Why are people afraid to say that they are pro-abortion?

[shaayecanaan]

Personally, I think abortion is a social good. Before there was abortion, there were children growing up in institutions, often as victims of abuse. There is a pretty good case to be made that the decrease in violent crime over the past few years in the US is attributable to abortion.

I also support abortion for the usual environmental reasons - too many people and not enough resources, basically. I'd probably go further and say that I support Peter Singer's idea of parents having the election to euthanase newborns in certain cirumstances.

My criticism of the term "pro choice" is that it is disingenuous - indeed most appeals to "freedom of choice" generally are. If women have sovereignty over their bodies, then logically they should have the right to prostitute themselves and appear in pornographic films. However this tends not to be the position of most "pro choice" advocates, at least from my experience. Any libertarian sentiment that might be implied by the use of the word "choice" seems to be limited mainly to the decision whether to have an abortion.

The usual rejoinder is that abortion advocates aren't actually advocating abortion but simply want for women to have the election to do so. But you could equally say that the gun lobby doesn't want to force people to buy guns, but merely to preserve that choice for people that have that predilection.

The other thing that irks me is the insistence you see on this board that a fetus isnt actually a human/baby until it emerges from a vagina (or stomach, presumably, in the case of a caesarean). To me that strikes me as being just as threadbare an assertion that life begins at conception. Again, I tend to agree with Singer that late-term abortion, when warranted, is a case of justifiable homicide - for example, when the woman's life or health is at risk.

The impression I get from reading some posts on this board is that any abortion right up until birth should be available on demand, which is a bridge too far even for me. For one thing, I think you'd have trouble finding doctors willing to do routine late-term abortions every day of the week.

[NoQuarter]

1. Late-term abortions are NEVER routine.

And they are not done every day of the week.

It is the uterus that houses the fetus. It doesn't magically transport to the stomach for a caesarean. The stomach is an organ, not an "area" of the body.

You are just ignorant.

Ya shoulda gone to school and paid attention.

Sheesh.

[shaayecanaan]

2. Substitute "torso" for stomach

And the next time someone punches me in the midsection, I will take care to yell out "Officer, that man just punched me in the torso"

Nevertheless, point taken. I award you the Gold Star for Pedantry with two pips and a perspex box. Well done.

[JetCityLiberal]

61. Well, they showed you for the ignorant right wing anti choicer you really are

Your post is stupid and idiotic and contradicts itself all over the place.

You are anti choice just like your right wing moran pals.

Paul

[pnwmom]

3. Because they are not. Because they think most abortions are a failure of

contraception or a result of something else wrong with the pregnancy -- a loss, not something to be applauded.

[Hekate]

4. I don't know how one OP can contain so much misinformation and disingenuousness...

It's kind of awe-inspiring in its scope.

First, last, and always: we use the term "pro-choice" because we believe that a woman has the right to -- of her own volition -- decide to keep any pregnancy going to term if that is what her conscience, heart, brain, and/or religion guide her to do. She may (or may not) choose to rely on the advice of her doctor and/or clergy in making this decision.

Her doctor may advise her that her life is at stake if she decides not to go through with that chemotherapy or radiation treatment for her aggressive cancer. But it is her decision to try to save her baby's life even if she loses her own along with the baby's.
Her doctor may advise her that ultrasound indicates that the baby she is carrying is anencephalic and cannot survive because it has no brain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly But it is her decision if she wants to try to carry that baby to term, even knowing it will die within moments or days of birth.
Her boyfriend may beat the crap out of her for "getting herself pregnant", but if you are pro-choice you believe that it is indeed HER choice, and the best thing for her to do is get to a shelter so she can think things over in safety.

It doesn't matter whether I disagree with such choices. It's not my body and it's not my life. Neither I nor the law of the land (i.e. Roe vs. Wade) is "pro-abortion." Just because we pro-choice people believe that abortion should remain legal and safe does not make us pro-abortion.

Hekate

[shaayecanaan]

5. No problem with me...

as I said, I have a pretty wide libertarian streak.

But if the state has no business if its my body and its my life, equally it has no business telling me whether I should prostitute myself or snort cocaine, right?

Freedom of choice and all that, eh?

Or is this one of those situations where I'm free to eat cake but not bread?

[Hekate]

6. Disingenuous aren't you?

[shaayecanaan]

7. You like that word, don't you? nt

[Djinn]

64. don't believe you're actually looking for serious debate here

but from this little black duck at least YES you SHOULD be free to prostitute yourself (whether anyone would buy it is another question) and you should be free to snort cocaine till the cows come home. If you coerce another into prostitution or rob someone to pay for your drugs it then becomes a different matter. What people do to themselves should be of no business of the government.

