Misogyny and Health Care: When it doesn't take two to tango?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Mar 13, 2012.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    In other words, once she reaches 20 weeks, she is no longer in full ownership of her body and the State controls and owns her uterus until that baby is born.

    Correction, viability is now down to when the State believes the baby feels pain.

    It is not easy, but it is not that hard either. If her doctor believes that the pregnancy will impact on her mental health, she can and will be granted one. If the pregnancy puts her life at risk in any way (even depression which could lead to suicide), she can legally obtain an abortion in this country. Many women have.

    And you seem to believe that your personal opinion should matter and should factor into a person's rights over her own body and her reproductive organs.

    Don't you get it yet?

    What I personally believe is beside the point. What I personally believe only applies to my own reproductive organs, no one else's. It is not my place to impose my personal beliefs on another woman's uterus. You seem to believe that men such as yourself and Mr England should have more rights over a woman's uterus than she does, based solely on your personal beliefs.

    The same applies to the OP of this thread. Men are declaring ownership of women's uterus because of their personal and at times, religious beliefs, to the point where they are declaring that women should just no thave sex because they personally believe in abstinence, ergo women should not be given easier access to birth control. And that is the hilarious and somewhat appalling thing with this whole debate. It is men who control it, just as they are currently trying to control the reproductive organs of women. And the extent this is being pushed is ridiculous and pathetic. We are watching your fellow conservatives in your country limit birth control to charging women with murder because they tried to commit suicide while they are pregnant to doctors refusing and being denied the right to perform abortions on women who are miscarrying because the fetus still has a heartbeat. If you want to see the true level of the misogyny of Republicans and what they are subjecting women to, you only have to look at Arizona, if the examples cited in this thread aren't bad enough:


    Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

    Under current law, health plans in Arizona that cover other prescription medications must also cover contraception. House Bill 2625, which the state House of Representatives passed earlier this month and the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed on Monday, repeals that law and allows any employer to refuse to cover contraception that will be used "for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes." If a woman wants the cost of her contraception covered, she has to "submit a claim" to her employer providing evidence of a medical condition, such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome, that can be treated with birth control.

    Moreover, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the law would give Arizona employers the green light to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

    "The bill goes beyond guaranteeing a person's rights to express and practice their faith," Anjali Abraham, a lobbyist for the ACLU, told the Senate panel, "and instead lets employers prioritize their beliefs over the beliefs, the interests, the needs of their employees, in this case, particularly, female employees."

    The sponsor of the bill told the committee that it is intended to protect the First Amendment right to religious liberty.


    So please, can your moral indignation. Who do you think you are fooling here? Keep your opinion about reproductive rights to your own gonads and allow women the dignity to have control over their own bodies.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,611
    A modicum of integrity?

    Once again, you're insisting on your own context instead of replying to the point before you:

    "So unlike that article, there is nothing in the Bill that makes a women carry a dead fetus to term."​

    The narrative that you're dodging:

    When Representative Stephens' daughter was five months pregnant, doctors informed the family of just horrible news. Part of her baby's brain was developing outside of the skull. The baby's heart was also inverted. The heart was upside down.

    If the pregnancy were carried to term, Mr. Stephens said his daughter was told the baby would take at most only one or two breaths. He said, quote, "She would have watched it die."

    Because that fatal defect was detected by the doctors, Mr. Stephens' daughter was given the option of having an abortion.

    A bill was introduced in the Georgia House this year that would have banned abortion at 20 weeks, at the time just before Stephens daughter was given her diagnosis. Under the bill, a doctor performing an abortion after the 20-week cut off in Georgia could face 10 years in prison. That bill passed the Georgia House, largely along party lines.

    But Representatives Stephens, although he is a pro-life Republican, he did not vote for it. He did not vote for the 20-week abortion ban because of his experience with this issue. He walked out of the House chamber during the role call, rather than vote for this ban that would have taken away his own daughter's ability to have decided in her case and would have had the state government instead step in to force his daughter to all the way go through nine months of pregnancy and the birth of the child that they knew would die immediately upon birth.

    Mr. Stephens talked to the "Savannah Morning News" about his decision not to vote for the bill. He told the paper, quote, "For something this cruel to happen to my daughter or anyone's daughter is just plain inhuman. I consider myself pro- life, but this provision was a distortion of pro-life values."

    But even though it did not have the support of that pro-life Republican Representative Ron Stephens, the new 20-week abortion ban did pass the Georgia House and then went to the Senate in Georgia where it got an amendment. It was amended to add an exemption and the exemption would allow abortions past the 20-week cutoff in the case of a medically futile pregnancy. A case like Representative Stephens' daughter's case where a fatal defect was discovered.

