Boycott Virginia - new abortion law, new personhood law..... War on woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The law as it is now needs to be changed to determine a point where the baby is it's own entity. It is very barbaric and ignorant to think that just because its physically inside the woman that it is her property, I still can't believe this is the test of what is part of a person vs what is not, using this logic would a woman be able to take ownership of any being or item but consuming it? . I also feel it is unfair that a man has no say in whether a termination occurs or not.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is simply biological reality. The woman is the only one who can conceive, gestate, and birth a baby, and must accept all the risks and pains that go along with that. The woman is also the only one who can decide to terminate or not. Until scientists give men another option to gestate their offspring, such as an artificial uterus, women have the power and control here.

And THAT is the reasons for patriarchal oppression of women. It's about sex and power. Speficially, women's life-giving sexual power/the resulting jealousy of men.

Penis Envy my ass.

PS, if a man is worried about the fate of his potential offspring and whether they might become subject to abortion, he needs to not leave his sperm laying around in any vaginas.
Every Sprem is Sacred!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am ok with the day after pill (or week after pill, or whatever it is). I am ok with birth control. So if you make a mistake, or something unplanned happens, take the day after pill. But 2-3 months later I think its too late, sorry.

I consider myself a pretty liberal woman, and I've always wanted to be pro-choice, but I kind of agree with the above. I could never really fully feel comfortable with the fact that, although it is a woman's body, technically the baby growing inside is a separate entity, life, body, whatever you want to call it, and an abortion is ending a life. I want to be pro-choice, but I have always felt uneasy about sanctioning termination of a human life. I should clarify that I'm talking about after the growing baby has characteristics that, in my opinion, make it human (e.g., a developed and differentiated nervous system, beating heart, etc.). Earlier than that in a pregnancy, I think it's a sufficiently murky and gray area, and abortion very early, in my book, is 'okay,' for lack of a better word.
Also, my thoughts sometimes turn to the dads... it's the woman's body that is carrying the baby, but the baby is 50% dad's baby...so what happens if he wants the baby but the mom wants to terminate? It's such a tough subject. I wish we could just eliminate the need for abortions, as a PP said.

The law as it is now needs to be changed to determine a point where the baby is it's own entity. It is very barbaric and ignorant to think that just because its physically inside the woman that it is her property, I still can't believe this is the test of what is part of a person vs what is not, using this logic would a woman be able to take ownership of any being or item but consuming it? . I also feel it is unfair that a man has no say in whether a termination occurs or not.

Can anyone tell me when we legally require a living adult to submit their body for the needs of another living adult? Are there any instances where, for example, we would force someone to donate blood against their will? A liver? A kidney? Here's a hypothetical: I'm mugged, and in the course of being mugged, I am also stabbed. The mugger/stabber is apprehended. I need blood to survive, but oh noes! The only person whose blood is compatible with mine is the mugger/stabber, and he doesn't consent! Do our laws require that we strap his ass down and take his blood without his consent?

I'm not aware of any such legal requirement (and please correct me if I'm wrong). So why in the world would we require a woman to submit her body for the needs of a fetus? Why does a fetus have more rights than a living adult?

I'm the 13:32 poster. I understand your point; it's a good point.
Such a difficult issue all around...wish we could eliminate the need for abortions.

[Anonymous]

To 13:36 if you continue reading my posts after this, 11:52, 12:10, and 12:41 then yes.

[Anonymous]

I'm curious about how surrogates fit into this. Would a surrogate mom have full decision-making power (e.g., if she changes her mind during pregnancy)?

[Anonymous]

The people who want to regulate what you eat, what you drive, what you say etc are all up in arms because the government is now submitting them to one extra procedure before they extinguish a life. Nice liberal hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am ok with the day after pill (or week after pill, or whatever it is). I am ok with birth control. So if you make a mistake, or something unplanned happens, take the day after pill. But 2-3 months later I think its too late, sorry.