However you're transparently not looking for a reasoned conversation so why not just cut the crap and say what you really want to say

[uppityperson]

10. Indeed. OP seems to confuse the choice to a legal abortion with an abortion

Personally, I think abortion is a social good. Before there was abortion, there were children growing up in institutions, often as victims of abuse. There is a pretty good case to be made that the decrease in violent crime over the past few years in the US is attributable to abortion.

"Abortion is a social good"? Women who would give birth to criminals, or abuse their children, or instutionalize them are the ones getting abortions?


I also support abortion for the usual environmental reasons - too many people and not enough resources, basically. I'd probably go further and say that I support Peter Singer's idea of parents having the election to euthanase newborns in certain cirumstances.

I am thinking you are looking to post outrageous flame bait here.

My criticism of the term "pro choice" is that it is disingenuous - indeed most appeals to "freedom of choice" generally are. If women have sovereignty over their bodies, then logically they should have the right to prostitute themselves and appear in pornographic films. However this tends not to be the position of most "pro choice" advocates, at least from my experience. Any libertarian sentiment that might be implied by the use of the word "choice" seems to be limited mainly to the decision whether to have an abortion.

You are "disingenuous" indeed. You are comparing "freedom of choice" regarding right to privacy in your health care to prostitution and pornography? Having the freedom to control your health care is the same as being free to be in pornographic movies?



And, this is a problem? Letting a woman have a choice, rather than forcing either an abortion or a continued pregnancy on her is...a problem?

The other thing that irks me is the insistence you see on this board that a fetus isnt actually a human/baby until it emerges from a vagina (or stomach, presumably, in the case of a caesarean). To me that strikes me as being just as threadbare an assertion that life begins at conception. Again, I tend to agree with Singer that late-term abortion, when warranted, is a case of justifiable homicide - for example, when the woman's life or health is at risk.

Some people say both those extremes, of course. DU is a wide tent and we get all sorts of people and trolls in here. Just in case you hadn't noticed.

The impression I get from reading some posts on this board is that any abortion right up until birth should be available on demand, which is a bridge too far even for me. For one thing, I think you'd have trouble finding doctors willing to do routine late-term abortions every day of the week.

Some people say both that of course. DU is a wide tent and we get all sorts of people and trolls in here. Just in case you hadn't noticed. I agree that you would have a difficult time finding a doctor willing to do a late-term abortion, even with a medical need.

"disingenuous"

[musette_sf]

11. "Having the freedom to control your health care

is the same as being free to be in pornographic movies?"

welcome to Libertarian La La Land of tortured logic.

[musette_sf]

8. you missed the turnoff for the Lew Rockwell board

go back 40 years and turn right.

[rebecca_herman]

9. Because I'm not?

I wouldn't care if every single pregnant woman in the world from now on decided to carry their pregnancies to term, as long as that choice was made freely.

So I simply do not consider the label accurate to me. I want a woman to have a choice if she will carry a pregnancy to term, but it's up to her what she does with that choice.

[Warpy]

12. Nobody likes abortion

The procedure is expensive, painful and embarrassing.

I realize the concept of free choice for the people most affected by unwanted pregnancy is a foreign one to many people, but that's what this is about.

It's also about putting illegal abortionists who maimed and killed women before the law changed out of business forever.

Antiabortion laws kill women, that's the bottom line.

However, no one will ever claim to be "pro abortion." It's like being pro appendectomy or pro gall bladder surgery. They're all procedures that save lives but nobody ever wants to need them.

[Djinn]

65. huh?

Nobody likes abortion - The procedure is expensive, painful and embarrassing.

MUCH less so than carrying a kid to term yet no-one suggests that "no-one likes pregnancy and childbirth". I can't speak for medical procedures in the US, but I've never heard of anyone where I am describe their abortions as expensive or embarrassing and for the most part there's very little pain.

However, no one will ever claim to be "pro abortion." It's like being pro appendectomy or pro gall bladder surgery. They're all procedures that save lives but nobody ever wants to need them.

Actually I do - I am PRO abortion for anyone who needs one (that being ANYONE pregnant who doesn't wish to be) just as I AM pro appendectomy for anyone who needs one. Personally I despise the "safe, legal & RARE" bollocks for the same reasons you've alluded to, NO-ONE ever says organ transplants should be "rare" it is just assumed that no-on has them done because they're bored on a Saturday night, it's simply understood that you get them if and when you need one, rare is irrelevant.

[iverglas]

13. why are you afraid to ask an honest question?

Why are people afraid to say that they are pro-abortion?

I'm no more afraid to say that I'm pro-abortion than I am to say that I'm purple.

Do google "loaded question". What it's loaded with is a false premise. One could only be afraid to say that one is pro-abortion if one is pro-abortion.

