Lovelyish

A rectal exam. That sounds exciting. I would have voted yes.

I love when senators waste time on legislation that they don’t expect to pass to make a clever point.

They are so mindful of the fact that they get paid by the public.

Yet women can get an abortion without the father’s consent. What if he wants that baby? Oh, well, it’s her body, so fuck him, and fuck the baby. I don’t see anything wrong with making women get an ultrasound before having an abortion.

I think that if men could get pregnant, there wouldn’t be any issues about abortion.

Maybe Senator Howell is intelligent, but not so anyone foolish enough to fall for the truly pernicious pro-abortion propaganda.  Senator Howell is being sexist while trying to legislate her hatred and disrespect for men, into law.

Forcing a doctor to sick his finger up his male patient’s ass is an act of man hating spite.

A sonogram is noninvasive and provides an image of the little person growing inside his mother’s nurturing womb.

And for that Senator Howell would have all men bend over, grab their ankles and take a finger up their fecally encrusted poop schute. How truly freakish.

@yourkbear@xanga - I don’t think you fully understand the intentions behind the bill. If the woman doesn’t want the baby, but the man does, should the woman be forced to carry it to term and give birth to the child?

@Saridactyl@xanga - Yep, you play, you pay. I don’t feel sorry for a woman who fools around and then regrets it. I don’t think banning abortion is right, but I think the father needs some rights too. If he doesn’t want the baby, he can’t force her to have an abortion, so why can she force him to not have that baby? If she doesn’t want it, she can sign over all custody rights when it’s born.

@Saridactyl@xanga - The issue with abortion isn’t who can or cannot get pregnant. It’s about murdering a totally innocent individual under the completely bogus and pretentious “woman’s right to choose.”

@yourkbear@xanga – @Saridactyl@xanga – @sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga -  Hey guys.  Let’s keep this discussion focused on the topic at hand: gender equity in reproductive rights.

If you’d like us to create a separate post to debate pro-life/pro-choice matters (or paternal rights), we’re happy to do so.  Let’s keep this post on topic though, otherwise every post that touches on pro-life/pro-choice matters will end up with the exact same comments.

That amendment didn’t even make sense.  Unnecessary treatments, so someone can get medicine that could aid in the creating of life… as an aswer for “unnecessary” procedures so someone can end a life?  What the hell is this, bizarro world?

Listen, if the pro-choice crowd is all about rights, then every pro-choice woman needs to register on a national database and be prohibited from EVER filing for child support.  EVER.  By not supporting such a measure, every pro-choice woman is actually a sexist.

@lovelyish - Y’all should have seen by now that that is exactly what will happen. It’s like it’s an incendiary issue or something.

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - You’re adorable.

@lovelyish - I’m not talking about pro-life/pro-choice; I’m talking about MEN NOT HAVING A SAY IN THE LIFE OF THEIR BABY IF THE MOTHER WANTS AN ABORTION. How is that NOT gender inequality?

@lovelyish - Senator Howell’s legislation focuses on degrading men. If you wish to write a post concerning women’s reproductive rights, then by all means, go ahead.

@WaitingToShrug@xanga - Sure, there are a few people who start flamewars when certain topics come up.  But if they can’t stay on topic, we reserve the right to block them for a day or two.

@yourkbear@xanga - I happen to agree with you that ideally, men should have a say in the life of their baby – and in most healthy relationships, they do.  If you’d like to write a post about how men should have more legal rights in the life of their unborn babies, we’d love to see a post from you here:

http://www.lovelyish.com/submit-post?user=lovelyish

@lovelyish - I just want to know how paternal rights doesn’t fall under “gender inequality.”

@yourkbear@xanga - You are correct that paternal rights falls under gender inequality.  I didn’t mention gender inequality though – I mentioned gender equity in reproductive rights.  Specifically, I was referring to the two examples of reproductive rights given in the post: getting an abortion versus getting a prescription for erectile dysfunction.

In any case, we welcome your extended thoughts on paternal rights in the form of a blog post.  As for me, I’ve got a busy afternoon of writing and editing posts ahead of me so I will get back to it.

@lovelyish - Fine.

Dear Poster,
Inability to get it up is not in the least bit similar to having an abortion, so…this senator is dumb. Plus, as others have said, an ultrasound is not invasive, and a rectal exam obviously is. ALSO, people are just afraid seeing the baby will change women’s minds about the abortion.

@lovelyish - I fail to see how my comment was off-topic. Care to elaborate?

I would have voted yes. 

