Birth control rant - DPChallenge Forums

05/02/2012 07:15:54 PM · #1076

The idea that men have no ability, capacity, or right to weigh in on the argument which involves life and death just because they are men is misadronistic. Cowboy is as entitled to his opinion as any woman. You are welcome to disagree, but to discount his opinion merely due to his gender is intellectually weak. I understand your opinion Frisca, but I feel that your last line "Don't insult us by telling us we aren't qualified to make that gut-wrenching decision." can ironically be pointed right back at you.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/02/2012 07:50:43 PM · #1077

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think what most people get at when they apply the argument that males believe women to be incapable of such decisions isn't that spouses/partners are that way, but that the patriarchal, misogynistic govermental bodies that tend to try to enforce draconian anti-abortion laws are that way.

Also, plenty of men are qualified to BE INVOLVED in that decision making process, but no man is qualified to make that decision outright. Only a woman is qualified to do that. The only outright exception I can think of is a male physician making a decision for a pregnant woman that is (for whatever reason) incapacitated and unable to make that decision herself.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

05/02/2012 07:56:08 PM · #1078

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

The only outright exception I can think of is a male physician making a decision for a pregnant woman that is (for whatever reason) incapacitated and unable to make that decision herself.

... or spouse/domestic partner/legal guardian/etc..... the relevant point still being that she would have to be incapacitated in all those cases.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

05/02/2012 07:59:51 PM · #1079

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

...but that the patriarchal, misogynistic govermental bodies that tend to try to enforce draconian anti-abortion laws are that way....

I guess I just don't see it. What governmental body is bemoaning, "if only men had the babies then we'd be able to make proper decisions!"? Really this is what you are stating. Otherwise, I think it's just projecting a demonizing motive upon the people against abortion (who happen to be male) in order to discount what they have to say. If a woman in this governmental body says the same thing as the male representative, is the opinion suddenly regarded in a better light? I doubt it.

Message edited by author 2012-05-02 20:00:15.

frisca

Nikon D70

05/02/2012 08:00:51 PM · #1080

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm sorry I simply don't follow that last line -- what is it that can be pointed back at me?

Let me clarify to assist: I am not insulting men or discounting their voice on this issue, I do believe that cowboy's opinion is valid, but where we differ is that I don't think his opinion should carry the weight of LAW. The decision to abort a pregnancy is not an easy one. Laws banning abortions, with those "noble exceptions" imply quite clearly that no woman is qualified to decide what to do with a pregnancy in her body, so the law has decided for her, and the answer is always going to be 'no' unless you are one of those 'noble' exceptions. Society, including men, can weigh in on the debate and make many valid points to help shape the law, but the bottom line is: its not your body, trust the owner of that body to decide and use the law to encourage responsible decision-making by the individual.

+1 to K10DGuy's post.

05/02/2012 08:09:10 PM · #1081

Originally posted by frisca:

Let me clarify to assist: I am not insulting men or discounting their voice on this issue, I do believe that cowboy's opinion is valid, but where we differ is that I don't think his opinion should carry the weight of LAW. The decision to abort a pregnancy is not an easy one. Laws banning abortions, with those "noble exceptions" imply quite clearly that no woman is qualified to decide what to do with a pregnancy in her body, so the law has decided for her, and the answer is always going to be 'no' unless you are one of those 'noble' exceptions. Society, including men, can weigh in on the debate and make many valid points to help shape the law, but the bottom line is: its not your body, trust the owner of that body to decide and use the law to encourage responsible decision-making by the individual.

+1 to K10DGuy's post.

Here is how I see it differently: "The decision to abort a pregnancy is not an easy one. Laws banning abortions, with those "noble exceptions" imply quite clearly that no ~~woman~~ (person) ~~is qualified~~ (has the right to) ~~decide what to do with~~ (terminate) a pregnancy."

The fact that only women have pregnancies is irrelevant. If only men had pregnancies the premise would be equally as true in the eyes of those who support it. If you can prove otherwise then you may have a point.

The bit about your last comment means that Cowboy could come back and say, "Don't insult me by saying I don't have the ability to deem abortion wrong just because I'm a man." You are accusing him of making a decision based on gender but you are doing likewise.

Message edited by author 2012-05-02 20:13:39.

05/02/2012 08:13:34 PM · #1082

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
...but that the patriarchal, misogynistic govermental bodies that tend to try to enforce draconian anti-abortion laws are that way....

I guess I just don't see it. What governmental body is bemoaning, "if only men had the babies then we'd be able to make proper decisions!"? Really this is what you are stating. Otherwise, I think it's just projecting a demonizing motive upon the people against abortion (who happen to be male) in order to discount what they have to say. If a woman in this governmental body says the same thing as the male representative, is the opinion suddenly regarded in a better light? I doubt it.