I believe that an abortion is a good outcome in many cases. I also believe that a kidney transplant is a good outcome in many cases. I'm not pro-kidney transplant. I don't think it would be just great if you had a kidney transplant. I think it would be just great if you had a kidney transplant if it solves a problem you have, and that is how you choose to solve the problem.


I also support abortion for the usual environmental reasons - too many people and not enough resources, basically.

I support actions taken by individuals to limit population growth, and I support whatever decision they make to that end that isn't otherwise justifiably proscribed. And I would support actions taken by a society to limit population growth that are demonstrably justified.

Saying that I "support abortion" for that reason makes no sense. In order for someone to have an abortion, she has to be pregnant. When someone is pregnant and/or has an abortion, she incurs health risks. Why would I "support abortion" for that reason when I could support public education and information campaigns to encourage limiting family size by preventing pregnancy?

Would I say that I "support kidney transplant" if the real issue were the ravages of preventable kidney disease?


I'd probably go further and say that I support Peter Singer's idea of parents having the election to euthanase newborns in certain cirumstances.

I'm confused. How is this "going further"? Are abortion and infanticide two points on a continuum with no distinguishing features?

How are Singer's circumstances related to population control, and if they aren't, how is your support for his idea "going further"?

If abortion and infanticide are not distinguishable, and if your support for Singer's idea isn't "going further" from your first statement, there's only one response needed: so what?


My criticism of the term "pro choice" is that it is disingenuous - indeed most appeals to "freedom of choice" generally are.

Well, I think it's less than a completely honest statement in the mouths of some people. Some people really are pro-choice only in certain circumstances ... only where they approve. I don't actually regard them as pro-choice, myself.


If women have sovereignty over their bodies, then logically they should have the right to prostitute themselves and appear in pornographic films.

Indeed, "freedom of choice" usually carries the implied caveat: where there is no justification for interfering in the choice. Please don't pretend that there is no arguable justification for interfering in the choices you advance.

On the other hand, I have never ever once seen any justification advanced for interfering in women's choices regarding their pregnancies that holds up to even casual attack.


However this tends not to be the position of most "pro choice" advocates, at least from my experience. Any libertarian sentiment that might be implied by the use of the word "choice" seems to be limited mainly to the decision whether to have an abortion.

Ah, equivocation. "Libertarian" means one thing to you, so you think it has to mean the same thing to all of us, and that you can frame the issue according to your adopted meaning. Uh oh. No, it doesn't, and no, you can't.

We other libertarians believe in liberty, and also believe in mutual responsibility. And we recognize that not all choices made are made freely.


The usual rejoinder is that abortion advocates aren't actually advocating abortion but simply want for women to have the election to do so. But you could equally say that the gun lobby doesn't want to force people to buy guns, but merely to preserve that choice for people that have that predilection.

Interesting that you should ride in on one of the favourite hobbyhorses of the gun militants. The gun militant agenda being profoundly misogynistic, racist and right-wing, of course.

Why not preserve the choice for people to wander about town with alligators on a leash, if that is their predilection? to store hazardous chemicals in open vats in their driveways, if that is their predilection? Moving on to a different one of those amendments of yours, to advertise snake oil as a cure for cancer, if that is their predilection?

When did a choice - an act - that has no consequences for anyone else that are the concern of a society become analogous to a choice that has forseeable seriously harmful consequences for others? I've never known.


The other thing that irks me is the insistence you see on this board that a fetus isnt actually a human/baby until it emerges from a vagina (or stomach, presumably, in the case of a caesarean). To me that strikes me as being just as threadbare an assertion that life begins at conception.

Ah. You have an opinion. How fascinating.

Perhaps it also strikes you that my assertion that there are no faeries at the bottom of my garden is threadbare, and you would like to prohibit me from watering my garden after midnight lest I drown them. No matter that vegetables I grow for subsistence will wither and die, and I will starve. Your opinion rules.


Again, I tend to agree with Singer that late-term abortion, when warranted, is a case of justifiable homicide - for example, when the woman's life or health is at risk.

I'll have to look that up. But really, I wouldn't care if you agreed with god.

A woman's life and health are at risk throughout a pregnancy, and may continue to be at risk after delivery as a result of the pregnancy. That's significant only in rebutting a claim to be entitled to force women to continue pregnancies and deliver, since doing so constitutes compelled assumption of risks to life and health, and that ain't right and good, or constitutional in places like ours. Women do not have to justify terminating a pregnancy. A society that seeks to compel her not to do so has to justify its action.


The impression I get from reading some posts on this board is that any abortion right up until birth should be available on demand, which is a bridge too far even for me.

