Women's Rights and Their Bodies

[ModernArtist25]

OK. Women's rights on this matter are a negative for you then; you wish they didn't have them?

 

There are many actions that we might consider immoral, but that doesn't mean we don't have the right. If a woman decides to kill a fetus whose brain is developed to the point where it can feel pain, it is her choice. What is a "right" anyway? Is that similar to a rule that we make up to better suit our lives? Do we have the right to abuse and torture non-human animals so we can eat meat? Do we have the right to force a metal electric ejaculator to a male cow's anus so he can produce sperm, later on to inseminate to a female cow so we have the luxury to eat dairy products?

[StringJunky]

. And make no mistake, it really is about judging the morality of women as so far no propositions have been brought forward to fully support the child.

In what sense?

 

It has just occurred to me that I have gone into this discussion under the context it was myself that helped create the pregnancy.; unwittingly or not. I want a say in the destiny of that pregnancy. If I'm not involved then I don't have the right to tell the woman what she must do.

Edited November 13, 2016 by StringJunky

[iNow]

If I'm not involved then I don't have the right to tell the woman what she must do.

I agree with this, but countless millions of our fellow citizens desire for government to act by proxy and do exactly that on our and their behalves.

[StringJunky]

I agree with this, but countless millions of our fellow citizens desire for government to act by proxy and do exactly that on our and their behalves.

In these sorts of discussions it's advisable to ask what our agendas are. For some reason, prior to my edit in my last post, I was reminded of an oft-spoken question by a social worker I was assigned to during my drug rehabilitation days in our many discussions on societal issues. She would ask "...and what personal agenda are you working from?". It makes a big difference what answers you come up with.

Edited November 13, 2016 by StringJunky

[Sirona]

I find a judgement call from moral superiority deeply troubling. It implies that we can take away the right of an individual on the most private matter based on how we judge a person. "Obviously someone who goes through repeat abortion is making bad judgement calls. so we should take her rights away and limit those of others". Normally this would only be justifiable if someone may get harmed.

And again, at the early stages of pregnancy I do not see it happening. Just remember that many mechanisms contraception do not prevent fertilization, but simply create an unfavorable environment for the pregnancy to proceed.

 

So what does it leave us? It is not that much about officials making decisions on women, after all, they are the extension of the will of society. So we impose limits because once there is potential of life and then we argue that because someone contributed sperm will should also have a say in it. If we enshrine this legally, what does it tell about us as a society? That we value a person and give the rights only to waive them once pregnancy sets in? That a woman has the moral obligation to stay chaste in order not to fall into the trap? That a man that arguably would also have made a bad decision suddenly gets to decide how it is going to pan out for the woman?

 

I appreciate that posters here do not think that the stance is inherent misogynist. However, it is hard to overlook the significant power imbalance in the situation. The discussion is entirely focused on our ability to take women's right away. And make no mistake, it really is about judging the morality of women as so far no propositions have been brought forward to fully support the child.

I couldn't agree more, Charon. What inherently perturbs me about the responses to this topic is, as you put it so eloquently, that is negatively judging the morality of women. Earlier I mentioned my reluctance to delve into this topic because from my experience, arguments involving women's rights to their body become about controlling her sexuality through the judgement of her scruples.

 

A few of you were alarmed by my stance that I do not see the relevance of having one or five abortions. As far as I am concerned, a woman either has the rights to her body, or she doesn't; saying that a woman is entitled to one abortion but not three or five just means that her rights are not absolute and as Charon pointed out, can be taken away.

 

I also feel saddened that the 'loose morals' of women seeking multiple abortions (how dare she be so unlucky?) has drawn more attention than the inability to support a child. Do I have the right to accuse those of you in return for needing to 'get more empathy' because you have ignored the plight of the child who is born into the world disadvantaged? The impact it will have not just on the child but on society if that child were to become youth at-risk?