I consider myself a pretty liberal woman, and I've always wanted to be pro-choice, but I kind of agree with the above. I could never really fully feel comfortable with the fact that, although it is a woman's body, technically the baby growing inside is a separate entity, life, body, whatever you want to call it, and an abortion is ending a life. I want to be pro-choice, but I have always felt uneasy about sanctioning termination of a human life. I should clarify that I'm talking about after the growing baby has characteristics that, in my opinion, make it human (e.g., a developed and differentiated nervous system, beating heart, etc.). Earlier than that in a pregnancy, I think it's a sufficiently murky and gray area, and abortion very early, in my book, is 'okay,' for lack of a better word.
Also, my thoughts sometimes turn to the dads... it's the woman's body that is carrying the baby, but the baby is 50% dad's baby...so what happens if he wants the baby but the mom wants to terminate? It's such a tough subject. I wish we could just eliminate the need for abortions, as a PP said.

The law as it is now needs to be changed to determine a point where the baby is it's own entity. It is very barbaric and ignorant to think that just because its physically inside the woman that it is her property, I still can't believe this is the test of what is part of a person vs what is not, using this logic would a woman be able to take ownership of any being or item but consuming it? . I also feel it is unfair that a man has no say in whether a termination occurs or not.

It is very barbaric to think that, just because there's a fetus in there, a woman no longer has control of her own body.

LOL, again with "her own body". the baby is not "your body", sorry. you are carrying two lifes, and that makes things very complicated. stop looking for easy answers when there are none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am ok with the day after pill (or week after pill, or whatever it is). I am ok with birth control. So if you make a mistake, or something unplanned happens, take the day after pill. But 2-3 months later I think its too late, sorry.

I consider myself a pretty liberal woman, and I've always wanted to be pro-choice, but I kind of agree with the above. I could never really fully feel comfortable with the fact that, although it is a woman's body, technically the baby growing inside is a separate entity, life, body, whatever you want to call it, and an abortion is ending a life. I want to be pro-choice, but I have always felt uneasy about sanctioning termination of a human life. I should clarify that I'm talking about after the growing baby has characteristics that, in my opinion, make it human (e.g., a developed and differentiated nervous system, beating heart, etc.). Earlier than that in a pregnancy, I think it's a sufficiently murky and gray area, and abortion very early, in my book, is 'okay,' for lack of a better word.
Also, my thoughts sometimes turn to the dads... it's the woman's body that is carrying the baby, but the baby is 50% dad's baby...so what happens if he wants the baby but the mom wants to terminate? It's such a tough subject. I wish we could just eliminate the need for abortions, as a PP said.

The law as it is now needs to be changed to determine a point where the baby is it's own entity. It is very barbaric and ignorant to think that just because its physically inside the woman that it is her property, I still can't believe this is the test of what is part of a person vs what is not, using this logic would a woman be able to take ownership of any being or item but consuming it? . I also feel it is unfair that a man has no say in whether a termination occurs or not.

It is very barbaric to think that, just because there's a fetus in there, a woman no longer has control of her own body.

LOL, again with "her own body". the baby is not "your body", sorry. you are carrying two lifes, and that makes things very complicated. stop looking for easy answers when there are none.

I've got a good answer - let's kill this bill.

I think the hypocrisy of the Republicans is funny in a sadistic sort of way. Leave my money alone, don't tax me, but oh, let's stick a probe up a woman's vagina for NO medical purpose and put her to shame. We must inflict mental torture on a person because this is what we Republicans feel is the best way to decrease abortions in this country. I bet these legislators would take great pleasure to shove one of these probes up a woman's vagina to change her mind. Vindictive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am ok with the day after pill (or week after pill, or whatever it is). I am ok with birth control. So if you make a mistake, or something unplanned happens, take the day after pill. But 2-3 months later I think its too late, sorry.

I consider myself a pretty liberal woman, and I've always wanted to be pro-choice, but I kind of agree with the above. I could never really fully feel comfortable with the fact that, although it is a woman's body, technically the baby growing inside is a separate entity, life, body, whatever you want to call it, and an abortion is ending a life. I want to be pro-choice, but I have always felt uneasy about sanctioning termination of a human life. I should clarify that I'm talking about after the growing baby has characteristics that, in my opinion, make it human (e.g., a developed and differentiated nervous system, beating heart, etc.). Earlier than that in a pregnancy, I think it's a sufficiently murky and gray area, and abortion very early, in my book, is 'okay,' for lack of a better word.
Also, my thoughts sometimes turn to the dads... it's the woman's body that is carrying the baby, but the baby is 50% dad's baby...so what happens if he wants the baby but the mom wants to terminate? It's such a tough subject. I wish we could just eliminate the need for abortions, as a PP said.