Too bad, so sad for you. Odd, though, isn't it, that you would go along with infanticide but not the abortions you fantasize?


For one thing, I think you'd have trouble finding doctors willing to do routine late-term abortions every day of the week.

Indeed. For another thing, you'd have even more trouble finding women who want them.

Not a complete answer, I know. Just interesting to note what some people choose to fret about.




proofread before, not after ...

[uppityperson]

14. Where have all the faeries gone, long time passing, where have all the faeries gone, long time ago

iverglas's garden, where they are all drowning
when will they ever learn?
when will they eevvvverrrrr learn?

[shaayecanaan]

15. I rather thought I did...

If women have sovereignty over their bodies, then logically they should have the right to prostitute themselves and appear in pornographic films.

Indeed, "freedom of choice" usually carries the implied caveat: where there is no justification for interfering in the choice. Please don't pretend that there is no arguable justification for interfering in the choices you advance.

"Justification" tends to be in the eye of the beholder. I might agree that you have the right to eat bread, but not cake, because cake has too much sugar and will rot your teeth. The obvious rejoinder is: what business of it is yours if my teeth rot or not?

The truth is, you need more than "justification" to interfere with someone's liberty. You need to show that your rights are prejudiced in some way by the exercise of that other person's right (the old adage, the freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose). I fail to see that the decision by someone to prostitute themselves is any of your business whatsoever.

After all, isn't that what "my body, my right to decide" is all about?

When did a choice - an act - that has no consequences for anyone else that are the concern of a society become analogous to a choice that has forseeable seriously harmful consequences for others? I've never known.

Why not preserve the choice for people to wander about town with alligators on a leash, if that is their predilection? to store hazardous chemicals in open vats in their driveways, if that is their predilection? Moving on to a different one of those amendments of yours, to advertise snake oil as a cure for cancer, if that is their predilection?

And the parallels between each of those scenarios and either prostitution and pornography are...?

Ah. You have an opinion. How fascinating.

Clearly, given that you have dedicated some considerable energy towards trying to refute it. Though not very well.

Perhaps it also strikes you that my assertion that there are no faeries at the bottom of my garden is threadbare, and you would like to prohibit me from watering my garden after midnight lest I drown them. No matter that vegetables I grow for subsistence will wither and die, and I will starve. Your opinion rules.

With respect, that analogy makes no sense.

Again, I tend to agree with Singer that late-term abortion, when warranted, is a case of justifiable homicide - for example, when the woman's life or health is at risk.

I'll have to look that up. But really, I wouldn't care if you agreed with god.

A woman's life and health are at risk throughout a pregnancy, and may continue to be at risk after delivery as a result of the pregnancy.That's significant only in rebutting a claim to be entitled to force women to continue pregnancies and deliver, since doing so constitutes compelled assumption of risks to life and health, and that ain't right and good, or constitutional in places like ours. Women do not have to justify terminating a pregnancy. A society that seeks to compel her not to do so has to justify its action.

Okay. Do you at least consider that a fetus should be anaesthetised in the case of a late-term abortion?

This is a serious question, which I'll put to you:- do you consider that a fetus/baby/whatever is at least entitled to a painless death?

Again, I reiterate that I am not opposed to late-term abortion in order to save the woman's life/health. I also support the right of parents to infanticide in the case where a baby is born with such serious disabilities that the parents (usually the mother) would otherwise be consigned to a life of full-time care. But in either case, at least I have the honesty to acknowledge that a human is being killed.

[musette_sf]

16. always such a pleasure

when Teh Menz come to visit, conflate reproductive rights with prostitution and pr0n, and debate how much permission they will grant me to avail myself of a legal medical procedure.... which they will never experience.

good to know that when we assert our rights to reproductive choice, we are compared to hookers and pr0n stars. niiiiiice.

[shaayecanaan]

17. Okay. Are women entitled to an opinion on military conscription?

Given that the chances of you, as a woman, ever being drafted and sent to the front are pretty much nil?

[noamnety]

18. They have the right to oppose the draft

They have the right to defend men's sovereignty over their own bodies. But no, I don't believe women have any moral standing to force men to go to war.

NOR do I believe one man has the moral right to force another man to go to war - for the exact same reason, if it's not his body, he doesn't have sovereignty over it.

A third party, male or female, should never be in a position to dictate that others place their bodies in dangerous situations against their will, whether that be putting themselves on enemy lines or undergoing an unwanted pregnancy, labor and delivery.

[Iris]

20. nicely said.

[musette_sf]

19. strawman

as (1) there is no draft and (2) if there were to be a draft, it is my opinion that females should be included.

i think the requirement to sign up for selective service should be for both men and women, if it must exist.

i disagree with the basic concepts and aims of selective service and the draft.

so back to your desire to conflate reproductive rights with sex work and pr0n. why is it that you classify rights to reproductive HEALTH CARE, with lifestyle choices that many feel can be degrading, and are often made out of desperation?

[shaayecanaan]

21. Whether or not you hold sex workers in contempt is up to you...

I would say that reflects a subjective preference rather than anything of principle. The decision by you to exercise control of a woman's body by precluding her from operating as a prostitute may very well be just as prejudicial to her interests as a decision to preclude her from obtaining an abortion.

Again, your "desperation" remark reflects a particular prejudice, in the same way that Christians usually characterise a woman's decision to have an abortion as one of desperation.

[musette_sf]

22. complete fabrication on your part

"contempt" is your fabrication

"decision by you to exercise control over a woman's body by precluding her from operating as a prostitute" is your fabrication

you're a liar and you don't like women very much either. except in how they can possibly be of use to you.

please tell us all about how happy, proud, and thrilled you would be if your sister, your mother, your daughter performed sex work for a living.

because if you can't, then you're a hideous human being, because it's okay with you if OTHER PEOPLE's sisters, mothers, daughters perform sex work for a living, just so long as it's not any of the women in YOUR life.

the vast majority of women in sex work do so ONLY because they are desperate to make money and have no other way to do so.

and now, tell us again why you continue to conflate reproductive rights with prostitution and pr0n.

[shaayecanaan]

24. I am pro-choice...

please tell us all about how happy, proud, and thrilled you would be if your sister, your mother, your daughter performed sex work for a living.

It would depend a lot on the context. If my daughter was to become a beautiful Heidi Fleiss call girl earning $25,000 a week working only 3 hours a day, at least one of which is spent lolling around in a hot tub, then obviously I would admire her success, and probably feel at least some resentment that I couldn't do the same.

Some sex work pays exorbitantly well. Most of it pays relatively well. Many educated, intelligent women choose to do sex work because it pays substantially better than even well-paid professional positions. I find it silly and condescending that many women insist that other women do not have the capacity to make that choice for themselves. I also find it extremely hypocritical for someone to hold that point of view and yet represent themselves as being "pro-choice".

The "desperation" logic doesn't work for me, either. If a woman is in a desperate state and has an option available to improve her position (whether that means having an abortion or doing sex work) then I don't see how I am helping her either by forbidding her from doing sex work or having an abortion. If I want to help that woman, I can do so by either providing financial or other support to provide her with other choices that she might prefer. You can help people by improving their choices - not by denying them.

[iverglas]

26. I find it contemptible

Many educated, intelligent women choose to do sex work because it pays substantially better than even well-paid professional positions. I find it silly and condescending that many women insist that other women do not have the capacity to make that choice for themselves.

that you persist in putting words in other people's mouths.


If a woman is in a desperate state and has an option available to improve her position (whether that means having an abortion or doing sex work) then I don't see how I am helping her either by forbidding her from doing sex work or having an abortion. ... You can help people by improving their choices - not by denying them.

I don't see how standing by while someone funnels money from the wallets of stupid, nasty men into the coffers of organized crime, via her veins, while she exposes herself to horrible diseases and violence, is helping her at all.

That's why I advocate prohibiting the purchasing of sexual services, and third-party profiting from them. Not punishing women for getting stuck in the middle.

That's what Sweden does. And it's working quite nicely.

And if you think I'm going to waste my time laying out the reasons why this should be done, and what the justification is for doing it in a liberal/social democracy, you're wrong.

[shaayecanaan]

27. You seem to have a lot of contempt for women...

that do sex work. I like your "through her veins" comment, thereby implying that all sex workers are drug addicts. Nice. Do you feel similar contempt for male sex workers, or is it only women that you hate?

"I don't see how standing by while someone funnels money from the wallets of stupid, nasty men into the coffers of organized crime"

The reason the association exists with "organized crime" is because prostitution is illegal. If you want to end that association, then legalise prostitution.

"That's why I advocate prohibiting the purchasing of sexual services, and third-party profiting from them. Not punishing women for getting stuck in the middle."

Sort of like how some Christians advocate banning abortion by punishing the doctors that perform them, rather than the women that obtain them. Its the same thing at the end of the day.

"That's what Sweden does. And it's working quite nicely."

I'm a curious fellow, so I went at had a look at the wiki entry for "Prostitution in Sweden":-

"Sweden considers prostitution a form of violence against women, so the crime consists in the customer paying for sex, not in the prostitute selling sexual services."

So in other words, there's no violence involved if I skip after sex without paying the prostitute? Hmmm...

