The other category of women that abortion laws are going to screw over....

[HEMI6point1]

About a week or so ago there was a woman who shared her story on Facebook on how she had an abortion at 16 to make sure she was not tied down to an abusive partner. It was shared over 100,000 times.

That is actually the one thing that these new abortion laws screw over the most: women in abusive relationships. You are literally telling them “you are going to be forced to carry to term and be tied down by way of a child to someone who might kill you one day.”

First, let’s start with a question that pro-lifers ask that infuriates me: “Well if you know he’s abusive why are you having sex with him?”

Ask any woman who successfully got away from an abusive partner and she will tell you that if you refuse sex they might lose it and become *more* abusive. It’s basically a choice of “have sex with someone you hate to keep him from beating you for a couple of hours” or “refuse sex and risk him using you as a punching bag in retaliation.”

Now that is out of the way….

Do you really think it’s even a good thing to bring a child into the world knowing that his/her father is a cretin who beat up their mother or worse? Please be aware that these kids often become abusers themselves as they see it and think it’s OK.

One thing that that you will see an uptick of in states that have passed these draconian abortion laws is women who become pregnant due to men sabotaging their contraceptives. Yes, that includes poking holes in their condoms. Or “stealthing” during sex (which BTW in some places carries a rape charge). Abusive men have a tendency to do just that because they know their partners feel “forced” to engage in sex and they feel if they get them pregnant they’ll have no choice to stay with them. Imagine these men knowing they now have a draconian law on their side.

The biggest problem with forcing a domestic abuse victim to carry a fetus to term? Let’s say she wants to leave him and run far, far away with her child if she does carry to term. More power to her if she does that. BUT…. All it’s going to take is the partner to plead his case to a sympathetic judge who will demand that the woman stay close to the man’s residence “for the kids” or risk punishment, preventing her from doing so. IIRC, there was a case that made the national news a couple of years ago for just that. Woman was being abused, had kids with the man anyway but had enough and wanted to “run off” to a place far away with the kids. Her estranged husband pleaded to a judge. Said judge told the woman to stay close as running away might “traumatize” the children. Shortly afterwards, the guy trespassed on her property and shot her dead. That judge was called to resign for his decision, BTW.

I remember when Oklahoma wanted to enact a bill that would require a woman to get permission from the father of the fetus in order to have an abortion. The bill made no exceptions for women who are being abused. FYI, this was the one where one of the reps that sponsored it called women “hosts.” Yeah, I can imagine what would happen if a man poked holes in his condoms or “stealthed” his partner knowing full well if she gets pregnant he would deny an abortion just to spite her if this became law.

I know what some “pro lifers” are going to say, the one phrase they love to use: “just give it up for adoption!” There are several states that require two parent consent to give up a child for adoption. I just checked…. These are the same states that have passed the abortion laws. Even if a woman wanted to give up a child to adoption, you know damn well that the partner would say “no.”

These new abortion laws are literally going to be the death of some women. “Pro life” lawmakers clearly have not thought this through.

Just so you know…. I have firsthand knowledge of this. Because my mother is one. She had an abortion in 1973 (The 1st year Roe V Wade was handed down) to get away from an abusive asshole whom she knew would kill her if she was tied down by way of a child. She had no regrets doing it at all.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Oh absolutely. But I think sort of like FOSTA isn't necessarily about protecting trafficking victims so much as it is trying to control behavior, I tend to think these laws are the same thing.

People will use the term "abortion" or "human trafficking" because people have gut reactions to it and politically people exploit it.

When it comes to this particular set of laws though, to me it's a very hardcore patriarchal view. That is, what they're protecting is men's rights to a children if they can "somehow" get up in there. There's no scientific basis - indeed, no one has every charged manslaughter for miscarriage. It's not really biblical - Jesus didn't talk about it and the original Jewish Old testament is quite clear the baby is the possession of the mother and to be compensated as such in the event of accident. What that leaves is biological impulse and in this case it activates one sexes desire for control and the other's desire to protect.

I feel bad for these women. I feel bad for anyone who has to go through an experience like this AND deal with moralizing people getting up in their face about may already be a hard decision. It pains me that women can't just get Plan B over the counter when (almost) no one believes a 2 day old clump of cells is a child.

I dunno - maybe I'd feel different if "the state" actually provided housing, education, and secondary education for these "uinwanted but taken to term" kids. Oh, and compensation to the mothers. But that's not what happens. So morality only seems to matter to the fetus, but once born - 'eh whatever.

I'm incredibly angry about this and frankly, I've never said I'm ashamed to have been born in Missouri (it used to be "the bellwether state") but right now, I really am. I hate it. Although slight correction to people who think it's inaccessible - the part most stories miss is that anyone in Kansas City or St. Louis goes to Kansas City Kansas or East St. Louis. So on a moral level I'm outraged. But on a practical level, in the urban centers it isn't effectively different from a lot of areas where if you're in a rural area you have to go to the city and both cities have it. (Why am I equivocating...)

