Abortion for 'medical reasons' 'legalised' in Tasmania

[Anxious Girl]

Statements like that are what have made me more conservative regarding abortion. Of course fetuses are alive. You can see the heartbeat on the ultrasound at what -- 6 or 8 weeks ? And" if they were alive people wouldn't have birthdays" has got to be one of the most nonsensical statements I've ever read.-- Closely followed by "God wouldn't have invented miscarriages" -- Living people die every day, in fact everybody dies, so how would a miscarriage (the death of a fetus) prove anything relevant about life and death ? :angry-banghead:

Because fundies think these fetuses are human beings. They're not. Living people do die every day, but when it comes to women; fundies care more about the preshus fetus than the woman if she doesn't want to go through with her pregnancy.

[Full enough quiver]

I'm not the most educated person, so I'm sure it's a simplified explanation, but I learned that the criteria for something being alive is that it eats, it breathes, it grows. Thus, a plant is alive, a rock is not. Therefore, a fetus is alive. So what? Lots of things are alive. Alive does not equal a life. A fetus is human. It has human DNA, separate from its mother. If left to grow and be born, it would be a human baby, not a dog or cat. So what? It being human does not give it the right to someone else's body. I didn't know that believing those things makes someone a troll. I thought it was just biology. (That's what I meant. It is alive, it is not a life. It is human, it is not a human being) hopefully that's clearer :)

[desertvixen]

You wonder why we view you as ignorant and misogynist? Review your use of "on a whim." Do you really believe that women who abort are acting on a whim, without thought, without consultation, without research, without consideration? If you answer is "yes," then indeed-- you are simply anti-woman.

What you deem as selfishness, I call self-preservation and self-assertion. What you call selfishness, I call agency. In turn, what you call "SAVING THE BABIEZ," I call fetishizing them.

QFT. Especially since they care fuck-all about them once they are outside of the uterus.

Anxious Girl, I wouldn't argue that the fetus is not alive. It just doesn't get to override a woman's rights to her already established life, and it doesn't get separate rights until it's out here kicking and screaming and you know, delivered. I'm not comfortable with the idea of just because the fetus has achieved a certain number of weeks and is considered viable that the woman MUST have it, especially since prematurity can bring a whole host of issues and hardships. The choice has to belong to the woman and the woman only.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Statements like that are what have made me more conservative regarding abortion. Of course fetuses are alive. You can see the heartbeat on the ultrasound at what -- 6 or 8 weeks ? And" if they were alive people wouldn't have birthdays" has got to be one of the most nonsensical statements I've ever read.-- Closely followed by "God wouldn't have invented miscarriages" -- Living people die every day, in fact everybody dies, so how would a miscarriage (the death of a fetus) prove anything relevant about life and death ? :angry-banghead:

I have to agree. Anxious Girl, that's a remarkably weak and unpersuasive argument. The real question from a legal POV is whether fetus = person, with the full set of rights that are separate from the pregnant woman, and which can be used to diminish the rights of the pregnant woman.

IMHO, a basic flaw of the anti-abortion movement is that they view fetuses and pregnant women as separate entities pitted against each other, and believe that it is possible to protect a fetus without much regard for the pregnant woman. I'm not a fan of the particular tactic within the pro-choice movement which buys into that paradigm. We don't need to say that all fetuses lack value - we just need to point out that prior to birth, the fetus is essentially at a parasitic stage, where it is completely dependent upon the pregnant woman and making demands upon her body. [i would agree, though, that suggesting that millions of lives are lost to birth control pills and Plan B is simply nonsensical, since these work mostly by preventing conception and since a cell prior to implantation is really just a cell.]

Notice that I use the term anti-abortion, not pro-life. The basic thrust of the movement is to oppose the right of women to have abortions, and in many cases they also extend their advocacy to reducing birth control options and controlling pregnant women through so-called "fetus protection" laws. To a large extent, the movement ignores the fact that the most effective way to help fetal outcomes is to help the pregnant woman. If the resources that are currently directed toward opposing abortion were redirected toward improving birth control knowledge and usage, and providing more support for pregnant women, we'd likely see a real decrease in abortion rates.

[formergothardite]

This is one of the reasons why we need to encourage people who are having sex to TALK about this stuff. Just like I would NOT sleep with someone who couldn't understand that I will control my own body, and that should this decision come up, he gets a vote but not a veto.

