478 replies to this topic

[devem]

What if you were raped?

Yes this is a common point I've been asked over and over. If I were raped I'd like to say my stance would not change. It's not its fault after all, and adoption is always there. There are a number of stories where women have raised such a child, and surprisingly enough the child had a positive impact on their life despite the means in which it was conceived.

 

I think that's a question that's hard to answer, though, unless you're actually facing it.

[DonValentino]

I posted this on facebook, but I thought maybe I'd get some good discussion here as well.

 

Lady: "A long time ago, someone said, "your rights end where the next guy's begin." A baby has a beating heart and its own blood supply usually before a woman knows she's pregnant. So, when does its right to live start and the mother's right to end it begin? All lives matter?"

 

To be completely honest, I don't think "living" is a right. Birth is a law of nature. It wasn't my "right" to be born, things happened and here I am. Once you are born into a society and become a citizen, then you have rights. I think restricting access to abortions, or outlawing it altogether is a bad policy. What if you're a victim of rape? Or the dad isn't in the picture? Or you're a teen? There are a lot of circumstances where being forced to go through with the pregnancy can be a terrible drain on the mom, and on society. It's incredible to me that republicans want to cut welfare and programs that help women, and then cry about the burden all these poor people place on the economy. If a mom doesn't think she has the capability or capacity to raise a child, why are we placing that burden on her and everyone else?

[Artleyz]

I'm all for the right to choose. Who am I to say that you don't have a good enough reason to abort your baby?  I don't think many people take the decision lightly, and that's good enough for me.  The ones who don't, well... I guess there's always going to be some who wouldn't have had the sense to even raise the baby in the first place, or they don't have the money (in this case though, it seems that adoption would be a much better option).

[Emily]

I posted this on facebook, but I thought maybe I'd get some good discussion here as well.

 

Lady: "A long time ago, someone said, "your rights end where the next guy's begin." A baby has a beating heart and its own blood supply usually before a woman knows she's pregnant. So, when does its right to live start and the mother's right to end it begin? All lives matter?"

 

To be completely honest, I don't think "living" is a right. Birth is a law of nature. It wasn't my "right" to be born, things happened and here I am. Once you are born into a society and become a citizen, then you have rights. I think restricting access to abortions, or outlawing it altogether is a bad policy. What if you're a victim of rape? Or the dad isn't in the picture? Or you're a teen? There are a lot of circumstances where being forced to go through with the pregnancy can be a terrible drain on the mom, and on society. It's incredible to me that republicans want to cut welfare and programs that help women, and then cry about the burden all these poor people place on the economy. If a mom doesn't think she has the capability or capacity to raise a child, why are we placing that burden on her and everyone else?

 

Thanks for debating for me because that woman exhausts me  

[Adam]

Y'all should take all of this positive pro-choice energy, and passion, and put it towards being anti-circumcision while you're at it :].

[DonValentino]

Thanks for debating for me because that woman exhausts me

haha yeah, I thought about bringing Trump into it but I wasn't trying to be there all day

[Coops]

I posted this on facebook, but I thought maybe I'd get some good discussion here as well.

 

Lady: "A long time ago, someone said, "your rights end where the next guy's begin." A baby has a beating heart and its own blood supply usually before a woman knows she's pregnant. So, when does its right to live start and the mother's right to end it begin? All lives matter?"

 

To be completely honest, I don't think "living" is a right. Birth is a law of nature. It wasn't my "right" to be born, things happened and here I am. Once you are born into a society and become a citizen, then you have rights. I think restricting access to abortions, or outlawing it altogether is a bad policy. What if you're a victim of rape? Or the dad isn't in the picture? Or you're a teen? There are a lot of circumstances where being forced to go through with the pregnancy can be a terrible drain on the mom, and on society. It's incredible to me that republicans want to cut welfare and programs that help women, and then cry about the burden all these poor people place on the economy. If a mom doesn't think she has the capability or capacity to raise a child, why are we placing that burden on her and everyone else?

I wish I could like this. Seriously. 

It's so much more complex than a woman was dumb and opened her legs.

