Skip to main content

View Diary: Defending Roe (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We should also be talking (4.00)
    Recommended by:
    musing graze, x, Maria in Pgh
    about men....its easy to see that the next targets are hormonal contraceptives. The real wingers are already talking about more "investigation" into the possibility that birth control pills might prevent implantation if an egg should happen to accidently slip through.  So, whats left?  Condoms are the next most effective method of birth control....can you imagine every man, especially those who have been married for years, going back to using condoms every time?  Can't see too many men willing to give up sex with their wives or run the risk of fathering 12 or 14 children.
    •  vasectomies (none)
      will they be illegalized?

      "Dear Mr. Bush: Please obtain Tamifah's permission before invading any other countries. Love, Tamifah."

      by Tamifah on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 05:29:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Probably not.... (none)
        but with if this crowd gets their way few will have health care coverage so most wouldn't be able to afford it.  
      •  Six states (none)
        now allow providers to refuse to provide sterilization procedures. So it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

        "I have a philosophy about elections. I believe issues divide and values unite."--Gov. Brian Schweitzer

        by Joan McCarter on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 06:36:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Big problem (none)
          when combined with many people being stuck in HMO's that determine which hospitals and/or providers they can use.  Happened to us...11 years ago we had an HMO that contracted only through a group of Catholic hospitals.  Vasectomies and tubal ligations were not covered...even though I had just been diagnosed with a medical condition that prevented me from using oral contraceptives and further pregnancies could be considered life threatening. They were generous enough to assure me that they would cover an abortion if I became pregnant and it was agreed upon that it was indeed life threatening.
          •  How generous of them (none)
            Again, the broad brushstrokes that people apply to the issue of abortion and reproductive rights in general all too often doesn't take into account all of the implications just like this. Your experience is a great (albeit frustrating and disturbing) example.

            "I have a philosophy about elections. I believe issues divide and values unite."--Gov. Brian Schweitzer

            by Joan McCarter on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 06:48:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  The burden won't be on men... (4.00)
      to keep away from sex.  These people want male dominated societies.  If the women are perpetually pregnant, that just means more people to indoctrinate.  

      It's like the Modern World cartoon where the man comes in to the pharmacist asking for Viagra, and gets a thumbs up from the (male) pharma.  A woman comes in right after, asking for birth control, and he tells her "get lost, slut!"

      It's going to be one-sided.

      "The last thing people want is an opposition party vigorously opposing things." - jasonwhat

      by the new yorker on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 05:44:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but (none)
        how many men really want to father and be financially responsible for literally dozens of children?  I'm talking about married men.  Don't care what their political leanings are, you can bet most don't care to support huge families.  You think these men are going to be eager to be literally forced into condoms?  I think not.
        •  Oh, I agree... (none)
          but we're going to see pressure on women to give up b.c. long before we see it on men to don condoms.  I know there's a lack of logic between point 1 and point 2.  The people who are pushing for these sorts of laws don't.

          "The last thing people want is an opposition party vigorously opposing things." - jasonwhat

          by the new yorker on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 05:55:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, maybe I'm being (none)
            a bit flippant...but, why can't we start planting this idea publicly?  Really, I know most people don't think two days ahead of themselves, and honestly, there are probably scads of men out there supporting the lunatic fringe who have never considered what this might mean to them personally...maybe we should just start asking them if they want to wear a rubber for the rest of their lives?
            •  I think it would be a good idea... (none)
              to spread the meme.  It might convert a few of the apathetic married guys who don't see what this issue has to do with them or their wives.

              It would be so much more awesome though if we didn't have to work with this.  We've got this whole abortion issue right now - if we can't convince enough people this is a bad idea, how are we going to do a decent job with the condom issue?

              "The last thing people want is an opposition party vigorously opposing things." - jasonwhat

              by the new yorker on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 06:05:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, I know.... (none)
                the sad fact is that most people won't care about an issue that they don't see directly effecting themselves.  Clearly, many who are voting republican are pro-choice.  Most polls suggest that at least 65 percent of the country is...yet we have a republican, anti-choice president and congress.  Sadly this isn't confined to reproductive rights....most people also support things such as universal healthcare coverage, social security, workers rights, etc., yet they vote for the candidates least likely to endorse or provide these things.