What about the fathers’ responsibility? Everybody wants their rights but not their responsibilities. If he wanted a baby, he should have said so BEFORE the act that he knew had the possibility of creating one. If he didn’t want a baby, he should have made that clear, too, and taken appropriate measures. And making the woman have the baby and sign over her rights to the man? Okay, then maybe he should have a rectal exam once a month while she’s pregnant.

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I take it you’ve never had a vaginal sonogram? It’s torture dear.@yourkbear@xanga – Often, these same stupid men who say they’ll take care of their child, run off and do jack shit when said child is born. 

@yourkbear@xanga - Actually, it’s called family court.  If the man finds out the woman is pregnant with his child, he can ask the court to protect their child and she would not be able to get an abortion if the court ruled in his favor.

Roe V Wade doesn’t work in all cases, donchaknow

@MoonFaeEyryan@xanga - And that means no man should have parental rights at all?

@SasGal@xanga - IF the court rules in his favor. But, that depends on the political and religious views of others.

@yourkbear@xanga - It depends on how much you pay for your attorney. 

@MoonFaeEyryan@xanga - I’ve seen the sonogram given that shows the baby in womb. The sensing instrument is passed over the woman’s tummy.

@yourkbear@xanga - This

I think this was a bit tasteless on the senator’s part.    

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Actually, early in the pregnancy and for certain reasons later in the pregnancy, they may have to do a vaginal ultrasound. They insert an ultrasound “wand” into the vagina (thus “vaginal”) to get a closer look at the baby (or the cervix if they are concerned about the possibility that the cervix could be effacing/dilating too early or whatever). However, I still don’t think that compares to forced rectal exams.

@yourkbear@xanga - Having a doctor stick his finger up your butt is more an assault on dignity than anything else. And that is what makes Senator Howell’s legislation so contemptuous. She proposed her law out of man-hating spite.

The purpose of the sonogram in this case is not to sexually assault and degrade women, it’s purpose is to provide the patient with a greater understanding of her situation.

Being able to make informed decisions is at the heart of good medical practice.

@yourkbear@xanga - I did read your comments. I was addressing your term “force rectal exams.” A prostate exam takes less than a minute. 

So it’s not like being subjected to treatment from Dr. Mengele. Senator Howell knows that. She’s just being spiteful and that is a terribly destructive trait in a legislator.

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I did not argue that this amendment is NOT stupid and spiteful. If you had read any of my other comments, you’d know that. I agree that it is ridiculous. I was simply explaining that not all ultrasounds are done on the outside on the abdomen.

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I know it takes only a moment. I was simply saying that legally requiring unnecessary rectal exams does not equate forced (i.e. legally required) ultrasounds, even if they are vaginal ultrasounds.

@yourkbear@xanga - I think your argument is persuasive because your claims are very clear and easily understood.

@yourkbear@xanga - so would you support a woman being forced to abort if that’s what the father wanted?  giving him rights in that regard goes both ways, you know.  

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - No, it doesn’t, and, no, I wouldn’t. Either parent can take care of a baby alone or with someone else if one wishes to do so. 

@yourkbear@xanga - but the point is that if you want to give a man the right to prevent a woman from having an abortion, there’s no good reason he can’t have the right to force her to have an abortion against her will.  you’re arguing that men do not have as much say in terms of parenthood.  a man who would lose a child to an abortion is just as disenfranchised as a man who would be forced into being a parent.  so if one deserves to have as much of a say, so does the other.  

you can’t pick and choose what legal measures you support in order to save the most fetuses.  that’s hypocritical.  

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - No, he wouldn’t be “forced” to be a parent. He can sign over his legal rights and walk away. There are even ways to get out of child support, but, hell, let’s pass a law that says parents who give up their rights to their children don’t have to pay child support.

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - a medical procedure is an assault on dignity?

@yourkbear@xanga - so then you aren’t really for more rights for men.  you just want to create rules that make it harder for women to have abortions.  nice try.  

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Sure, whatever you say.

Pregnancy isn’t a disease. 

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga -  How is that degrading men? Wouldn’t it be the same for the women then?.. OH WAIT… This is AMERICA and in AMERICA…. The men get treated better…….

I think thats hilarious and kudos for her, even though the bill didnt go through. Its about EQUALITY, which many of these people do not understand apparently. Keep your opinions to yourself if your going to talk down to people for THEIR OPINIONS

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga -  I realized something from the other posts and comments you write… We basically share the same opinions! lol, I completely agree with what you have to say with this issue.

@bbanmen420@xanga - The next time you are out and about pull your pants down, grab your ankles and ask one of the men standing close by to stick their middle finger up your poop schute with a good bit of gusto.