The law as it is now needs to be changed to determine a point where the baby is it's own entity. It is very barbaric and ignorant to think that just because its physically inside the woman that it is her property, I still can't believe this is the test of what is part of a person vs what is not, using this logic would a woman be able to take ownership of any being or item but consuming it? . I also feel it is unfair that a man has no say in whether a termination occurs or not.

Can anyone tell me when we legally require a living adult to submit their body for the needs of another living adult? Are there any instances where, for example, we would force someone to donate blood against their will? A liver? A kidney? Here's a hypothetical: I'm mugged, and in the course of being mugged, I am also stabbed. The mugger/stabber is apprehended. I need blood to survive, but oh noes! The only person whose blood is compatible with mine is the mugger/stabber, and he doesn't consent! Do our laws require that we strap his ass down and take his blood without his consent?

I'm not aware of any such legal requirement (and please correct me if I'm wrong). So why in the world would we require a woman to submit her body for the needs of a fetus? Why does a fetus have more rights than a living adult?

This.

[Anonymous]

the funny part is that if this passes, there is a 50% democrat in the legislature and the majority of VA agrees (dem or rep) about this issue. Again this is the idea of silent majority vs vocal minority.

If you are really upset about this you have 2 options

A) rally your group and vote in more liberal law makers
B) Move to maryland

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am ok with the day after pill (or week after pill, or whatever it is). I am ok with birth control. So if you make a mistake, or something unplanned happens, take the day after pill. But 2-3 months later I think its too late, sorry.

I consider myself a pretty liberal woman, and I've always wanted to be pro-choice, but I kind of agree with the above. I could never really fully feel comfortable with the fact that, although it is a woman's body, technically the baby growing inside is a separate entity, life, body, whatever you want to call it, and an abortion is ending a life. I want to be pro-choice, but I have always felt uneasy about sanctioning termination of a human life. I should clarify that I'm talking about after the growing baby has characteristics that, in my opinion, make it human (e.g., a developed and differentiated nervous system, beating heart, etc.). Earlier than that in a pregnancy, I think it's a sufficiently murky and gray area, and abortion very early, in my book, is 'okay,' for lack of a better word.
Also, my thoughts sometimes turn to the dads... it's the woman's body that is carrying the baby, but the baby is 50% dad's baby...so what happens if he wants the baby but the mom wants to terminate? It's such a tough subject. I wish we could just eliminate the need for abortions, as a PP said.

The law as it is now needs to be changed to determine a point where the baby is it's own entity. It is very barbaric and ignorant to think that just because its physically inside the woman that it is her property, I still can't believe this is the test of what is part of a person vs what is not, using this logic would a woman be able to take ownership of any being or item but consuming it? . I also feel it is unfair that a man has no say in whether a termination occurs or not.

It's not just a good point, it's a critical point. I know people who are against abortion think that this is a good way to limit those further, but the reality is that it creates the perfect storm for holding individual pregnant women responsible for poor fetal outcomes. What happens with miscarriages occur, especially those that are later-term? Pregnant women can be held responsible. Having the occasional glass of wine during your pregnancy? You could be charged with giving alcohol to a minor. These aren't hypothetical situations. One a fetus becomes a person the slippery slope of legislating and criminalizing pregnant women's behavior just takes off.

Can anyone tell me when we legally require a living adult to submit their body for the needs of another living adult? Are there any instances where, for example, we would force someone to donate blood against their will? A liver? A kidney? Here's a hypothetical: I'm mugged, and in the course of being mugged, I am also stabbed. The mugger/stabber is apprehended. I need blood to survive, but oh noes! The only person whose blood is compatible with mine is the mugger/stabber, and he doesn't consent! Do our laws require that we strap his ass down and take his blood without his consent?

I'm not aware of any such legal requirement (and please correct me if I'm wrong). So why in the world would we require a woman to submit her body for the needs of a fetus? Why does a fetus have more rights than a living adult?

