First, go read Digby.
You know, these fetus fetishists really can’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that women can be independent sexual beings. They prefer to see women as perpetually innocent victims, manipulated into having sex so their boyfriends will cuddle with them after. They have to convince themselves that pair bonding is always more important to us than orgasms.
Nope. Not all of us, toots. Deal with it.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: It’s never been about abortion. It’s about sex. The fundies and wingnuts don’t like it, they’re shocked by women who have it voluntarily, and they absolutely refuse to believe we actually like it. (I guess it ruins the fun for some of these people if they don’t have to pistol-whip you into submission first. Doesn’t the Bible practically demand it?)
There’s an absolutely screwed-up, distorted power dynamic in this country. I thought I’d be able to sidestep it by living my life outside the mainstream, but apparently not. These nuts are determined to extend their voyeuristic little minds into my bedroom, and yours.
Just say no. No to their sermonizing, moralizing, judging, and faux concern. They need to deal with the fact that some of us honestly don’t care what they think about our sex lives, because we honestly don’t care about theirs.
Even though so many prominent fundies seem to prefer closet cases, S&M or kinksters to plain old vanilla fun in the sack, but hey, to each his or her own.
There. See how easy that was?
OMG, a post about sex, and no responses for five hours.
OK, I agree with Susy. Ditto about pot laws.
These uptight hypocrites just can’t stand to see
other people enjoying themselves. And BTW, happy 4/20 day.
Ok, reading Digby, as instructed. Done.
Sorry, I don’t agree. Generally, I agree that there is a lot of sexual morality fueling the anti-contraceptive movement. However, the abortion issue stands on its own two legs. Furthermore, the partial birth abortion seems a little more like infanticide than it does abortion.
The idea of restricting freedom to give freedom is quite sensible. I say that, Izquierdo, as someone who has smoked several pounds of pot in the past 15 years, and who cannot quit without exhausting the supply, even though I don’t really like it. Don’t people also smoke cigarettes partly with a feeling of the freedom, in spite of the addictive potential of the drug?
In the spirit of full disclosure, I’ll also add that I was the potential father in abortions that involved three girlfriends in my teenage years (actually for the third I was 20). Some women apparently think that restricting abortion is disrespectful to women, but as I reflect on my youth, I do not think I could have supported the decision to abort if I had proper respect for these ladies. Consequesntly, the relationships, which seemed quite serious at the time, did not last long after the abortions.
Too much has happened, especailly my marriage and four daughters, since then to consider regret. However, that time has also given me enough distance from my past to decide that I made mistakes, and that society helped me to make them. I can’t change my past, but now that I better understand the value of celibacy, that will be the central pillar of my teaching my children about sex.
Pandu, I used to be a midwife. I assure you there are times (not as rare as people seem to think) where a fetus dies in utero and presents a dangerous and often life-threatening situation for the mother. And yes, some of these times require the fetus to be removed. It’s quite similar to the situations where the growth of one conjoined twin is killing another, and surgery is performed to preserve the more viable life.
These are very difficult ethical situations, and they should be made between a woman and her doctor - not by the Republican leadership. (By the way, I doubt celibacy will solve this problem. Most of the D&E cases I’ve followed were of married woman, faced with the diagnosis of a dead or dying baby. These are not, by any normal definition, optional abortions. These were much-wanted pregnancies.)
I am well aware of the many levels of regret people feel about abortion, and that is for them to resolve on their own. In a land where separation of church and state is required, someone else’s inability to come to peace with their decisions should not dictate the law.
Finally, let me note that my spiritual beliefs differ from many others. That’s one of the reasons why we separate church and state - because otherwise, we’re left with a situation where the government is supposed to decide whose beliefs are the “right” ones. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want the government deciding for me or anyone else.
P.S. - I hate pot and I think it’s bad for people. But I don’t want you to be punished for smoking it.
Susie,
I’m somewhat confused by your description of the circumstances that the SCOTUS decision would impact. If a fetus dies in utero, in spite of attempts to preserve its life, it is not an abortion. Also, the law in question permits an abortion when necessary to preserve the mother’s life. I’m basing this on the relevant wikipedia articles, and assume they’re reasonably accurate.
If there is a question of having to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the baby, I think that would have to be done on an individual basis, considering whatever concerns that may be applicable to the specific situations.
For instance, for a woman near the end of her reproductive years, who has never given birth before, and who has a husband or family who could raise a baby, I would support the mother dieing a hero to save her baby. However, in a family such as mine, with four daughters ranging from under 1 year to 10 years, the death of their mother would be a devestating tragedy that would severely disrupt several lives, what to speak of the newborn who would grow up having to resist drowing in the inevitable guilt of having killed his or her mother. The SCOTUS would be unable to consider all these individual circumstances; but based on what I saw of the law in question, they’re not under the law’s jurisdiction.
In both situations, the consideration is how to best preserve life. Choice depends on life.
The pot example is useful to illustrate that limits to freedom can result in more actual freedom than often results from unrestrained freedom. Smoking pot in no way resembles or compares with sucking the brain out of a fetus in the birth canal.
I can understand your point about allowing the Republican-leaning SCOTUS making personal ethical decisions for the country. Personally I am somewhat befuddled by the idea of ethics in a country that unnecessarily kills some 8 billion animals for food each year. But if they’ve got some idea that life should be preserved, then I would not argue with that.
I am only free to say this because I was not aborted, when I could easily have been, considering that my parents got married only 3 months before I was born. What choice would I have had if they had decided to abort my life instead of getting married?
I guess this thread has been abandoned, but something else just came to mind.
Suppose a man and woman have sex with each other, both voluntarily (choice). The woman gets pregnant, and she decides she does not want to give birth. The man, however, wants the baby.
My children are related to me as much as they are to my wife. Similarly, the fetus in the woman belongs to the man as much as to the woman. Why, then, should the woman have the right to kill the fetus without (obviously) the fetus’ consent or the father’s consent? Is it only about the woman’s choice, to hell with everyone else?