Then ask yourself if you feel degraded. If you don’t feel degraded, you just don’t understand men.

So, who’s going to pay for the ultra sounds?

Secondly, I guess my question is why would a man decide what decision would be made for a woman’s body?  It’s like punitive judges who want rape to be proved in a court of law before a young girl would be granted an abortion.  Even if you all got your way and the law went backwards, it wouldn’t change a tinker’s damn the number of abortions performed yearly.  We’d just see more maternal mortality, along with the infant mortality, which is all anyone seems to care about.

Of course she never expected the bill to pass, and I’m sure she didn’t want it to, because the idea of it is ridiculous.  And so is the idea of making women get an ultrasound before an abortion.  What purpose would the ultrasound serve?  To make sure it’s there?  That’s pretty fucking stupid.  If the purpose is in fact to make sure the woman still wants an abortion when she sees the baby, then that’s really slimy and manipulative.  Live and let live.

Nothing is ever a simple matter of right and wrong.

What the senator was trying to get across was the unnecessary work a woman is required to go through to have an abortion.  Woman aren’t dumb; they know what is growing inside of them, and forcing them to have an ultrasound is an insult on their intelligence.  Some of these women were raped, by strangers or by men they know, and some of them face health risks if their pregnancy continues. It is another way that the government wants control over women’s bodies.  A woman needs a prescription to get Plan B, a pill that (although some pharmacies refuse to sell it) would prevent pregnancy, and thus abortions, but does not require a man to have a prescription to buy condoms or Viagra.

When men are granted the gift of being able to conceive and carry a human being in their bodies then this will totally make some sense.

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Unnecessarily forcing a instrument up a woman’s vagina for a sonogram (yes, it is internal because most abortions are done in the first trimester when it is difficult to get a clear picture with a noninvasive sonogram) is obviously only being done out of spite for women.

Also, what a person feels is invasive is entirely up to the individual.  Personally, I hated having ultrasounds because I hate my stomach being touched and found it worse than any of the internal exams I went through while pregnant. 

@NightCometh@xanga - No one claims it is a disease though it is a medical condition.  Your point is not very clear.

@snarkius@xanga - In the case of abortion where a human life is being snuffed out, the sonogram is justified because it presents the woman with a more complete understanding of the life growing within her.

Senator Howell’s legislation debases this informative and life-protecting procedure by equating it with a rectal assault on men.

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I’ve had several rectal exams. It’s not degrading; it’s a useful medical procedure that lasts less than a minute. 

@AbnormalButSane@xanga - Different strokes for different folks and thank you for sharing. Maybe you enjoy having a stranger shove their finger up your anus and do a little probing. But most men I know find the prostate exam to be distasteful.

haha yes! 

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - If a man is suffering from erectile dysfunction, it is irresponsible to not have a rectal exam before dispensing medication because one of the causes of ED is cancer of the prostate which is discovered in the earliest stages by an anal exam.  So in theory, this amendment would actually have saved men’s lives.

That is just like saying a women gets assaulted when she gets a pap smear to check for cervical cancer. 

Actually, while I don’t believing in forcing medical tests on people, it really would be a good idea for guys to get those tests if they have erectile dysfunction, totally independent of whatever happens with this bill.
Erectile dysfunction can be a sign of serious health issues, like heart or prostate diseases.   Her amendment might be an invasion of privacy, but it might also save some lives.

As far as the sonogram goes:
Her amendment obviously draws attention to the fact that it’s ridiculous.   Forcing a medical test on someone who wants an elective procedure/medication, when doctors know that this test is not necessary for safely performing the procedure/prescribing the medication, is clear government intrusion into a person’s life.
It’s obviously an attempt to guilt trip women out of abortions, as a sonogram is completely unnecessary for performing an abortion.

To then take it even a step further and insist that women pay for this added required procedure is straight up insanity.   If it’s not illegal to require a test without covering the cost then it should be.   That would be like requiring kids go to school until age 16 but not making public education available and at the same time not offering vouchers for private school.

Does anyone know if the amendment requires a woman to watch the sonogram, or if they can have it done and just close their eyes and look away?   If they actually have to watch it’s even more unreasonable and ridiculous, as there is no medical test where watching your doctor do it aides in your health

@grim_truth@xanga - being pro-choice means you think women should be allowed to choose an abortion, not that women should always get abortions under all circumstances.   A woman might be pro-choice, but choose for herself to never get an abortion because she believes it’s wrong (you can think something is wrong but should be legal, in fact many pro-choice men and women feel this way), and therefore have a baby.   There’s nothing sexist or hypocritical about that.
Men, by virtue of being born without a uterus, should not suddenly be exempt from child care duties.   Men get to have half the fun of making the baby, they should have to do half the work in raising it,.   That’s not sexist, in fact it’s the exact opposite of sexist

By your logic, a married pro-choice woman, who has a baby both she and her husband wants, and then asks for child support when he divorces her and her single income cannot support the child they both wanted and made, is somehow sexist.