                Wish I had an answer.

      •  it's already one sided.... (none)
        ....what other forms of contraception do they have for men besides the condom?

        Crime is contagious....if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. -- Justice Louis Brandeis

        by FemiNazi on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 05:55:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  none, (none)
          other than vasectomy.  That would be my point...let men understand what this would mean for THEM.  Average Joe Sixpack doesn't want 15 kids.  Nor does he want to wear a condom for the next 20 years.  
          •  i'm uncomfortable.... (none)
            ....with all the talk of "let people" "let men" "let young women" all know what it's like with illegal abortion in this country, and crap like the poster above who said "it was illegal once before, we'll make do" or something to that effect. that's playing way too fast and loose with innocent womens' lives...

            Crime is contagious....if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. -- Justice Louis Brandeis

            by FemiNazi on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 06:03:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think that's what he meant... (none)
              I think he meant "show" (as in, "tell") men they'd have to start taking precautions in the bedroom with their own wives, if this occurred (which I don't think will).

              However, I fully agree that this (the abortion issue) isn't one where we can afford to say "they'll see".  Because the rich will never see - they'll always have the means to take care of themselves.  The only people who'll suffer will be the people without - without money, without means, without friends in high places.  Group punishment never works.

              "The last thing people want is an opposition party vigorously opposing things." - jasonwhat

              by the new yorker on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 06:07:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  invoking Equal Protection (none)
        Strange bedfellows on Roe in more ways than one.

        Men's-Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay:

        The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit - nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men - to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

        The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

        Unbossed--a dangerous blog for dangerous times.

        by em dash on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 06:05:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's a sham (none)

          Crime is contagious....if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. -- Justice Louis Brandeis

          by FemiNazi on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 06:30:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  these people are whiners (0+ / 0-)

          Every time I hear the "she tricked me" claim I want to throttle them.  Did he wear a condom?  Did he ejaculate inside her?  Was he aware that not wearing a condom and ejaculating inside her was how women get pregnant?  

          Where is the "personal responsibility" with these clowns?  

          They say its unfair to make them pay child support when they don't want the child.  Too bad.  "Personal responsibility" means owning up to your own choices.  If you choose to be stupid, really stupid and not wear a condom and ejacualate inside a woman, you must take the responsibility for your actions.  

          Just because you're self-righteous doesn't mean you're not a hypocrite.

          by AMcG826 on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 06:17:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

            They say its unfair to make them pay child support when they don't want the child.  Too bad.  "Personal responsibility" means owning up to your own choices.  If you choose to be stupid, really stupid and not wear a condom and ejacualate inside a woman, you must take the responsibility for your actions.  

            Really? Well, then, I'm sure you'll be glad to hear of the overthrow of Roe v Wade and the criminalization of abortion then. After all:

            If you choose to be stupid, really stupid and not wear a condom and [have sex knowing you could get pregnant], you must take the responsibility for your actions.

            What if the condom breaks, eh? What if a guy has taken every reasonable step, but the woman gets pregnant anyway? What if the woman lies to the guy, says "yup, I'm on the pill" and get pregnant deliberately?

            "Taking responsibility" is a red herring argument that makes no sense. There's no earthly reason why anyone on the planet should have to "take responsibility" for anything they do when the results of their actions are easily reversed.

            •  that's my point (0+ / 0-)

              the guy needs to take reasonable precautions.  These include abstinence, vasectomy or using a condom.  Any man who doesn't want to be a father shouldn't rely on the woman to take all of the responsibilty for birth control.  I'm not interested in the "she tricked me" claim.  Did she trick you into having sex?  Did she force you not to wear a condom?    

              I have no idea why you are equating this with Roe, which I am in favor of.  A woman having an abortion is taking responsibilty for her actions f she does not want to have a child.    

              Just because you're self-righteous doesn't mean you're not a hypocrite.

              by AMcG826 on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 08:09:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  This makes no sense (0+ / 0-)

                Again, what's your point here?

                You make no rational case for why a woman has the right to walk away from a pregnancy if she so chooses, but a man does not have a similar right.