 

Women seeking equal rights does not mean men will have less rights; this is not a gender war but a firm stance for equal opportunities and moral standing within the same society.

 

I don't think that we are or can be completely free but anyway...

I saw that comment for what it is and I agree with String that it is controversial. Come to think about it, it's not such a big deal though...hypothetical and/or surely highly isolated cases of pathological women who run around all their lives just to have abortions for the fun of it is very unlikely.

What I find interesting is that people who are the loudest preachers of equality (especialy feminists) do not seem to understand the meaning of the word "equality"

You know what else I find exhausting of late? The term 'feminist' used in a derisive manner. I hardly think that wanting the freedom over my own body and the ability to make choices without negative judgement on what will affect me socially, mentally, emotionally and economically makes me a militant feminist. I think this should be our basic right since it is a right men have without interference of the public sphere.

[StringJunky]

I couldn't agree more, Charon. What inherently perturbs me about the responses to this topic is, as you put it so eloquently, that is negatively judging the morality of women. Earlier I mentioned my reluctance to delve into this topic because from my experience, arguments involving women's rights to their body become about controlling her sexuality through the judgement of her scruples.

 

A few of you were alarmed by my stance that I do not see the relevance of having one or five abortions. As far as I am concerned, a woman either has the rights to her body, or she doesn't; saying that a woman is entitled to one abortion but not three or five just means that her rights are not absolute and as Charon pointed out, can be taken away.

 

I also feel saddened that the 'loose morals' of women seeking multiple abortions (how dare she be so unlucky?) has drawn more attention than the inability to support a child. Do I have the right to accuse those of you in return for needing to 'get more empathy' because you have ignored the plight of the child who is born into the world disadvantaged? The impact it will have not just on the child but on society if that child were to become youth at-risk?

 

Women seeking equal rights does not mean men will have less rights; this is not a gender war but a firm stance for equal opportunities and moral standing within the same society.

I'm not going to add anymore because I don't think it will be productive in this instance but I will say sign off and say: no rights are absolute, there's always caveats somewhere.

Edited November 13, 2016 by StringJunky

[Sirona]

 

PS. What you wrote about you not seeing a difference between one or five abortions is disturbing but hopefuly it's just your young age and/or lack of life experience speaking.

 

Are you attempting to draw attention to my age to make me less credible? Does me being young make my stance less important? I suppose you have more experience in being a woman and therefore you can judge me. Go and read my posts again without the cloud of judgement. I was making a comment on the legality of the issue and the need for it to be consistent.

So, women have the complete monopoly on discussion, development and future of young humans? I welcome the day that technology can emerge that will take that burden away from them and children may be conceived and gestated ex utero. Then we won't be having this conversation.

In the past, men have had complete monopoly of most matters concerning women; we couldn't vote, own property or work after marriage less than 150 years ago. Suddenly we want the right to make decisions concerning our body and we're unreasonable? That seems somewhat hypocritical to me.

[StringJunky]

In the past, men have had complete monopoly of most matters concerning women; we couldn't vote, own property or work after marriage less than 150 years ago. Suddenly we want the right to make decisions concerning our body and we're unreasonable? That seems somewhat hypocritical to me.

 

In post 77 I wrote:

 

 

t has just occurred to me that I have gone into this discussion under the context it was myself that helped create the pregnancy.; unwittingly or not. I want a say in the destiny of that pregnancy. If I'm not involved then I don't have the right to tell the woman what she must do.

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought.

It takes two to tango.

Men's sperm quality- and thus the quality of life of their offspring- is affected by things like smoking, obesity and drinking.

To be consistent about the ideas of "protecting the unborn" many or most men would have to live very different lifestyles.

 

Does anyone see that getting enforced?

 

If not, just how one-sided is this debate?

[koti]

I am withdrawing from this discussion as I do not see a valid reason to continue after seeing what Im seeing in this thread. For what its worth, I am for women rights, I recently protested myself against a strict anti abortion law.

