Morning After Pill for US Troops

[Susan Horn]

This simply has to be said. All due praise to Geo for bringing this out for discussion, but no one has yet answered the question I've been asking for most of my adult life, to wit:

Since women are the ones who get pregnant, and experience all the physical, mental and emotional risks, challenges and joys of pregnancy and motherhood, as well as the physical pain, risk to health, and grief in the sad event of choosing to terminate a pregnancy, what place does any man have in registering an opinion about the rights a woman should or should not have to any form of contraception?

Put another way, I have always suspected that if men were the ones who experienced the above-mentioned motherhood stuff, safe contraceptive methods in a variety of delivery methods would be distributed free in kiosks on every street corner.

Don't get me wrong -- I love men, married one and birthed three! Still, I have never understood how it happened that non-childbearing people got to be part of the conversation about something so distinctly belonging in the realm of women.

 

[Geo]

Nice

 

[30ashopper]

This simply has to be said. All due praise to Geo for bringing this out for discussion, but no one has yet answered the question I've been asking for most of my adult life, to wit:

Since women are the ones who get pregnant, and experience all the physical, mental and emotional risks, challenges and joys of pregnancy and motherhood, as well as the physical pain, risk to health, and grief in the sad event of choosing to terminate a pregnancy, what place does any man have in registering an opinion about the rights a woman should or should not have to any form of contraception?

Put another way, I have always suspected that if men were the ones who experienced the above-mentioned motherhood stuff, safe contraceptive methods in a variety of delivery methods would be distributed free in kiosks on every street corner.

Don't get me wrong -- I love men, married one and birthed three! Still, I have never understood how it happened that non-childbearing people got to be part of the conversation about something so distinctly belonging in the realm of women.

The only two people who should be involved are the woman, and the child. Since the child is incapable of representing itself, the state takes that responsibility. At the federal level, this is a gray area, the constitution doesn't really speak to this as it wasn't even considered by the founders. (Some argue that if asked, the founders would insist the Constitution covers an unborn child, others argue the opposite. We won't have a final decision on that until we amend.) At some point a child is granted the rights you and I have under the Constitution, but since that is not clearly defined, I think it falls to the states to decided. If states choose to grant rights to the unborn child those states have the responsibility of protecting those right, including protecting the child from its mother if she tries to violate those rights.

Of course the critical dividing line is where life begins. I prefer to fall back on science rather than religion or politics to help answer that question. I also prefer to err on the side of caution, because clearly making a mistake could cost a life.

 

[Susan Horn]

The only two people who should be involved are the woman, and the child. Since the child is incapable of representing itself, the state takes that responsibility. At the federal level, this is a gray area, the constitution doesn't really speak to this as it wasn't even considered by the founders. (Some argue that if asked, the founders would insist the Constitution covers an unborn child, others argue the opposite. We won't have a final decision on that until we amend.) At some point a child is granted the rights you and I have under the Constitution, but since that is not clearly defined, I think it falls to the states to decided. If states choose to grant rights to the unborn child that state has the responsibility of protecting those right, including protecting the child from its mother if she tries to violate those rights.

Of course the critical dividing line is where life begins. I prefer to fall back on science rather than religion or politics to help answer that question. I also prefer to err on the side of caution, because clearly making a mistake could cost a life.

Yes, and every time I see photos of governing bodies at the state and federal levels, they are mostly men. My question remains unanswered.

 

[30ashopper]

I should also point out before SWGB incorrectly infers something (for the thousandth time) from my posts .. my views on abortion and on Roe v Wade :

1) I do not feel the court had any right to rule on that case, they should have turned it down. The Constitution does not speak on this matter. It should be addressed through an amendment.

2) Ironically, I completely agree with the ruling. The original Roe v. Wade ruling did not make all abortions legal, far from it. It defined a trimester system and used that to define when states can have a say. First trimester, women should have unfettered access to abortion services if they so choose. Second trimester states can restrict abortion under certain circumstances but generally access to abortion services should be allowed. Third trimester (amazingly enough, starting right around the time science later showed to be the beginning of heavy brain activity in the child) states are free to restrict or even illegalize abortion services.

This for me makes perfect sense. I disagree with the religious view that life begins at conception as there's no scientific proof of that. I also disagree with the pro-choice advocates that claim there is some imaginary dividing line that occurs at birth - there's no scientific proof of that either.

In a strange twist of irony, both the hard core pro-lifers and the hard core pro-choicers are left defending their imaginary lines, or better described, their religions.

 

[30ashopper]

Yes, and every time I see photos of governing bodies at the state and federal levels, they are mostly men. My question remains unanswered.

Independent of Constitutional Rights of a child, do women generally feel they should have the ability to terminate a child's life whenever they see fit? If so, should anything prevent them from making that decision post child birth?

This is about the child's rights, and when it aquires them. This isn't a them (males) vs us (females) thing IMHO.

 

[Matt J]

I should also point out before SWGB incorrectly infers something (for the thousandth time) from my posts .. my views on abortion and on Roe v Wade

I don't infer, I know that you're an ahole.

 

[blueeyes2go]

You guys are nice. I'm going to like it here.

 

[Susan Horn]

Independent of Constitutional Rights of a child, do women generally feel they should have the ability to terminate a child's life whenever they see fit? If so, should anything prevent them from making that decision post child birth?

This is about the child's rights, and when it aquires them. This isn't a them (males) vs us (females) thing IMHO.

I don't know what women generally feel or think; am only feeling, thinking and speaking for myself. I don't see it as a male vs. female thing either. It is simply a woman thing, not a man thing, and it is inappropriate for men to be intruding into these decisions about what happens to the lives and bodies of women and their unborn children.

We could debate endlessly about when life begins and when rights begin, and whose rights if any should take precedence, and what about in cases of rape or incest or the discovery of some dreaded disease, or the health of the mother. But that's beside the point, which is, for me, that this is a decision properly made by women, who may or may not choose to seek the advice of men whose opinions on the subject have value for them.

 

[30ashopper]

I don't know what women generally feel or think; am only feeling, thinking and speaking for myself. I don't see it as a male vs. female thing either. It is simply a woman thing, not a man thing, and it is inappropriate for men to be intruding into these decisions about what happens to the lives and bodies of women and their unborn children.

We could debate endlessly about when life begins and when rights begin, and whose rights if any should take precedence, and what about in cases of rape or incest or the discovery of some dreaded disease, or the health of the mother. But that's beside the point, which is, for me, that this is a decision properly made by women, who may or may not choose to seek the advice of men whose opinions on the subject have value for them.

I respect your sentiment on that Susan. Government, or really, "we the people", should not be granted the ability to regulate personal decisions individuals make. We should be free to live our lives the way we choose. However there is a limit - if the personal choices people make negatively impact those around them, we've bestowed upon government the responsibility of stepping in to intervene and protect. That's a very important part of our social system, wouldn't you agree?