I don't know the young men you do, but sometimes there is a reason that women decide this. My younger brother's ex-gf did it, because she knew she was not ready to give up her lifestyle, which included drugs, and no way that he was going to change his lifestyle, EVEN if he said he would.

I know someone who had an abortion right after she left her husband. He wasn't abusive and if he could have found a legal way to stop her from having an abortion he would have and he would have taken custody of the child. But he is a die-hard fundie who would be raising any children in a very ATIish way which is why she left and one of the reasons she had an abortion. She didn't want to provide him with a child knowing how he would raise it.

The idea that a man can have the rights over a woman's body and tell her she can't have an abortion is horrifying.

[Minerva]

Statements like that are what have made me more conservative regarding abortion. Of course fetuses are alive. You can see the heartbeat on the ultrasound at what -- 6 or 8 weeks ? And" if they were alive people wouldn't have birthdays" has got to be one of the most nonsensical statements I've ever read.-- Closely followed by "God wouldn't have invented miscarriages" -- Living people die every day, in fact everybody dies, so how would a miscarriage (the death of a fetus) prove anything relevant about life and death ? :angry-banghead:

Fetuses are alive and human. But so is my appendix. "Fetuses aren't human" and "fetuses aren't alive" are strawmen arguments - anti-choice people like to pretend that they are pinnacle of the pro-choice position. It doesn't help when we actually use them.

Mrs S2004, do you really mean to say that hearing shitty arguments for one side of a debate makes you lean towards the other side? Like, if I directed you towards a 3rd grader's badly written and argued essay against fascism, would you be less anti-fascist? I can understand not liking to be on the same side of a debate as someone who has made an embarrassingly bad argument, but surely you understand that when there are millions of people who've taken a side in a debate, there will be bad arguments heard from both sides. And surely you understand that making your position as reality-based as possible has everything to do with applying logic and ethics to facts and nothing to do with how badly it is possible to argue for one side.

[Ruby Slippers]

Statements like that are what have made me more conservative regarding abortion.

While I agree that the previous poster's argument was weak, this is equally unsound. If poor arguments make you change sides, what do sound arguments do?

"Person" is not a moral or spiritual definition. It is a legal one. So the question of whether or not a fetus is a "life" is immaterial. The real issue is whether it is a legal person. If so, then it has Constitutional rights, including life, liberty, etc. If it is not a person, it has no rights at all.

The mother, on the other hand, is unequivocally a person in the legal sense. She therefore has Constitutionally-protected liberties including privacy, and issues of childbearing and childrearing are private ones which she has the right to control without interference of the state.

Anti-choice, by definition, gives an entity without legal personhood more rights than a legally defined person. So we just have to assign fetuses "personhood" status and they have the same rights and the argument can be lain to rest, yes?

Except.... no. That entitles the government to oversee pregnant women's lives, including bedrest, medicine intake, prenatal vitamin intake, mandating c-sections on anyone with a shade of an anomaly, outlawing homebirths, prohibiting medical treatments that may endanger a fetus (looking at you, Dominican Republic and Ireland)-- all because the fetus now has rights to life and liberty as a person. Suddenly, every study saying that, I don't know, women who used cell phones while pregnant were more likely to have miscarriages could mean state oversight for cell phone use of pregnant women-- because they have to protect the interests of the fetus-person. Moreover, do fetuses now have social security numbers? Can they be claimed as tax dependents? Do they receive child support? Who upholds or enforces these legal standards? Are these criminal violations? Do we live in fucking Saudi Arabia?

Women's federally protected rights are NOT contingent on their gestational status. You can see that this is not legally possible and thus, any attempt to "defend" a fetus from termination is a legal clusterfuck. Either the woman owns her body, or the state owns it on behalf of the fetus.

[Mama Mia]

Fetuses are alive and human. But so is my appendix. "Fetuses aren't human" and "fetuses aren't alive" are strawmen arguments - anti-choice people like to pretend that they are pinnacle of the pro-choice position. It doesn't help when we actually use them.

Mrs S2004, do you really mean to say that hearing shitty arguments for one side of a debate makes you lean towards the other side? Like, if I directed you towards a 3rd grader's badly written and argued essay against fascism, would you be less anti-fascist? I can understand not liking to be on the same side of a debate as someone who has made an embarrassingly bad argument, but surely you understand that when there are millions of people who've taken a side in a debate, there will be bad arguments heard from both sides. And surely you understand that making your position as reality-based as possible has everything to do with applying logic and ethics to facts and nothing to do with how badly it is possible to argue for one side.