"The law enjoys wide public support in Sweden. A recent survey shows that 80% of Swedes "support the law and the principles behind its development"...However, the same survey showed a very interesting thing: despite the fact that most Swedes approve of the law, few people think that it works in practice (only 20% of respondents believe the number of people who pay for sex has been reduced)."

And there's the rub, isn't it? No one has ever figured out a way to successfully outlaw prostitution. I wonder how many Swedes take the short trip over to Amsterdam to enjoy the pleasures of that fine city? Quite a few I would imagine.

"And if you think I'm going to waste my time laying out the reasons why this should be done, and what the justification is for doing it in a liberal/social democracy, you're wrong."

Well, you seem very keen to speak to me thus far, given the extent and punctuality of your replies. I suppose I can only assume you have nothing better to do.

[iverglas]

28. you very obviously have complete contempt for the truth

I like your "through her veins" comment, thereby implying that all sex workers are drug addicts.

Gosh, look at that. It's a false statement.

I said:

I don't see how standing by while someone funnels money from the wallets of stupid, nasty men into the coffers of organized crime, via her veins, while she exposes herself to horrible diseases and violence, is helping her at all.

Look at that. It isn't even in the plural. Let alone the universal.

I guess that by taking issue with what I said, you've just implied that no sex workers are drug addicts.

The ones in my neighbourhood are. Every single one of them. Do you care about them, or only the clever professional hookers?


The reason the association exists with "organized crime" is because prostitution is illegal. If you want to end that association, then legalise prostitution.

Yes, the cry of the loonytarian is heard in the land.

No need to know anything about what you're talking about ... or admit that you know it.

Check out some places where prostitution is legal, and tell me about how there is no organized crime involvement.


That's why I advocate prohibiting the purchasing of sexual services, and third-party profiting from them. Not punishing women for getting stuck in the middle.

Sort of like how some Christians advocate banning abortion by punishing the doctors that perform them, rather than the women that obtain them. Its the same thing at the end of the day.

Gosh, no, not like it at all!! Unless you like analogies between things that are so DIFFERENT in such RELEVANT RESPECTS that their comparability for the purpose you are trying to compare them for is NONEXISTENT.

You know ... like how there is no justification for a society interfering in the exercise of rights by terminating a pregnancy ... and there is justification for a society prohibiting the purchasing and third-party profiting from prostitution ...

Sweden considers prostitution a form of violence against women, so the crime consists in the customer paying for sex, not in the prostitute selling sexual services.

So in other words, there's no violence involved if I skip after sex without paying the prostitute? Hmmm...

Are you really that stupid? or just that dishonest?

Perhaps this does help us answer some questions, though.

You're ignorant. You evidently think that reading a Wikipedia item tells you all you need to know about something. "Ignorant" might not cover that; "wilfully blind" might, if in fact you are that ignorant.

Here's a primer for you:

http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_sweden.html

In a centuries deep sea of clichés despairing that 'prostitution will always be with us', one country's success stands out as a solitary beacon lighting the way. In just five years Sweden has dramatically reduced the number of its women in prostitution. In the capital city of Stockholm the number of women in street prostitution has been reduced by two thirds, and the number of johns has been reduced by 80%. There are other major Swedish cities where street prostitution has all but disappeared. Gone too, for the most part, are the renowned Swedish brothels and massage parlors which proliferated during the last three decades of the twentieth century when prostitution in Sweden was legal.

In addition, the number of foreign women now being trafficked into Sweden for sex is nil. The Swedish government estimates that in the last few years only 200 to 400 women and girls have been annually sex trafficked into Sweden, a figure that's negligible compared to the 15,000 to 17,000 females yearly sex trafficked into neighboring Finland. No other country, nor any other social experiment, has come anywhere near Sweden's promising results. ...

Where there is prostitution, there is human trafficking (and, of course, organized crime, by definition). Your opinion on this is, you know, irrelevant.


I wonder how many Swedes take the short trip over to Amsterdam to enjoy the pleasures of that fine city? Quite a few I would imagine.

So? I wonder how many USAmericans travel to Thailand to sexually assault children? Perhaps you think child prostitution should be legal in the US.


Well, you seem very keen to speak to me thus far, given the extent and punctuality of your replies. I suppose I can only assume you have nothing better to do.

Oh, so many people do appear to enjoy making asses of themselves!

I find many things amusing. You appear to be one of them.

[shaayecanaan]

31. from an article in der Spiegel

...Prostitutes themselves are, for the most part, opposed to the criminalization of their customers. They feel that they are being pushed into the role of victim and that the ban robs them of their livelihood. Take Johanna,* for example. She is 35 and one of the women who offers her services on Malmskillnadsgatan Street, usually at the end of the month. She is a heroin addict, and heroin is expensive. She charges the equivalent of €55 for having sex in a car. The fact that there are fewer customers narrows her choices. "When things are slow, the way they are tonight, I'm also willing to go with guys who want to get a little rough with me and don't want to use a condom," she says. "I need the money."

Lisa,* a woman in the southern Swedish city of Malmö, agrees. "The business has become tougher and more dangerous. There's more competition and more violence," says the 38-year-old, who has worked the streets for 12 years and sometimes stays at "Minnesota," a Malmö drug treatment facility.

She has been around long enough to remember the days before the ban on purchasing sex was introduced. "The nice customers are afraid of being caught," she says. "All that's left are the more troubled ones, those with whom you have to drive far out of the city so that they'll feel safe from the police. It puts you at their mercy."

One of the arguments of the pro-abortion movement is that banning abortion effectively compels women to seek out dangerous, backyard coathanger abortions. I suppose if you wanted to be consistent you would at least acknowledge that banning prostitution just pushes it further underground where women are more at risk.

"No need to know anything about what you're talking about ... or admit that you know it."

Sorry, I wasn't aware that you had any special insights into the prostitution industry. If you are claiming some special insight that I allegedly don't have, I'd be glad to hear it. Alternatively I can only presume that you are as ignorant as I am.

"So? I wonder how many USAmericans travel to Thailand to sexually assault children? Perhaps you think child prostitution should be legal in the US."

Surprisingly few. The myth that sex tourists are predominantly paedophiles is no better supported in reality than the old myth that gay men are predominantly paedophiles.

One of the new growth industries is female sex tourism. Planeloads of middle-aged women from North America and Europe travel to places like Jamaica and Ghana where they pay muscular well-endowed youths to make their weekend worthwhile. Nothing wrong from my point of view, but then again I don't think government has a right to intervene in sexual relations between consenting adults. I suppose unlike yourself, I support a woman's right to choose.

"I find many things amusing. You appear to be one of them."

I am always happy to amuse. On the other hand, I must confess that I find you somewhat arid and uninteresting. I hope you won't be offended if I tire of this conversation before you do.

[iverglas]

32. huh

One of the arguments of the pro-abortion movement is that banning abortion effectively compels women to seek out dangerous, backyard coathanger abortions. I suppose if you wanted to be consistent you would at least acknowledge that banning prostitution just pushes it further underground where women are more at risk.

Now that's a weird one.

A woman with an unwanted pregnancy who is denied legal access to an abortion must then either have an illegal and possibly unsafe abortion or endure the pregnancy, assume the risks to her life and health associated with it, and have a child she does not want.

A woman who wants to be a prostitute and is denied legal access to her chosen occupation must then be a prostitute illegally or ... not be a prostitute.

Huh. Nobody's forcing her to be a prostitute, right? She has free will? Choice?

Your argument. I tend to make more sophisticated arguments myself, but that's yours.

Maybe you actually clicked on the link I offered you.

In addition to the two pronged legal strategy, a third and essential element of Sweden's prostitution legislation provides for ample and comprehensive social service funds aimed at helping any prostitute who wants to get out, and additional funds to educate the public. As such, Sweden's unique strategy treats prostitution as a form of violence against women in which the men who exploit by buying sex are criminalized, the mostly female prostitutes are treated as victims who need help, and the public is educated in order to counteract the historical male bias that has long stultified thinking on prostitution. To securely anchor their view in firm legal ground, Sweden's prostitution legislation was passed as part and parcel of the country's 1999 omnibus violence against women legislation.

If someone with options chooses to embark on a dangerous career instead of exercising another option, how does that make your case?

But then, you think that someone with a heroin addiction is exercising free will.

I wouldn't want my case to be built on a heroin addict's desire to acquire money to buy heroin. The guy who broke into my house to get money to acquire cocaine would have a field day with it.


The next statement of mine that you quote was actually made in response to a statement by you.

The reason the association exists with "organized crime" is because prostitution is illegal. If you want to end that association, then legalise prostitution.
... No need to know anything about what you're talking about ... or admit that you know it.
Check out some places where prostitution is legal, and tell me about how there is no organized crime involvement.

You're the one who made the assertion. Substantiate your own claim.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that you had any special insights into the prostitution industry. If you are claiming some special insight that I allegedly don't have, I'd be glad to hear it. Alternatively I can only presume that you are as ignorant as I am.

I have no idea how ignorant you are, but I know that I'm not. Substantiate your own claim, or look ignorant and/or dishonest.

I'm so generous -- you like Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands

Prostitution in the Netherlands is legal and regulated. Operating a brothel is also legal. In the last few years, a significant number of brothels and "windows" have been closed because of suspected criminal activity.

