The Roe Countdown

[Finster]

The orginal point was raised that as men largely have been making the laws, that if men got pregnant, then abortion would be easy in the US etc. This clearly isn't the case, as laws pertaining to male bodies are also in the dark ages, if not more so.

There is no evidence that abortion would be easily accessed if men got pregnant.

I don’t think that really follows. The reason MC is legal in the U.S. is because the men, for the most part, want it that way. I’m not saying it should be legal, but it is because men want it that way, not in spite of what they want. (yes, that’s oversimplified, and a lot of men probably just haven’t given the issue much thought but I think the point is still valid)

I think “free on every street corner” is hyperbole but I think it’s likely that if men could get pregnant, they would probably have a different perspective on abortion, which would include being able to have an abortion if they wanted to.

 

[The Atheist]

No. Based on what we see in most developed countries (especially US), we seem fine with unnecessary surgery on male babies (circumcision), whereas FGM is rightly illegal. So this idea that men who make the laws would give men some favouritism is wrong.

I think you have that arse about face and was going to say exactly this:

I don’t think that really follows. The reason MC is legal in the U.S. is because the men, for the most part, want it that way. I’m not saying it should be legal, but it is because men want it that way, not in spite of what they want. (yes, that’s oversimplified, and a lot of men probably just haven’t given the issue much thought but I think the point is still valid)

So I didn't bother.

Well put.

 

[cosmicaug]

Not that it will go anywhere:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/mississippi-roe-v-wade-abortion/index.html

Mississippi asks the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

CNN —
Mississippi’s attorney general told the Supreme Court on Thursday that Roe v. Wade was “egregiously wrong” and should be overturned as she urged the justices to allow a controversial law that bars most abortions after 15 weeks to go into effect.

“The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition” Attorney General Lynn Fitch told the justices in a new brief, launching the opening salvo in the most important abortion-related dispute the court has heard in decades.

Fitch said that the case for overruling Roe is “overwhelming.”

Roe v. Wade is the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide prior to viability, which can occur at around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

 

[mgidm86]

Not that it will go anywhere:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/mississippi-roe-v-wade-abortion/index.html

She. Wow.

As to the "Men wouldn't change the laws if they could get pregnant", I laugh.

Men have been running the world since forever. The vast amount of historical evidence - all bibles ever written, all laws ever passed, the behavior of men in general throughout history - points to men doing whatever is in their best interest.

No way would abortion be illegal, they'd simply rewrite the appropriate sections of their bibles to allow it.

Does not compare to circumcision, but if we must...okay you get one point. Anything else? I guess men think circumcision is in their best interest. I don't.

 

[mgidm86]

How many of these men who write the laws, our legislators, have used abortion I wonder? We already know some of the loudest opponents to abortion have utilized it. At least one was in the news recently.

Back to circumcision. Men do think it's in their best interest, I think. Uncircumcised men are sometimes made fun of, "it looks weird". Supposedly easier to keep clean when circumcised. They've been brainwashed by the church.

We know the real reason: masturbation is bad! But it's sold to most people as being a good idea medically.

I don't know any men who chose to be circumcised either.

It isn't law like abortion is. The government cannot force you be circumcised, or keep you from getting it done. And there's a big difference between this and abortion. Something about a baby.

No way would men force themselves to raise an unwanted child. Hell no!

 

[Ziggurat]

No way would men force themselves to raise an unwanted child. Hell no!

This is a really bizarre framing which doesn’t have any connection to how people really behave. People don’t generally force themselves to do anything. People force other people to do things those other people don’t want to do. Sex tends not to have much to do with that basic reality. And men have forced other men to pay to raise an unwanted child for decades. In fact, it’s far easier for women to get out of raising an unwanted child (give it up for adoption) than it is for men to get out of paying for an unwanted child.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

How about mandatory vasectomy for every boy entering puberty, reversed only after marriage?
That would be in line with the Bible to fight the sin of Onan.

 

[TragicMonkey]

How about mandatory vasectomy for every boy entering puberty, reversed only after marriage?
That would be in line with the Bible to fight the sin of Onan.

The Bible-thumpers would not have made this common mistake concerning a Bible story.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

No way would abortion be illegal, they'd simply rewrite the appropriate sections of their bibles to allow it.

What does the Bible really say about abortion?

