, or to say no to their partner. presuming that it's stupid to get pregnant in this day and age is, well, stupid. or barbaric? i'm not sure.

2. abortion is a means of birth control. it effing controls the number of births for chrissakes.

Ccall, it's natural that the people the pro-life movement allows to speak on the issue will be those who accept the compromise. Even though the movement at large considers it a compromise, as evidenced by the fact that the bill was introduced only after a stronger bill had failed to pass, it will ensure that its spokespeople don't come off as too extreme. That is natural as well, even among those who would rather not have such a compromise. After all, pro-choicers who think abortion should be always legal typically support Roe, which permits certain restrictions they disagree with.

But rape victims are not perpetrators, and thus not in any need of an exception to any standard punishment. Right?

WRONG.

Rape victims are not per se perpetrators of a crime. Rape victims who seek abortions would be, if abortion were illegal.

70% of women who abort did not use any form of birth control.

where the fuck did you get that statistic?

Guttmacher Institute, baby! :)

Finally, in response to the nonsense about this not being a government issue:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." ~James Madison, Federalist #51.

We always have laws to govern decisions that good people would make well. That's called living in a civilised society. Why do women get a pass? That isn't equality; that's giving women rights greater than that of any man. Just ask that guy in Texas who is on death row for killing his girlfriend and the three-month old fetus.

Law Fairy: I was unaware that human women got pregnant with puppies. Perhaps you can enlighten me. :)

"70% of women who abort did not use any form of birth control."

Hmmm, that's funny, because when I went to GI, I found this (notice that I included the link):

Fifty-four percent of U.S. women who had an abortion in 2000 were using a method in the month they became pregnant. (13)

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/prevention.html

Oh and even if there are women who are using abortion as "birth control", who cares? Is it really any of your business if a woman wants to use the most expensive, time consuming or uncomfortable form of "birth control"? If she is paying for it, then how does this have any bearing on your life?

Law Fairy: I was unaware that human women got pregnant with puppies. Perhaps you can enlighten me. :)

Huh? I never suggested they did. I was just pointing out the silliness of your saying that "skull" plus "limbs" equals human. My dog has a skull and limbs. I'm pretty sure he isn't human.

"I do not think that CHILDREN are "consequences" of sex, but PREGNANCY is. No one is forcing you to raise a kid, just preventing you from murdering her." -oenophile.

there are many many points that this brings up, a number of which have already been addressed in subsequent posts. but my question is, in all seriousness, what then happens to all those born babies? i assume that if you are against abortion, you're not going to say, "oh you're right, banning abortion might overwhelm an already swollen population problem, i've changed my mind" but i genuinely think that the response of, carry the pregnancy to term and make an adoption plan, assumes that there will be someone there to then successfully and lovingly raise that child.
then again, it certainly seems that a lot of times the same folks that are anti-choice are not all that pro-child. (disclaimer: this last point is not an attack on anyone who has posted here, i don't know your stances on too much post birth.)

Thanks for the ACCURATE statistic and link, SassyGirl. :) For anyone who hasn't encountered oenophile in other threads, he/she is notoriously venomous and disingenuous. Put forth a logical question or request for clarification and he/she responds with condescending and sexist language like "babycakes" and "honey," along with allegations that women who disagree with him/her must be financially dependent on their daddies and other such nonsense. Yet, he/she at other times purports to care deeply about all things feminist. It's pretty twisted.

What a ridiculous presumption that pro-life people "let" rape victims do anything (in the real world, as opposed to your complex delusional system). Don't flatter yourselves. And as others have already noted, an acquittal based on insanity has nothing to do with "compassion" or feeling "bad" for the defendant. The concept of criminal responsibility, or lack thereof, is one of the most logical, evidence-based assessments made in judicial / forensic contexts.

And finally, what's "anti-feminist" about your arguments can be summed up in your statement: "You should at least assume the risk of pregnancy via voluntary sex; at that point, the rights of the baby trump the rights of the woman." So very, very much wrong there.

well, abortion isn't a walk in the park for the fetus, either

How can I say this with the utmost compassion? Ah, I know.

Too bad for it.

The fact that it needs my body to survive does not give it the right to override my decisions about that body. If I describe the experiences of someone on dialysis, will you go out and give them a kidney? After all, they neeeeeeeeed it.

To say nothing of the fact that fetuses haven't any consciousness, and so don't experience "walks in the park." I do.

I just don’t see how one can have a meaningful discussion with someone who doesn’t differentiate between a kid and a fetus. Sigh.

Out of curiosity, you certainly wouldn't advocate that a person who murdered a pregnant woman be charged with double homicide, would you? It is just a fetus, after all.

Not double homicide, no. It is not “just� a fetus. It is a fetus, not a child and I certainly don’t think it is equivalent to killing a woman and her (born) child.

It should be aggravated homicide, not double homicide.

Kind of like killing a woman and her pet. Pets aren't people, and fetuses aren't people, no matter how very very much we love and cherish them.

definitely not double homicide. no no no. the fact that the woman was pregnant (especially if she was visibly so) would make an even more horrible act than it already was and may be grounds to lengthen the sentence, but definitely not double homicide.

Glad to see you guys are at least consistent for the most part. Why should there be more of a penalty, though, if it's not a human life?

Alon Levy, very good points. I agree. The pro-life advocates who don’t like the compromises are likely stepping to the background when these weaker bills pass, waiting to wage their stricter battle another day. I had painted the entire lot with the same brush of compromise, but it’s not accurate. My own logic leads me to see more consistency with pro-lifers who reject compromise, even though they’re the ones I feel most starkly in disagreement with. And I realize they're not celebrating when the compromise gets passed, but biding their time.

“Why should there be more of a penalty, though, if it's not a human life?� If you kill me and my cat there is going to be more penalty than if you just kill me, or even if you kill me and vandalize my house.

i think of it like this: a pregnancy could potentially become a person, and therefore a murdered woman who was pregnant was not only killed but so was the potential for that eventual child. two people weren't murdered, one was. but the pregnancy does make a difference.

Oenophile, you do not have your facts straight:

“Rape victims are not per se perpetrators of a crime. Rape victims who seek abortions would be, if abortion were illegal.�

No. The Mississippi bill that is the focus of this thread states:

“(4) Any person, except the pregnant woman, who purposefully, knowingly or recklessly performs or attempts to perform or induce an abortion in the State of Mississippi….�

The operative part being “except the pregnant woman�. Incidentally, the now-defeated South Dakota law also targeted the abortion provider, not the woman. So no, rape victims who seek abortions (any woman, actually) if this law passes would in fact not be perpetrators of any crime.

The full text of the Mississippi bill is here: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2007/html/ham/Amendment_Report_for_SB2391.htm

Why should there be more of a penalty, though, if it's not a human life?

Because terminating a pregnancy against the will of the pregnant woman is a nasty, vicious, misogynist thing to do, and should be against the law.

Looking at the wording of the bill I wonder the bill specificly states that the pregnant cannot be punished for having an abortion. So what happens if a woman ingests a chemical abortifacient? She 's not liable for it and the most you could pin on the doctor who prescribed it would be abetting an abortion.

Or what if she takes wild carrot seed , black cohosh, or any other herbal abortifacient as they are in over the counter herbal suplements.