This has been a terrible week for the United States. The only good thing so far seems to be that Gonzales may be wrung out to dry. The rest of it? Not so good
( Read more... )
Since when do we legislate regret? Do we amend laws on murder, theft or other things that we consider criminal because a person regretted their decision? Or is it because one can regret those things and women can regret abortions that that means we need to criminalize the procedure?
Sigh. I suppose it's too much to ask that men actually ever consider what a violation some pregnancies can be on their own before stupid old white men get involved in regulating them. A pregnancy, a perfectly normal one, is a protracted, stressful, disgusting thing as is (not a moral judgment--just observation: pregnany = icky!). The kinds of pregnancies this law would force to go to completion are nightmares I can't even imagine
( ... )
I think part of the severe realization about this on my part stems partly from a recent spat of late periods (due to being on the pill since age 16 I usually can predict the arrival of my menses to the hour). As each day passed I'd get freaked out. I knew that I'd probably be okay and still get it, but the idea that I could, could be faced with my constitutionally-mandated choice FREAKED ME OUT. Can you imagine having to get an abortion? The choice in pro-choice is one of the scariest things imaginable. But not having the right to make it is even scarier.
I'm not sure what it will take to make men understand what pregnancy and childbirth is like. There's really no way to do it, just like there's no way to convince men that menstrual cramps or ovary pokes (eeeeeeoowww!) are possibly just as if not more painful than being kicked in the balls. They will constantly insist that it is worse, because they know. There is no way to know, because with the possible exception of some physiologically intergendered people nobody can make the
( ... )
Yeah I am most disturbed by Kennedy's response that this bill "protects women" from regret. Great. Nice to see 5 multimillionaire men making medical decisions for 150 million women.
...and having a doctor tell you "well, your life's not in danger, so we're not going to do anything about it."
Don't forget. This particular law is the first ever to NOT have a clause for the woman's health. I am serious.
And as for the showing ultrasounds... I don't think they're trying to change anyone's minds. I think they're just trying to punish women. HERE? SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING?
I really don't know what else to say about this. I am so depressed. All I can do is hope for change in the next election... And really, I have to admit that I am still unbelievably bitter towards Sandra Day O'Conner for not waiting to resign. She knew this would happen. Maybe that's silly, unfocused rage, but I can't help but be angry that she, in part, let this happen.
I know. That's what's so infuriating about this, that it's not just health, but black-and-white life. Though, to be fair, that's how they look at a fetus, as either alive or dead, so why not treat the woman's life as concretely? Gotta hand them the consistency award. This from the same people that would keep a persistently vegetative woman barely alive and possibly suffering because to let her finally meet a peaceful end would be murder.
I know what you mean about Sandra D-O. I was very angry at her at first, but then when she spoke about her ill husband, and how she wanted to spend time with him while she still could, it really was hard to stay mad. I'd like to think that her husband would understand that it was for the greater good, but how much is too much to ask of public servants? I know I would have a hard time giving up certain personal things for a life of extreme stress and constant vigilance. But then again, I'm not going into law...
Really? I didn't realize her husband was so sick. Well, I guess I can't be as mad at her.
And yes, it's black and white life. Not quality of life. Simply life. Did you see the recent proposal in Texas to give women considering abortion $500 to keep the baby? It's real. As feministing.com joked, that's a baby-making wage of $0.07/hour!
Yeah, I read that. I didn't say anything on your post, but I spent all morning reading that feministing posting and fuming and not getting any work done. Kinda like this morning.
It's one thing to push the sincere belief that a fetus is living and deserves to be born. It's another to just be condescending and restate over and over that women are second-class citizens, baby-makers and little else.
Perhaps the reasoning behind the decision is faulty (okay not perhaps), but I think it makes at least a little bit of sense.
To play a little devil's advocate here, scientifically, you can actually deliver the baby in the second trimester. It may be too underdeveloped to live very long after it leaves the womb, but it looks like a person, and there have been cases of preemies surviving at 20something weeks. So if something has the chance to live on its own and you kill it, isn't that what murder is (I mean from a legal standpoint)? It's just a case of where you draw that line. I haven't read all the details of the ruling, but wouldn't it still be kosher to induce labor early and that being the same thing as killing what's inside of you?