Christians who turn to Scripture to trump political debates on abortion should be reminded that the Bible does not actually say anything at all on the topic. On this issue there is no divine revelation to be had....

Given the importance conservative Christians, Catholic and Protestant, have granted abortion in recent years, some might assume that their own opposition stems, in some way, from biblical teachings. But in the entire corpus of biblical law, abortion is never mentioned...

The Greek translation of this verse is quite different, in line with Greek views about the beginning of life: “If two men fight and strike a pregnant woman and her child comes out not fully formed, he (the striker) will be forced to pay a penalty. But if it is fully formed, he shall give life for life.” A person who kills a “fully formed” baby is subject to the death penalty, as a murderer would be. If the baby was not fully formed, the penalty is financial, as was typical for property crimes.
This translation has been interpreted to mean that by implication, the permissibility of abortion, too, depends on whether the fetus is fully formed.

On the issue of when the fetus reaches this stage, opinions have fluctuated through the centuries. In later Jewish tradition, which is based on the Bible but tries to fill in the gaps where the Bible is not explicit, the issue is often whether the greater part of the head has emerged. If it has, abortion is no longer an option. In some cases, the baby has only been deemed a person when it is fully born.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Bible's guide to abortion

It's a bit long and complicated, so I'll break it up for you.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ... If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner; Numbers 5:11-13

The first thing to notice is the context. This procedure is only intended for married couples, specifically for any man that suspects that his wife has been messing around. No proof is necessary; suspicion alone is sufficient to God.

Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon ... And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water ... And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD ... and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse.... (5:15-18)

OK, I am leaving some of the details out here, so if you're going to try this at home, make sure to follow God's instructions exactly. There's no guarantee any of this will work otherwise.

And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband: Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. 5:19-22


This is the part that fooled me. I get the idea that if the woman has been unfaithful, then the magic bitter water will do something awful to her. But I wasn't sure just what. What does it mean to have your belly swell and your thigh rot? But then I saw the footnote in the NIV that said it meant this: "cause you to be barren and have a miscarrying womb."

So if the woman is guilty (had sex with someone besides her husband), then the bitter water will make her unable to have children in the future. And if she is pregnant at the time, it will abort the pregnancy.

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law. Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.5:27-31

 

[Suddenly]

There are only two things that can incite me to violent action - antivaxers and men who are anti-abortion. And almost the entire anti-abortion industry is male-dominated. Sick, controlling *****.

There is that...

I used to be a "safe, legal, rare" person as to abortion.

And then I witnessed the miracle of life when my wife became pregnant and gave birth to a wonderful little girl who we adore and cherish.

So now my opinion is they should be free and freely available. The idea that anyone has the power to put a woman through the medical nightmare that is a pregnancy and then (often single) parenthood hits me as the height of sadistic evil. We have a massive amount of support, decent careers, etc. and we are still often at the end of our rope raising a kid.

 

[Warp12]

There is that...

I used to be a "safe, legal, rare" person as to abortion.

And then I witnessed the miracle of life when my wife became pregnant and gave birth to a wonderful little girl who we adore and cherish.

So now my opinion is they should be free and freely available. The idea that anyone has the power to put a woman through the medical nightmare that is a pregnancy and then (often single) parenthood hits me as the height of sadistic evil. We have a massive amount of support, decent careers, etc. and we are still often at the end of our rope raising a kid.

Are you saying that you feel like accountability and responsibility begin after birth? Are you saying that perhaps an abortion would have been an acceptable solution to your current issues with child-rearing?

Please clarify; I am really interested in this. I mean, this is important because of law, and how it affects these choices, naturally.

I don't think that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, personally.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is that...

I used to be a "safe, legal, rare" person as to abortion.

And then I witnessed the miracle of life when my wife became pregnant and gave birth to a wonderful little girl who we adore and cherish.

So now my opinion is they should be free and freely available.

Other than a difference in emphasis, these don't actually have to be different positions. In particular, even if you're in the camp of making them free (although I'm still at a loss as to why, among all medical procedures, THIS one needs to be free), why wouldn't you still want them to be rare?

Seriously, abortion is a bad form of birth control. I cannot think of any situation in which having an abortion is preferable to not having gotten pregnant in the first place. Yes, I get that other forms of birth control aren't foolproof. And it's even possible that life circumstances change unexpectedly such that having a baby is no longer desirable after the pregnancy has occurred. But nobody should WANT birth control to fail. Nobody should WANT their life circumstances to change unexpectedly like that. If pregnancy can be avoided in the first place, that's basically always going to be better than getting an abortion. The fact that it can't always be avoided doesn't change that. So why wouldn't you want it to be rare? Why wouldn't you want almost nobody to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place?