I'm the 13:32 poster. I understand your point; it's a good point.
Such a difficult issue all around...wish we could eliminate the need for abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am ok with the day after pill (or week after pill, or whatever it is). I am ok with birth control. So if you make a mistake, or something unplanned happens, take the day after pill. But 2-3 months later I think its too late, sorry.

I consider myself a pretty liberal woman, and I've always wanted to be pro-choice, but I kind of agree with the above. I could never really fully feel comfortable with the fact that, although it is a woman's body, technically the baby growing inside is a separate entity, life, body, whatever you want to call it, and an abortion is ending a life. I want to be pro-choice, but I have always felt uneasy about sanctioning termination of a human life. I should clarify that I'm talking about after the growing baby has characteristics that, in my opinion, make it human (e.g., a developed and differentiated nervous system, beating heart, etc.). Earlier than that in a pregnancy, I think it's a sufficiently murky and gray area, and abortion very early, in my book, is 'okay,' for lack of a better word.
Also, my thoughts sometimes turn to the dads... it's the woman's body that is carrying the baby, but the baby is 50% dad's baby...so what happens if he wants the baby but the mom wants to terminate? It's such a tough subject. I wish we could just eliminate the need for abortions, as a PP said.

The law as it is now needs to be changed to determine a point where the baby is it's own entity. It is very barbaric and ignorant to think that just because its physically inside the woman that it is her property, I still can't believe this is the test of what is part of a person vs what is not, using this logic would a woman be able to take ownership of any being or item but consuming it? . I also feel it is unfair that a man has no say in whether a termination occurs or not.

Can anyone tell me when we legally require a living adult to submit their body for the needs of another living adult? Are there any instances where, for example, we would force someone to donate blood against their will? A liver? A kidney? Here's a hypothetical: I'm mugged, and in the course of being mugged, I am also stabbed. The mugger/stabber is apprehended. I need blood to survive, but oh noes! The only person whose blood is compatible with mine is the mugger/stabber, and he doesn't consent! Do our laws require that we strap his ass down and take his blood without his consent?

I'm not aware of any such legal requirement (and please correct me if I'm wrong). So why in the world would we require a woman to submit her body for the needs of a fetus? Why does a fetus have more rights than a living adult?

This.

PP here...sorry, quoting issues.


It's not just a good point, it's a critical point. I know people who are against abortion think that this is a good way to limit those further, but the reality is that it creates the perfect storm for holding individual pregnant women responsible for poor fetal outcomes. What happens with miscarriages occur, especially those that are later-term? Pregnant women can be held responsible. Having the occasional glass of wine during your pregnancy? You could be charged with giving alcohol to a minor. These aren't hypothetical situations. One a fetus becomes a person the slippery slope of legislating and criminalizing pregnant women's behavior just takes off.

[Anonymous]

by the way, all of our ultrasounds were done over the belly. what is up with the "vaginal rape" nonsense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia can't outlaw abortions because of Roe v Wade. What is the point of this bill? Has the governor made any mention of signing it?

A state will eventually pass it, but one would think the Supreme Court would reject it because of the Roe v Wade and Griswold v Connecticut rulings.

Am I missing something here?

Yes. It's unconstitutional. I don't know why people are wasting so much time discussing it and getting heated about it.

I have not gotten thru the whole thread, but I feel the need to address this.

It's unconstitutional now, but all of these laws are meant to being passed knowing they will be challenged in the hopes that Roe will be narrowed or overturned. We are a generation of women who have become complacent because we think Roe and Griswold will protect us, but the law, while slow moving, is not static. It is moving more conservative. The rights we women have taken as givens in our lifetimes may not be there for our daughters.

I don't understand why we are on DCUM complaining and why we are not writing letters and voting for the prochoice candidates.

And if you think it is just abortion rights we need to be worried about, there is now an assault on rights to birth control. Once the personhood law is place, what's next?

