Re: Re: Re: Bill Nye to Anti-Abortionists: "You Literally Don't Know What You're Talking About&
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
please don't play the pro-fem card with me, Men have never had a legal right to ending a connection with their children.
They also don't have to put their health on the line for it.
It's an unequal comparison because it's biologically unequal. A father is not at any point, required to sacrifice his health- and if someone was proposing that a father *had* to donate an organ or something, that'd be bad too.
To the best of my knowledge, there's no other situation where it's required of someone else to sacrifice their health for someone else. Encouraged, sure, but not required.
Now, if you think that men should be able to sever support obligations, that's another topic, which I won't get into, but if you're saying "men should be able to sever support, but women shouldn't be able to get abortions," then that's a very significant double standard.
It's just more of the infantilized women not wanting to take responsibility for their actions.
An abortion is taking responsibility. Preventing abortion is preventing women from making one of the several available decisions (and some of the more extreme anti-choice stuff, like stopping morning after pills, even more-so). Especially early term, when there's no fetus even.
Not taking responsibility would be not-doing-anything, not doing-something-to-prevent-the-situation.
The 'infantilization' card does not work when you're actively trying to stop someone from taking a responsible action, then chiding them for not taking responsibility. It's just trying to weasel-word responsibility around while trying to deprive the people actually in the position of available options.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
[B]
While the moderate pro-lifers aren't for the banning of abortion, but for the regulation of it. My take is to educate potential parents on its impact (psychological and physical) as well as risks and the understanding that this is indeed the ending of a life (I am against the dehumanization of the infant). If said parent decide to push thru, then they need to meet a solid criteria of what is justifiable abortion (via age of fetus,l as well as risk factors).
[b]
For a 'solid criteria,' there is the matter it has a 100% chance of health effects on the parent (yes, even without complications, it takes someone out of action for months, puts strain on the body, and has a long recovery period), and a not-inconsiderable chance of death? There is no such thing as a health consequence free/ health risk pregnancy, and indeed, in some cases even a significant delay ups the health risk considerably.
Back to Henry Pym's 'responsibility' line, this is often a case of the groups pushing for it trying to sell the idea that women can't be trusted to take responsibility for themselves. It's one thing to offer services- which in fact planned parenthood and such does- but it's another to actively place barriers to prevent people because you don't think they can make the call, or trying to guilt them into stopping- which is what a lot of people are trying to do.
And on the dehumanization of an infant, an infant is a being with a brain- and only exists late-term, and almost zero abortions happen at that point, and those only because of health issues. A fetus is something that's infant-ish, but depending on when you're talking about does not actually have all the functioning organs than make a person. An embryo is not even that, it's a bundle of cells- largely stem cells- often not even possessing the shape of a fetus. I do object to this presentation of everything-after-fertilization as an infant. Like Bill Nye points out, there are many steps required between one or another, and it is biologically incorrect to call most abortions as involving a baby in the slightest- and those that are, are usually when there is the mother's life on the line, and it's not all that rare when both die in said circumstances when that's not granted.
The extremes would be what PP is lobbying for (deregulation of Abortion) or the more extreme feminist groups that asks for "abortion on demand with no apology"
So.... women would be able to have an abortion, control over their own body, which significantly impacts their health, without having to get someone else's ok or apologize for being in a situation where they've had to make that decision? Offered counciling if they want it, mind you, and informed of the direct risks, is what PP does, as long as it's in the legal terms, but allowing them to make the call if they've already made of their mind, consulting with whoever they chose first.
That doesn't seem extreme in the slightest, that seems normal. There's nothing actually dangerous about this, and indeed, that's the norm in much of the world, and we've seen the results of it, and it works fine.
Indeed, that is, really, leaving it up to the patient's choice just like almost every other medical procedure.
It says a lot that the 'extreme' side in your point of view is 'how pretty much everything else works ever.' People aren't required to donate organs, and they also aren't required to undergo counseling on why they shouldn't- they're just informed of the risks and allowed to decide.
The inclusion of 'apology' in your statement is also an interesting one. Women should be required to apologize if they have an abortion after, say, being raped? Or discovering their finances caught fire and they couldn't actually afford to get off their job now to raise a child and they'd rather do so in a few years when they can do so without starving and so they can give a child a good life? Or whatever else their situation that they want to handle responsibly?
Consider Henry Pym's take on responsibility for a minute, and consider how many want to force that view. A lot of people tend to include this counseling and so on, not to properly inform, but just to add hurdles to make it harder for someone to make a responsible decision they don't agree with.