@snarkius@xanga - Maybe you should do a post about erectile dysfunction and submit it to Healthkicker.

ha! the right wing is on a full out attack on women’s healthcare, not just abortion but also coverage for breast cancer exams. i don’t understand how any woman could vote for them. then again there’s Michelle Bachmann Syndrome….obey your husband. 

@yourkbear@xanga - what if he doesn’t want the baby?   Should he be able to force her to get an abortion?   If she wants it and he doesn’t he’ll be stuck paying child support.   If the issue of father’s rights were just about that and not about being anti-abortion this would be just as viable an option as giving him the ability to force her to continue with the pregnancy.

In the end, only the man or the woman can have the power to decide in this situation, because you cant compromise here and have half an abortion, so either she gets to decide what happens to her body or he does.
Because it’s her body and not his, I think it’s more fair to give her the power to make the decision.   It sucks for a guy who wants differently than the girl, but like I said, if compromise were possible I’d be all for giving both of them equal rights here, but it’s not.

Well, is there an actual point for the ultrasound that is important to add for the abortion procedure, or is it just to be controlling as a “preventative measure” to discourage abortions? Personally, I’d prefer a female get it done as soon as possible, so it’s less likely the baby can feel pain yet. 

@MoonFaeEyryan@xanga - OH MY GOD. Is that the type of ultrasound they require? I figured it was the typical one that just goes over your belly. UGH, that’s fucking wrong. The government has no right to order forced rape… and yet actual rapists get to sit in jail and watch tv and surf the internet. The whole world’s gone to Hell, but how are you?

@DrummingMediocrity@xanga - as far as I can find, there is absolutely no medical reason to do it (and if there were why would need a law requiring it be done? doctors would already be doing it), and this bill, at least at one point, also included the rule that the ultra sound include listening to the heart beat, which is definitely not medically necessary (why do you need to know if the soon-to-be-dead fetus has a healthy heart?).   There might be situations where a doctor would order one for medical reasons, like checking exactly how far along the pregnancy is (the pill abortion is only recommended for early pregnancies, and some states have laws about how late you can wait), but this law would require it in all situations.  

@jenessa1889@xanga - I feel like this. Whether the baby is yet at a point where someone will label it ‘human’ or not, based either on DNA or actual development is besides the point. So long as it is in the woman’s body, nobody has a right to force her to do or not do anything with it. Like, stay the fuck away from my body. I just don’t knwo why people think they have a right to legislate ANYTHING to do with that, especially men. Who the fuck do these men think they are? 

@DrummingMediocrity@xanga - i agree.  i come at ethics from a utilitarian perspective, meaning the right thing to do is the greatest good for the greatest number.   to me whether or not it’s “human” yet is not nearly as relevant as the amount of pain avoided by having abortion be legal.   It’s so beneficial to women that I would need to be sure that the fetus is a thing capable of experiencing pain and that it is in fact severely painful to be aborted, for me to consider that abortion is worse than forcing women to relinquish control of their bodies, and that making it illegal would actually prevent any of this pain (I don’t think it does, making it illegal will probably just mean women will get illegal abortions, not stop having them)

@jenessa1889@xanga - They can legally look away. (I had an article open in another tab, but have closed it now. Really don’t feel like finding it again, lol, but the information is out there if you care to Google.) Because a woman can legally look away, it was also proposed that the results have to be read aloud by the physician. 

@Grtt@xanga - at that point can she stick her fingers in her ears and hum loudly?   lol what a ridiculous bill

What “results” would they read anyway?   “Yup, it’s a fetus kicking, not a giant fart.”   If they would actually be reporting size, stage of development, gender, etc. then it’s obviously not medical but emotional.   In fact, there’s not really any test a doctor can do where you need to know the results, only he does.   Of course, no one should trust their doctor that much lol, but still you don’t ever technically need to know for him to fix it.

@jenessa1889@xanga - lol I think by ‘results’ they meant like display the image and describe it out loud, like ultrasound techs do with other pregnancies, I guess? I dunno. Eyes closed, fingers in your ears and humming sounds like the way to go.