What has made me more conservative in my position, from reading on fj, is that there ARE so many people who spread the idea that fetuses aren't alive and aren't human- along with the 'blob of cells' statement far past the point where this is a remotely accurate description.

I stated when I first started reading here that this is what I had been told at planned parenthood, and that this is what many of my friends and relatives were told at planned parenthood. When I stated my experience, I was told that there is no way that planned parenthood counselors would ever say such a thing, and that of course everyone is aware that fetuses are actually alive, because you know, biology. But then I read over and over and over on here how many posters do use terms that suggest ( or even state ) that the fetus isn't alive, isn't human and that it's basically a faceless glob until practically the moment of birth. You get posters who are adamant that there is no way you could determine the sex of the fetus just on ultrasound before 20 weeks - despite many people getting ultrasounds at 14 or 16 or 18 weeks where you can tell the sex -as an example. Just basic lack of any awareness of basic fetal development. I don't think this is any less biased or ludicrous than the ideas of many right-to-lifers who seem to think that a 2 week embryo looks and acts like a fully formed teeny tiny baby.

This made me more conservative in my view that there should be counseling and resources and a waiting period before an abortion is performed - because women and girls should know exactly what they are getting into before they do it. And I don't think either planned parenthood or crises pregnancy centers do a good job of this -they are both too biased.

I became more conservative regarding time limits after reading that many people seem to think that legally abortion should be legal, as an elective procedure, up to the point of delivery. The rationale seems to be that all women will only do what is right, and of course no woman would choose to have an abortion that late unless there was a viability of infant/ life of mother issue. Which is, I'm sure, true the vast, vast majority of the time. However it completely discounts the fact that there are fucked up people who do fucked up things for completely messed up reasons every damn day. That is why we make laws. Being pregnant or a mother doesn't exempt someone from doing monstrous things. Look at all the horrific child abuse and child murder stories you see every day. I don't see how having an elective late term abortion past the point of viability is any different than choosing to drive your toddlers into a lake because they are interfering with your love life. People defending having the option to choose abortion for non-emergency reasons past the point of viabilty made me think that there should be tighter limits on abortion availability when the fetus is near or at viability.

As far as the father getting a say - while I do see the many problems with this - I have to say I find it appalling that many posters seem to treat the fetus as a possession that the father "earns" the right to spend time with / participate in it's life as long as the mother thinks he's good enough. You can't do that with a born child -- unless one of the parents or dangerous or abuse - they get to be in their child's life. I do acknowledge that this would be very difficult to legislate in anyway because the mother does bare the health risks. But yeah, kids don't belong to mother anymore than to the father, and the attitude that they do makes me think even more that the father should have the option to raise the child themselves if the mother isn't interested.

[Maul the Koala]

As far as I'm concerned, until the potential father can go through pregnancy and childbirth, he has little to no say. Pregnancy causes havoc on a woman's body and frankly no one should be forced into a surrogacy sort of situation to please the desires of others. If the potential father desires children so badly and hates abortion, he needs to make sure he is having sex with like-minded partners. Otherwise demanding someone go through something that alters your body so much that it takes 24 months (on average) to recover from is pretty damn selfish. And there are some aspects that a woman's body never recovers from. Pregnancy is not sunshine and roses and the multitude of things that can go wrong in childbirth is astounding.

[Arete]

I'm only going to address the issue of the father's "rights" regarding the fetus. No, he does not have any, and the reason is the same as the reason women have a right to end a pregnancy. The woman's bodily autonomy. Even if the man would have made a GREAT father, he has no right to force another human being to carry a child to term. The body doing the gestating is not his own. He is not the one taking the health risks to gestate.

The argument that the fetus isn't alive and isn't human is a strawman and can be easily refuted. Someone using a strawman debating technique still does not justify things like waiting periods and father's rights.

cross posted with Maul the Koala

[Mama Mia]

I'm only going to address the issue of the father's "rights" regarding the fetus. No, he does not have any, and the reason is the same as the reason women have a right to end a pregnancy. The woman's bodily autonomy. Even if the man would have made a GREAT father, he has no right to force another human being to carry a child to term. The body doing the gestating is not his own. He is not the one taking the health risks to gestate.