[Danijel Gorupec]

Just a thought.

It takes two to tango.

Men's sperm quality- and thus the quality of life of their offspring- is affected by things like smoking, obesity and drinking.

To be consistent about the ideas of "protecting the unborn" many or most men would have to live very different lifestyles.

 

Does anyone see that getting enforced?

 

If not, just how one-sided is this debate?

I think this is a different kind of question... Here you are concerned about 'quality' of something that is to be created.

 

On the other hand, the abortion question (and excessive smoking, drinking, drug abuse during pregnancy) is a question about conflicting rights of two existing beings. Even if there is no problem during early stages of pregnancy, as the pregnancy continues more and more people would start to recognize the child as a person with human rights that society is obligated to protect. Conflict arises.

 

My personal view is that woman's right on their own body is a strong right. I think that woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy at any moment, but not by any means. The legal procedure should be that the woman announces her wish for the separation to the state (because the state is the one that is to protect human rights of us all), and then the state should proceed with the separation. The responsibility about the action taken is then on the state... I know that many of you will find this clumsy, but I think it is not.

 

Unfortunately, the above view means that also state should be able to request the separation if there is conclusion that the unborn child is at serious risk (excessive smoking, drinking, drug abuse). So, I don't think the woman right on her body can be absolute, but it should still be strong and protected.

 

Once the child is born, nothing much changes. A woman should still have the right to requests separation and state should still handle it. (Just a personal off-topic note: once my child is born I will seize the right to protect him. I might easily decide to fuck off all other rights you or the state might have. That much about rights, lol.)

 

(Regarding men right on his own body... it is also not absolute. Many men died in wars being forced to be there. Nobody asks them what they want.)

[John Cuthber]

I think this is a different kind of question... Here you are concerned about 'quality' of something that is to be created.

 

I as just considering the fact that you can draw the line wherever you want.

Also there have been stories of women being criticised for choices made before conception- the same criticism should be levelled at men; but it isn't.

Why not?

[Danijel Gorupec]

Sure, for this part I agree with you.

[MigL]

I apologize to any other women on this thread.

Unless the information is offered, I don't make it a point to ask, as my arguments are not based on the gender of the people involved.

 

At no time have I mentioned multiple abortions and women's morals. I have simply made the argument that at some point, the fetus is a person, with rights equivalent to the woman that is carrying it.

 

The argument has changed direction, however, and seems to be focused more on the right of women to do as they will with their body.

The problem is rights are not isolated. With rights come responsibilities. You can't have one without the other.

 

Example...

I have the right to drink irresponsibly. But I have the responsibility not to be stupid about it, such as driving under the influence and killing somebody.

They put you in jail for that and take away a whole bunch more rights.

 

Now lets get back to the woman with the five abortions...

Your argument is that its her right to have sex irresponsibly, and then avoid all consequences and further responsibilities, by killing a possible human being ( depending on when in the pregnancy, society deems that to be ).

And not go to jail !

 

So you can call us bigots if you want, and take your marbles and go home, but so far these are just alternate viewpoints. We have no power over what you do. And the only intolerant person here has been you, Sirona, for immediately labelling our viewpoints 'bigoted and sexist', simply for being at odds with your own.

[StringJunky]

I apologize to any other women on this thread.

Unless the information is offered, I don't make it a point to ask, as my arguments are not based on the gender of the people involved.

 

At no time have I mentioned multiple abortions and women's morals. I have simply made the argument that at some point, the fetus is a person, with rights equivalent to the woman that is carrying it.

 

The argument has changed direction, however, and seems to be focused more on the right of women to do as they will with their body.

The problem is rights are not isolated. With rights come responsibilities. You can't have one without the other.

 

Example...

I have the right to drink irresponsibly. But I have the responsibility not to be stupid about it, such as driving under the influence and killing somebody.

They put you in jail for that and take away a whole bunch more rights.

