Misogynist barbarians in Alabama impose forced pregnancy law

[Sue]

I have also had one anti-abortion person tell me that they don't believe in exceptions for rape because "a woman can't get pregnant from rape. If she "enjoyed" it enough to get pregnant, it was a rape.

Some of them have very little understanding of how the human body works.

Like this fucker/fuckwit:

'In reference to pregnancy resulting from rape, Akin told KTVI-TV: "First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that is really rare.
"If it is a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down.'

'Legitimate rape' rarely leads to pregnancy, claims US Senate candidate

Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Missouri, causes furore with explanation of his no-exceptions policy on abortion

www.theguardian.com

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not “used for abortion” as such. The objection is based on the IUD preventing implantation of an embryo.

Blastocyst. Better to use this term here, imo. It stresses that this is just a small bunch of undifferentiated cells.

 

[8ball]

Strikes me that elevating the moment an egg is fertilised by a sperm to a sacred, special place is a very male-centred attitude. It's when the man's bit does its thing. So what?

No, it’s the first point where you can say you have a unique human biological entity.

 

[frogwoman]

Until it's inside the womb it's not a baby though.

I don't understand how they can say IUDs are anything to do with abortion, they're just trying to control women's bodies. You might as well say that by law everyone with a partner should eat oysters dates and other aphrodisiac and fertility promoting foods and if you don't that's murder. Actually some of them probably do.

 

[8ball]

Blastocyst. Better to use this term here, imo. It stresses that this is just a small bunch of undifferentiated cells.

Better to use the term zygote if you want to be precise. It is not a blastocyst until a few cell divisions after conception.

The point of formation of the zygote is the point where the pro-lifers dig their heels in.

 

[Edie]

Nah IUDs are needed for other stuff like endometriosis treatment. Never heard of them being used for abortion tbh. This is just 'every sperm is sacred' shite

A copper IUD can be used as emergency contraception if inserted within five days after unprotected sex. So I guess if your belief is that life begins at fertilisation that could encompass an aborted pregnancy.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, it’s the first point where you can say you have a unique human biological entity.

Is that really why they've chosen this moment to be special?

Before such things as sperm and eggs and zygotes and genes and all the rest of it were known about, it was widely believed that a man's 'seed' was implanted into the woman. Tiny homunculus (that somehow mysteriously acquired some of its mums characteristics).* The religious nuts have adapted their belief to this new set of knowledge in order to continue to privilege the man's contribution.

*And despite believing this seed crap, women still got blamed for not producing male heirs.

 

[frogwoman]

What do they think about the morning after pill etc? Mind you a lot of these types think anything other than missionary with the lights off means you're damned so I can probably guess

 

[NoXion]

No, the difference is critical to them. Nothing they do will make sense unless you understand this.

Is that why they're trying to ban IUDs?

 

[Ax^]

Better to use the term zygote if you want to be precise. It is not a blastocyst until a few cell divisions after conception.

The point of formation of the zygote is the point where the pro-lifers dig their heels in.

which is one element in why they are fuckwits

 

[8ball]

Until it's inside the womb it's not a baby though.

I don't understand how they can say IUDs are anything to do with abortion, they're just trying to control women's bodies. You might as well say that by law everyone with a partner should eat oysters dates and other aphrodisiac and fertility promoting foods and if you don't that's murder. Actually some of them probably do.

I wouldn’t call it a baby til some time after that, myself. But they have drawn the line where they have, hence the IUD thing.

The Protestant pro-lifers are not trying to ban contraception. Though given some Evangelicals’ adoption of this “great replacement” talk, one could be given to wonder how long that will last.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Better to use the term zygote if you want to be precise. It is not a blastocyst until a few cell divisions after conception.

The point of formation of the zygote is the point where the pro-lifers dig their heels in.

If it's prevented from implanting, it's probably a blastocyst at that stage.

But it's exactly this privileging of the moment of formation of a zygote that needs resisting. Saying that IUDs aren't contraception cos they sometimes stop pregnancy after the formation of a zygote is using their logic and granting their logic more than it deserves.

 

[frogwoman]

The Sin of Onan: contraception

The protestants might not but some of the incel and alt right types definitely are

 

[8ball]

Is that really why they've chosen this moment to be special?

Before such things as sperm and eggs and zygotes and genes and all the rest of it were known about, it was widely believed that a man's 'seed' was implanted into the woman. Tiny homunculus (that somehow mysteriously acquired some of its mums characteristics).* The religious nuts have adapted their belief to this new set of knowledge in order to continue to privilege the man's contribution.

*And despite believing this seed crap, women still got blamed for not producing male heirs.

This is nonsense on stilts.

 

[8ball]

If it's prevented from implanting, it's probably a blastocyst at that stage.

But it's exactly this privileging of the moment of formation of a zygote that needs resisting. Saying that IUDs aren't contraception cos they sometimes stop pregnancy after the formation of a zygote is using their logic and granting their logic more than it deserves.

The reason we have the word contraception is because it prevents conception. Do an image search for “conception”.

 

[NoXion]

This is nonsense on stilts.

Great argument. You're being a fuckwit.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The reason we have the word contraception is because it prevents conception. Do an image search for “conception”.

