Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
More like a public spanking. And the GOP would get off on administering it, too. ::growls in irritation::
Perhaps I am splitting a hair, and I fully realize that it is still total bullshit, but reporting that it was because she said "vagina" is not truly accurate.
Normally I would say that implying another is a rapist on the floor of a legislative body is indeed out of line, but since the other representatives do want to control her body much like a rapist does, I would say the comparison is, in this rare case, apt.
> She explains that under the Jewish law, abortions performed in instances to save the life of the mother—at any stage in pregnancy—are not only encouraged, they're mandatory.
Um, so what was she complaining about? The bill as described here would allow for abortions in the situation she is worried about being able to have them. So, she was arguing in violent agreement? Or did someone misreport again?
Speaking of temper tantrums, such as the ones I got when posting the argument below on the Seattle PI, maybe I can get some rationality here (rolls eyes skyward).
Ok, here it goes.
Darcy Burner and other womanists have been turning the tables on abortion and other women's issues by claiming, hey, instead of making it this awful thing, lets make it this great thing, this right that woman should be proud of.
Ok. If woman have the right and benefit of being able to choose an abortion...if a woman controls her body 100% and should essentially Stand Her Ground (or Vagina), then why do men have to pay alimony and child support?
In other words, do Men have the right to an abortion -- if they tell a woman, hey "I'm not ready for a child" and woman (who, according to Darcy Burner, "owns" her body) then legally, should a man have any responsibility? Really, if the woman has it or not, should he ever have any responsibility?
I don't see how, given the 100% ownership of the baby producing machinery that is being stated here.
No one says abortions are great. No one WANTS to have an abortion. Women get abortions because that horrid decision is better in the long run than bringing another child into the world unsupported. These women harm themselves so that harm is not visited on others later. Or simply because their lives are threatened by the pregnancy, of course.
That "machinery" you speak of is ANOTHER FUCKING PERSON, not a machine. It has feelings, rights, and aspirations. While the male side of the equation should have input and should be considered, it is ultimately the woman's choice because it is her body, not some abstract machine.
Ok, so this is no better than the PI comments thread.
Try and be rational if only for just a few minutes.
Think of it in terms of property rights, which is what Darcy Burner is asserting.
If she says women have 100% control -- then I argue they have 100% responsibility.
Carried to its logical conclusion, women have to accept 100% responsibility for children.
You're wrong. The bill bans all abortions in Michigan, with no exception, after 20 weeks EGA. That leaves 4 weeks during which there is no chance of fetal survival but abortion is impossible in the case of, say, severe pre-eclampsia, or a bleeding placenta previa, any of which are not only health- but life-threatening.
Thinking of moving to West Bloomfield so Lisa Brown can be my rep.
Love,
A Michigan Midwife
The man already has 100% control of the situation by deciding where he ejaculates. And who he has sex with.
Men DO have a choice in the matter, they can choose not to have sex with the woman.
Let's say I choose to play baseball, and further, I choose to play baseball near your house, and I hit a stray ball that smashes through one of your windows, I am responsible for paying for that window. I don't OWN that broken window, you still own it 100%, but I have to pay for it because I broke it. You still have to get the new one installed, I don't have to do that, but I have to pay for it because of my actions.
Women and men are not baseballs and broken windows, but do you see my point?
Also, child support is not automatic and mandatory. It is decided upon by a court. A man can argue in his defense to not have to pay child support. It's unlikely he'll be successful, but it's still possible.
I would feel different if the relationship ends after the child is born.
(No, I didn't watch the video, because I can't watch lots of videos during the workday. And TLDW.)
@17: So what he's saying is, if the choice is ultimately the woman's, because she is an individual with her own rights and sole decisions over her own body, does that not basically mean that the sperm donor's future obligations are therefore ultimately being determined at the mercy of the woman's decision?
Man and woman have sex. Let's assume it's entirely consensual. Woman gets pregnant. Woman doesn't think having baby is a good idea, she can have abortion. Man doesn't think having baby is a good idea, tough shit buddy. Is that morally right? Does it become morally right for one person to set obligations for another simply because their own obligations will be greater?
That is his question, and I have to agree that there is a thorny issue there. If a man doesn't want to have a child, should he be forced to help support one? A woman isn't.