@Grtt@xanga - lol not having that happen at all sounds like the way to go to me actually haha.   but I guess if it’s that or submit to this nonsense that would be my preferred method of protest.   now the question is just how to effectively protest that added cost.   I vote just write a check for the amount minus the average cost of an ultra sound, and if they try to collect take that shit all the way to the supreme court

@Fatal_Lightning@xanga - I wouldn’t call that ability a gift. That sounds more like a curse. Eww! Childfree is the way to be. 

That said, that was a clever amendment. Hopefully anti-choicers get the picture that this “requirement” is equally nonsensical. 

@StatelessPilot@revelife - They must have gotten the point on at least a sub-conscious level because the few that commented seem pretty pissed off.  I do not have high hopes of the point reaching a conscious level though.

In politics, it is all about tactic, so I applaud this woman. The best defense is a good offense, not the other way around, with political issues.

If men could get pregnant, there would be drive-through abortion clinics.

I’m still surprised a black man has become president before a white woman in America. I completely support Obama and love that he won, I’m just mentioning that to make a point on how much America distrusts females to lead in positions of political power. The double standard and oppression on women needs to end the the supposed best country on earth.

@jenessa1889@xanga - No, what would be sexist, is a pro-choice woman who feels women have the right to not take care of a child she helped create keeps a baby for herself, but makes the man pay child support.  By doing so, she is saying that fully, she and she alone has the right to not deal with that child if she were to have chosen to do so.  All the while, the father would have absolutely no choice whatsoever.  That, is indeed sexist. 

To clarify… let’s say the couple you were speaking of, had that one child.  She carried it to term.  He’s pro-life, she’s pro-choice.  They divorce, she files child support against him.  He pays.  She finds a new man, another pro-life guy.  She gets pregnant.  He wants the child and offers to raise it all by himself.  She aborts is. 

The second man had absolutely no say whatsoever in it.  That is indeed sexist. 

Saying women have the right to not deal with the child when they have an equal part in the fun making it, but men have no say is absolutely, positively sexist. 

@StatelessPilot@revelife - You think life is a curse?

@Fatal_Lightning@xanga - I meant being charged with birthing children. That job sounds like it sucks hairy monkey balls. Ouch!!!

But since you asked, yes I do believe that life is a curse. This world is a cruel, mean place and life sucks. “Enjoying life” is just a matter of making it suck less. I sure wish I was never born and I think it’s disgusting to bring new human beings into such a cruel, mean place, and this world would no doubt be a better place without our species invading it. We’re the most useless, worthless species on the face of the planet. 

@grim_truth@xanga - on some level, I see your point.   She gets the power to choose here, he has none, and that definitely sucks and is an unequal distribution of power.   However, unequal distribution of power does not automatically mean things are sexist.

On some things, men and women are identical.   Giving woman more power over the kitchen is sexist because it assumes women are better cooks without evidence.   Giving men more power over household financial decisions is sexist because it assumes men are better accountants without evidence.   When both genders, on average, are no different in skill for a task, it is sexist to dictate that only one gender get to do it.
However, men are taller, and therefore make significantly better basketball players on average, and there is therefore nothing sexist about creating the WNBA.   Women are unable to compete with men in sports, on average, so the only way they’ll get to play is with a women’s-only league.   similarly, because they’re shorter and therefore can’t dunk as often, there’s nothing sexist about the fact that the WNBA is significantly less popular.

Similarly, the genders are not equal in their reproductive abilities.   If both got pregnant and both got the exact same physical and emotional results from an unwanted pregnancy, it would make no sense to give one gender the ultimate power to decide.   Instead, we are in a situation where women inevitably get way more than 50% of the physical burden of bearing a child, and they get way more than 50% of the burden of raising the child (men almost never fight for full custody in court).   therefore, it is not sexist to give them way more than 50% of the power in this situation.

Okay, so a 75/25 split of power might be truly approaching equality.   If that were possible I’d love to do it, but it isn’t.   When an unwanted pregnancy happens a baby must either be aborted or not.   There is no in-between compromise for when the two parties disagree.   What we are stuck with is a situation in which one of the two people must be given 100% of the power to decide, and therefore the other party has no say.   Because it’s one or the other, and the woman has significantly more responsibility in raising the baby, I say giving her that power is slightly unfair to the man, but it’s way less unfair than giving him the power would be to her.