Even with your line drawn in the sand, the decision is faulty. The court did not rule out all second trimester abortions, only this method. Fetuses can still be dismembered within the uterus and then delivered (which, as you might expect, causes the woman an additional amount of trauma
( ... )
I mostly curious about how the heck DOJ plans on enforcing the law. In KS, for example, abortion providers are required to submit data on number/kind of abortions performed to the state dept. of health & env't. Phill Kline, our fmr wacky-fun KS AG, decided he was going to subpoena medical records to see abortions were being performed on underaged girls, ostensibly to prosecute their impregnators under the statutory rape laws. The story hit the media (and the front page of the NY Times) and the resulting backlash (amongst other injudicious legal decisions) ruined Phill's career. (Granted, Phill is now the DA of my parents' county, appointed by some smoke-filled backroom process that has infuriated attorneys statewide
( ... )
Oh simple. They'll wave off the chance to investigate/prosecute torture cases and DHS stuff for the sake of putting resources to where it really counts: ensuring that every exencephalitic fetus has its five minutes of breath time, so it can get baptized before dying in agony.
Comments 26
Sigh. I suppose it's too much to ask that men actually ever consider what a violation some pregnancies can be on their own before stupid old white men get involved in regulating them. A pregnancy, a perfectly normal one, is a protracted, stressful, disgusting thing as is (not a moral judgment--just observation: pregnany = icky!). The kinds of pregnancies this law would force to go to completion are nightmares I can't even imagine ( ... )
Reply
I'm not sure what it will take to make men understand what pregnancy and childbirth is like. There's really no way to do it, just like there's no way to convince men that menstrual cramps or ovary pokes (eeeeeeoowww!) are possibly just as if not more painful than being kicked in the balls. They will constantly insist that it is worse, because they know. There is no way to know, because with the possible exception of some physiologically intergendered people nobody can make the ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Oh wait, you're a woman. Women can't do no math. Intellectually inferior, you know.
Reply
Don't forget. This particular law is the first ever to NOT have a clause for the woman's health. I am serious.
And as for the showing ultrasounds... I don't think they're trying to change anyone's minds. I think they're just trying to punish women. HERE? SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING?
I really don't know what else to say about this. I am so depressed. All I can do is hope for change in the next election... And really, I have to admit that I am still unbelievably bitter towards Sandra Day O'Conner for not waiting to resign. She knew this would happen. Maybe that's silly, unfocused rage, but I can't help but be angry that she, in part, let this happen.
Reply
I know what you mean about Sandra D-O. I was very angry at her at first, but then when she spoke about her ill husband, and how she wanted to spend time with him while she still could, it really was hard to stay mad. I'd like to think that her husband would understand that it was for the greater good, but how much is too much to ask of public servants? I know I would have a hard time giving up certain personal things for a life of extreme stress and constant vigilance. But then again, I'm not going into law...
Reply
And yes, it's black and white life. Not quality of life. Simply life. Did you see the recent proposal in Texas to give women considering abortion $500 to keep the baby? It's real. As feministing.com joked, that's a baby-making wage of $0.07/hour!
Reply
It's one thing to push the sincere belief that a fetus is living and deserves to be born. It's another to just be condescending and restate over and over that women are second-class citizens, baby-makers and little else.
I just...words fail me.
Reply
To play a little devil's advocate here, scientifically, you can actually deliver the baby in the second trimester. It may be too underdeveloped to live very long after it leaves the womb, but it looks like a person, and there have been cases of preemies surviving at 20something weeks. So if something has the chance to live on its own and you kill it, isn't that what murder is (I mean from a legal standpoint)? It's just a case of where you draw that line. I haven't read all the details of the ruling, but wouldn't it still be kosher to induce labor early and that being the same thing as killing what's inside of you?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment