Posts by trustwomen

The same thing applies to mattresses: the major manufacturers will sell the same mattress to department store A under one name, and to B under another name. So even though the Serta MagicRest is the same as the Serta SleepTight (making these names up) there is no way to prove this as they have different tags and sometimes different cosmetic appearance.

Here is a bit of insight on how this happens: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-h abits-you-develop-growing-up-poor/

The author has some very interesting lists/articles on poverty (and addiction, for those who find that interesting too).

Original Post by kathygator:

Yeah, I'm ill-equipped.

kathy, you were doing great! don't sell yourself short.

Original Post by ignayshus:

Original Post by trustwomen:
Iggy:

-they are choosing not to birth a child. If they were fine with birthing a child but not ready to parent a child, they would be placing for adoption.

That's horse hockey and you know it. Having an abortion is far less invasive then taking a child to term and then putting the child up for adoption. They are choosing not to be a parent and selecting the least painful and most expeditious method available at their stage of pregnancy.

My argument is that the right to have an abortion and the right to not support born children are not equivalent in any way.

That's because it's not about a right to bodily autonomy. It's about a right to electing to being a parent. The right to bodily autonomy is a right already afforded both women and men.

FWIW I actually support the idea of allowing both parents to terminate their parental rights at will up to the age of 18, IN THE CONTEXT OF A SOCIETY THAT WOULD THEN SUPPORT THE CHILDREN ADEQUATELY.

I don't know how I feel about that, although my gut response is no. It's not what I'm suggesting in the slightest and if that's what you're interpreting my argument to be then I must be a terrible communicator. I'm speaking about an unborn child, not a born child.

Not horse hockey at all. Not wanting to give birth is part and parcel of the NO! that takes over your being when you are faced with an unwanted pregnancy. They ARE making a choice about what happens to their bodies. You said it yourself - having an abortion is far less invasive than giving birth. They are not OK with giving birth, because if they were OK with giving birth but just "didn't want to be a parent" they could place for adoption and, hell, even make a pile of cash (if they are healthy and white that is). And considering the rate of changed minds re. adoption, it is more fair to say that a woman's initial decision is abort vs. give birth. If she chooses the latter, THEN she chooses to adopt out vs. keep.

Nobody has the right to "elect not to be a parent". That is not what the right to abortion is based on legally or morally. In the US it is based on the right to privacy, and in Canada it is based on - yes - bodily autonomy, or the "security of the person". Should someone invent technology that would allow for the safe and easy removal of a fetus from a woman and its transplantation into a volunteer (to be placed for adoption, later, at birth), the right to abortion could well be null and void.

If men could "opt out" during, say, the first trimester, then how much injustice would that truly avoid? Wouldn't the "scheming women" simply hide the fact that they are pregnant, and only reveal it once it's too late, claiming she just found out herself? It would be completely unworkable, let alone unjust, since not every woman even in the first trimester can access an abortion. And there is a much steeper barrier for the woman who would have to have an invasive procedure vs. the man who could just - what, sign a form? Her ease of access to this supposed "right not to parent" would be so much harder than hers and, again, if she elects hers no child is born. If he elects his a child grows up in poverty and pain. The equivalent right of this proposed "male abortion" would indeed be for a woman to give birth and then dump the baby on the man and take off. For which she could be prosecuted for child abandonment and not even just sued for child support, though she is liable for that too.

Original Post by ignayshus:

The problem Trust, is that your argument is built on a narrow interpretation of the scope reproductive rights that is counter to how those rights are actually exercised and how Roe v Wade was established. Trotting out "think of the children" is a distraction from the actual argument at hand. You don't deny rights to a people afforded to another because you're worried about what the effect might be. I'm pretty sure lobbyists for plantation owners made similar arguments regarding the abolition of slavery.

So are women who elect an abortion doing so because they are choosing to not birth a child, or are they really choosing to not be a parent of a child (or another child)?

There are medical reasons for the former, but are you really going to try to say it's not the latter the vast majority of the time?

I realize that you don't want this to be an argument about reproductive rights or gender equality. That doesn't change the fact that it is.

Of course this is where we left off last time.

There are ancillary issues that weren't discussed:

The effect of equality on the social safety net (there's plenty of data available on the to demographic of unwed mothers)

Should the state be a middle man in between the debtor and the debtee. Given the state's resources it strikes me as a role it could play to make the child support system more effective at collecting from those that don't pay their support.

The availability and cost of reproductive control for women and men.