Umm, no. I'm saying that certain male dominated government(s), whether intentional or not, are treating women like they are incapable of making decisions by trying to return to abortion laws that 1) never worked anyway and 2) leave all the decision making in the hands of people that aren't pregnant.

How you could come up with what YOU came up with is, well, mind-boggling.

05/02/2012 08:16:16 PM · #1083

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

How you could come up with what YOU came up with is, well, mind-boggling.

It doesn't take too much to boggle your mind then... ;)

Those people are treating PEOPLE like they do not have the moral authority to terminate a life. Your two points are irrelevant.

05/02/2012 08:19:46 PM · #1084

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by frisca:
Let me clarify to assist: I am not insulting men or discounting their voice on this issue, I do believe that cowboy's opinion is valid, but where we differ is that I don't think his opinion should carry the weight of LAW. The decision to abort a pregnancy is not an easy one. Laws banning abortions, with those "noble exceptions" imply quite clearly that no woman is qualified to decide what to do with a pregnancy in her body, so the law has decided for her, and the answer is always going to be 'no' unless you are one of those 'noble' exceptions. Society, including men, can weigh in on the debate and make many valid points to help shape the law, but the bottom line is: its not your body, trust the owner of that body to decide and use the law to encourage responsible decision-making by the individual.

+1 to K10DGuy's post.

Here is how I see it differently: "The decision to abort a pregnancy is not an easy one. Laws banning abortions, with those "noble exceptions" imply quite clearly that no ~~woman~~ (person) ~~is qualified~~ (has the right to) ~~decide what to do with~~ (terminate) a pregnancy."

The fact that only women have pregnancies is irrelevant. If only men had pregnancies the premise would be equally as true in the eyes of those who support it. If you can prove otherwise then you may have a point.

The bit about your last comment means that Cowboy could come back and say, "Don't insult me by saying I don't have the ability to deem abortion wrong just because I'm a man." You are accusing him of making a decision based on gender but you are doing likewise.

Thankfully, the way you see things isn't shared by a huge majority of reasonable thinking people. For now, anyway. It'll be a sad day when/if it is.

05/02/2012 08:20:16 PM · #1085

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
How you could come up with what YOU came up with is, well, mind-boggling.

It doesn't take too much to boggle your mind then... ;)

Those people are treating PEOPLE like they do not have the moral authority to terminate a life. Your two points are irrelevant.

This isn't about moral authority.

05/02/2012 08:22:05 PM · #1086

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
How you could come up with what YOU came up with is, well, mind-boggling.

It doesn't take too much to boggle your mind then... ;)

Those people are treating PEOPLE like they do not have the moral authority to terminate a life. Your two points are irrelevant.

This isn't about moral authority.

It's always about moral authority.

05/02/2012 08:24:05 PM · #1087

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
How you could come up with what YOU came up with is, well, mind-boggling.

It doesn't take too much to boggle your mind then... ;)

Those people are treating PEOPLE like they do not have the moral authority to terminate a life. Your two points are irrelevant.

This isn't about moral authority.

It's always about moral authority.

No.

05/02/2012 08:31:47 PM · #1088

I think SCOTUS Justice Byron White said it better than you. "The law is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the due process clause, the courts will be very busy indeed."

Forgive me if I take that over your "no"... ;)

05/02/2012 08:38:11 PM · #1089

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That's not about moral AUTHORITY either. Authority assumes control. This isn't about controlling morality, or having one morality base be superior or controlling over others. I shouldn't even HAVE to say it, but this is about a multitude of things that has nothing to do with authority or control. It's about choice, sensitivity, responsibility.

Morality plays a part, certainly, but it's not authoritative.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/02/2012 08:59:09 PM · #1090

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Mousie:
I should just create a thread where I document the DAILY abuses of faith and morality by conservatives against gay people.

That would be one huge thread. ;D

Maybe you should.

Nah, it would be duplicated effort. But I can recommend:

//www.glaad.org/cap - See what conservative commentators say when they think liberals aren't watching!

//www.goodasyou.org/ - A blog with a critical eye on lgbt-related politics and news that hardly ever misses anything

Just try to make it through the antics of the vocal right, presented in their own words, without feeling dirty. Feel free to substitute thoughts of me whenever they ascribe traits or agendas to homosexuals, to see how well it fits. After all, I'm not just gay, but a gay rights activist. A married one. Their worst nightmare.

Or maybe we're being unfair, and maybe you can point out a video or article where that's the case and we can discuss it. Perhaps in the other thread. Hey I wasn't the one who brought it up here!