 

Now lets get back to the woman with the five abortions...

Your argument is that its her right to have sex irresponsibly, and then avoid all consequences and further responsibilities, by killing a possible human being ( depending on when in the pregnancy, society deems that to be ).

And not go to jail !

 

So you can call us bigots if you want, and take your marbles and go home, but so far these are just alternate viewpoints. We have no power over what you do. And the only intolerant person here has been you, Sirona, for immediately labelling our viewpoints 'bigoted and sexist', simply for being at odds with your own.

Perhaps she will reflect....

Edited November 13, 2016 by StringJunky

[Delta1212]

In these sorts of discussions it's advisable to ask what our agendas are. For some reason, prior to my edit in my last post, I was reminded of an oft-spoken question by a social worker I was assigned to during my drug rehabilitation days in our many discussions on societal issues. She would ask "...and what personal agenda are you working from?". It makes a big difference what answers you come up with.

This used to be something I struggled with a little. Whether or not a woman has an abortion does have long term consequences for the man as well.

 

At some point, however, I managed to really put myself in the opposite position, and imagine what it would be like if I was capable of getting pregnant. The physical, mental and social effects that it would have on me and on my body. The process of going through labor. Really got myself in the mindset of what it would mean, in as much detail as I could.

 

And at that point, the idea that someone could force me to go through all of that when I didn't want to made me both slightly ill and claustrophobic. Physically.

 

That's not something I can support as an option in good conscience, because as big of a deal as that decision is on my side of things as well, I still can't consider it to be comparable.

[StringJunky]

This used to be something I struggled with a little. Whether or not a woman has an abortion does have long term consequences for the man as well.

 

At some point, however, I managed to really put myself in the opposite position, and imagine what it would be like if I was capable of getting pregnant. The physical, mental and social effects that it would have on me and on my body. The process of going through labor. Really got myself in the mindset of what it would mean, in as much detail as I could.

 

And at that point, the idea that someone could force me to go through all of that when I didn't want to made me both slightly ill and claustrophobic. Physically.

 

That's not something I can support as an option in good conscience, because as big of a deal as that decision is on my side of things as well, I still can't consider it to be comparable.

My earlier contributions were in the context of me having a hand in the pregnancy which alters when viewed generally without personal involvement.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100604-womens-rights-and-their-bodies/?p=955749

Edited November 13, 2016 by StringJunky

[Delta1212]

My earlier contributions were in the context of me having a hand in the pregnancy which alters when viewed generally without personal involvement.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100604-womens-rights-and-their-bodies/?p=955749

Should that make a difference, though?

[StringJunky]

Should that make a difference, though?

If it's my baby, yes.

[Delta1212]

If it's my baby, yes.

In which case you would want what kind of control?

[StringJunky]

In which case you would want what kind of control?

To be part of the decision-makling process. Is that unreasonable? I wouldn't be with a woman that was unlikely to consider my feelings in the matter anyway so it's a moot question. Babies are teamwork.in my book.

[Delta1212]

To be part of the decision-makling process. Is that unreasonable? I wouldn't be with a woman that was unlikely to consider my feelings in the matter anyway so it's a moot question. Babies are teamwork.in my book.

But what kind of part?

 

I don't disagree that involved parties should weigh in on major decisions like that, but as you allude to, that seems like an interpersonal issue when the larger conversation is really about what should be legally mandated.

 

Do you think you should have legally mandated authority to any degree over how that decision is made and, if so, to what degree, or do you think that should be a matter of trust in your partner rather than a matter of law?

[StringJunky]

Do you think you should have legally mandated authority to any degree over how that decision is made and, if so, to what degree, or do you think that should be a matter of trust in your partner rather than a matter of law?

No. I'll go for matter of trust because if that's not there babies are not on the cards. My point was that I was dealing with it originally as an interpersonal issue and that's what I was highlighting when I should have been looking at it with no personal involvement.