And to those thinking I'm some bad guy, please. Rights are rights, you either want equality or you don't; and I'm saying this as a father of three who isn't a single parent, but several loungers know just how close I come to being equivalent.

Iggy:

-they are choosing not to birth a child. If they were fine with birthing a child but not ready to parent a child, they would be placing for adoption.

-did you even read my post? women can't refuse to support their born children either. it is not about reproductive rights because reproductive rights are about bodily autonomy!! yes, there is no right for men that is equivalent to a woman's right to abortion. And there is no just way to create one.

-sure, the state should be the middle man, it works out well here in socialist Quebec, but on the other hand this will cause noncustodial parents to have to pay more, not less (the state has a powerful incentive to get the $$ from noncustodial parents when its own generous benefits are the alternative)

-as for availability and cost of reproductive control for men and women, men win this one hands down. no need for a prescription for condoms, they are relatively cheap, no side effects, no health risks, and sold everywhere without age restrictions. they are somewhat less effective (4-6% failure rate per annum when used every time as directed) but still, overall, they are pretty good.

My argument is that the right to have an abortion and the right to not support born children are not equivalent in any way. So far I haven't seen an argument as to why they actually would be. Furthermore, if you are looking for a right men have that women don't have, how about the right to be only responsible for the financial support of the child and not the physical care of the child, and are therefore subject to wage garnishment, but not jail time for child abandonment. (See Nebraska case below.)

FWIW I actually support the idea of allowing both parents to terminate their parental rights at will up to the age of 18, IN THE CONTEXT OF A SOCIETY THAT WOULD THEN SUPPORT THE CHILDREN ADEQUATELY. To show what this would lead to, however, note what happened when Nebraska created a "safe haven" law that included kids up to 18. (Spoiler: they had to change it to 30 days old because desperate mothers were coming from other states to leave their disabled or troubled kids in Nebraska hospitals). All of a sudden social costs would explode. I would be OK with this because it would probably lead to fewer problems in the end (less mental health issues in the parents, less child abuse, etc) but most Americans wouldn't be OK with the increased cost, I'm sure.

Original Post by roxysparkles:

Original Post by jjmethini:

I'm pro male abortion all the way, not so much for more lenient penalties for killing newborns as some women do and feminists support.

Ermm, what???

roxy, none of that post made any sense, which is why I didn't boher replying to any of it. this last bit was indeed the weirdest but i suspect the poster is unable to actually make a coherent statement about any of these topics.

Original Post by melodic:

People have yet to cease to amaze me.

I was at Starbucks today and an overweight woman argued with the cashier/barista about calories in frappucinos. She thought they were calorie free, stating she was on a diet. Eventually she ordered a tall mocha frappucino without whipped cream and because she was being "healthy" with her drink, decided to "reward" herself with some kind of muffin with a ton of streusel on top. Then she proceeded to buy her (again, very overweight) teenage daughter the same muffin and a venti mocha frappucino with whipped cream stating that since she was a teenager she could afford the calories. 

Yeah, I am aware that I have an eating disorder and am a little (ha) more calorie conscious than the rest of the nation but this is absolutely ridiculous. 

1) Yup, there sure are a lot of fat people out there and many of them eat poorly.

2) You will probably find that your recovery goes better if you make a conscious effort to NOT notice or judge what size people are, or what they eat.

Original Post by odysseygurl:

I got mine out back in winter of 2006 and was back to normal in about a week. The surgery itself was quick and painless, four small scars, though I wanted nothing more than to sleep the rest of the day.

The only problem I had was the gas they fill you with so they can move around in there got trapped in my shoulders. It's supposed to dissipate quickly, but I was in pain for a few days after the surgery and had a hard time resting since the only relief I got was from changing positions. People told me the pain intensity of that situation is similar to that of childbirth (I'm sure I can report on that accurately once I have a kid). I don't want to scare you, but I want you to be aware of the possibility. Supposedly there was something I could have taken, but nobody told me that.

One more thing, since they've removed an organ, things will slosh around a bit. It's a really cool sensation to feel your organs move when you roll over. It does settle fairly quickly though.

I do remember the gas.. I tried to burp and fart as much as possible in the day after the surgery, it seemed to help. :)

And it is nowhere near as painful as childbirth. At least it wasn't for me.

Recommend highly the book "Getting Things Done" by David Allen. Talks about procrastination as being essentially a self-defense response to anxiety. Really hit home for me.

Had a lap chole 9 years ago. Quick recovery, no digestive issues since. Basically back to normal after. Simple, safe surgery.