jamesq: (Default)
[personal profile] 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.

in that case

Date: 2010-04-30 10:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wild-wanderer.livejournal.com
While there are many things I do not like with the government including some of the laws, I accept them, as I live in this society. I pay my taxes and I vote. This means I have a right to a say, even if it is different than the majority. This also means that I accept that certain aspects of my tax dollar go where I do not want them to. I however also reap rewards from other peoples tax dollars that I am sure they would prefer I didn't.

I accept all that. What you are asking for is a double standard. You want me to accept that but are not willing in turn to accept. Our government has made a decision. If it is against your beliefs, then you have the ability to voice your opinion (most strongly at the election). If they are re-elected then the majority voted against you.

In your own words "tough! There are lots of people in your position, I stated that above.

As James' quote so elegantly put it, that's the price you pay for living in a civilized society"

whats good for the goose is good for the gander

Re: in that case

Date: 2010-05-01 01:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mallt.livejournal.com
Yes it is tough... who says I'm not willing to accept that?... I can still be appalled. About all I can do is write to my MP but I have accepted that there's very little I can do right now as the government has made its decision. If there is a party in the next election that supports my beliefs then I will vote for them, knowing that in Alberta the conservatives will win anyway & it'll probably make no difference to the big picture.

"whats good for the goose is good for the gander"
I don't believe I ever stated anything contrary to this.

Profile

jamesq: (Default)
jamesq

January 2026

S M T W T F S
    12 3
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 2nd, 2026 09:47 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios