Is Feminism Still Relevant?

[PhilsFan]

"Inconvenience" is either a poor choice of word or a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

this attitude is why it's a feminist issue. as if women get abortions because they don't want to be inconvenienced.

it's so reductive about human sexuality and so dehumanizing to women and so excuses men from anything and so enables them to divide women up into virgins and sluts.

if you could get pregnant, you'd feel much differently.

You seem to be arguing that men DO have a shared responsibility in the pregnancy - and if they share in the responsibility, they also share in the consequence. And if they share in the consequence, doesn't that mean that men should have an equal voice in whether or not the child is born or aborted?

If you are stating that only a mother has a consequence, then only the mother has the responsibility. Again - you can't have it both ways.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

"Inconvenience" is either a poor choice of word or a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

Perhaps - it was a summary of the phrasing used by other posters (such as unwanted, mother and child not on the same page, not financially ready...etc).

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

I really hope you realize that contraception is not 100% effective. Yeah, there are some women who don't use contraception during sex and that isn't wise of them if they don't want to get pregnant. But to say we have absolute control over our bodies and what happens to it is completely false.

There is only one 100% biologically effective way not to get pregnant. Everything else contains various degrees of risk.

Originally Posted by Pearl

When feminists "seem" to claim that we have absolute control over our bodies, it simply means no one, especially a man, has dominion over our bodies.

Fair enough. I agree with you since I accept the premise that no human life should have dominion over another human life.

Originally Posted by Pearl

That is what feminists declare. We have been treated like property for centuries, with men controlling our bodies for us, and we don't want that anymore.

I had nothing to do with how women were treated in the past. I can't be held accountable for the actions of people that have been dead for hundreds of years.

Originally Posted by Pearl

That is what we are fighting for.

You already have it in most Western countries. It is illegal to have dominion over a woman's body. You've won.

Originally Posted by Pearl

Men don't know what it is like to be a woman.

well, some "men" probably do, but I get your point.

Originally Posted by Pearl

They never will because they don't have the same bodies.

And you will never understand what it's like to have a male body - that seems irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Pearl

So for men to tell us what to do with our bodies, how we should treat it and what we do have control over is completely wrong, and even foolish.

You can do whatever you want to your own body. However, you do not have the right to exercise dominion over another human life - whether that life is in a womb, incubator, or kindergarten class.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

There is only one 100% biologically effective way not to get pregnant. Everything else contains various degrees of risk.

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean a fetus' rights matters much more than what the mother goes through.

Originally Posted by AEON

Fair enough. I agree with you since I accept the premise that no human life should have dominion of another human life.

Then please don't tell me what I should do with my body. You're not God, a doctor, or the man I'm in a relationship with.

Originally Posted by AEON

I had nothing to do with how women were treated in the past. I can't be held accountable for the actions of people that have been dead for hundreds of years.

No, AEON. I was explaining to you what it means to be a woman, what's on our minds and what we are trying to overcome. Where did you get the idea that I was blaming you for anything? I'm confused.

Originally Posted by AEON

You already have it in most Western countries. It is illegal to have dominion over a woman's body. You've won.

And conservatives are still fighting to overturn that. Look at some of the GOP Congressional candidates last year. Doesn't matter if they lost their elections. The fact that there are still men today trying every way possible to control women's bodies is frightening for a lot of women.

Originally Posted by AEON

well, some "men" probably do, but I get your point.

"Men"? What, those men aren't real men because they have more empathy for women? That's what it sounds like you are saying.

Originally Posted by AEON

And you will never understand what it's like to have a male body - that seems irrelevant.

And with that, it is clear that this is a losing battle for you. Your answers seem desperate. In fact, they sound sexist, and reek of fear of women.

Are you against abortion or are you against a woman owning her body? It is either or.

Originally Posted by AEON

You can do whatever you want to your own body. However, you do not have the right to exercise dominion over another human life - whether that life is in a womb, incubator, or kindergarten class.

Uhm, you just said earlier that it is illegal to own a woman's body. Abortion is legal.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

"Men"? What, those men aren't real men because they have more empathy for women? That's what it sounds like you are saying.

No, I was referring to gender reassignment - that they would understand how it was to be both a man and a woman.

Originally Posted by Pearl

fear of women.

Would have made an epic album title.