    Once that exemption was added into the law in the Senate, Representative Stephens decided he could vote for it. He could vote for the 20-week ban. Again, he is a pro-life Republican and he voted for the final bill once it got that exemption added it to.

    But because of his initial reservations, based on what happened to his daughter, Representative Stephens is now being denounced as a Republican in name only, as a RINO. He's been promised that he's now going to get a Republican primary challenger from a group calling itself Peach Tea Party, peach as in Georgia peach. Tea Party as in Tea Party.


    (Maddow)

    But none of that matters, does it? Because Arthur says so.

    In short, this is the discussion I just witnessed about Georgia HB 954, in shorthand:

    Bells: This is disgusting.

    Adoucette: It didn't happen. See? Here's the law.

    Tiassa: Actually, it did happen; what you provided appears to be the other version.

    Adoucette: I've been quoting from the other version.​

    You need to quit this stupid routine of changing the context to suit your needs.

    Bells' initial point about cattle stands. Quoting from a different version of the bill doesn't change that.

    If it is too much to ask that you post with a modicum of integrity, don't complain if people end up with opinions of your arguments that you do not appreciate.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. April 2, 2012. Transcript. MSNBC.MSN.com. April 9, 2012. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46966672/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Really? Because here in NZ I can go to my GP and get a perscription for a dozen boxes of condomns for 3 NZD (2.45 USD).

    Also not covered by my employer, but under government provided healthcare.

    The idea being, in theory at least (I believe anyway), that by making birthcontrol cheap and accessable, you save money in the longterm because you're no longer paying for unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2012
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Seriously? You go to a doctor to get a prescription for condoms? Aren't they readily available at your local pharmacy? Hell, in the US you can even get them in a truck stop men's room:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Is 75¢ really too high a price to pay without government assistance?
     
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I can do, I don't have to. I can also buy them at the local supermarket.

    Meat, Eggs, Milk, and condomns.

    Pharmacy, Supermarket, and Rest-rooms, yes, they are also available at all of these locations.

    And it's fine if I'm in a jam, or in the mood for something a little different...

    But really, what's so wrong about planning ahead?

    It's not like Durex gets screwed out of any money.
     
  9. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Nope, when the discussion on this board started the law had ALREADY been passed. So to bring up things which were discussed or were in earlier versions of the bill but removed from the final bill, without making that point clear, simply creates confusion.

    Statements were in fact made that HB 954 DID contain those provisions, but the FINAL version did not.

    Facts always trump Hyperbole Tiassa.

    Note Bells' post where she claims what HB 954 contains and our discussion about it (and note her words I've put in red, it appears that she does not know that the law has in fact been passed):




    So indeed feel free to discuss all you want about the process of making law or what Mr English was supporting, but that doesn't make it wrong for me to make clear that that provision did not make it into the final bill that became law.

    So in reality our discussion went like this:

    No Tiassa, pointing out that you were wrong, and that the law was not "pushing its way through Georgia legislature", but had been passed and the part of the law you and Bells were discussing didn't make it into the final version of the Bill was NOT stupid, and it did fit into the context of the discussion.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2012
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Nope.
    What it means is that after 20 weeks the State has the right to protect the Baby's life as well as the mothers, so she can't kill it unless her life (or great bodily harm to her) is at risk, which is the same as any other Self Defense statute any two INDIVIDUALS must adhere to.

    And just like the bounds of normal Self Defense claims, you can't kill someone just because their existence makes you feel bad.


    Well actually proven viability is about 2 weeks later, but still it makes sense to err a bit on the Baby's side, when there is no medical reason to kill the baby and one can easily be off by 2 weeks in determining fetal age.

    Oh goody, now you are happy that it's "not that hard" to kill viable babies and litterally brag that MANY WOMEN HAVE.
    I'm glad I don't live in a place that is so Barbaric.

    I'd respond to the rest, but I've already done so earlier, and showed that the intepretation of the law that is being presented by you and Tiassa is totally bogus.

    What's really pathetic is that even if your twisted interpretation WERE true, it represents a mere ~$10 per month to people who are employed, so it clearly is not about anyone controlling anyone.
     
  11. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Same here, just not covered by any Medical Plan I know of.
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    Because you consider a 20 week old fetus to be a person, do you? A viable person?