[jackfaire]

OIt pains me that women can't just get Plan B over the counter when (almost) no one believes a 2 day old clump of cells is a child.

Just a point of clarification. If she's 2 days pregnant Plan B will have 0 effect on that pregnancy. Plan B only prevents impregnation from occurring it does not stop it once it's already occurred.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Fair enough. We've never had to use it but that makes sense. In general it's the OTC thing I'm going for.

[jackfaire]

Fair enough. We've never had to use it but that makes sense. In general it's the OTC thing I'm going for.

Oh I know. But the largest argument against making it OTC is the misconception that it's an abortion drug instead of a contraceptive.

[Pixelated]

The "pro-lifers" haven't thought it through, you say? Oh, I'm sure they have. This is all about controlling women. I believe they have said they realize that many fertilized eggs -- embryos -- are destroyed at fertilization clinics but those don't matter because they're not inside a woman. They will expect a woman to somehow avoid antagonizing her abuser and if he loses it and beats the shit out of her, well, that's no doubt her fault. Or God's will. Or some damn fucking thing.

And these idiots who wonder why she had sex with him in the first place? Why do they assume it was consensual?

Sherry Johnson was made pregnant by rape at TEN YEARS OLD, and not only forced to bear her rapist's child but also forced to marry him, so HE could avoid punishment.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/con...da-law-sherry/

[mjr]

So what about in a situation where the woman decides to keep a baby that the man doesn't want? Should he still be obligated to pay for it?

Asking for a friend.

[HEMI6point1]

So what about in a situation where the woman decides to keep a baby that the man doesn't want? Should he still be obligated to pay for it?

Asking for a friend.

I think they already have that. It's called relinquishing of parental rights or something among those lines.

[Canarr]

When it comes to this particular set of laws though, to me it's a very hardcore patriarchal view. That is, what they're protecting is men's rights to a children if they can "somehow" get up in there.

I see a lot of that theory in online discussions - how restricting abortion is about men controlling women. However, that completely ignores the fact that both pro-life and pro-choice positions are more or less equally divided among sexes. Meaning, there are just as many women who think abortion is wrong as there are men. What would their motivation be, then?

[jackfaire]

What would their motivation be, then?

For some of them it's about controlling women. For others they're Pro-choice.

I spoke the other day with a woman who identifies as Pro-Life but whose political position was Pro-Choice.

The thing is the labels of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are bullshit made up labels that do not include the complex tapestry of what people believe. Much like Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican. In theory these are labels to quickly say "here is my stance on (insert issue)"

The problem is that Pro-Life A Person and Pro-Life B person can have not only entirely different motivations but entirely different beliefs on it.

Say for example A believes that Abortion is always wrong and if the baby kills the mother it was God's Will.

Person B believes that Abortion is okay for medically necessary reasons, pushes for better sex education, access to contraception, adoption assistance for unwanted babies, etc. She doesn't feel abortion should be used as birth control. She wants that aspect of it not legally allowed.

Person A would hate Person B. Both self label as Pro-Life so both are regarded as Being Person A.

That being said when the men who push for an abortion law so draconian that Pat Freaking Robertson says it's gone too far then yeah it definitely reeks of something other than an attempt to ban abortion.

Especially when they were given the opportunity to add an amendment allowing for medically necessary reasons and specifically reasons and refused that.

Some women their motivation is they feel their protecting unborn babies. Others that they're pushing their morals on others. Some I'm sure even think it's just a matter of "we need to listen to the menfolk"

But there's no doubt in my mind the men pushing the law are all about control.

[Canarr]

I get your distinction between the different "Pro-Life" people you describe. Myself, I would say I'm Pro-Choice, but I wouldn't support abortion of a viable fetus (around the sixth month) for non-medical reasons. Before that, do as you want. But once it becomes necessary for doctors to actively kill the fetus in the mom's body before abortion, I feel a line has been crossed.

That position has gotten me labelled as being against human rights.

Some women their motivation is they feel their protecting unborn babies. Others that they're pushing their morals on others. Some I'm sure even think it's just a matter of "we need to listen to the menfolk"

But there's no doubt in my mind the men pushing the law are all about control.

Why? Seriously, why? If you consider the average age of US lawmakers, most of the men and women involved in passing these laws probably already have all the children they want, so it's not a personal issue.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the motives for women are protection, or moral convictions, or even a desire to go along with what "their men" deem right, but for men, the motives must be wanting to control women?

[jackfaire]

but for men, the motives must be wanting to control women?

For men I don't. I don't generalize. For those very specific men in Alabama who flatly refused to allow for any consideration for the health and well being of the very women they were passing a law on I would say it's fair that their health, well being, and morality plays no factor in their decisions.