Edited November 14, 2016 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

 

Me, my children and my family are a victim of the inequality you talk about. The things I had to and still have to go through due to the inequality of men & women would give you nightmares.

My whole life has been determined for the past 7 years and will be determined till the day that I die by the fact that there is an inequality between sexes - I've lost everything due to that inequality.

I had to start my life over due to the simple fact of men & women not being equal, will I manage - we'll see (I'm a heterosexual male in my 40's)

 

I do not see myself as a victim now, the world we live in is not just and surely there is no equality between sexes - neither in regular life nor in courts nor in any other area of our existence. This is the way it has been for thousands of years and neither your "mysoginy" shouting nor my story will change that. Get over it.

 

PS. What you wrote about you not seeing a difference between one or five abortions is disturbing but hopefuly it's just your young age and/or lack of life experience speaking.

 

 

I assume you are talking about child support and/or custody? Now, in the actual decision there is an imbalance (although depending on country the laws may be written gender-neutral). But I disagree with the assessment of the feminist view. The problem is there is no unified feminist stance that I am aware of, but based on discussion with some people who would call themselves feminist there is actual an agreement that there is an imbalance. The core, as they see it is in the traditional view of men and women's role in a family with men as bread earner and women as the child nurturer. That view has not caught to modern necessities. The argument goes further that currently, women are on average at an disadvantage due to either having lower income (regardless of reason) as well as pregnancy and child-rearing loss of income. In some countries the latter is addressed by having family leave that are gender neutral, so that the man can stay at home and the woman be the earner. In these cases, often typical situations with regard to child support and/or custody may be reversed.

So from at least a feminist (rather than the) point of view, equality in society would also do away with the current unequal application of law.

 

With regard to the role of a father in pregnancies there is obviously the issue that women have more rights in term of what they do with their body. The problem here as I see it is that in the process harm may be done to the women due to the processes of pregnancy itself, whereas the man has little risk of harm himself. The thing that would be worrisome is that a right of a man to enforce pregnancy, as it would put one person's right of self determination into the hand of someone else. There are countries where e.g. a rapist could legally enforce pregnancy, which I do find troubling.

 

I will say that the issue obviously has several layers starting from the definition of the point where we assign a an unborn the same rights than their mother, the inequality of the biological process up and including laws that are based on socio-historic realities. It is obvious that we have to restrict choices from people at some point, but there is not obvious clear line that can be drawn throughout. It is no wonder that the whole thing is highly contentious. My personal view is skewed toward the mother even if she may make discussion that I find personally distasteful for the simple reason that I think that the right to govern over one's own body is one of the fundamental rights that we should have. Placing that right into someone's else judgement has, IMO far more negative outcome than positive ones and should not be made into law. It also creates a dangerous mindset. Even then there are restrictions, usually when harm of oneself or others come into play. But again, I would shift the balance of decision-making to those actually directly involved.

Edited November 14, 2016 by CharonY

[Ten oz]

In nature it is common for mamals to kill, abondon, or allow sibilings to starve to death offsping. When resources are scarce or many external threats exist it is common for mamals to cut their loses. I understand my wording seems cold if such were applied to humans but that isn't the point I am attempt to make; that human parents should abondon or starve their young. Just pointing out that it is natural for mamals to attempt reproduction when conditions are best. And that in nature there is a high rate of loss which is why animals generally try again and again until they die.

 

An often overlooked side to abortion is the fact that most women who have abortions live on to have children. A young women is a bad relationship who lacks resources often moves on to find a better relationship and more stability. In many cases a women who may have had an abortion at 18yrs old ends up married at 27yrs old and mothering a couple of children. Had the abortion never had taken place at 18yrs old the relationship and children that mother had later in life may (certainly) never have happened. I understand the potential of a future child is less tangible than an actual pregnancy today but one of the best evolutionary traits humans have is our ability to imagine possible futures.