That is the etymology of the word, sure. Its meaning is up to us. IUDs are contraception in my world, whether they stop pregnancy before or after fertilisation.

 

[8ball]

Is that why they're trying to ban IUDs?

i) They’re not.
ii) How are you still confused about this?

 

[Sue]

What do they think about the morning after pill etc? Mind you a lot of these types think anything other than missionary with the lights off means you're damned so I can probably guess

Oh, I'm pretty sure they're not fans of that either.

The older I get, the more incensed I get about men trying to control women and their bodies.

Easy for men to be against abortion when they could never ever be in the position of being pregnant and forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy. It's horrific.

(Yes, I know NAM, NAW.)

 

[Edie]

If it's prevented from implanting, it's probably a blastocyst at that stage.

But it's exactly this privileging of the moment of formation of a zygote that needs resisting. Saying that IUDs aren't contraception cos they sometimes stop pregnancy after the formation of a zygote is using their logic and granting their logic more than it deserves.

I agree it’s not worth arguing on those grounds. Any line drawn for the ‘start’ of human life is arbitrary and can be drawn from fertilisation to live birth.

I think it’s far more powerful to say that abortion prevents a greater wrong- the risk to mother.

Personally I do believe abortion is wrong, but sometimes necessary. And it is up to the woman to choose. With broadly the same guidelines as exist today re second trimester pregnancies.

 

[8ball]

That is the etymology of the word, sure. Its meaning is up to us. IUDs are contraception in my world, whether they stop pregnancy before or after fertilisation.

People living in different worlds is close to the heart of the issue.

 

[8ball]

I agree it’s not worth arguing on those grounds. Any line drawn for the ‘start’ of human life is arbitrary and can be drawn from fertilisation to live birth.

Not really. It is human and it is a distinct life form from conception. That’s just biology.

It’s just that to most of us this is entirely incidental in terms of morality, which is where we are right and they are wrong.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

There's at least one crazy republican who's asked to ban condoms

I shame as they could probably be used to suffocate republicans.

 

[Sue]

I agree it’s not worth arguing on those grounds. Any line drawn for the ‘start’ of human life is arbitrary and can be drawn from fertilisation to live birth.

I think it’s far more powerful to say that abortion prevents a greater wrong- the risk to mother.

Personally I do believe abortion is wrong, but sometimes necessary. And it is up to the woman to choose. With broadly the same guidelines as exist today re second trimester pregnancies.

While I may not conpletely agree with Edie on this, I respect her views. If only everyone was so reasonable.

 

[8ball]

While I may not conpletely agree with Edie on this, I respect her views. If only everyone was so reasonable.

Neither you or Edie is trying to prevent someone else doing something tbf.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not really. It is human and it is a distinct life form from conception. That’s just biology.

I don't think this is as cut and dried a fact as you think it is. The moment an egg is fertilised by a sperm, a new cell is created and that cell now contains a different set of DNA instructions from all the other cells in the woman's body (aside from the trillions of bacteria, etc). The cell is still entirely dependent on the body it is in to survive and divide, however, just like all the other cells.

Saying that it is human and a distinct life form from conception is an essentially arbitrary judgement.

 

[8ball]

I don't think this is as cut and dried a fact as you think it is. The moment an egg is fertilised by a sperm, a new cell is created and that cell now contains a different set of DNA instructions from all the other cells in the woman's body (aside from the trillions of bacteria, etc). The cell is still entirely dependent on the body it is in to survive and divide, however, just like all the other cells.

Saying that it is human and a distinct life form from conception is an essentially arbitrary judgement.

This is just playing with words. And dependence has no bearing on whether something is a distinct and unique life form.
It's no good trying to invent your own voodoo biology when facts become inconvenient to your worldview.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is just playing with words. And dependence has no bearing on whether something is a distinct and unique life form.
It's no good trying to invent your own voodoo biology when facts become inconvenient to your worldview.

It's not playing with words. It's the opposite of that. It's a description of what is actually happening without the addition of certain value judgements. You're adding in those value judgements without, it seems, realising that you're doing it.

You could as well say that a cancer cell is a distinct living entity. After all, it has broken from the collective and started to do its own thing and act in its own interests.

 

[8ball]

It's not playing with words. It's the opposite of that. It's a description of what is actually happening without the addition of certain value judgements. You're adding in those value judgements without, it seems, realising that you're doing it.

No, I'm using words that you have attached value judgments to, and you're not comfortable with it so you're going down the "anything can mean anything" rabbit hole.
Except it's not working - take this: "The moment an egg is fertilised by a sperm, a new cell is created and that cell now contains a different set of DNA instructions from all the other cells in the woman's body (aside from the trillions of bacteria, etc)."

This is just a rearrangement of the terms "distinct and unique" - the exact words I used.

You've attached a value judgment to one arrangement and not the other..
I haven't attached a value judgment to either, as mentioned in #652.

 

[Edie]

Not really. It is human and it is a distinct life form from conception. That’s just biology.

It’s just that to most of us this is entirely incidental in terms of morality, which is where we are right and they are wrong.

What do you mean incidental in terms of morality? It’s a moral question surely.