If we got rid of child support for pro-choice women who elect to have babies, yes it gives him more freedom but it subtracts from her freedom to choose because without child support she may not be able to care for the baby.   Perhaps she should give it up for adoption in that case that she opposes abortion (though she’s legally for it) and can’t afford it; well now she’s going through the physical and monetary cost of pregnancy with no benefit to herself and he got off consequence-free.   In child support situations every freedom we grant one gender subtracts from the freedom of the other, so someone gets screwed no matter what.   Because child support payments are often small and easy to avoid paying, and they pale in comparison to the temporal, emotional, and monetary cost of raising a child, I don’t think they are unreasonable requests.
Without child support, sex is 100% consequence free for men, but pro-choice women still have consequences from it (even if they choose to abort that’s a serious medical procedure and emotional pressure from others and the community not to do it).   So again we end up with a situation where women are getting 100% of the consequences, and the men get none, or it gets spread out a little bit at least by child support.   Because in this situation we can spread the consequences, unlike with abortion where only one person can decide, it makes sense to do so.

Additionally, when one approaches things from a utilitarian perspective, rights are an important part of our legal framework (utilitarianism is hard to make into law) but they are not moral imperatives.   For a utilitarian it is totally okay to give one group more freedom than another as long as it makes the world a better place on average.

So basically:
-Because the genders are in fact different when it comes to reproductive abilities and responsibilities, giving them different amounts of power over the situation is not necessarily sexist.   Sexism instead arises when genders are treated differently in situations where they are in fact equal.
-Because the physics of abortion do not allow compromise between people who disagree, one group must inevitably have 100% of the power, so that should be the group which faces the most consequences from the outcome.   Yes, that will mean the other group has some consequences and no power, which sucks, but there’s nothing we can do about it
-Because our court system, and perhaps general gender differences in nurturing behaviors, dictate that women almost always are tasked with raising the child, the situation is already unfair to women so asking men to also have a consequences is not necessarily more unfair
-Because letting men off the hook for unwanted pregnancies leaves them 100% consequence free (they don’t even have to know the kid exists) but letting women off the hook through abortion does not eliminate all consequences for her, again we are in a situation where the genders are naturally unequal, so giving one more power is not necessarily unfair.   Even with child support what men are being asked to do is not equal to what the women are being asked to do.   If one group being required to do more is sexist then letting men not pay child support is also sexist.

If we lived in a perfect world where both genders were equal in all things and compromise were possible then I would love to award men half the power and half the consequences of pregnancy, but the world we live in has already determined that women get almost all the consequences of pregnancy and almost all of the responsibility of raising a child, so giving them more power is not sexist, it’s trying to balance a naturally occurring unfairness to one sex.

@jenessa1889@xanga - you contradicted yourself.  You said, since women on avereage are not as good as basketball players and such, they don’t play in pro sports as much.  (though those barriers are slowly falling thanks to sports like NASCAR, and yes it’s a sport lol)  You said, because of that, creating the WNBA isn’t sexist.  I agree up to a point.  Would the WNBA allow a man to play in the league?  No, not because of his abilities, but because of his gender.  If a woman were to have the abilities to play in the NBA (and that day will eventually come) it would be sexist to not allow her to play.  And I promise, as soon as it happens, and a woman is cut from the NBA because of her gender and not her playing ability, that I will comment and blog about the sexism of it. 

Now, to the true contradiction…  Women, naturally, are not better atheletes, not sexist, just natural fact.  Yet, legally, they have the same right to apply and try out for the NBA.  Because otherwise, it would be sexist. 

So, even though men and women are different athletically, they have the same legal rights.  But because men and women are different in reproductive status, there’s different rights.  It’s a contradiciton, and rights based not on abilities, but gender.

“If we got rid of child support for pro-choice women who elect to have babies, yes it gives him more freedom but it subtracts from her freedom to choose because without child support she may not be able to care for the baby”

But she would have the choice to work more, or to give it a shot or not.  Income is indeed a choice.  We choose the career paths we take, we also choose at what point in our lives we become sexually active. 

The phsyics of abortion do indeed allow for compromise.  The father could agree to cover any and all medical expenses. 

But all in all, legally speaking reproduction is the ONLY area where rights are based on physical attributes, when in a sane world, they need not be.  Sorry, I still believe if a woman doesn’t want a child, and she takes EVERY precaution, she will not get pregnant.  Chastity belts anyone (ok, just kidding on that one lol)

I did like your response, it was one of the best, well-thought out ones I have come across, ever, let alone here on Xanga.  I appreciate debate that forces one to think, assess the data, and reassess a position.  It’s quite refreshing.  But I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

But I think you are one of the folks who would agree with me, instead of focusing on abortion rights, we really ought to be focusing on why there’s so many unwanted pregnancies to begin with. 