    I can assure you, that "person" does not yet exist. It has no rights under any law in the land. And yet, Conservatives such as yourself deem it more a person than the actual person in whom it is being carried, thereby stripping the mother of any rights she may have over her body. The funny thing of course is that those against in the Republican party, or more to the point, those going rabid about it in the public arena, are all male. It is the men of your side who are comparing women to cattle and even denying women the right to access birth control measures, let alone abortions.

    It is misogynistic and paternalistic, not to mention controlling and domineering.

    We will forget of course that fetal age can be off by quite a few weeks and that Republicans are trying to push not just from fertilisation, but from when the woman last menstruated. That is the level of control Republican males feel they should have on the reproductive organs of women.

    And you live in a country where your law makers compare women to cattle and others are willing and desiring to let women die while they are miscarrying because the miscarriage has a heartbeat. Others are having to drive up to 90 miles away during a miscarriage, with a limb sticking out of her vagina, because men who share your beliefs feel that they are less deserving of life than the child they are miscarrying and refuse to actually treat her, because the treatment would amount to an abortion - which would ensure she does not die bleeding or go septic during her miscarriage. That is the extent the pathetic men you are here defending are pushing for in your supposedly non-barbaric country.

    In my country, that would not wash. Quite the contrary. Here, we value the woman's rights to her own body and if her health is affected, even mental health, than she is paramount. Not a 20 week old fetus that may or may not make it to term. In other words, in Australia, men such as yourself, could not lay claim to every woman's uterus and vagina because of your twisted belief systems.

    My personal beliefs about abortion has no bearing on this debate. I have neither crowed or exclaimed pride in our health system. What I have reiterated is that no one should have rights over the body of another. You should not have any rights over the uterus of a woman living 2000 miles away because of your personal belief system. Nor should she have rights over what you do with your sperm.

    But before you declare any country barbaric, keep in mind that it is your country and the men you support in your Government who openly declare women to be cattle and are openly willing to allow women to die because of what is in their uterus. You are openly trying to control and enslave women to be some sort of baby factories, because you seem to feel that you should have more say over how, when and where a woman reproduces than the woman does. Which makes you a misogynist.

    Ah, more classic dishonesty from you. The Bill had passed but had to be ammeded when even one of their best supporters on the floor couldn't swallow it due to his daughter's experience. And now, people like you consider him unworthy of his seat because he dared to put a woman's life before that of the contents of her uterus and the combined male pride that seems to dominate the Republican party.

    You'll excuse me if I don't take you seriously at all. This coming from a man who just asked if he could sexually harrass women on this forum and then openly supporting a system that is denying women ownership and basic human rights over their own body, you really have no grounds to refer to anything as pathetic or anyone's "interpretation" as twisted. What is twisted is that you openly support a system that views women as cattle and property, to the point where a woman is controlled by men like you about when, where and how they can reproduce. To the point where the men and party you support are pushing to allow employers to fire women who use contraception. Really? You don't see that as controlling anyone? Right.. You fool no one on this forum Arthur. No one.
     
  13. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yes, we in fact have had them born and survive at 22 weeks, so sure, 20 weeks is clearly viable considering that doctors can easily be off by 2 weeks.

    Absolutely WRONG.
    The mother has complete control for the first 5 months.
    COMPLETE CONTROL.

    But

    After 5 months, when the fetus is VIABLE outside the mother, then YES, it also has rights.

    But as a corollary to our Self Defense Laws, if the growing fetus puts the mother's life of physical health at substantial risk, than the life of the mother still trumps that of the fetus.

    So in no way do these laws unrealistically infringe on the rights of the mother.

    No Bells, the Bill had only passed the house back in Feb, but the provisions you were discussing were not in the Bill that was agreed to and passed by both the House and Senate and sent to the Gov for signing. Only ONE version of the bill PASSED both of these bodies and that's the one I've been discussing.
    You know, the one that actually became LAW.
    And I've absolutely not claimed that someone is unworthy of his seat for the passage of this bill, so your "people like you" claim is totally hollow.

    http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/versions/hb954_HB_954_APP_20.htm


    Total BS Bells.
    I asked a HYPOTHETICAL question, trying to get a moderator on this forum to answer a simple question, which of course you refused over and over to do.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113209

    FINALLY, James answered the question you wouldn't this morning.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113229

    And more importantly, I've never once sexually harrassed any member of this forum, but it's interesting how you have to resort to ad hominum.

    Can't say as I'm at all surprised by this though.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2012
  14. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    When all else fails, TYPE IN ALL CAPS!
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    Give it a few months and it will go down to 18 weeks, and so on and so forth. You are, however, the first person I have seen declare that a fetus is viable at 22 weeks.