The idea that anyone has the power to put a woman through the medical nightmare that is a pregnancy and then (often single) parenthood hits me as the height of sadistic evil.

I get not wanting to make women carry a pregnancy to term against their will, but no one in this country is forced into single parenthood at the birth of a child. The only case I know of in which giving a newborn up for adoption isn't an option is when the other parent wants custody of that child, but in that case you still aren't being force into parenthood.

 

[Suddenly]

Are you saying that you feel like accountability and responsibility begin after birth?

By definition, yes. Usually these things are only expected of humans after a certain age, and before they are born is pretty safely before the age of responsibility.

Or is this some oblique way of characterizing unwanted pregnancies as an issue of irresponsibility that should result in being forced to have and support a child?

People have sex. It is a part of life. Sometimes birth control fails us, or in a heated moment isn't used. Medicine has very simple solutions to this that don't involve involuntary parenthood. That is what this is about, after all. That women might enjoy having sex so a bunch of repressed yahoos invented religious/moral objections and built a mythology around a basic medical procedure in order to use these hypothetical future people as props because absurd arguments about killing babies are far more rhetorically seductive than just being upset that women might want to have sex when they please.

Are you saying that perhaps an abortion would have been an acceptable solution to your current issues with child-rearing?

Yeah, sure. I wish the child I have and adore didn't exist because child rearing is a challenge.

Or...

I'm saying the repressed yahoos when spouting off about the dangers and morality of abortion wildly understate the dangers of childbirth and the magnitude of the burden of raising a child. That first hand experience with these things have made it clear to me that anyone who would force an unwilling person to experience these things is evil.

 

[Warp12]

By definition, yes. Usually these things are only expected of humans after a certain age, and before they are born is pretty safely before the age of responsibility.

Or is this some oblique way of characterizing unwanted pregnancies as an issue of irresponsibility that should result in being forced to have and support a child?

People have sex. It is a part of life. Sometimes birth control fails us, or in a heated moment isn't used. Medicine has very simple solutions to this that don't involve involuntary parenthood. That is what this is about, after all. That women might enjoy having sex so a bunch of repressed yahoos invented religious/moral objections and built a mythology around a basic medical procedure in order to use these hypothetical future people as props because absurd arguments about killing babies are far more rhetorically seductive than just being upset that women might want to have sex when they please.

Yeah, sure. I wish the child I have and adore didn't exist because child rearing is a challenge.

Or...

I'm saying the repressed yahoos when spouting off about the dangers and morality of abortion wildly understate the dangers of childbirth and the magnitude of the burden of raising a child. That first hand experience with these things have made it clear to me that anyone who would force an unwilling person to experience these things is evil.

"Dangers of childbirth...magnitude of the burden". Like, maybe don't underestimate the initial responsibility, before pregnancy, some may say? Thanks for your response.

 

[Suddenly]

Other than a difference in emphasis, these don't actually have to be different positions. In particular, even if you're in the camp of making them free (although I'm still at a loss as to why, among all medical procedures, THIS one needs to be free), why wouldn't you still want them to be rare?

I'd want tall medical procedures to be free.

I'd also want them not to be stigmatized, in part because not having a kid you think you can't handle is a bad thing that presents various costs to society as well, but also because the stigmatization is a result of arguments that circle around to sex= irresponsibility.

Seriously, abortion is a bad form of birth control. I cannot think of any situation in which having an abortion is preferable to not having gotten pregnant in the first place.

Well, yes. While abortions aren't the nightmare conservatives like to portray because of the whole "health of the woman" loophole in the case law, I doubt the process is anyone's idea of a fun way to spend their time.

Yes, I get that other forms of birth control aren't foolproof. And it's even possible that life circumstances change unexpectedly such that having a baby is no longer desirable after the pregnancy has occurred. But nobody should WANT birth control to fail. Nobody should WANT their life circumstances to change unexpectedly like that. If pregnancy can be avoided in the first place, that's basically always going to be better than getting an abortion. The fact that it can't always be avoided doesn't change that. So why wouldn't you want it to be rare? Why wouldn't you want almost nobody to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place?

