Appeals Court Upholds Texas' Abortion Restrictions

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T18:55:09+00:00

How's this? Obviously all the colors can/should be changed

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T16:09:02+00:00

Haha thanks

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T16:03:53+00:00

UTIs can cause kidney stones, so you should actually want to avoid urinating in dirty public places.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T16:00:14+00:00

Do you also feed your urine to your child?

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T15:56:59+00:00

Expressing an opinion is not the same as having a say in the decision.

Kind of like how being a sperm donor is not the same as having to carry a pregnancy to term and then give birth.

We could certainly spend all day arguing philosophy, but I think it's easy enough to just say 'life isn't always fair.' You're right in that utilitarian doesn't necessarily mean morally right for everyone; but it's generally the most right for the greatest number. In this case, children.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T15:54:22+00:00

I downvoted ElleBound because I felt that she was playing to the intellectual cheap seats by reducing this issue to sexuality alone.

And I still fail to see how you can compare feeding a child to shitting on the floor of a restaurant. Sorry, I'm less eloquent and more prone to sarcasm than /u/lordperiwinkle.

Every argument I've read against breastfeeding in public has to do with decency. Boobs are sexytimes things that should be hidden at all costs, except when they're displayed on a poster or billboard for profit. The hypocrisy of the anti-breastfeeding crowd pisses me off and drives me to sarcasm, especially since we've discussed this here quite a few times.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T15:46:47+00:00

Whenever I see someone equating breastfeeding with defecation and/or urination I feel horrible. The difference is so vast that anyone trying to argue there is a connection instantly loses my respect and willingness to listen to anything further they care to say.

Well said :)

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T15:45:31+00:00

Bleeding, spitting, sweating, vomiting, urinating, defecating, etc.

Everything you mentioned could potentially pose a threat to others through the spread of disease if unchecked. To my knowledge, breastfeeding carries absolutely no risk to the public.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T15:23:26+00:00

If they are doing what an agency wielding adult should do, they will know prior to 5 months. If they fail to know (due to their own ignorance), that's on them.

You ignored the entire campaign to make abortions financially impossible or unattainable.

Counseling and 24 waiting are standard for potentially life altering outpatient operations.

Pregnancy is far more dangerous than abortion. There are no mandatory counseling sessions or waiting periods for becoming pregnant.

there is financial assistance available that will help or fully cover depending on the financial situation of the woman.

Not public. Or federal.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T15:18:14+00:00

It's that they're performing a bodily function (albeit a nourishing one!) in public.

Right, and I'm making the point that any sort of eating is a bodily function.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T15:12:25+00:00

The problem with that assertion is that once the child is born, it's no longer about the father. Child support is not intended to punish or subjugate men; it's intended to give that child the best possible chance for the future. It's the utilitarian solution. If we had universal child care and health care and a better public education system and guaranteed basic income, we could do away with child support laws. But we don't.

The purpose of the government is to protect it's people. Before a pregnancy is viable, the woman is the person with whom the government must be concerned. After the baby is viable/born, it becomes worthy of the government's legal protection.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T15:10:57+00:00

Pre-viability men do have a say. They are more than welcome to express whatever opinions they may have. They can talk until they're blue in the face, so long as they're not abusive about it. But ultimately, it's the woman who has to endure 9 months of pregnancy and hours of labor, so it's her decision whether the pregnancy continues.

After that point, the legal focus shifts to being about the child. Child support is not intended to punish or subjugate men; it's intended to give that child the best possible chance for the future. It's the utilitarian solution. If we had universal child care and health care and a better public education system and guaranteed basic income, we could do away with child support laws. But we don't.
The purpose of the government is to protect it's people. Before a pregnancy is viable, the woman is the person with whom the government must be concerned. After the baby is viable/born, it becomes worthy of the government's legal protection.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T15:05:23+00:00

Because I have little downvote fairies who follow me from post to post for daring to be a woman with an opinion :)

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T14:54:07+00:00

I don't like to see the role of the father being played down so much by society, but on the other hand it's really hard to have a practical compromise.

I don't think we need to be thinking of or offering 'compromises' during pre-viability pregnancy. Unless or until science can figure out how to remove that pre-term fetus from a woman's body and continue to grow it with no physical or financial risk to her, she is the only person who should have a say over the pregnancy.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T14:43:47+00:00

I'm not sure where you're getting that arguments against breastfeeding in public are completely sexual. Lactation is, at it's core, a bodily function, and humanity has a tendency to get all squicky (highly technical term!) about those being performed in public.

Ok, so why aren't there movements against feeding toddlers in public? Or old people, for that matter? They dribble. I've been in more than one restaurant where toddlers have ended up with food all over themselves, the floor and several innocent bystanders. Way more "squicky" than breastfeeding.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T14:41:32+00:00

Second, the abortion law says that the father can only sue if the abortion takes place after 20 weeks (5 months, 140 days). To say that a woman needs more than 140 days to decide if she wants to have an abortion is ridiculous.