Because abortions and erectile dysfunction are completely the same thing, right? 

@Garistotle@xanga - both are legal, optional, and related to reproduction, so it’s about as close to the male-equivalent as we can get

@grim_truth@xanga - I don’t think I contradicted myself at all, or that both leagues need to have one-gender-only rules or no gender-related rules for it to be fair.   The WNBA is female-only because women are, on average, worse basketball players, and a women’s-only league is the only way they’ll get to play.   The NBA is the best male players and the WNBA is the best female players.   If a man cannot compete within his own gender that doesn’t mean it’s sexist for women to keep him out of the WNBA.  If mediocre male players are allowed into the WNBA then that defeats the purpose, as then it’s the best women… and the guys who didn’t make the cut lol.   On the other hand, if a woman is so good that she can compete with the best male players, I do think it would be at the very least unfair (I don’t know if I’d call it sexist here, but unfair sure) to keep her out.   Men’s chances of playing in the NBA would not be threatened by women being allowed to play up if they’re good enough, as very very few women would ever reach that level.

I think the analogy starts to break down when we get into legal rights with sports, as one’s chosen career path is very different from an unexpected pregnancy.   So I don’t think having different standards applied to the two issues is necessarily contradictory.

I definitely would not call income a choice.   Yes, well educated people can choose to be underemployed and take a job they’re overqualified for that has less responsibilities, or elect to work at a company that will pay them less on principle, but at the same time many people were born into situations where it was significantly harder, maybe even impossible, to go on to get the kind of education necessary to get a high paying job.   I’m thinking we’re just not on the same page here, as I’m assuming you’re not saying poor starving people chose to be that way.   Our choices can certainly makes us poor when we were rich, but when you start out poor there aren’t many choices available that can make you rich.   Obviously if getting out of poverty were as easy as making the right choices everyone would do it

The guy can offer to pay for the pregnancy, sure, but he can’t offer to carry the baby.    I meant that they can’t choose to halfway have an abortion.   She’s either going to carry the baby to term or she won’t.   If he gets to choose there, then he gets to force her to be pregnant.   If she gets to choose, she gets to force him to be a father or not.   The costs can be shared, but the baby’s life cannot.   Eventually, a decision of “keep it” or “abort” has to be made, and if they can’t agree one of them will get what they want and one won’t.

Obviously if women don’t want a child and they take the precaution of abstinence, provided they do not get raped they will not get pregnant.   However, I really don’t see that as a viable option for most people.   Biologists treat sex as a primary need like food and water, even though we can live without it, because the average person’s brain acts like they can’t.   Even in abstinence-only programs, 90% of people will have premarital sex, and I really doubt the significant majority of them want a pre-marital child.   So unless we’re going to claim only 10% of the population is truly capable of foresight and planning, we have to admit that abstinence as birth control is a great idea but not an easy task.
On the other hand, combining methods of birth control and using them properly makes the chances of unwanted pregnancy so close to 0  that I’d consider those women to still be very responsible people.   However, not everyone has access to birth control, and not everyone has the education to know when and how to use it.   In polls, a scary number of American teens report that you can’t become pregnant your first time, that if you pull out you can’t become pregnant, that if she’s on top she can’t become pregnant, that if you do it in a hot tub you can’t get pregnant, that if she douches after she can’t get pregnant, etc. etc. holy crap etc.
These people are idiots, sure, but I don’t think that means they deserve to be saddled with unwanted children… in fact I’d really prefer that they never have children lol
I think a better way to treat the problem than shaming them and forcing babies on them is to ask ourselves “how did we fail our teens so badly that they think stupid shit like this?” and seek to fix it

I appreciate your response as well, and I’m flattered, thank you.   I totally agree that honest debate is refreshing and interesting.   While we do have to agree to disagree, I wouldn’t want you to think that I don’t get what you believe and why, or that I don’t think it’s well-reasoned… I just still think I’m right =p

Totally agree that avoiding unwanted pregnancies is the first place we should start to avoid abortion (obviously, pro-choice or not, we all think less abortions would be nice).   The two countries with the lowest abortion rates offer free abortions with almost no legal restrictions, and our rate is much higher than theirs, so I don’t think the legal stuff has a very good track record of preventing abortion.   However, if there are less unwanted pregnancies there are necessarily less abortions, and pro-life people (except some fringe nutjobs who think we have a job to reproduce as much as possible) agree that unwanted pregnancies are bad if even the mother doesn’t abort, so it’s a great common ground for both sides to come together and the most logical place to start at preventing abortion.

