Muzman on 3/7/2013 at 05:32

---

As I was saying about unspoken assumptions...

The army generally prefers it when people who take up that contract are willing and able to carry it out, otherwise that has consequences for them and the others involved. So you know, that works too.
The devaluing human life thing is fairly vague case to put, not to mention a nonsequitor. If we grant it (and I don't) we have to suddenly place less or no concern for the life of the mother or the child afterwards, or at least put it out of our minds for a moment. It's the usual abdication of agency; we're better people for not permitting this icky act, but consequences and externalities of that are out of sight out of mind/ an individual matter/ her personal responsibility etc etc.

I think most women do know what they're doing (well, except for those forced by their parents, husbands, community, are poor and less educated etc etc) and they weigh the decision very carefully. That would mean we should leave it up to them, I'd think.

Shayde on 3/7/2013 at 07:06

---

I can't believe that dethtoll is the only one who called you out on this disgusting example of sexism.
"It's cool guys, we'll totally listen to the little ladies' opinions in OUR decision about their bodies."

Vasquez on 3/7/2013 at 08:05

---

But it's not a kid when it's a 12-week fetus.



I don't think you even have to go very deep down, any idiot knows what abortion means. For some women it's clear they will keep the "oops"-baby, some women agonize over the decision and whatever they choose, they'll live with it as any adult with any big decision (the sentiment that ALL women weep their aborted fetuses for years and decades afterwards is a myth anyway, and the woman can get horribly depressed after having a baby, too). Some women don't see the fetus as a child, but it will become a very unwanted one without abortion, so they choose the abortion without even considering the alternative and have no regrets.

It's not like all women this and all women that. We're individuals, just like the men.

Queue on 3/7/2013 at 08:25

---

To quote Popeye: "I am what I am." "And that's all that I am."

My point is, from the beginning, that a legislative body has no right, nor should have the power, to act upon moral issues. Even if there exists a majority view regarding such issues, it's not within the scope of a how governing body should function. That is, of course, unless one lives under a dictatorship or police state. Otherwise, it's none of their fucking business.

A government's soul purpose is to ensure the continuation of a society. Its function is to keep the lights on, provide infrastructure, assist in times of need, safeguard the populace from threats both foreign and domestic, and ensure all citizens are treated equally. It's not to enact laws based upon any sort of morality, nor to govern purely by the idea "of majority rules so the rest of ya'll can shut the fuck up". At that point, it's no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people--it's a government for the sake of government. So when a minority must take drastic measures to make their voices heard within those sacred chambers government -- because those voices are being otherwise ignored -- it is not an act of terrorism (as so many within the Texas legislator and beyond have described it) it is an echo of an ideal that founded this fucked up country: A government exists and is in place to work for and respect its citizens, not the idea of government.

So that's why I stated in the first post that it's the "people's chambers". Yes, as you pointed out, order must be maintained out of respect for the office. But when respect is not reciprocated, such as in this case when a legislative body resorts to underhanded tactics and tricks just because they choose to ignore a minority (hell, maybe even a majority) viewpoint in order to advance a social/moral agenda, then open revolt must occur. Otherwise, who is working for who...and why?

mopgoblin on 3/7/2013 at 08:40

---

Oh thank fuck, there are other women in the thread now.


I for one always initiate sex with rigourous statistical analysis of the probable outcomes, yes. But seriously, you're now imagining a world where all women are well-educated about sex, where men are never manipulative, deceptive, abusive or predatory, and somehow in amongst all of this you've got the idea that women should never ever have sex with men unless we're willing to risk pregnancy. And as much as you all are doing to reaffirm that never having sex with men is indeed a top-notch plan, you fail to mention - accidentally, I'm sure - that male orgasms are also involved in conception (more directly than female orgasms, in fact!), and so too is male power. When you consider all of the men who manipulate and pressure their way out of wearing condoms, who covertly remove them, or who don't tell their partner when a condom breaks; who lie to uninformed partners about the risks of pregnancy, who use manipulation, abuse, drugs, or force to rape women; who impede women's access to information, contraception, and sterilisation, both directly and through structural means... well, unwanted pregnancies are in large part the fault of men and of men's sense of entitlement to women's bodies - in fact, the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to empower women to control our own bodies. This is one way you can tell that anti-choicers are ultimately more about disempowering women than about reducing abortion. But either way and regardless of context, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, just like consent to a kiss is not consent to sex.