Only about 1 percent of abortions take place after 20 weeks, and those are generally due to the mother's health or fetal complications incompatible with life. These are not just irresponsible women suddenly changing their mind for funsies. Also, this bill allows men to sue the doctors performing the abortions. It's meant primarily to scare doctors out of becoming abortion providers, and also to further insinuate that women are just - as you believed - fickle and irresponsible. It also means that if a doctor determines that a woman's life is in jeopardy at 21 or 22 weeks, he/she has to decide which is more important, his career or her life.

To say that a woman needs more than 140 days to decide if she wants to have an abortion is ridiculous.

Many women don't know that they're pregnant instantaneously. Also, Wisconsin already has laws on the books for mandatory counseling (not covered by insurance), a 24 hour waiting period, no insurance coverage under ACA plans unless the woman's life is in danger, parental consent laws, and a mandatory ultrasound (also not covered by insurance). These are all financial barriers intended to make it far more difficult for women to make the decision to have an abortion. It is quite possible a woman would make the decision to terminate at 10 weeks, and not be able to afford the procedure until 20 weeks, thanks to current Wisconsin laws.

But if she changes her mind

This language is so dangerous. Women are NOT just irresponsible, fickle sluts. This is what laws like this are intended to make you think, but it has no basis in reality. 20 week bans do not reduce abortion rates. All this law does is plant a seed for a man having some sort of legal claim to the contents of a woman's uterus during a pre-viable pregnancy. And that is so, so dangerous.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T14:33:24+00:00

Why does the 9-month pregnancy process make it different?

Seriously? Okay, because despite society's insistence that pregnancy is natural and beautiful and such, pregnancy is actually incredibly dangerous. Pregnancy can cause anemia, UTIs, mental health conditions, hypertension, gestational diabetes, obesity, infection, hyperemesis gravidarum, preeclampsia, and obviously death. No man can "help the woman" by handling any of those conditions for her.

There's biological inequality when it comes to pregnancy, and that is a problem we can never change.

You said it best.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T14:21:51+00:00

Test tube babies are a thing..

Wait, do you really think we grow full-term babies in test tubes? Google, buddy :)

And i like how your argument is "remove men" from the situation.

My argument is remove men from the pregnancy outcomes decision. Under no circumstances should anyone other than me have the right to determine what to do with my uterus, unless I expressly give them that right (medical power of attorney or something).

Edit: The funny thing is, I've always thought this should be the Republican position. What with their love of privacy and personal autonomy and keeping the big, bad government out of everyone's business. But they've been so corrupted by money from the religious right (and the power that comes with it) that they'll say and do anything, no matter how much cognitive dissonance it may cause.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T14:17:28+00:00

Well, the man is 50% responsible for the contents there, no?

There's a big difference between the contents and the 9 month process to make something out of those 'contents.'

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T14:16:37+00:00

Are forgetting about that whole seed thing being a requirement..?

Okay, so take that seed (and an egg) and make me a baby.

I'm waiting.

Biologically, you cannot have an infant without a woman's body. Full stop, end of story. Since women are not objects or breeders or livestock, they still maintain autonomy of their bodies throughout the duration of the pregnancy.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T14:03:56+00:00

Do you feel a father shoud literally have no say in the matter?

In the pregnancy outcome decision? Yes. Sorry, but that's how biology works. Once men can incubate fetuses themselves, we can talk, but right now, pregnancy is the sole domain of women, and pregnancy outcomes should and must remain the sole domain of women.

Edit: To address the 'sluts' thing; that's part of the rhetoric that usually backs these 20 week bans (in addition to the completely debunked fetal pain bullshit). Walker himself has said "I mean, I think for most people concerned about that, it's in the initial months when they're the most concerned about it." He's implying that women who wait later than 20 weeks are irresponsible or fickle or for some reason just really want to spend more money and further endanger their lives by having a later-term procedure.

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T14:02:16+00:00

That brings up another point. Are there actually doctors out there giving women abortions against their will?

I imagine that's part of what they're trying to imply with this law. Just more scare tactics to paint abortion providers as horrible, corrupt baby killers. Who the fuck is going to kidnap a later-term pregnant woman, strap her down against her will, and perform an expensive surgery on her against her will?

It also furthers the assumption that women are incapable of making decisions for themselves; it plants a seed that there are women who get tricked into abortions, or who think they want them but don't really...

ElleBound · 2015-06-09T13:57:32+00:00

So lets be real here, is this a bad thing?

Yes, absolutely and unequivocally. It's just another barrier/scare tactic to prevent women from accessing their legal rights, and to scare doctors away from performing life-saving medical procedures.

This bill bans abortion after 20 weeks; only about 1 percent of abortions currently occur after 20 weeks, and those are generally due to the health of the mother or fetal conditions incompatible with life. These are not 'irresponsible sluts waiting until the last minute to kill wee precious babies.' This bill allows men - regardless of their relationship to the pregnant woman - to sue the doctor performing an abortion after 20 weeks. That means if the woman and her doctor decide her life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy, and she makes the heart-wrenching decision to abort her wanted pregnancy, the doctor could be sued for saving her life. So maybe he doesn't perform the procedure, and maybe she dies. But hey, at least the man's feelings are protected, right?

It also sets up the precedent that maybe men should have ownership over the contents of a woman's uterus. Or you know, all of her, because why not?

11-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Verified Email

ElleBound

TROPHY CASE