Originally Posted by Pearl

Are you against abortion or are you against a woman owning her body? It is either or.

False dichotomy. I don't accept the premise that abortion is equal to owning your own body.


Pearl, you seem like a warm, caring, intelligent, and thoughtful woman. And I think I should apologize for the coldness that is coming across in my posts. I shouldn't treat this issue as if it is a group math assignment - yet I'm probably coming across that way. I'm sorry about that.

I am trying to remove the emotional, subjective opinions and focus on the biological facts. However, as anitram pointed out - that just might not be possible.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

False dichotomy. I don't accept the premise that abortion is equal to owning your own body.

That I realize, and it is an issue that will be debated forever.

Originally Posted by AEON

Pearl, you seem like a warm, caring, intelligent, and thoughtful woman. And I think I should apologize for the coldness that is coming across in my posts. I shouldn't treat this issue as if it is a group math assignment - yet I'm probably coming across that way. I'm sorry about that.

Thanks AEON. I don't think you really do fear women, just probably don't understand what it is like to be one - and you don't have to get gender reassignment to. Just a little consideration, empathy, putting yourself in someone's shoes, etc.

Originally Posted by AEON

I am trying to remove the emotional, subjective opinions and focus on the biological facts. However, as anitram pointed out - that just might not be possible.

It isn't possible. I really think that, and so the debate will rage on to who knows when.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

If you are stating that only a mother has a consequence, then only the mother has the responsibility. Again - you can't have it both ways.

I don't understand this logic at all.

There are plenty of real life examples where two parties have responsibility for an event but only one party lives with the consequences.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

I don't understand this logic at all.

There are plenty of real life examples where two parties have responsibility for an event but only one party lives with the consequences.

Yeah - the logic is weak on that, I admit. I need to rework what I'm trying to express on this point. There just seems something off in the attitude that men share half the blame of the pregnancy, are legally responsible for at least half the finances of a child (can also share in half the blessing)- yet, have zero say in what happens to that child in the womb. It seems, pro-choice advocates only want the male in the discussion as the burning effigy.

Yet - let's leave men out of the discussion for a moment - it still seems true that women who voluntarily engage in sex certainly understand that pregnancy may be a result (and pregnancy is still possible with birth control - even if the odds are lower). After covering what we have about the scientific evidence pointing that there is a real possibility that a human life begins at conception - an "unwanted" pregnancy is not enough moral justification for an abortion after voluntarily sexual intercourse.

Also, there has been several mentions that a female is in full control over her own body. On this point I agree 100%. I think that pro-choice advocates would also agree that young female toddlers and infants have the right to exist and not be harmed, even though they are certainly dependent on adults for protection and are not yet in full control over their own bodies. However, pro-choice advocates don't extend that same sentiment to the young female in the womb. Does this young female (which is determined at the moment of conception by the chromosomes) also have the same rights as the female infant and toddler - if human life begins at conception? (which we have seen is a real scientific possibility)?

One thing seems for certain - that at the moment of conception, a new, functioning, self-directing, human organism begins that is only in need of nutrition and a proper environment to survive until maturity. And it is the last time we will have a clear line between a human and non-human organism. It's the only point that is not debated. And that is probably why the Church and other pro-life advocates (and I predict science) use the moment of conception as the starting point of human life.

[Irvine511]

why, look: rape insurance.

Michigan will join more conservative states in requiring residents who want health insurance coverage for abortions to buy an extra policy, after Republican legislators passed the law Wednesday over the objections of Democrats who pleaded for them to take the issue to voters instead.

The citizens' initiative approved 62-47 by the House and 27-11 in the Senate — almost entirely along party lines — will become law in March without the signature of Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, who vetoed similar legislation a year ago. The anti-abortion group Right to Life collected more than 300,000 signatures to put the legislation before lawmakers, who also had the option of letting it go to a statewide vote next November.

The law prohibits insurance companies from offering abortion coverage as part of both public and private health plans, except when a woman's life is at risk. Employers and individuals who want abortion coverage must buy supplemental policies, known as riders.

Michigan is the ninth state to restrict private plans from covering the procedure. Seven of the states — Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and Oklahoma — allow patients to purchase riders, just as Michigan will. Utah doesn't allow even supplemental coverage of elective abortions but lets general plans cover the procedure when the woman's life in endangered, her health is severely compromised or in cases of rape, incest or fetal impairment.