Mainly I'm fine with people screwing when they want who they want without a bunch of scolds trying to withhold a medical procedure that isn't anyone's first choice to prevent pregnancy.

The whole "rare" thing is an acceptance of the stigmatization of the procedure. They should be commonplace and no big deal.

Mainly I'm fine with people screwing when they want who they want without a bunch of scolds trying to withhold a medical procedure that isn't anyone's first choice to prevent pregnancy.

I get not wanting to make women carry a pregnancy to term against their will.

Which is enough to end it right there.

but no one in this country is forced into single parenthood at the birth of a child. The only case I know of in which giving a newborn up for adoption isn't an option is when the other parent wants custody of that child, but in that case you still aren't being force into parenthood.

Maybe, but so what?

Not having a child at all is quite different from having one and then giving it up to who knows who. Some people are just not going to be able to bring themselves to do it, and it is a heap of garbage to put them in that position at all. Saying they can "choose" to give up the baby they just carried for ten months is an odd time to bring choice into this.

I mean, without making it sound like women are supposed to be baby factories....

 

[Warp12]

I'd want tall medical procedures to be free.

I'd also want them not to be stigmatized, in part because not having a kid you think you can't handle is a bad thing that presents various costs to society as well, but also because the stigmatization is a result of arguments that circle around to sex= irresponsibility.
Well, yes. While abortions aren't the nightmare conservatives like to portray because of the whole "health of the woman" loophole in the case law, I doubt the process is anyone's idea of a fun way to spend their time. Mainly I'm fine with people screwing when they want who they want without a bunch of scolds trying to withhold a medical procedure that isn't anyone's first choice to prevent pregnancy.

The whole "rare" thing is an acceptance of the stigmatization of the procedure. They should be commonplace and no big deal.

Mainly I'm fine with people screwing when they want who they want without a bunch of scolds trying to withhold a medical procedure that isn't anyone's first choice to prevent pregnancy.
Which is enough to end it right there.

Maybe, but so what?

Not having a child at all is quite different from having one and then giving it up to who knows who. Some people are just not going to be able to bring themselves to do it, and it is a heap of garbage to put them in that position at all. Saying they can "choose" to give up the baby they just carried for ten months is an odd time to bring choice into this.

I mean, without making it sound like women are supposed to be baby factories....

Well, your argument goes back to:

"I was somewhat on the fence about abortion, until we had to raise a kid". That is paraphrasing, but accurately.

Ok.

 

[Suddenly]

"Dangers of childbirth...magnitude of the burden". Like, maybe don't underestimate the initial responsibility, before pregnancy, some may say? Thanks for your response.

It's circular. If that argument was made about any other kind of healthcare it would sound obviously unhinged.

"We must ban the setting of bones because it encourages people to enjoy activities such as playing sports because they know that if they get hurt they will deal with a temporary inconvenience rather than being crippled for life. If someone breaks a bone, that person should have considered how dangerous it would have been if we didn't know how to set bones."

This all comes down to denying that sex is important to personal health and well being and instead is something to be controlled. Just so happens in a way that is far more a burden on women then men.

 

[Suddenly]

Well, your argument goes back to:

"I was somewhat on the fence about abortion, until we had to raise a kid". That is paraphrasing, but accurately.

Nope. This leaves out the whole pregnancy process, which is equally important if not moreso. Especially when anti-abortion people like to act concerned about the well-being of the woman having an abortion when pregnancy is just an absolute horror show exponentially more dangerous seeing the fatality rate with an abortion is roughly zero.

Which is the point. Going through it gives me an extra level of contempt for those who would force and shame other people into doing it.

 

[Warp12]

It's circular. If that argument was made about any other kind of healthcare it would sound obviously unhinged.

"We must ban the setting of bones because it encourages people to enjoy activities such as playing sports because they know that if they get hurt they will deal with a temporary inconvenience rather than being crippled for life. If someone breaks a bone, that person should have considered how dangerous it would have been if we didn't know how to set bones."

This all comes down to denying that sex is important to personal health and well being and instead is something to be controlled. Just so happens in a way that is far more a burden on women then men.

I never heared a woman deny praise for being able to bear children, so why should they deny responsibility for it?

"Setting bones" is like killing a fetus? This is not a good argument for Roe v. Wade. I mean, maybe that is your point, anyway. But, as I say, I don't expect the law to be overturned.