I’m honestly sick of the government telling people what to do with their bodies. The government shouldn’t support or ban abortions. ANY abortion related laws (safety regulations aside) shouldn’t be even discussed outside the context of services provided by government funded agencies.

@yourkbear@xanga - My issue with it is not so much making the woman get an ultrasound beforehand, but making the woman pay for the ultrasound. Seriously, women often get abortions because they don’t have the financial security to raise a baby, how are they going to find the money for an ultrasound if they don’t have health insurance?

@Saridactyl@xanga - If men got pregnant, abortions would be free and easy to get.  Tampons, pads, and birth control would arrive in the mail on the first of each month for free.  How dare men have to pay all that money for something they didn’t choose.  Totally would be true.  

@yourkbear@xanga - Wow, sounds like you hate women.  If you play, you pay, no?  So, if you’re a guy who sleeps with some chick without “morals” and she aborts your baby, isn’t that paying for playing too?  Why must only the woman be held accountable?  If men don’t want women aborting their babies, perhaps men should do a better job of picking who they sleep with.

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Wrong!  Early pregnancies may require that an ultrasound wand be stuck up the vagina.  Kinda same as a rectal exam, just a different hole. 

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - You do understand most women have had rectal exams, no?  And you cannot possibly act like a rectal exam is more degrading than a vaginal exam.  Please, grow a vagina, get it examined, and see how degrading it is.  They are both medical exams and neither one is any more fun.  

@TiredSoVeryTired@xanga - Sorry but there is no comparison between a vaginal ultrasound and a prostate exam. Not in kind. Not in purpose.

And that is what makes Senator Howell’s legislation so hateful, so sexist and so reprehensible. If a man had done what Howell had done, he would have been driven out of politics.

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Sorry, but I’ve have a rectal exam and a vaginal ultrasound and they were very comparable.  In fact, in my case the rectal exam was quicker.  For women, they may not be checking the prostate gland but in fact there are things through the anal orifice they can check by pressing into the area behind (or in front of???) the vagina but through the anus.  That is quite much like a prostate exam.  And it is certainly not pleasant at all!  Neither is a vaginal ultrasound which I’ve had two of for different purposes.  Sticking anything surgical into either hole is no ball of wax.  You don’t have a vagina so you cannot compare. 

As far as this bill, the senator had no intention of forcing men into any kind of exam and smart people know that.  However, when it comes to viagra and erectile dysfunction, I am sure a prostate exam is a good idea.  Same as a vaginal exam would be for women having sexual issues.  Common sense… prostate gland is involved in the sexual response, good idea to check it before prescribing medication when it could be part of the problem. An ultrasound is not needed to be seen by the patient for an abortion to surgically occur.  The purpose of this bill was only to shame women who were seeking abortion.  And it’s not the government’s job to shame people for choosing a legal option.

@TiredSoVeryTired@xanga -  Justice, propriety, kind and purpose, are not derived from the feelings you get when various objects are shoved up your vagina and your rectum.

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I thought this too until I actually got an ultrasound.  I got an IUD inserted and they had to stick a wand in my vagina to see it was where it was supposed to be.  

@womanimal@xanga - @jenessa1889@xanga - Well said!

@sWeeTasCanDy79@xanga - You have to have a prescription to get Plan B, now?

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - You make it sound as if going to a doctor, laying on your back, and having a stranger stick metal utensils, probes, swabs, and fingers in your vagina is not ” degrading” or uncomfortable. 

@TiredSoVeryTired@xanga - Makes sense to me!

Fantastic amendment! Major ups for Senator Janet Howell! We desperately need more like her. Thanks for posting this.

@merquryd@xanga - If it’s done for legitimate medical purposes it may feel degrading but it is not. It’s just an awkward medical procedure.

But Senator Howell turns an awkward medical procedure into a man-hating, man-degrading, act of revenge.

That’s a perversion of medicine by a politician who has no consciences.

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Exactly… especially if someone has decided an ultrasound wand needs to be shoved up your vagina so you can that you’re aborting a baby.  That’s not at all kind.  

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - So, isn’t that sort of what they’re doing in the first place, yanno, turning an awkward medical procedure into a degrading, pro-life act of bullying?

@merquryd@xanga - Who is “they” and what are you talking about?

@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Sorry.  ”They” being the original authors of the bill.  You said Senator Howell was turning a rectal exam into a degrading act of revenge.  I was saying the original bill was doing something similar, turning an ultrasound into a degrading act of bullying.

@merquryd@xanga - Showing the mother her unborn baby is an act of mercy.