There are lots of reasons to get an abortion. Economic, physical, emotional, etc. Who are we to know the culmination of a woman's life that brought her to that choice? We cannot possibly fathom the choice she is making and it should be left in her capable hands. She has to live with it, and she knows her situation better than anyone.

 

Y'all should take all of this positive pro-choice energy, and passion, and put it towards being anti-circumcision while you're at it :].

Most feminists I know are intactivists; banning genital mutilation (let's call it what it is, yeah?) for any baby. It should be left to the person to modify their genitals when they are 18+. I'm a strong proponent of bodily autonomy. I've never met anyone who was pro-choice who wasn't also MGM/FGM, at least when I asked or it came up anyways.

[Kaddict]

I don't understand the thought/sentiment that circumcision is MGM. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3881635/

This is a meta-analysis (the strongest evidence type of research) showing there is no difference in sexual function. What has been shown is a DRAMATIC decrease in certain types of cancer, pretty much all STIs and obviously a huge decrease in infections (mostly in kids, but also adults). So who is to say that a surgery done where evidence has not been provided to show a decrease in sex function is more "mutilating" than allowing people to have recurrent genital infections, a higher likelihood of STIs and cancer. Is it mutilation to remove a cancerous lesion from a female's sex organs? 

The fact people compare circumcision to FGM is making light of the incredibly terrible and sexist process that happens in other cultures. A man still has his sex organ. In fact, he still has all of it. Just a little skin is removed--which again, the meta-analysis strongly suggests that no change in sensitivity is even noticed. That is a huge difference than a woman having her clitoris cut off.

Also, GM as defined by WHO: 

• Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. [Having] no health benefits for girls and women.

There are clear and obvious health benefits for men. I can sorta see the point of view of people who don't like circumcision, but I absolutely can't agree with calling it GM. 

[Adam]

I don't understand the thought/sentiment that circumcision is MGM. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3881635/

This is a meta-analysis (the strongest evidence type of research) showing there is no difference in sexual function. What has been shown is a DRAMATIC decrease in certain types of cancer, pretty much all STIs and obviously a huge decrease in infections (mostly in kids, but also adults). So who is to say that a surgery done where evidence has not been provided to show a decrease in sex function is more "mutilating" than allowing people to have recurrent genital infections, a higher likelihood of STIs and cancer. Is it mutilation to remove a cancerous lesion from a female's sex organs? 

The fact people compare circumcision to FGM is making light of the incredibly terrible and sexist process that happens in other cultures. A man still has his sex organ. In fact, he still has all of it. Just a little skin is removed--which again, the meta-analysis strongly suggests that no change in sensitivity is even noticed. That is a huge difference than a woman having her clitoris cut off.

Also, GM as defined by WHO: 

• Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. [Having] no health benefits for girls and women.

There are clear and obvious health benefits for men. I can sorta see the point of view of people who don't like circumcision, but I absolutely can't agree with calling it GM. 

Did this woman have a choice in the matter?

[Kaddict]

Did this woman have a choice in the matter?

This happens to kids all the time. So let's say it is a 5 year old girl, who by her age and inherent inability to understand the complexities of these topics has no choice in the matter.

[wikkles]

I go to a rather large public university. There's a place called Choices pregnancy center, only about a mile away from campus. Occasionally while driving past it in the morning, I see a group of older folks with signs with bible verses and disturbing pictures of gory fetuses.

 

It breaks my heart that the people who need to visit Choices have to deal with the guilt of just walking past these people while they shout vile things. I feel pretty lucky that, as a man, I'll never have to worry about judgement in a situation where I'd need to buy Plan B or consult with someone at a Planned Parenthood about a baby I do not feel like I could adequately take care of. But I 100% think that if someone is put in that unfortunate situation, they should be able to be treated like a human, and not like a failure/sinner/waste.

[Coops]

I don't understand the thought/sentiment that circumcision is MGM. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3881635/

This is a meta-analysis (the strongest evidence type of research) showing there is no difference in sexual function. What has been shown is a DRAMATIC decrease in certain types of cancer, pretty much all STIs and obviously a huge decrease in infections (mostly in kids, but also adults). So who is to say that a surgery done where evidence has not been provided to show a decrease in sex function is more "mutilating" than allowing people to have recurrent genital infections, a higher likelihood of STIs and cancer. Is it mutilation to remove a cancerous lesion from a female's sex organs? 

