(no subject)

[wildestranger]

Note to self: Do not read the BBC forums on abortion. Rage is bad for thesis. *fumes*

In view of all the people saying that women should not abort unless they've been raped - that the choice to have sex implies the possibility of pregnancy, and therefore women who choose to have sex should be prepared to have babies - I would like to present a modest proposal suggested by my friend B. today.

Men who oppose abortions? Shouldn't be having (heterosexual) sex.

ETA: Abortion limit remains at 24 weeks. I may have done a fistpump of joy.

Comments

[inathunderstorm.livejournal.com]

In view of all the people saying that women should not abort unless they've been raped.

Because every woman wants to be a mother if she's not been raped, then?

::headdesks::

Yeah, reading those things just makes me angry, too!!

[wildestranger.livejournal.com]

Well, clearly you shouldn't be having sex unless you're prepared to become a parent. If you're a woman, that is.

I know I should stop reading them, and yet...they're voting at the moment and I can't seem to stop until it's finished.

[magic-at-mungos.livejournal.com]

*iz grumpy* Oh FFS. Pro choice is making the desicion which is best for the people concerned. Pillocks.

[wildestranger.livejournal.com]

That's the thing, really - if you think abortion is a horrible thing, then don't have one, but you don't have the right to make that choice for other people.

[magic-at-mungos.livejournal.com]

Your previous post reminded me of a rant I wanted to make :)

[wildestranger.livejournal.com]

Hee. I am full of rants today. I suppose it distracts from fandom-related controversies. ;)

[magic-at-mungos.livejournal.com]

Yes RL wank iz better or worse than fandom wank? ;)

[spikeyboots.livejournal.com]

I heartily echo your fistpump of joy!

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

Stay away! I've not even looked, but I'm sure it must be masochism to go there.

women who choose to have sex should be prepared to have babies

As someone who is very happy with her choice to continue an unplanned pregnancy, can I just take a moment to express my hatred of anti-abortionists crappy attitude towards children and mothering? Because for all they like to deride feminists and pro-choicers of being baby-murdering monsters, they're the ones who treat children as a punishment for sex. There's no reconciling the logical fallacy of calling women who have unplanned pregnancies are irresponsible and insisting they should be forced to undertake the responsibility of motherhood.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

PS - someone on BBC News 24 described the results of the Embryology Bill votes as an 'across the board defeat for social conservatives'. Yay!

[wildestranger.livejournal.com]

Yes! Gives me hope for our society. :)

[wildestranger.livejournal.com]

they're the ones who treat children as a punishment for sex. There's no reconciling the logical fallacy of calling women who have unplanned pregnancies are irresponsible and insisting they should be forced to undertake the responsibility of motherhood.

Yes. And don't get me started on how single mothers are treated as sluts who selfishly have children just to be a burden on society. And how pregnancy is just a problem for women, and their fault for not bothering with contraception - not that men are involved in any way.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

Yeah, women just can't win with these people. They're selfish if they have children, they're selfish if they have an abortion, they're selfish if they expect support from the fathers of their children, and they're selfish if they chose never to have children. (And, of course, SAHM don't contribute anything, while working mothers are heartless hussies.)

Years ago I read an op-ed by a man complaining that IVF would allow women to have children without having the responsibility of a husband. I doubt he had any idea how telling his comments really were.

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree that abortion should be allowed so late in a pregnancy. At 24 weeks, a baby has been alive for about 2 months and with proper medical care can survive. They would have been born in another few short months otherwise. I cannot see that as anything less than infanticide. I think that abortion should only be allowed at that stage if the woman's life is in grave danger. I'm not even going to say how disgusted I am that someone would think that the abortion limit remaining there is a joyful thing.

[wildestranger.livejournal.com]

Hello! I assume you're somebody on my friendslist, and I'm sorry that my post didn't make you feel you could use your own name - I appreciate that it is an angry post, and you might think that disagreeing comments are not welcome.

At 24 weeks, a baby has been alive for about 2 months and with proper medical care can survive.

The reports I heard said that one in five might survive outside the womb - and this is the question, really, because nobody is suggesting that the foetus could be successfully removed from the womb at this stage, allowing the child to live and allowing the mother to get rid of her pregnancy. If this was an option, then the argument we're making would be very different.

I'm not even going to say how disgusted I am that someone would think that the abortion limit remaining there is a joyful thing.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I consider it a joyful thing that women are being allowed to make that decision for themselves, and not being forced to continue a pregnancy because the idea makes someone else feel uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable as well - I can't imagine anyone thinks it a good thing - but my discomfort should not determine what others are allowed to do. If you've been following the debate, you know that the amount of women who get an abortion at this stage are very few, and that they are likely to have pressing reasons for wanting to do so. I support the current limit because I don't think we should make what is already a difficult decision any more difficult for the women in question.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not on your friend list (I don't want you suspecting any of your innocent friends :) ). I was just looking through journals.

My main objection with abortion after the baby can feel and move and has some awareness, is that they will feel themselves be cut up etc. and it makes me sad. I'm fine with abortion before that point if the woman has a reason, such as she was using birth-control and it didn't work. I don't know much about abortion laws and should educate myself about them. I think though that abortions farther along should, if they don't already, have limits on them. I'm sure that most woman wouldn't just decide that far along 'oh let me get that abortion I've been putting off' and have a good reason but I also don't think that just because it's a woman's body she should be allowed to kill something that is aware and has a beating heart. Unless she has a very good reason. Like I said before, if her life was in danger, especially if she had other children or significant other.