The argument that the fetus isn't alive and isn't human is a strawman and can be easily refuted. Someone using a strawman debating technique still does not justify things like waiting periods and father's rights.

cross posted with Maul the Koala

To the bolded, the reason that I think the waiting period and counseling are necessary aren't because someone makes an inane statement that shows an incredibly lack of knowledge about human development -- it is because it shows that many people actually BELIEVE this. And these are people who are presumably adult, and reasonably intelligent and literate - yet apparently aren't even aware that the fetus is alive, or made of human material. Or is not like your appendix, or cancer cells - as neither of those are going to grow into an actual human being independent of the mother. Yet you see those comparisons on here all the time.

If this group of adult, educated, literate women are so clueless about fetal development I think it is really important that people get actual, factual information and counseling before making such a life altering decision. Before they end up seeing their best friends 16 week ultrasound on facebook and are completely shocked that it isn't a blob of cells shaped like an appendix. Or- conversely - that they don't agonize over having an abortion of a 5 week embryo that they are picturing as looking like a minature newborn.

[Effie]

Are you saying the waiting period should be legislated/recquired? If so, I would have to disagree. There is not always enough of time for a waiting period. If a counsellor thinks that a client should wait, then the individual client should be given that recommendation/advice. That's it though.

[Effie]

To the bolded, the reason that I think the waiting period and counseling are necessary aren't because someone makes an inane statement that shows an incredibly lack of knowledge about human development -- it is because it shows that many people actually BELIEVE this. And these are people who are presumably adult, and reasonably intelligent and literate - yet apparently aren't even aware that the fetus is alive, or made of human material. Or is not like your appendix, or cancer cells - as neither of those are going to grow into an actual human being independent of the mother. Yet you see those comparisons on here all the time.

If this group of adult, educated, literate women are so clueless about fetal development I think it is really important that people get actual, factual information and counseling before making such a life altering decision. Before they end up seeing their best friends 16 week ultrasound on facebook and are completely shocked that it isn't a blob of cells shaped like an appendix. Or- conversely - that they don't agonize over having an abortion of a 5 week embryo that they are picturing as looking like a minature newborn.

We aren't clueless here. Most of us aren't medical professionals though. If our discussions here inflict you one way or another, then I can only see the logical conclusion would be to not regard abortion as a political issue in the first place.

And these are people who are presumably adult, and reasonably intelligent and literate - yet apparently aren't even aware that the fetus is alive, or made of human material. Or is not like your appendix, or cancer cells - as neither of those are going to grow into an actual human being independent of the mother. Yet you see those comparisons on here all the time.

You do not know that the fetus is going to grow into an independent human being. It's just a potential human being - not an actual human being. The point here is that a cancerous tumour, just like a fetus, can take over my body, and can endanger my physical health. They are both parasites in that way, since they are living on my body.

[formergothardite]

You are right, fucked up people do fucked up stuff, and that means that if men are given rights over women's bodies because of a fetus there are going to be some who use that to fuck up a woman's life.

A man doesn't get a say in a woman's body. He doesn't get control over her body and as long as that fetus is in her body, no he doesn't have a right to it because once he gets the rights to a fetus he gets the rights to the woman's body. The second you give him rights to a fetus you give him control over the body the fetus is in.

[Ruby Slippers]

What has made me more conservative in my position, from reading on fj, is that there ARE so many people who spread the idea that fetuses aren't alive and aren't human- along with the 'blob of cells' statement far past the point where this is a remotely accurate description.

This made me more conservative in my view that there should be counseling and resources and a waiting period before an abortion is performed - because women and girls should know exactly what they are getting into before they do it. And I don't think either planned parenthood or crises pregnancy centers do a good job of this -they are both too biased.

I became more conservative regarding time limits after reading that many people seem to think that legally abortion should be legal, as an elective procedure, up to the point of delivery. The rationale seems to be that all women will only do what is right, and of course no woman would choose to have an abortion that late unless there was a viability of infant/ life of mother issue. Which is, I'm sure, true the vast, vast majority of the time. However it completely discounts the fact that there are fucked up people who do fucked up things for completely messed up reasons every damn day. That is why we make laws. Being pregnant or a mother doesn't exempt someone from doing monstrous things. Look at all the horrific child abuse and child murder stories you see every day. I don't see how having an elective late term abortion past the point of viability is any different than choosing to drive your toddlers into a lake because they are interfering with your love life. People defending having the option to choose abortion for non-emergency reasons past the point of viabilty made me think that there should be tighter limits on abortion availability when the fetus is near or at viability.