The fact people compare circumcision to FGM is making light of the incredibly terrible and sexist process that happens in other cultures. A man still has his sex organ. In fact, he still has all of it. Just a little skin is removed--which again, the meta-analysis strongly suggests that no change in sensitivity is even noticed. That is a huge difference than a woman having her clitoris cut off.

Also, GM as defined by WHO: 

• Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. [Having] no health benefits for girls and women.

There are clear and obvious health benefits for men. I can sorta see the point of view of people who don't like circumcision, but I absolutely can't agree with calling it GM. 

But there aren't clear health benefits for men. And there are many babies who die, or suffer sexual dysfunction from botched procedures. In addition, how about all those babies with herpes because religiously motivated rituals that involves Jewish priests sucking infant penises with their herpes ridden lips after mutilating it?

 

http://intaction.org...t-circumcision/

 

Circumcision is a social and religious practice, just like FGM. That's it. The percentage of boys who get UTIs with intact versus circumcised is an astoundingly low number and statistically irrelevant. Even more, women are far more likely to get UTIs but we don't mutilate their genitals to 'prevent' a UTI. As for STIs, well, let's start with actually educating Americans on safe sex, STI prevention, sex positivity, contraceptives and more so that we aren't dead last when it comes to STIs, teen pregnancy, etc when compared to other industrial nations. We are behind so many developed nations in sex ed. Most Europeans aren't circumcised and they don't have a severe STI issue like we do.

 

I had some links with statistics on this. I'll dig them up when I can.

 

Bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. 

 

Here are the articles about Jewish priests:

http://www.huffingto..._n_3021277.html

http://www.usatoday....cases/23798751/

http://www.dailymail...-York-City.html

http://abcnews.go.co...r_google_health

[Kaddict]

But there aren't clear health benefits for men. And there are many babies who die, or suffer sexual dysfunction from botched procedures. In addition, how about all those babies with herpes because religiously motivated rituals that involves Jewish priests sucking infant penises with their herpes ridden lips after mutilating it?

 

http://intaction.org...t-circumcision/

 

Circumcision is a social and religious practice, just like FGM. That's it. The percentage of boys who get UTIs with intact versus circumcised is an astoundingly low number and statistically irrelevant. Even more, women are far more likely to get UTIs but we don't mutilate their genitals to 'prevent' a UTI. As for STIs, well, let's start with actually educating Americans on safe sex, STI prevention, sex positivity, contraceptives and more so that we aren't dead last when it comes to STIs, teen pregnancy, etc when compared to other industrial nations. We are behind so many developed nations in sex ed. Most Europeans aren't circumcised and they don't have a severe STI issue like we do.

 

I had some links with statistics on this. I'll dig them up when I can.

 

Bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. 

My original source (which is an evidenced based, non-biased meta-analysis utilizing many primary sources) says there are health benefits. And, it is agreed upon in the entire medical community that there are health benefits including everything mentioned in the post you quoted. But, if you think cancer, STIs, non-STIs, phimosis, paraphimosis etc etc etc aren't medical important, than you are right. STI prevention needs to be taught better, but still, 80% of adults have some form of HPV. Studies say if you slept with 3+ people, you have some form of HPV. UTIs aren't really prevented by circumcision, and I never said they were. I am talking about external infections (that can become more serious and systemic if untreated). Also, FGM doesn't decrease UTIs, if anything it increases them. I just don't understand your point here. And seeing as the AAP and ACP say that there is medical benefit to circumcision, it isn't solely a religious procedure (I understand that there are still religions that practice it as a religious rite, ie Islam and Judaism, but it has medical support).

[Coops]

My original source (which is an evidenced based, non-biased meta-analysis utilizing many primary sources) says there are health benefits. And, it is agreed upon in the entire medical community that there are health benefits including everything mentioned in the post you quoted. But, if you think cancer, STIs, non-STIs, phimosis, paraphimosis etc etc etc aren't medical important, than you are right. STI prevention needs to be taught better, but still, 80% of adults have some form of HPV. Studies say if you slept with 3+ people, you have some form of HPV. UTIs aren't really prevented by circumcision, and I never said they were. I am talking about external infections (that can become more serious and systemic if untreated). Also, FGM doesn't decrease UTIs, if anything it increases them. I just don't understand your point here. And seeing as the AAP and ACP say that there is medical benefit to circumcision, it isn't solely a religious procedure (I understand that there are still religions that practice it as a religious rite, ie Islam and Judaism, but it has medical support).

Still looking for my peer-reviewed studies links.

 

And my point is bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. That's it. I agree cancer and STI prevention is important. I think there are other ways to mitigate those without cutting off a part of another human's body without their consent. Paternalism in medicine is dangerous, especially given it's often motivated by bias, greed and social/religious factors.

[Kaddict]

Also, I just read the website you posted, and their statements are arguments were laughable and provided no evidence which needs to be refuted. That whole website gives me the same vibe as an anti-vaccination website--and the science is just as reliable.

So what of my point about removing a cancer from a 5 year old? Lets say it is a skin cancer on the labia of a girl or a testicular cancer on a boy. Do we wait until they are 18 to operate?

Also, I agree that paternalism in medicine is bad, but that is not very common anymore. People don't trust doctors who don't involve the patient in decisions regarding their health. It is still a problem (especially with the older generation of docs) though.

[Coops]

Also, I just read the website you posted, and their statements are arguments were laughable and provided no evidence which needs to be refuted. That whole website gives me the same vibe as an anti-vaccination website--and the science is just as reliable.

So what of my point about removing a cancer from a 5 year old? Lets say it is a skin cancer on the labia of a girl or a testicular cancer on a boy. Do we wait until they are 18 to operate?

You're comparing apples to oranges. There is a clear difference between already having cancer and the potential to get cancer. 
 

Also, I just read the website you posted, and their statements are arguments were laughable and provided no evidence which needs to be refuted. That whole website gives me the same vibe as an anti-vaccination website--and the science is just as reliable.

So what of my point about removing a cancer from a 5 year old? Lets say it is a skin cancer on the labia of a girl or a testicular cancer on a boy. Do we wait until they are 18 to operate?

Also, I agree that paternalism in medicine is bad, but that is not very common anymore. People don't trust doctors who don't involve the patient in decisions regarding their health. It is still a problem (especially with the older generation of docs) though.

That isn't true. Paternalism is still rife in medicine. Contraceptives, hysterectomies at early ages, pain management for chronic pain, use of medical marijuana, forced institutionalization for mental health, etc are all aspects of paternalism.

I actually find older doctors are far more receptive to allowing me, as a chronically ill patient, in my care. But that's purely anecdotal.

[Kaddict]

My point is that it in no way is genital mutilation. Disagree with it all you want. don't circumcise your kids. I am 100% for parents making that decision. I just think comparing it to female GM--which is done for no health benefits, is scientifically proven to damage/harm and scientifically proven to provide no health benefits, which is done because of an absurd amount of social sexism--is not only inaccurate but inappropriate.

 

Anyway, I'll leave this debate back to abortion (and apparently euthanasia according to the OP?) rather than penis talk.

You're comparing apples to oranges. There is a clear difference between already having cancer and the potential to get cancer. 
 

That isn't true. Paternalism is still rife in medicine. Contraceptives, hysterectomies at early ages, pain management for chronic pain, use of medical marijuana, forced institutionalization for mental health, etc are all aspects of paternalism.

I actually find older doctors are far more receptive to allowing me, as a chronically ill patient, in my care. But that's purely anecdotal.

The pain stuff/marijuana etc is not paternalism, that is not wanting to get your license taken away from the DEA. Or the fear of your patient accidentally overdosing. And I think you are confused about what paternalism is. Doctors can refuse any form of procedure/service/medicine they are uncomfortable prescribing (as long as they give appropriate referrals to MDs who aren't uncomfortable with such practices). That is in no way paternalism. Paternalism (in the sense of an MD) is telling your patient what to do, assuming you know everything and their decisions about their life aren't important (in an overly simplified way).

Edited by Kaddict, 03 April 2016 - 05:04 PM.