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

05/02/2012 10:14:23 PM · #1091

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Not for anything, but Justice Byron White also wrote the majority opinion upholding the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws. His reasoning was that the constitution did not confer the right to engage in homosexual sex. His decision was later overturned.

Laws cannot and should not be based on morality. Laws that are are often put in place to subjugate one group or one group's beliefs to the beliefs of another. Typically, the subjugated group is a minority, either in number or power. The use of 'morality' to create laws to reinforce the power of one group over another are easily found in US history (check out manifest destiny, slavery, women's rights, religious rights, etc.).

Justice Blackmun said, "The legitimacy of secular legislation depends, instead, on whether the State can advance some justification for its law beyond its conformity to religious doctrine."

Abortion, to you, is a moral issue. To others, it is not.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

05/02/2012 11:03:46 PM · #1092

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think SCOTUS Justice Byron White said it better than you. "The law is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the due process clause, the courts will be very busy indeed."

Forgive me if I take that over your "no"... ;)

That's not about moral AUTHORITY either. Authority assumes control. This isn't about controlling morality, or having one morality base be superior or controlling over others. I shouldn't even HAVE to say it, but this is about a multitude of things that has nothing to do with authority or control. It's about choice, sensitivity, responsibility.

Morality plays a part, certainly, but it's not authoritative.

Ok, we are actually just miscommunicating on "authority". I just mean "are they supported by moral precepts". The legislators are saying, "we do not think morality supports abortion" and their opinion is based in no way upon the fact women are the gender that gives birth.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

05/03/2012 12:35:45 AM · #1093

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Doc, I don't think that's reasonable. I think the point people are making, that you're either not seeing or just choosing to ignore, is that the moral codes themselves were written by men, the laws themselves were written by men, and that it's really easy for men, or any distinct group, to make (and enforce) codes and laws that don't apply to them. I think the point is that if it had been WOMEN originating the codes and laws, they'd be quite a bit different.

R.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/03/2012 02:34:40 AM · #1094

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I think the point people are making, that you're either not seeing or just choosing to ignore, is that the moral codes themselves were written by men, the laws themselves were written by men, and that it's really easy for men, or any distinct group, to make (and enforce) codes and laws that don't apply to them. I think the point is that if it had been WOMEN originating the codes and laws, they'd be quite a bit different.

R.

Did Jesus have a baby sister, was she bitter, was she sweet
Did she wind up in a convent, did she end up on the street
On the run, on the stage, did she dance
Did Jesus have a sister, a little baby sister
Did Jesus have a sister, did they give her a chance

Did He have a baby sister, could she speak out by and large
Or was she told by Mother Mary, "ask your brother, He's in charge
"He's the Chief, He's the whipped cream on the cake"
Did Jesus have a sister, a little baby sister
Did Jesus have a sister, did they give her a break

Her brother's birth anouncement, it was pretty big, pretty big, I guess
But she got precious little notice in the local press
Her mother was the Virgin when she carried Him, carried Him therein
If the little girl came later then was she conceived in sin
And in sorrow, and in suffering, and in shame
Did Jesus have a sister, a little baby sister
Did Jesus have a sister, what was her name

Did she long to be the Saviour, saving everyone she met
And in private, to her mirror, did she whisper "saviorette
"Savior-woman, savior-person" -- save your breath
Did Jesus have a sister, was she there at His death

And did she cry for Mary's comfort as she watch Him on the cross
Or was Mary too despairing, "Ask your brother, he's the Boss
"He's the Chief, He's the Man, He's the show"
Did Jesus have a sister, a little baby sister
Did Jesus have a sister, doesn't anyone know?

--Dory Previn

Message edited by author 2012-05-03 02:35:03.

05/03/2012 11:38:12 AM · #1095

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ok, we are actually just miscommunicating on "authority". I just mean "are they supported by moral precepts". The legislators are saying, "we do not think morality supports abortion" and their opinion is based in no way upon the fact women are the gender that gives birth.

Doc, I don't think that's reasonable. I think the point people are making, that you're either not seeing or just choosing to ignore, is that the moral codes themselves were written by men, the laws themselves were written by men, and that it's really easy for men, or any distinct group, to make (and enforce) codes and laws that don't apply to them. I think the point is that if it had been WOMEN originating the codes and laws, they'd be quite a bit different.

R.

I dunno. Polls do not bear this out. There is no large gap in opinion between men and women on abortion. It's a few %.

I could only find numbers quickly from Pew in 2007-2008, and 2009:
2007-08 2009
Pro Against Pro Against
Men 52 42 44 47
Wom 55 39 50 42

Sorry about the formatting. Hopefully the point comes through. The largest disparity is 6%.

You will recall that when the moral ideas were formed in Judeo-Christianity the choice whether or not to expose an infant in Greco-Roman culture was made by the father, not the mother and yet the moral precept was that choosing to expose the baby was wrong. The point is the gender of the person making the decision did not bear on the precept itself. Life was to be valued.

Message edited by author 2012-05-03 12:02:37.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

05/03/2012 01:07:14 PM · #1096

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You will recall that when the moral ideas were formed in Judeo-Christianity...

Just how old do you think Robert is?

frisca

Nikon D70

05/03/2012 01:07:33 PM · #1097

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Your reasoning here may appear attractive, and balanced, but it is seriously flawed. The reality is that only women can get pregnancy and the vast majority of women do not want access to abortion to be so seriously restricted. Abortion is most definitely a gender issue. ONLY WOMEN can get pregnant, to say that a law against abortion bans it for EVERYONE is ridiculous! I invite you to read a fantastic Supreme Court of Canada case, Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219 (full citation included so you can read the case yourself if you desire). In Brooks, the appellants were challenging their employer's insurance plan because it disentitled pregnant women to any benefits for 10 weeks prior to giving birth, even if what they are claiming benefits for are unrelated to the prengnacy. A prior decision of the Supreme Court (called Bliss)ruled that such a disentitlement was not discrimination based on sex. They overturned their decision in Bliss, stating (this is copied from the headnote on the Supreme Court of Canada website):

(1) Discrimination on the Basis of Pregnancy

The complete disentitlement of pregnant women during a seventeen‑week period from receiving accident or sickness benefits under the respondent's plan constitutes discrimination by reason of pregnancy. Pregnant employees receive significantly less favourable treatment under the plan than other employees. The plan singles out pregnancy for disadvantageous treatment, in comparison with any other health reason which may prevent an employee from reporting to work.

Pregnancy, while it is not properly characterized as a sickness or an accident, is a valid health‑related reason, in our society, for absence from work and as such should not have been excluded from the respondent's plan. The respondent's plan is designed to compensate employees who are absent from work for valid health-related reasons. Further, in distinguishing pregnancy from all other health‑related reasons for not working, the plan imposed unfair disadvantages on pregnant women. Everyone in society benefits from procreation but one of its major costs is placed, under this plan, on one group in society -- pregnant women. Removal of unfair disadvantages imposed on groups in society is a key purpose of anti‑discrimination legislation. Finding that the respondent's plan is discriminatory furthers this purpose. In sum, where an employer enters the field of compensation for health conditions and then excludes pregnancy as a valid reason for compensation, the employer has acted in a discriminatory fashion. A plan would be considered discriminatory even if it did not exclude coverage for non‑pregnancy-related illness and accidents. It is enough that the plan excludes compensation for pregnancy.

The respondent alleged that the decision to exclude pregnancy from the scope of its plan was not a question of discrimination, but a question of deciding to compensate some risks and to exclude others. Underinclusion may be simply a backhanded way of permitting discrimination. Once an employer decides to provide an employee benefit package, exclusions from such schemes may not be made, like in this case, in a discriminatory fashion.

Section 19(h)(vii) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 regulations, while it addresses employer plans which do not compensate pregnant women during the 17‑week period, does not constitute a permissible distinction pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Manitoba Human Rights Act. Distinction along sex lines might have been permissible in employee benefit plans only if such regulations had been passed pursuant to s. 7(2). In the absence of regulations under that provision, discrimination in employee benefit packages is not permissible.

(2) Discrimination on the Basis of Sex

Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is discrimination on the basis of sex. The decision of this Court in Bliss, which reached the opposite conclusion, is inconsistent with the Court's approach to interpreting human rights legislation taken in subsequent cases and should no longer be followed. Pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination simply because of the basic biological fact that only women have the capacity to become pregnant. Appellants' disfavoured treatment under the plan flowed entirely from their state of pregnancy, a condition unique to women. Those who bear children and benefit society as a whole should not be economically or socially disadvantaged. It is thus unfair to impose all of the costs of pregnancy upon one half of the population.

It is also wrong to believe that pregnancy related discrimination could not be sex discrimination because not all women become pregnant. While pregnancy-based discrimination only affects part of an identifiable group, it does not affect anyone who is not a member of the group. Indeed, pregnancy cannot be separated from gender. The fact, therefore, that the plan did not discriminate against all women, but only against pregnant women, did not make the impugned distinction any less discriminating.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/03/2012 01:17:43 PM · #1098

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I could only find numbers quickly from Pew in 2007-2008, and 2009:

2007-08 2009
Pro Against Pro Against
Men 52 42 44 47
Wom 55 39 50 42
Sorry about the formatting.

Your formatting will work if you use the {pre}{/pre} tags (with square brackets, not curly braces) to make the text display in a "pre-formatted" fixed-width font.