As far as the father getting a say - while I do see the many problems with this - I have to say I find it appalling that many posters seem to treat the fetus as a possession that the father "earns" the right to spend time with / participate in it's life as long as the mother thinks he's good enough. You can't do that with a born child -- unless one of the parents or dangerous or abuse - they get to be in their child's life. I do acknowledge that this would be very difficult to legislate in anyway because the mother does bare the health risks. But yeah, kids don't belong to mother anymore than to the father, and the attitude that they do makes me think even more that the father should have the option to raise the child themselves if the mother isn't interested.

Then the father can feel free to gestate. As I said, either the female owns her body, or the state owns it in the fetus's interest. Now you're introducing that the father owns it just because he wants a baby-- when paternity can't even be established to prove he is the father. You've just given a random male control over a woman's body.

How much more restrictive could late term abortion POSSIBLY be when it is illegal in 36+ states and accounts for 1% or less of abortions, per the CDC? http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5609.pdf

From the same CDC link, 28% of abortions take place before 6 weeks, and 60+% take place before 8 weeks. Therefore, "blob of cells" isn't an unfair description at all. Even 9 weeks is fairly alien-looking. You should really see the evidence for yourself.

So a fetus has a heartbeat at that point. So what? Fetal heartbeat is just myocite cells that demonstrate electrical impulse. I don't even think a 7 or 8-week fetal heart has valves yet. There is certainly no brain.

The problem with your proposed waiting periods is that, as a result of anti-choice legislation and funding cuts, clinics are near impossible to operate, so women have to travel-- sometimes even out of state-- which means gas, bus/train/plane tickets, hotels, and food in addition to the medical costs. The waiting period therefore creates the "undue burden" that Roe specifies cannot be created. Waiting periods disenfranchise people. Moreover, there does not appear to be any evidence suggesting they are effective. In fact, a study suggests they are NOT effective in changing minds. (here is a secondary source-- I cannot link the primary source when I am not at work--http://www.ibtimes.com/abortion-waiting-periods-counseling-do-not-sway-women-study-697688 ). Why don't waiting periods make women change their minds? Well, ummmm, possibly because they ALREADY know what they're "getting into"? Why would you assume that women are uninformed and unknowledgable? Most women who have abortions already have children-- so you can be quite sure they know a thing or two. (here's a source for that: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presski ... facts.html ). Ergo... you're assuming women are uneducated. This is inherently flawed and misogynist thinking.

If you don't see by now, after my lengthy description, the difference between a legally defined person and a non-person, then you are being willfully ignorant. Because that distinction is the difference between late term abortion and driving a toddler into the lake.

By the way, these are the reasons women get late term abortions. It's not because they're flighty or "fucked up," as you put it.

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/24W ... Story.aspx and http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/24Weeks/Delays.aspx

There are at least 5 more stories there if you would like to know what you're talking about.

I will repeat again since you pointedly ignored me: women's bodily autonomy is not contingent on their gestational status, and it is certainly not contingent on what makes you feel good and righteous.

[Anxious Girl]

[quote="Mrs S2004

This made me more conservative in my view come out as a troll and to say that there should be counseling and resources and a waiting period before an abortion is performed - because women and girls should know exactly what they are getting into before they do it be punished for having sex and not wanting to go through with pregnancies. And I don't think either planned parenthood or crises pregnancy centers do a good job of this -they are both too biased I don't want to come out as a troll.

I became more conservative full of hate for my fellow women who I don't even know regarding time limits after reading that many people non-conservatives seem to think that legally abortion should be legal abortion is already legal in America, as an elective procedure, up to the point of delivery. The rationale seems to be that all women will only do what is right true. Which is, I'm sure, true the vast, vast majority of the time. However it completely discounts the fact that there are fucked up , and of course no woman would choose to have an abortion that late unless there was a viability of infant/ life of mother Sometimes it is too late to save the mother at this point - and only the woman carrying the fetus gets to decide if she wants to be called "mother"; which is why people are pro-choice. who do fucked up things for completely messed up reasons every damn day. That is why we make laws. Being pregnant or a mother doesn't exempt someone from doing monstrous things that conservatives don't like. Look at all the horrific child abuse and child murder abortion stories you see every day of women being pressured into think that there abortion was evil and inhumane because they didn't want to go through with their pregnancies. I don't see how having an elective late term abortion past the point of viability is any different than choosing to drive your toddlers into a lake because they are interfering with your love life no clue what I am talking about because I want to stir up people's emotions and make them feel guilty. People defending having the option to choose abortion for non-emergency reasons past the point of viabilty made me think that there should be tighter limits on abortion availability when the fetus is near or at viability because my opinions matter more than their rights.