You only need to visit the Holocaust Museum to understand how rights can be chipped away so slowly that no one notices until a population is marginalized and second class. The history of the slow but tolerable law changes that affected the Jews so litlle each time that they didn't complain. Bigger changes become easier after so many inconsequential ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am ok with the day after pill (or week after pill, or whatever it is). I am ok with birth control. So if you make a mistake, or something unplanned happens, take the day after pill. But 2-3 months later I think its too late, sorry.

I consider myself a pretty liberal woman, and I've always wanted to be pro-choice, but I kind of agree with the above. I could never really fully feel comfortable with the fact that, although it is a woman's body, technically the baby growing inside is a separate entity, life, body, whatever you want to call it, and an abortion is ending a life. I want to be pro-choice, but I have always felt uneasy about sanctioning termination of a human life. I should clarify that I'm talking about after the growing baby has characteristics that, in my opinion, make it human (e.g., a developed and differentiated nervous system, beating heart, etc.). Earlier than that in a pregnancy, I think it's a sufficiently murky and gray area, and abortion very early, in my book, is 'okay,' for lack of a better word.
Also, my thoughts sometimes turn to the dads... it's the woman's body that is carrying the baby, but the baby is 50% dad's baby...so what happens if he wants the baby but the mom wants to terminate? It's such a tough subject. I wish we could just eliminate the need for abortions, as a PP said.

The law as it is now needs to be changed to determine a point where the baby is it's own entity. It is very barbaric and ignorant to think that just because its physically inside the woman that it is her property, I still can't believe this is the test of what is part of a person vs what is not, using this logic would a woman be able to take ownership of any being or item but consuming it? . I also feel it is unfair that a man has no say in whether a termination occurs or not.

Can anyone tell me when we legally require a living adult to submit their body for the needs of another living adult? Are there any instances where, for example, we would force someone to donate blood against their will? A liver? A kidney? Here's a hypothetical: I'm mugged, and in the course of being mugged, I am also stabbed. The mugger/stabber is apprehended. I need blood to survive, but oh noes! The only person whose blood is compatible with mine is the mugger/stabber, and he doesn't consent! Do our laws require that we strap his ass down and take his blood without his consent?

I'm not aware of any such legal requirement (and please correct me if I'm wrong). So why in the world would we require a woman to submit her body for the needs of a fetus? Why does a fetus have more rights than a living adult?

The debate is not in regards to a developing baby to have more rights then the mother it's equal rights. The issue is when does a life begins? If life begins as the fetus stage than by all means the fetus will have equal rights to life as the mom. Again someone needs to do a study with SCIENCE and then we can rule when the cut off date is for life vs developing fetus. I think that no one is willing to touch this because the tools to determine what a fetus can feel, or perhaps if it is has conciousness are greatly advanced since the roe vs wade decision 40 years a go. Imagine if this happened and how awful late term abortion users would feel .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia can't outlaw abortions because of Roe v Wade. What is the point of this bill? Has the governor made any mention of signing it?

A state will eventually pass it, but one would think the Supreme Court would reject it because of the Roe v Wade and Griswold v Connecticut rulings.

Am I missing something here?

Yes. It's unconstitutional. I don't know why people are wasting so much time discussing it and getting heated about it.

I have not gotten thru the whole thread, but I feel the need to address this.

It's unconstitutional now, but all of these laws are meant to being passed knowing they will be challenged in the hopes that Roe will be narrowed or overturned. We are a generation of women who have become complacent because we think Roe and Griswold will protect us, but the law, while slow moving, is not static. It is moving more conservative. The rights we women have taken as givens in our lifetimes may not be there for our daughters.

I don't understand why we are on DCUM complaining and why we are not writing letters and voting for the prochoice candidates.

And if you think it is just abortion rights we need to be worried about, there is now an assault on rights to birth control. Once the personhood law is place, what's next?

You only need to visit the Holocaust Museum to understand how rights can be chipped away so slowly that no one notices until a population is marginalized and second class. The history of the slow but tolerable law changes that affected the Jews so litlle each time that they didn't complain. Bigger changes become easier after so many inconsequential ones.

You are crazy to think that the holocaust victims are the same as not having abortion rights. If anything a stronger parallel to killing the unborn can be drawn to the holocaust IF IN FACT the unborn cut off date for life was erroneous and abortion was indeed determined to be murder.