My point that apparently I made poorly was that people will have a large variety of reasons and that men and women will have the same reasons regardless of gender. But those very specific men care so little for the women they're passing a law on that Pat Robertson called them out on it.

When other men who also believe abortion should be illegal start saying you're going too far that's a huge indicator that you're going to far. I won't even speak to every single man in Alabama but every Male congressperson that passed that law give every indication of caring nothing for women as independent autonomous people.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

but for men, the motives must be wanting to control women?

Eh, I was away for a while. What can I say?

So anyway, on this point - I think it's helpful to point out my personal belief is that human beings are not logical and respond to subconcious bias's and impulses. It's not a knock on people.

It's why I think it's actually more normal to see women who speak about bodily autonomy and free choice and absolutely balk at the idea of prostitution or divorce of parental responsibility (in the event the mother keeps a child against a father's wishes). Even when the same women may have extremely good points how women disproportionately pay the costs of responsibility for sex but at the same time do not view any sort of moral hazard in the man being on the hook based on a potential one-night stand's whims. Obviously when it comes to men, it's a different set of contradictions - often steadfast belief in the rights of the accused up until the accused doesn't look like them.

I don't find it helpful to tease out the logic in groups; with an individual, sure I can do that. But when it comes to men on the abortion issue, there just ISN'T a logical base. It's not a scientific one objectively for at least a month and a half. Viability and cognitive function simply don't exist at human levels. The religious one comes into being approximately in the 1970's. It was a Catholic issue before that and most Catholics are actually pro choice and came from a time when Catholics really weren't very particularly pro-science (1869). But if there was a change in "dogma", the question immediately becomes "what is that change appealing to?" In Catholocism as well as large segments of Southern Baptist Ministries who is voting? Men.

Well - at the time, segregation was starting to die off as an issue in the US. The nuclear family was coming under assault. In short, as one flashpoint disappeared, threat to men's control of the home was under assault. That religiously based "primacy" of the man was being questioned. So while yes, "control of women's bodies" is a leap, from a historical standpoint it's not much of one. That's the political reality of the US and largely why the US seems FAR more conservative on this issue than similarly religious people in Europe.

Frequently when asked other questions like the gender roles between men and women, both men and women who tend to be pro-life will also tend to hold very traditional views. It's not everybody. These are the same people that asked the same questions over time have become MORE sexist in the last 8 years.

So again, it's not a 1:1 thing so much as its the lack of a logical base combined with the reality of what demographics answer this way. Because any person who has extaordinarily strong beliefs on the issue I'd simply ask four questions: 1 - If you take it as a fact that many women pass fertilized embryos without pregnancy, do those embreyo's not have souls compared to the ones that luck out and hit the wall? 2- If they do and religion was so sure about this, why did this only become a thing in the last 2 centuries when nothing scientifically was supporting it and we discovered these failed "births" happen regularly? 3 - Given religion's wishy-washy perspective on the issue, lack of scientific evidence, and a limited amount of time in your day - why is this the hill to die on when other things like infant mortality, homelessness (related), and addiction rampage through our society at a much higher impact and can be addressed without any question of violating personal rights?

[Canarr]

Good summary there. Can't say I disagree with a lot of that - certainly, there is an issue of hypocrisy in fighting tooth and nail for the ban of abortion, but on the other hand allowing children to be caged in detention centers or homeless on the streets. For men and women both, I would like to mention.

Me, I'm not particularly religious, and I do consider myself Pro Choice - up to a point, and that point is viability of the fetus. Once that threshold is passed (somewhere around weeks 22-25, I think), performing an abortion requires the attending physician to terminate the fetus before terminating the pregnancy. Meaning, to actively kill a child, and that's where I draw the line. After that point, abortion should only be permissible in cases of medical necessity, not for any other reason.

[HEMI6point1]

Me, I'm not particularly religious, and I do consider myself Pro Choice - up to a point, and that point is viability of the fetus. Once that threshold is passed (somewhere around weeks 22-25, I think), performing an abortion requires the attending physician to terminate the fetus before terminating the pregnancy. Meaning, to actively kill a child, and that's where I draw the line. After that point, abortion should only be permissible in cases of medical necessity, not for any other reason.

Well "late term" abortions are extremely rare to begin with.

This raises a rather.... interesting? question. A friend of mine just had a baby. They asked about genetic testing and to their surprise it wasn't free, it was something like 2 grand and not covered by insurance so they couldn't afford it. Thankfully their baby was healthy.

I asked him why it was that expensive and not covered by insurance and he stated he was curious on that so he researched it and found the religious zealots have lobbied to make it such because they fear if everyone had access to it there would be more fetuses found with problems thus.... more abortions.

That is the question of "medical necessity." Is it really just to save the life of the mother, or when the fetus tests positive for something that will saddle it with a poor quality of life with no chance of elevating out of it?