[Coops]

My point is that it in no way is genital mutilation. Disagree with it all you want. don't circumcise your kids. I am 100% for parents making that decision. I just think comparing it to female GM--which is done for no health benefits, is scientifically proven to damage/harm and scientifically proven to provide no health benefits, which is done because of an absurd amount of social sexism--is not only inaccurate but inappropriate.

 

Anyway, I'll leave this debate back to abortion (and apparently euthanasia according to the OP?) rather than penis talk.

The pain stuff/marijuana etc is not paternalism, that is not wanting to get your license taken away from the DEA. And I think you are confused about what paternalism is. Doctors can refuse any form of procedure/service/medicine they are uncomfortable prescribing. That is in no way paternalism. Paternalism is telling your patient what to do, assuming you know everything and their decisions about their life aren't important (in an overly simplified way).

I don't agree with how you view circumcision. That's fine. I do agree with how you view FGM. I guess I view circumcision as a bodily autonomy/ethics thing.

 

I know what paternalism is. Telling me marijuana is not going to treat my pain (not true) is paternalism. Telling me I will become immediately become addicted to pain meds, despite it giving me a quality of life, is paternalism. Telling me my diagnoses are irrelevant and I just need to stop being sick - yeah, been told that too, is paternalism. 

Doctors have never told me "I don't feel comfortable providing this service, let me recommend you to someone who will". I'd understand if they were honest about their feelings. They aren't or I haven't been fortunate enough to meet one yet. They hide behind paternalism to skirt their duty as a doctor to treat me ethically and provide me with a quality of life. You can be paternalistic while not wanting to get your DEA license taken away.

[Kaddict]

I don't agree with how you view circumcision. That's fine. I do agree with how you view FGM. I guess I view circumcision as a bodily autonomy/ethics thing.

 

I know what paternalism is. Telling me marijuana is not going to treat my pain (not true) is paternalism. Telling me I will become immediately become addicted to pain meds, despite it giving me a quality of life, is paternalism. Telling me my diagnoses are irrelevant and I just need to stop being sick - yeah, been told that too, is paternalism. 

Doctors have never told me "I don't feel comfortable providing this service, let me recommend you to someone who will". I'd understand if they were honest about their feelings. They aren't or I haven't been fortunate enough to meet one yet. They hide behind paternalism to skirt their duty as a doctor to treat me ethically and provide me with a quality of life. You can be paternalistic while not wanting to get your DEA license taken away.

I agree with you on your paternalism stuff. I just didn't understand in what context you meant it with your first post, hence my follow up. I am sorry you have had doctors that have treated you like that. If med-THC is legal wherever you live, and they don't have a license to prescribe it (because I think it is still a schedule 1, and if I am not mistaken, most places you need a special license to dispense those) then he/she absolutely should have referred you do a dif pain specialist. I guess my anecdotal exposure to doctors in my community has just been much more positive than your anecdotal evidence. 

[Coops]

I agree with you on your paternalism stuff. I just didn't understand in what context you meant it with your first post, hence my follow up. I am sorry you have had doctors that have treated you like that. If med-THC is legal wherever you live, and they don't have a license to prescribe it (because I think it is still a schedule 1, and if I am not mistaken, most places you need a special license to dispense those) then he/she absolutely should have referred you do a dif pain specialist. I guess my anecdotal exposure to doctors in my community has just been much more positive than your anecdotal evidence.

Oh yeah. Sorry I wasn't clear lol. I'm all over the place tired. I just meant with respect to doctors who, and they probably don't realize, use paternalistic excuses to avoid treating my pain and many others in the community of chronic pain. It's due to so much misinformation and propaganda against drugs.

As for the circumsicion, I was reading a recent article and I guess in 1999 the American pediatrics whatever changed their stance against it. But the meta analysis on penile cancer, HiV etc and circ is more recent. So. I think I'm wrong with medical info on it. That being said, I am still against it for ethical reasons and it seems the benefits are for potential problems down the line, rather than immediate threats. And I think clarifying that is important. I think proper sex ed is probably cheaper and more effective, not to mention more ethical in my opinion, than just circumcision.