As far as the father getting a say - while I do see the many problems with this translation: I'm pretending to care - I have to say I find it appalling that many posters seem to treat the fetus as a possession that the father "earns" the right to spend time with / participate in it's life as long as the mother thinks he's good enough. Why? Because she went through pregnancy for five months and the man fucking didn't? You can't do that with a born child Being a single parent shouldn't be an option! -- unless one of the parents or dangerous or abuse since I make all the laws in 'Murica. - they get to be in their child's life whether the mother incubator wants to be a single parent or not. I do acknowledge that this would be very difficult to legislate in anyway because the mother does bare the health risks that doesn't matter because the unborn baby is more important than the incubator. But yeah, kids don't belong to mother anymore than to the father translation: incubators shut up and care about the mens' fee fees, and their choice attitude that they do makes me think even more that the father man should have the option to raise the child themselves if the mother isn't interested incubator doesn't want to go through the pregnancy but pro-life laws force her to.

[Arete]

FFS AnxiousGirl, MrsS2004 is not a troll. What exactly is your definition of a troll? A difference of opinion does not a troll make. I'm as liberal as you can get on the prochoice spectrum, but that doesn't mean that everyone who has even the slightest reservation about abortion is full of hate for their fellow women.

Definitely agree that you can't treat women as incubators.

[Ruby Slippers]

That was needlessly douchey.

[treehugger]

By the way, these are the reasons women get late term abortions. It's not because they're flighty or "fucked up," as you put it.

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/24W ... Story.aspx and http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/24Weeks/Delays.aspx

There are at least 5 more stories there if you would like to know what you're talking about.

These stories made me cry. And they are the reasons I believe abortion should remain legal with no government involvement. Why can't we just trust medical professionals to do their jobs properly in this area as well as every other area of medicine they practice?

[Anxious Girl]

FFS AnxiousGirl, MrsS2004 is not a troll. What exactly is your definition of a troll? A difference of opinion does not a troll make. I'm as liberal as you can get on the prochoice spectrum, but that doesn't mean that everyone who has even the slightest reservation about abortion is full of hate for their fellow women.

Definitely agree that you can't treat women as incubators.

I think she is. She thinks that men should have a say in women's pregnancy and is upset with how pro-choices choose themselves over their fetuses. That's a troll to me. It's not that she has an opinion; but she has an opinion that she thinks should become a law/supports it if it becomes a law.

[Anxious Girl]

That was needlessly douchey.

Who, me?

[oil]

If a woman is 8 months pregnant and decides she doesnt want the baby/fetus/whatever it is, should she be allowed to abort it is she has no medical problems and no regrets and even would say some thing like shes glad to get that crap out of her body? Or only abortions are allowed if the woman is sad over it?

I read a story of a woman who went for a late abortion of 8 months in Ukraine and she had support until she express that she hates the baby/fetus and said its a "thing". Then her friends turn against her. Is this right?\

Should abortion be legal at 9 months even for no reason other than its autonomy of the womans body, no one should be allowed to force her to carry it one more day longer than she wants to, not the government or not the doctors or not any one but her body her decision?

I dont have opinion on this, only what I would chose for my self, I dont care what other women like to do.

[formergothardite]

I don't think MrsS2004 is a troll I just don't know how she thinks giving men rights over a fetus isn't giving men rights over the body the fetus is in. Unless she does think men should have rights over the body of a woman. I don't think she does, though, but that is the end result of giving men any sort of rights to a fetus. It isn't like a child who is born where they can share custody or even give up custody.

[bananacat]

Honestly, whenever a person refers to pregnant woman as "mother", it sets off some bullshit alarms. It implies that they think women are mothers as soon as they get pregnant, which definitely skews their view away from reproductive choice. I loathe how the media in general always talks about exceptions for life/health of the mother. And when people take that terminology to heart, it makes me think that either they haven't thought it through very far, or they actually agree with the sentiment.

That coupled with the idea of giving men control over pregnant woman makes me wary of MrsS2004.

[Minerva]

Or is not like your appendix, or cancer cells - as neither of those are going to grow into an actual human being independent of the mother. Yet you see those comparisons on here all the time.

No fetus of mine, at least in the next 7 years, will "grow into an actual human being", so comparing it to my appendix or to cancer cells is an apt comparison.