I don't mean to come off extremely angry or anything. I'm not even really angry. I guess my choice of words can be a bit strong.

[(Anonymous)]

I also think 1 in 5 infants is a lot of infants that can survive. If it was 1 in 20 or 1 in 100 I would understand more.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Men who oppose abortions? Shouldn't be having (heterosexual) sex.

Best argument for the cause ever.

Discussions about abortions always make me froth at the mouth a little, which is why I stay away from any threads and forums.

[wildestranger.livejournal.com]

Yes, especially as they seem to think that sex outside intended procreation is something that concerns women only. Argh. Stupid men.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Or even sex for the sake of procreation.

I've never wanted to be one of those women who generalise by saying "but men always". However - and I'm saying that as a woman who has been with her fair share of men - men are so passive about matters of contraception and procreation. If they don't want children, they go "So you're on the pill, yeah?", if there's a pregnancy scare, they go "There's always the day-after pill, yeah?" and if they think they want children, they go "Yeah, one day, in future, perhaps mumblemumle." *generalises like mad* I am honestly of the opinion that men shouldn't have anything to say in matters of procreation, unless they can prove they are aware of the physical/emotional/social/longterm etc. implication of what having children really means and are willing to take responsiblity for their actions. The number of times I've heard "Yeah, it's, like, your decision, right?" Yes, it bloody well is.

That's a bit of a tangent, isn't it? But since a friend of mine (a bloke with a university education, in his early 30s, who's been in several more or less serious relationships) was shocked to learn that giving birth often results in perineal tear - he's actually never heard of it before - I realised that men truly have no idea at all. How are these people supposed to decide over what I am allowed to do with my body? And my life?

To quote Rachel from Friends: "No uterus, no opinion."

[mysid.livejournal.com]

Men who oppose abortions? Shouldn't be having heterosexual sex.

I may just have to make a t-shirt of that.

[scoradh.livejournal.com]

24 weeks, seriously? I thought the abortion limit was 12 weeks and a viable foetus (preterm) was 24 weeks. Wut.

[wildestranger.livejournal.com]

It's 12 weeks in many European countries - Britain has one of the longest limits.

As far as I understand it, one in five foetuses are viable at 24 weeks.

[aldrea7.livejournal.com]

I think 24 weeks is far, far, far too late. I have quite a few friends who were born that early and lived.

And, as for not having sex if you're not prepared to have a child, I think it's a different argument. Birth control is very simple to get a hold of.

Plus, if you do end up having an unplanned pregnancy, adoption is a far better option. Because to me, it seems like any woman who isn't in danger from the pregnancy, or the pregnancy resulted from something horrible, is just saying that they're too selfish to be uncomfortable for nine months. You don't even have to go through official channels, in the US at least if you leave a baby at a hospital or police station when it's under two days old they'll take it without any questions at all.

The definition of death is when your heart stops beating and your brain stops functioning. It should stand to reason then, that a fetus who has brain activity and a heart beat is alive, and killing it is no different than killing any other living thing.

[(Anonymous)]

You put it better than I ever could.

[wildestranger.livejournal.com]

I think 24 weeks is far, far, far too late. I have quite a few friends who were born that early and lived.

If we could extricate the child from the womb at that age and have it live, that would surely be a preferable solution to all. This, however, is not being proposed.

And, as for not having sex if you're not prepared to have a child, I think it's a different argument. Birth control is very simple to get a hold of.

Surely this depends on where you live, how much money you have and such. Not to mention that contraception isn't 100% reliable.

Because to me, it seems like any woman who isn't in danger from the pregnancy, or the pregnancy resulted from something horrible, is just saying that they're too selfish to be uncomfortable for nine months.

I really, really disagree with this. It is not too selfish to want control over your own body, or to decide that you don't want to be pregnant. There's a lot more involved than what you call "discomfort" - all kinds of potential medical problems, effect on work and finances, effect on mental welfare because of an unwanted pregnancy. I strongly support a woman's right to choose not to have those.

It should stand to reason then, that a fetus who has brain activity and a heart beat is alive, and killing it is no different than killing any other living thing.

Sure, but our society kills living things all the time. We just don't kill people. And I really can't see an unborn child as a person.

Anyway, thanks for commenting! It has been an enlightening discussion.

[(Anonymous)]

And I really can't see an unborn child as a person.

So, for you, when a baby comes out after 8-9 months in their mother suddenly then they're a person and if they come out earlier they are not? Or do you not believe they're a person for the whole time they are inside? Baby's can move and hear when they are inside their mothers, like the person above said, they have heartbeats and brain activity. If that isn't a person I don't know what is.

[wildestranger.livejournal.com]

Yes. Unborn foetus whilst it is in the womb, a child and a person after. :)

[(Anonymous)]

also not on your friendslist (don't have lj but found link to brendolina on del.icio.us and sometimes check here for updates), but i wanted to tell you that yes, yes, yes. i agree with everything you're saying--and as for the argument that birth control is easy to get a hold of that someone was making higher up the thread, well. sometimes it's really not that simple. my best friend used a condom and took a morning after pill (yes, both--she's a medical student, it was her first time, and as such, she wanted to be very, very careful), and she STILL got pregnant. sometimes things happen.

mostly, i just feel like people miss the point in this discussion. pro-choice just means leaving the decisions about what happens to the women's bodies to the women themselves. i've never understood taking on the authority to direct someone else's choices. i love the "modest proposal," especially because, just, how dare someone who will never have to make this choice try to tell women what to do?

thank you for being articulate about this. it was a relief to read. (no, i haven't heard a lot of stupid comments about this issue recently, not at all.)