[Kaddict]

You don't have to apologize for being unclear. Talking over the internet makes ever failure clear things a little bit tougher for so many reasons. Anyway, thanks for making this a surprisingly pleasant discussion. ha. 

[Frizzle]

Yeah FGM is a lot, lot worse than MGM but it's still a pretty heinous thing to do without consent.

Yes, there's less chance of getting cancer, but there would be less chance of getting breast cancer if you pre-emptively cut every woman's breasts off. It's a pretty silly argument to make.

[Junjie]

Pro-choice, definitely. It's not like it's a choice that can ever be taken lightly, in any case. If a lady has to make a choice for an abortion, allow her.

[DregsandDregs]

Still going through the thread.

 

http://www.neocodex....98825-abortion/

 

If you don't want a child, you should probably: stay away from sex or use whatever protection necessary. It's not the babies fault you were negligent with your body. I also don't think that just because a 'fetus' is less than 28 weeks old that 'it' is not alive. 

If you're old enough to have sex, you're old enough to accept the responsibility of caring for a child and doing it the right way. 

 

It's not a fetus at day 28.  Damn, you're only maybe pregnant by day 28--implantation hasn't occurred yet.

 

Funny thing though about...oh I think it's day 30 or so.

 

Right, we have these things called Cell Surface Markers.  They're part of how our immune system works, our white bloodcells reach out and grope other cells to check to see if they're ours or not.  It's dependant on DNA.  This is basically how organ transplants fail.

 

Weird thing: Egg cells have different Cell Surface Markers than the rest of the woman.  That's why the Ovaries are so fucking weird--women would sterilize themselves if they weren't.

 

A blastocyst doesn't get cell markers until after it implants.  This keeps it from being murdered quite so fast by the body.

 

As long as there is a limit on the number of abortions someone is permitted, I'm fine with it.

(I don't like the idea of a woman having multiple [3+] abortions since they may increase the chance of maternal death, cause uteral scarring and cervical incompetence.)

 

Then again, most women don't have that many so it shouldn't be a problem.

I'm sure he's referencing women having abortions due to them not using protection/contraceptives.

 

That's a lie.

 

Also, let's run with your logic for a second.

 

I don't like the idea of a woman having multiple [3+] pregnancies, since they cause massive soft tissue damage, cause vaginal scaring, prolapse, and incontinence.

 

 I used to be very adamantly pro-choice. I recently (within this past week) saw a pictography of an abortion and now I'm waffley. I don't really understand why euthanasia is lumped in with abortion though. What does me believing certain adults should be allowed to die have to do with fetuses?

I'm very pro-contraceptive for the people who want it.

In spite of my kind of pro-choice stance, I would love to either adopt kids or be a foster parent. I can't do either due to my current life circumstances and I'm sure that applies to more people than just me.

 

Here's the thing, you probably saw one of those, D&C abortion?  The gross ones.

 

Guess what?  Those are only used if the life of the mother is in danger...or the baby is dead/dying.

 

Typical Abortion Picture:

Spoiler

 

By the way?  Dilation and Extraction abortions were the same thing...but also to give the mothers a chance to hold their goddamn babies, get closure, and say goodbye.  Now, now they have to be cut up.

 

Anyways.

 

Anyone who says they are against abortion except for rape and incest is proving the fact that they are against abortion to punish women.

 

Just because a woman was raped doesn't making that fetus less of a fetus.  If you think a fetus is a person, then you are literally advocating the murder of an innocent for the crime of another.

 

If you're against it for incest, the same thing applies.  Genetic problems?  Then you must support abortion for genetic defects.

 

EDIT: This thread is too long

Edited by DregsandDregs, 04 April 2016 - 09:22 PM.

[Romy]

That's a lie.

 

Also, let's run with your logic for a second.

 

I don't like the idea of a woman having multiple [3+] pregnancies, since they cause massive soft tissue damage, cause vaginal scaring, prolapse, and incontinence.

 

You quoted a post that I made 3 years ago.

I'm not a cunt anymore.

 

A woman should be allowed to do whatever they want with their body no matter what. The government has no dominion over the bodies of their people.

If my partner wants to get an abortion, they should be allowed to regardless of what I believe. 

 

 

Also, calm your fucking tits.