Several conservative states have approved broad abortion limits in recent months, but Michigan is a swing state that has generally stayed away from the tougher restrictions.

Michigan's law won approval after emotional debate on the chamber floors, which included Democratic female legislators telling personal stories in opposition to what they called "rape insurance" legislation that is among the most misogynistic they have seen.

Trying to hold back tears, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing disclosed that she was raped more than 20 years ago.

"Thank God it didn't result in a pregnancy because I can't imagine going through what I went through and then having to consider what to do about an unwanted pregnancy from an attacker," she said. "If this were law then and I had become pregnant, I would not be able to have coverage because of this. How extreme, how extreme does this measure need to be?"

Opponents said 4 percent of Michigan's population shouldn't be able to dictate health care for women, a reference to the number of people who signed the petition to bring the issue to lawmakers. But Right to Life said abortion isn't health care and applauded legislators for standing firm.

Republican Rep. Margaret O'Brien of Portage said in an interview after session that she rejects the "notion that women only have one way of thinking" about abortion. She noted that federal law says abortion riders sold through the new government health insurance exchange can't cost less than $1 a month, so comprehensive abortion coverage should be available.

"I respect the seriousness of the emotions. I went through an unplanned pregnancy. I've counseled people who've been raped that has resulted in pregnancies. ... But I've also seen women who've embraced those babies through rape and seen that that child shouldn't be punished for the horrendous act that happened to them."

Michigan Puts Restrictions on Abortion Insurance - ABC News

remember guys, conservatives only want limited government and lower taxes which means more freedom for all. they aren't at all motivated by racism or misogyny.

[anitram]

Rape victims better pay up for the extra insurance riders. Seems fair.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

remember guys, conservatives only want limited government and lower taxes which means more freedom for all. they aren't at all motivated by racism or misogyny.

They are for freedom. Their freedom. Everyone else is unworthy to enjoy that freedom.

(I know you're being facetious, but I'm just saying...)

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

Rape victims better pay up for the extra insurance riders. Seems fair.

Let's just call it the "slut tax" because, really, those are the only women who get abortions.

[anitram]

You know, this probably belongs on the Pope thread as it's the latest from him, but I think it's very appropriate in relation to a lot of proposals like this (and the general hysteria over the ACA):

The many situations of inequality, poverty and injustice, are signs not only of a profound lack of fraternity, but also of the absence of a culture of solidarity. New ideologies, characterized by rampant individualism, egocentrism and materialistic consumerism, weaken social bonds, fueling that “throw away” mentality which leads to contempt for, and the abandonment of, the weakest and those considered “useless”. In this way human coexistence increasingly tends to resemble a mere do ut des which is both pragmatic and selfish.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

why, look: rape insurance.







remember guys, conservatives only want limited government and lower taxes which means more freedom for all. they aren't at all motivated by racism or misogyny.

Are you suggesting that all conservatives are motivated by racism and sexism? Or are you only suggesting that some conservatives are motivated by these two things?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Are you suggesting that all conservatives are motivated by racism and sexism? Or are you only suggesting that some conservatives are motivated by these two things?

I'm suggesting that the limited-government ethos is window dressing -- it's still, for some, about social issues, specifically abortion.

[jeevey]

Totally. The invasiveness and control in abortion legislation is evidence that there's a cognitive dissonance about government power among very right conservatives. The same people who can't be compelled to purchase insurance can compel women to have a compulsory vaginal probe? Sure.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I'm suggesting that the limited-government ethos is window dressing -.

The Libertarians are in this camp - and they don't seem to be carrying the torch for social issues.

But I do agree that the many (if not most) of the Republicans are still struggling to realize that we are in the post-Falwell world.

However, there are people on both sides of the political fence that feel abortion is still wrong (for instance - many Catholics are "liberal" on social justice issues, yet oppose abortion).

[Pearl]

[LJT]

Originally Posted by anitram

You know, this probably belongs on the Pope thread as it's the latest from him, but I think it's very appropriate in relation to a lot of proposals like this (and the general hysteria over the ACA):

You know I often think most of the '-isms' would be solved with a generally less competitive society, our economics has had a large hand in how we view other people.