Senate Abortion, the law and religion: discussing the death of Savita Halappanavar

because the pathological need to control women's bodies and punish them for sex is usually associated with religion

Well, well, well, Rick Perry is back.

Starting here provides the foundation, but an update to the article is as follows:

Texas has now blacklisted a group of physicians who not only work at/with Planned Parenthood, but any doctor who even discusses abortion with a patient automatically becomes ineligible to receive any state funds. So basically, if you say the word "abortion" in Texas, and you are a doctor, or you potentially work in the same building as an abortion provider, you are suspect.

Like the Florida law banning physicians from discussing gun ownership with patients under pain of felony conviction and loss-of-license, this goes WAY to far. Governor Perry's goal, obviously, is to make it impossible to provide not only abortion services, but basic women's health services in the state of Texas, unless you are a private citizen wealthy enough to find a private physician who will accept cash, it seems. Since he cannot outlaw abortion in toto, he is going after the money.

An appeals court has allowed this to go forward, and another appeal is set for January 11th. Here's to hoping they enjoin it as a First Amendment violation, not to mention an Equal Protection one. Unfortunately, I believe the USSC, which is likely to eventually hear this law, will probably uphold it.

Peace,

V-03

I find the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" stupid and misleading. I am pro-choice and pro-life. If two people choose to have sex, they have to deal with the consequences of their actions, and not use abortion as a cop out. If a woman is raped or the pregnancy puts her life at risk, I believe they should have the choice of what to do and who to save.

That's not being heartless, that's being rational.

Not punishment, but consequence and responsibility. And no, it shouldn't be associated with religion.

It shouldn't be associated with anything. It shouldn't exist at all. But it does, and there are reasons why it is so commonly associated with religion.

When you use the term "consequence," the implication is that the act is somehow wrong. In this case, the implication is that it is wrong for women to have sex and they must therefore deal with the "consequences."

As far as "responsibility," I'd say not bringing a child into the world that one is not prepared to raise is pretty responsible, whereas any attempt to force a woman into motherhood when she isn't ready, is pretty irresponsible. And Rick Perry is forcing doctors to be very irresponsible by withholding medical information.

If the concern here is about responsibility, then the pro-life advocates should also be the biggest advocates for easy and inexpensive access to birth control. Sadly they are usually the same ones advocating for restricted access, and the calls for so-called "responsibility" become calls to punish women for having sex, aka "consequences." Let's not pretend the word means something else--when I tell my children that they will receive a "consequence", I mean that they have done something wrong and are going to be punished.

And yes, it has everything to do with religion. Not too many secular humanists call for restricted access to both abortion and birth control.

The rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

The implication is that it is wrong for ANYONE to have UNPROTECTED sex.

...unless she is trying to get pregnant.

I agree with you--therefore, why does the pro-life side generally seem to be so adamantly against increasing access to birth control? Increased access to effective birth control is the best way to decrease abortions, but from what I've seen of the pro-life side, they haven't seemed to want to acknowledge this. I could take the pro-life side more seriously if they did, as their stance would seem to be more about abortion and less about punishing women for having sex.

Here's a suggestion: If we want people to take more 'responsiblity' over their sexual choices, how about beefing up sex - ed in schools so that teens and young adults have greater information about how to prevent STDs and Pregnancy in the first place so that abortion doesn't necessarily have to be an option.

But oh wait, according to the extreme right birth control doesn't work and in some cases a woman's body can just 'shut it down' in terms of 'legitimate rape' so there's no need for anything other than abstinence - only education and no birth control at all.

But Juliet, if you teach sex ed in schools, you'll implant thoughts of sex into kids' heads and they might even think that authority figures are OK with their having sex. Teenagers never think about sex unless someone mentions it to them! Oh, wait...

What? How does consequence implies a wrong action? A consequence is merely the result of a certain action, be it good or bad.

No, but that women (and men) have the choice to have sex. And if they do choose to have it, they must accept the consequences of their actions.

I agree.

Strawman. Although I don't think birth control methods should be free. Easy access? Yes.

How is getting pregnant a punishment for having sex? Is expiration a punishment for inspiration?

Let's not pretend the word means something else then. Here's the definition of consequence:

noun.
1. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition.
2. The relation of a result to its cause.
3. A logical conclusion or inference.

It hasn't. Being against abortion is not exclusive to religious people. Nor is being in favor of it exclusive to non-religious people. The fact that this is true proves that they aren't related.

Don't misunderstand my position because I am totally against this law but - I believe the intent is not to make it impossible to provide "basic women's health services" but to make it impossible *if* doctors or their associates provide any services relating to abortion. I am not discussing whether or not abortion counseling, etc. should be part of "basic women's health services."

I grant that the law is targeting anything relating to abortion, but it does not necessarily follow that it is targeting all women's health services. It may well have that consequence, yes.

But as we've seen time and again, those politicians in a position to target "abortion" and related services don't really care about unintended consequences because they don't see that there is any such consequences or they see their target outweighs those consequences.

Is making the choice to have sex such a horrible thing that you want to ensure that people who do so, must bring a child into the world that they may not be prepared to raise? Or should all children be born into homes of parents who are ready for them? I say the latter.

As far as not thinking birth control should be free--do you then believe that only people who can afford birth control should be allowed to have protected sex, and that poor people should get pregnant every time they have sex? Seems a bit bass-awkwards to me.

If you want to have sex that's fine, but sex produces offspring. If you don't want offspring and want to have sex use birth control. If you don't use birth control, have sex willingly, and get pregnant, then it's your own bloody fault and suck it up and accept the consequences of your actions.

Honestly I'm getting close to thinking we might as well just sterilize everyone when their born and just grow kids in test tubes from now on. That way people can have as much sex as they want without worry of getting pregnant and only people who really want kids can have them.

I agree, which is why I want sex ed taught in schools and birth control to be as easily and widely available as possible.

As to your last paragraph, I don't think your Jonathan Swift style solution is necessary to ensure that people can plan their pregnancies and avoid pregnancy when they aren't ready.

Agreed, though if kids still don't wear seat belts and still keep drinking and driving with all the education we throw at them I'm doubtful more sex ed will do anything. Kids are stupid, they live to do stupid things.

Well glad you caught on that I was only making a 'modest proposal' but I'm still doubtful about the average person's capacity for responsibility.

I suppose I will put my two cents in on this discussion as I am a pro-lifer (for lack of a better term). Normally my stance would be that I believe abortion is wrong under any circumstances, but seeing this report brings me to the conclusion that this baby this woman was carrying was not alive and was now endangering her. It's bad enough that the baby had died, but they wouldn't help her save her own life from removing him/her? That is outrageous!

Personally, I'd be more sympathetic to the American pro-life movement if more of them weren't right-wingers.

In other words, if you're pro-war and advocate the further shredding of the social safety net, it's fairly safe to say you're not really "pro-life," nor do you really give two figs about the welfare of children.