    Actually, no she does not. Because in your supposedly non-barbaric country, the Republicans are trying to push a Bill through the Senate (it passed in the lower house), which would give doctors the right to allow women who are miscarrying to die if they do not want to perform an abortion. A state in your country is also trying to pass a Bill which would allow employers to fire women who use contraception because it goes against their personal or religious beliefs.

    You call that being in "complete control"? One only has to look at the OP of this thread and see that she does not have complete control. It is getting to the point where the men you support are declaring that not only are women like cattle, but that they should just not be having sex at all. Again, who do you think you are fooling?

    And the mother's rights over her body disappears, to the point where she can be charged with murder if she is suicidal and she attempts suicide, which results in the death of her fetus. And this isn't even a hypothetical in your country anymore. This is reality. And you consider this 'complete control'?

    Then I would suggest you contact your local representative as your Federal Republican cronies are trying to get a bill through the senate which would allow doctors to allow pregnant women to die if their life is at risk during the pregnancy and the doctor does not want to perform an abortion based on his/her own personal beliefs. So no, the life of the mother does not always trump that of the fetus. Women are going septic during miscarriage because doctors are legally allowed to refuse to perform an abortion to save their life. Some women are being turned away during a miscarriage, because there is still a fetal heartbeat, some with limbs poking out of her vagina, meaning that it is a definite miscarriage. And you have the gall to say that the woman has complete control and that the life of the mother trumps that of the fetus? You fool no one with your dishonesty Arthur.

    And this is why people consider you to be dishonest. Because even with ample proof to the contrary, you will still declare that you are right because you say so. You are either dishonest or delusional.

    No. You advised of a problem and then out of left field decided to ask if it meant you would be allowed to sexually harrass women on this site, including moderators. When I openly advised you that it was sexual harrassment and that such behaviour is against the rules, you appeared to ignore it and kept on trying to do god knows what with the subject and refused to provide any links to the incident or report it. The question had been answered and we offered to rectify it and you refused.

    I guess when you told Gustav that what you did with his girlfriend when you are alone is just you being immature and not crass or behaving in an inappropriate manner?

    Don't worry Arthur. The greater majority of us say the same thing about your posts when we read it.
     
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yeah, well that's because it's true Bells.

    Little Amillia Taylor was born at the age of 22 weeks and six days, weighing only 10 oz. We know her exact age because she was conceived by in vitro fertilization.
    Four months later, weighing four pounds, Amilliia is being released from Baptist Children’s Hospital in Miami, Florida, today.

    http://www.jillstanek.com/2007/02/worlds-youngest-surviving-baby-born-in-miami/


    Except none of this is LAW Bells.

    Yeah, I probably should have reported him, but as usual nothing would have been done, so sometimes the best way to deal with hecklers like Gustav is to do so directly, but my post was clearly not crass or inappropriate considering what he said about me.
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    Tell that to the women who have already lived through it and are living through it.
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No Bells, if the laws haven't been passed then by definition no one has "lived through it".
     
  20. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yes, because used to highlight an important word, or phrase, it's faster than use of bold but essentially serves the same purpose, but is more apparent than bold is when the SIZE of the type is small.
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,611
    (chortle!)

    Arthur, by your logic, we should not prosecute attempted murder, since a person failed in their attempt to kill someone else.

    Some of us find it repugnant that Republicans would actually attempt such a bill, and find it misogynistic that someone would, in justifying that attempt, compare women to livestock. But, hey, there's no point in being offended; the attempt failed. You know, there's no point in being offended, because Arthur says so.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,550
    You're right! Which means that at that point the woman can have them safely removed. If it dies, of course, it's the fetuses fault - they are clearly viable at that point. If it survives, which it should, it can then be adopted by people such as yourself. Everyone wins.
     
  23. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Not really a very good analogy, but then that's clearly not a strong suit for you is it?

    More BS Tiassa, I never said you shouldn't be offended by anything.

    You claimed that the Bill was "pushing its way through Georgia legislature".

    And what Bells claimed: What you fail to mention is that the law would force women to carry to term, a fetus that is diagnosed as not being able to survive to term.

    Were both FALSE.

    Not only had the Bill passed, but that part of the legislation that Bells pointed out was't included in the legislation that passed.

    And those are indeed important details.

    Sorry Tiassa but I see you make bogus claims, like that the US is a net exporter of OIL, which is not only false, but absurd, then yes I will correct you.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2910972&postcount=11
     

Share This Page