INB4 "yes, because he took that responsibility when he had sex." if so, then so did the woman, so therefore she shouldn't have an abortion any more than the man should get out of paying child support. (Ultimately, that's one of the Other Side's arguments.) What makes this dichotomy okay or equal?
(Now to be fair, @15, alimony is not about children but about standard of living, regardless of children, so it's not relevant.)
I would hope the father WOULD want to be a part of the child's life in someway and if needed (or possible) should help provide for his son/daughter.
And if abortion is not a legal option for some reason..than the government should help with support.
At the moment, the court's only consideration is the best interest of the child, which means that both biological parents are on the hook for financially providing for that child. If both parents decide they don't want the kid anymore and they can't find an adoptive family, the child becomes a ward of the state and both parents have to pay child support until the child is adopted. For the purposes of child welfare, it's an imperfect but necessary system.
That said, I bet there are many women who would love to cut the fathers of their children out of their lives, even if that means giving up child support, especially if the father is unwilling or unable to fork over much money. I question how many men, however much they might squawk over how unfair child support is, would sign the legal document giving up all parental rights, even if it absolves them of paying child support.
Since the woman has the most vested in the pregnancy, she gets to make the decision. It is that simple. The man's right to get out of child support or desire to have a child does not override the woman's right to her own body.
To reiterate: don't want to become a father? You are free to exercise your right not to become one by using condoms, getting a vasectomy, ejaculating as far away from a vagina as possible or simply not having sex with a woman.
By all means, please exercise control over your own bodily autonomy. But don't turn around and try to exercise control over another existent human's bodily autonomy because, wah! you were too lazy and/or stupid to take responsibility for your side of the baby-making equation.
Also, for fuck's sake, a woman is not MACHINERY. Objectification, much? Puke. And false logic on top of that? I puke on you again.
"Try and be rational if only for just a few minutes."
Say that while looking in a mirror.
Here's the deal: It's not fair. What are you, five? There is no way to make procreation completely and absolutely equal. We're not dividing up a pie here; we're talking about biological limitations. Women are the ones who are pregnant. Until birth, a fetus does not have full personhood. Until at minimum 24 weeks LMP, a fetus is not viable. Guess who gets the big vote here?
Get over it. There are things that aren't fair. That doesn't make me feel all that sorry for the unfairness towards men, but since you're not used to experiencing life without unearned privilege, I understand how it stings. You'll get over it.
To quote the Dude: "It's not fair? Who's a fucking nihilist now?"
Really? "Womanists"?? You deserve scorn for that alone.
"Congratulations, Mortimer, you're a father- AND NOW YOU'RE MY SLAVE! NYAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA HAAAA!"
TAMPON FLASH MOB
OCCUPY THE MICHIGAN STATE HOUSE
Love love LOVE your last three paragraphs, Cienna...
Oh wait, that's not the way the world fucking works. Jesus H. Christ. Life isn't fucking fair. You don't want to have kids? Have a vasectomy already. Logic impaired ass-hats shouldn't reproduce anyway.
MAUDE
My art has been commended as being strongly vaginal. Which bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina.
DUDE
Oh yeah?
MAUDE
Yes, they don't like hearing it and find it difficult to say. Whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his "dick" or his "rod" or his "Johnson".
DUDE
"Johnson"?
(I was gonna say "boys," but that shiz did not feel equal to "bitches" :P)
That, THAT, is more important then women's bodily autonomy?
OK. I concede. The republicans have won. I will avoid wire-hanger abortions via complete refutation of male sexual companionship. Otherwise, see: wire-hanger abortions.
Woops! Just got caught up in the parlance of our times that says "you guys" = a mixed gender group or just a bunch of male-identified people. No biggie.
Sarcasm is intentional.
However, Ms. Brown's comments, in context, were not that big of a deal and should have been taken as the pointed joke that they were.
And yes, religion and the laws of man should be kept separate.
@69: +1
@70: She didn't say they were interested in having sex with her; she said they were interested in her vagina. The equivalent would be " ... because you're so interested in my penis ..."
But yes, the equivalent would indeed be, "I am flattered that you are so interested in my penis, but stop making a fool of yourself."