The Slow (But Accelerating) Erosion of Reproductive Rights

[jamesq]

So you want to ban abortion outright, but that pesky Roe v. Wade thing keeps coming up? What do you do? Well, you could simply make it more and more difficult to get an abortion. After all, you're not actually banning it, you're simply putting up every conceivable (heh) roadblock to it. If the monetary requirements (you don't think the mandatory ultrasound is going to be paid for by taxpayers do you?) don't clobber you, then the barrage of presentations "to keep you informed" might catch you in a moment of weakness. Finally, if navigating all the roadblocks take too long you'll hit your 22 (varies by state) week time limit.

And let's not forget the lengthy, allegedly anonymous, forms you have to fill out. I say "allegedly" because, despite not having your name, they're sufficiently detailed to allow a good data-miner to figure out who you are. How many 6'4", 42-year old, males with red hair own a house in my postal code? I haven't named names, but I bet you could attach a name to that information without much effort. Same for women filling out this information. Then it gets put up on a publicly accessible database, ostensibly for research purposes. The next day a brigade of anti-abortionists just happen to show up on your doorstep.

I'd compare it to a sibling putting his finger as close to your face as they can while chanting "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you." Except that's funny and this situation isn't.

If these are successful, I predict that even more roadblocks will be put up. Multiple presentations, multiple invasive medical procedures, more detailed forms, all to "keep the mother informed". Time limits will be clawed back (Oops, sorry, but the fetus has nerve tissue now, we can't let you abort this late). The goal being to make it to expensive in terms of time and money to ever successfully get in under the wire.

When abortion is still technically legal, but effectively impossible, they'll declare victory. Seriously, I fully expect some politician to happily stand in front of a crowd and say that "We've made abortion so difficult to get in this state that no one successfully got one last year. Yay!"

Women who try to take things into their own hands will be charged with homicide. This could include self-induced abortions, using a back-alley abortionist, or simply traveling to a less-restrictive area. People who try to assist them will also be charged.

Predictions:

Pro-choice forces will come up with some way of giving women information remotely. decentralized web-sites with information on how to do your own abortion safely. Anti-abortion forces will try to infiltrate these sites, set up "look-alike" sites, etc. Legislatures will try to make the web-sites illegal.

You'll need to give personal information when buying home pregnancy kits.

Laws that outlaw helping people procure an abortion will become more draconian. Walk a woman past the clinic's protesters? That's a fine. Take her to another state? That's jail time. Hell, simply encouraging someone to get an abortion will become illegal.

It makes me glad I'm Canadian. Things aren't perfect here, but they are better. Calgary has an abortion clinic and it's generally free of protesters (due to court injunctions they have to stay well away from it - typically hundreds of feet). Of course, the fact that the building is built to withstand small explosives is testament to the fact that we're not yet as enlightened as I'd like.

Anyway, the whole thing is another attempt to punish women for all kinds of things: Chief among them having sex. Also violating traditional gender roles - married homemakers should want babies, and unmarried women shouldn't require abortions because they're not having sex. There are no other categories.

It all boils down to men making the decisions because women can't be trusted to make the right decisions themselves. It's patronizing, mean-spirited and increases the amount of suffering in the world.

Comments

[oblivions.livejournal.com]

This post makes me angry. Not at you, because I tend to believe the gloomy future you've painted but with my own desire to ensure I can't have children and how unfucking-believably difficult it is to get a doctor to consider my petition.

I want to be fixed. I've thought about this a lot for 10 YEARS. I'm as sure as they get. I getting to the end of years I would WANT to bear children. Everything time i bring it up, I effectively get a pat on the head and a "there there, there are all these difficulties with it. I think you should reconsider."

It drives me wild. I'm be going through round three this winter with my doctor. If he won't I'm going to find someone who will. It boggles me that, in trying to be a responsible member of my race, I've been effectively told I'm incapable of making that choice.

And I'm going to stop here for the moment, because I can feel my blood start to burn. This is a touchy topic with me.

[mallt.livejournal.com]

If he's really worried about you taking risks with the surgery say you want this:
http://essure.ca/Home/WhatisEssure/tabid/1222/Default.aspx

No surgery involved & gives (pretty much) the same end result.

[oblivions.livejournal.com]

The doctor won't even get to considering surgery. He's just brushes it right off.

But this is an interesting link. I have to admit to not being keen on the surgery and invasive nature of it. I shall look more into it. Thanks!

[jamesq]

You need to call this guy on his BS.

"I'm getting my tubes tied. How do I go forward with that?"
"I don't think you should do that."
"Your opinion is noted, now answer the question."

[oblivions.livejournal.com]

I know.

It still boggles me that choosing not to be the vessel of racial immortality seems to offend some deep sense of Universal right.

What seems to get lost in all of this debate is this: Women don't spontaneously become pregnant (except once in some sketchy story). It takes a male. A male also has the power of choice and responsibility. You both do. It takes two. Understand I know this statement is not, of course, taking into account some of the tragic events that result in pregnancy.

Do men (and women) unconsciously fear the end of race? Some apocalyptic tragedy by this? Does anyone think about the kid produced in all this? And the life they are now forced to lead? Their food, shelter requirements? Education? Employment? Children of their own? the list goes on.

One horrific war will fix this argument. When the Human population is so badly depleted that we cannot afford to lose children then maybe it will be a moot point. Religion and moral can again ride in the same cart.

[jamesq]

Men want to know that their children really are there's, this means that all aspects of women's sexuality should be controlled. Because the woman, and resulting children, are the man's property.