                Can a man force a woman to go through with the pregnancy if she doesn't want to? No? Then why should the woman be able to force the man to be a father that he doesn't want to be?

                the guy needs to take reasonable precautions.  These include abstinence, vasectomy or using a condom.  

                Yeah, and what if the guy does and she gets pregnant anyway? A woman who gets inconveniently pregnant in such a way has the option of getting an abortion. What corresponding right do men have?

                Any man who doesn't want to be a father shouldn't rely on the woman to take all of the responsibilty for birth control.  I'm not interested in the "she tricked me" claim.  Did she trick you into having sex?  Did she force you not to wear a condom?

                Your argument, taken to its illogical extreme, would indicate that you are in favor of dropping Roe v Wade, since every argument you make here applies to a woman just as well.

                Let me ask you a few questions:

                1- If a woman poked holes in a guy's condoms, should the guy be responsible for the resulting pregnancy?

                2- If a woman stops taking the pill, and tells the guys she is still on it, should the guy be responsible for the resulting pregnancy?

                3- If a woman makes an error with birth control, but gets pregnant, do you support the right of that woman to get an abortion?

                4- If a man makes an error with birth control, and the woman gets pregnant, do you support the right of the man to walk away if he so desires?

                5- If (3) and not (4), aren't you giving extra rights to women that men do not have?

                •  men don't get pregnant (0+ / 0-)

                  That's the rub.  There is no way that this is ever going to be fair to both sides, that's just the way life is.    

                  Again, if men don't want to be responsible for children, they should abstain from sex.  

                  Just because you're self-righteous doesn't mean you're not a hypocrite.

                  by AMcG826 on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 10:50:29 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If it's not a child until the Mother accepts ... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... the pregnancy, there's a corollary, IMO, for the father. I agree with MSOC: the fetus isn't an "unborn baby" until the mother says it is, or (my addition) some amorphous time latter, it becomes "too late" -- but the later cases don't normally bode well for the kid. Mostly this is a statement of "it's between the woman & doctor & her chosen counselors."

                    Since I believe that I feel I need to support the other side, if the father doesn't want the pregnancy, then it's not an "unborn child" to him.

                    I'm ambivalent about support laws, especially if there arenâ€TMt clear criteria for appeal in the case of fraud. I dislike giving misogynists leverage and talking points. Plus the situation fuels motivations for men killing women. (I forget which east coast state, murder is the second leading cause of death for pregnant or recently pregnant women.) Frankly, I think it's another backhand way of the government avoiding social spending so it can have more tax resources for pork profits and Halliburton profits for illegal/immoral wars. Especially if itâ€TMs two teenagers who got into trouble. What kind of sex ed did they get?, etc.

                    Speaking of murder, another corollary of the "it's my child when I accept it", is that if a woman is pressured (parents, boyfriend, prison officials, economics) -- if an abortion happens under those circumstances, then it's a kind of "murder" (even if legal) and attendant guilt & psychological problems.

                    And (taking the opposite case) when the mother aborts and the father wanted the pregnancy, then he's going to feel it's some kind of "murder" also. Well, this is tricky, obviously: if he's treating her and the child as property, he's protesting "theft" and pfttt, tough luck. OtOH, if this had been a relationship of equals (or attempting that), then I'm sympathetic. But it's still the mother's choice.

                    However, in symmetry, I think there should be mechanisms for fathers to appeal support judgments.

                    Going after "deadbeat dads" is just another way for government to shunt aside its responsibility while (at the same time) insisting the little people need to be "more responsible". Besides, it has the added "advantage" of supplying excuses for more "Jane Crow" laws.

                    I don't think it should be easy for a man to release himself from parental rights & responsibilities, and I know scumbags with money and fancy lawyers will take advantage -- but I'd rather than that than have an excuse for legislation that me or my sisters must have the father's or government's permission to abort or continue a pregnancy. (Hypothetical in my case, since I got a tubal after my abortion & I'm in menopause.)

                    If your local service workers don't get a living wage (including insurance) then your local social contract is *broken*

                    by julifolo on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 11:41:40 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (144)
  • Community (69)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Elections (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Racism (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Labor (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Law (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Science (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Texas (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site