It's as simple as that.

As for the remnants of human civilization being put into a dire life-or-death situation, I imagine a lot of human rights are going to go out the window. Hell it doesn't even have to get near that bad before we start dehumanizing people who aren't like us (for assorted values of "like us").

[snooness2]

As one of my friends, who works at the sexual assualt center said:
"If they make the decision not to fund abortion then they really have to start making the decision to start funding contriception, child care, and issues that arise from forcing teenagers to become single parents."

I think the immortality issue also stems from the fact that most religions had prohibitions against it, and the darwinist and evolution of the species couldn't see any adaptive function to childlessness.

The scientific findings on childlessness have actually gone though a change recently - in that they've figured out that there is an evolutionary benefit when some of a population remains childless. Since your personal genetics are carried on through neices and nephews in a large enough degree that the benefit of having extra caretakers in the population (or those who pass on cultural knowledge) becomes an evolutionary advantage to the population as a whole. (Interesting stuff - if you are into that sort of thing)

[jamesq]

I've long maintained that kin selection is a viable mechanism for selecting a certain amount of homosexuality in a population.

[oblivions.livejournal.com]

That is interesting. With 9 billion on the planet at last rough counting, I think I don't mind becoming a vessel of knowledge role instead of vessel of immoratlity.

Religion. That's a whole converstaional spur in one word.

[mallt.livejournal.com]

I hadn't thought of it that way either... but I agree, I'm sure that contributing my knowledge will be of more value than contributing my genes.

[jamesq]

This is already the trajectory of my life, except my support role goes towards my friends rather then my immediate family.

I'm OK with this.

[mallt.livejournal.com]

Mine too... at least until my sister sprogs :)

[snooness2]

There is actually a genetic component they have tracked down (supposably I'm taking the word of someone who is studing the social science side of this and I haven't looked for the paper myself)
that gives some people a greater proclivity towards considering the larger tribe (ie: humanity) as being family.

ie: their kin bonds are similar in strength to their tribe bonds... which effectively means they will protect and nurish the tribe (be that knowledge based or in a more physical way) to the same level or greater then they will their own family.

no need for teenager parents/single parents due to no abortion

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

How many people want to adopt a baby? Why is it that its either abortion or keep the child for oneself. Yes I understand that giving a child up for adoption is hard after carrying it to term (full or otherwise). That does not mean the only other option is single parenthood or teenage parents.

Re: no need for teenager parents/single parents due to no abortion

[jamesq]

OTOH there are people who simply don't want to experience pregnancy and might otherwise be fine with the resulting child. It's the process they object to.

After all, if I hold you prisoner, I don't get to say there was no harm because I let you free after nine months.

Re: no need for teenager parents/single parents due to no abortion

[mallt.livejournal.com]

This... you beat me to it!
It's not the child I object to... I wouldn't want to be pregnant!

Re: no need for teenager parents/single parents due to no abortion

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

I understand, This is why I am pro choice even though I am anti abortion. It is not my choice to make for someone.

The fact is though the person might not wish to go through pregnancy, they can chose to pay not to.

my comment above was directed at
"If they make the decision not to fund abortion then they really have to start making the decision to start funding contriception, child care, and issues that arise from forcing teenagers to become single parents."

Re: no need for teenager parents/single parents due to no abortion

[jamesq]

Without a publicly-funded abortion option, you're effectively saying that rich woman have a choice and poor woman do not.

Re: no need for teenager parents/single parents due to no abortion

[snooness2]

There are usually severe psychological repercussions for the mother who must give up a child for adpotion. The treatment to overcome the trauma has been out of pocket (rather then covered by health care) so typically underage or below poverty line mothers can not afford it, which leads to a higher incidence of alcohol/drug/addiction/stress problems which inevitably costs the system more to fix.

Re: no need for teenager parents/single parents due to no abortion

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

You know I really don't know what to say for this one. One thing though is there is probably (never done the research)more trauma from aborting.

Re: no need for teenager parents/single parents due to no abortion

[snooness2]

There has been research on the psychological trauma of aborting, and for miscarriages.
There is some... it correlates roughly to the length of the pregnancy before the occurance of the event that leads to the loss.

Thus if you abort early during a pregnancy due to natural causes or choice a woman suffers less psychological trauma then if it occurs either later or after the child is born.

This has to do with the hormones involved in the mother/baby bond that start occuring at conception and continue to build until the baby is weaned... and then gradually drop off after.

Hence there is more trauma involved with giving up a newborn or a late term pregnancy (typically once people feel movement of the child the trauma of the loss of said child soars tremendously).

Re: no need for teenager parents/single parents due to no abortion

[mallt.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's the case.

It would vary person to person depending on what their views of abortion are... but carrying a baby to term causes far more attachment & therefore psychological trauma than an abortion which is why anti-abortionists in the US want mothers to have scans... they want the mother to form an attachemnt.

[mallt.livejournal.com]

Close minded much?! *sigh*

When I'm ready for a perminant solution it's certainly something I'll talk to my doctor about... I'm not keep on the idea of surgery much either... there again who is?! :)

[manyra.livejournal.com]

I had tube tied but the doctors (every one of them that I had since I was 16) said I should wait until I was 30. The day I turned 30 I was in. And then they asked what my partner thought of it. I said I was pretty sure my partner didn't have a say in what I wanted to do with my body.

[oblivions.livejournal.com]

that would be my reply too.