... When the Dutch government legalized prostitution in 2000, it was to protect the women by giving them work permits, but some fear that this business cannot be normalized. Recently, officials have noticed an increase in violence centered around this irregular industry, and have blamed this increase on the illegal immigration of individuals into Amsterdam, to participate in the sex industry. Prostitution has remained connected to criminal activities, which has led the authorities to take several measures, including detailed plans to help the prostitutes quit the sex trade and find other professions. In response to the problems asociated with the involvement of organized crime into the sex trade, the Dutch government has decided to close numerous prostitution businesses.

... The Netherlands is a primary country of destination for victims of human trafficking. The UNODC (UN Office on Drugs and Crime) produced a report which showed that Netherlands is one of the top destinations for victims of human trafficking; countries that are major sources of trafficked persons include Thailand, China, Nigeria, Albania, Bulgaria, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine.

Currently, human trafficking in the Netherlands is on the rise, according to figures obtained from the National Centre against Human Trafficking. The report shows a substantial increase in the number of victims from Hungary and China. There were 809 registered victims of human trafficking in 2008, 763 were women and at least 60 percent of them were forced to work in the sex industry. All victims from Hungary were female and were forced into prostitution.

... Many victims of human trafficking are led to believe by organized criminals that they are being offered work in hotels or restaurants or in child care and are forced into prostitution with the threat or actual use of violence. Estimates of the number of victims vary from 1000 to 7000 on a yearly basis. Most police investigations on human trafficking concern legal sex businesses. All sectors of prostitution are well represented in these investigations, but particularly the window brothels are overrepresented.

At the end of 2008, six people were convicted in what prosecutors said was the worst case of human trafficking ever brought to trial in the Netherlands. Experts said the case could have an impact on the Dutch prostitution policy. Jan van Dijk, an organized crime and victimology expert at the University of Tilburg, said "The honeymoon of the new prostitution legislation is over; we are really reconsidering whether we're on the right track".

For some reason, there seems to be a shortage of clever professional women looking for a leisurely, lucrative way to spend their working hours in jurisdictions where prostitution is legal. I wonder how that can possibly be.

Where there is prostitution, legal or otherwise, there is organized crime and human trafficking, and a whole gamut of other phenomena that are contrary to the public interest.

Now go find something else silly to post.



edited to fix html

[shaayecanaan]

33. You're the one who wants to control women's bodies...

ergo, you are the one who has to come up with the arguments. Generally, the onus of proof is (or should be) on those wanting to constrain personal freedom, rather than people such as myself that are pro-choice.

Prostitution in Australia (where I live) is largely legal. A large component of the industry are self-operators. It is quite legal for a woman or man to operate as a prostitute from their own home. The benefit for the sex worker is that this allows them control and the ability to be selective in terms of their clientele.

Most states (including the state where I live) have legislation allowing for the operation of boutique brothels. The application process is extremely thoroughgoing and essentially aims to eliminate anyone with a background of organised crime. Unofficially, there is a general preference for people with a police background.

About 300 to 1000 women are trafficked in Australia each year, according to a 2004 parliamentary inquiry:- http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/acc_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/sexual_servitude/index.htm. Per capita, this is a much lower amount of sex trafficking than that which occurs in Sweden according to the figures you gave.

You didn't respond to my bringing up female sex tourism. I presume therefore you are not opposed to women seeking out male sex workers?

[iverglas]

34. huh

Since you have nothing to contribute to the discussion that was underway, it having been demonstrated that you have neither fact nor argument, you've gone off on some other tangent.

Yes, we all know what a model of modern society Australia is when it comes to women's equality.

Well, enjoy your trip. I'm not following you down this sideroad or whatever you might come up with next.

[shaayecanaan]

37. You need to come up with a better rejoinder than "huh"...

you've gone off on some other tangent

Not really. I pointed out that the number of women being trafficked annually in Australia is 300-1000 according to government figures, which compares to the 200-400 figure that you gave for Sweden. Australia's population is 22 million versus 9 million for Sweden. Per capita, that amounts to the rate of sex trafficking in Australia being less (or at the very most, roughly equal) to Sweden. You point to the low rate of trafficking being evidence of Sweden's success, but you could equally make that point for Australia.

Yes, we all know what a model of modern society Australia is when it comes to women's equality.

I wasn't aware that the state of women's equality in Australia was a matter of common knowledge, although I'd say Australia is probably comparable to most western countries in that regard. In any case, you probably need to try and present your arguments a little better.

Well, enjoy your trip. I'm not following you down this sideroad or whatever you might come up with next.

I think that's the second time you've indicated you don't want to continue the discussion - which is okay, but then you did follow up with another two posts in response to mine, so I can only presume you want my further response.

Causes
There are many causes of human trafficking to Australia. Project Respect argues that the demand for trafficked women in Australia is fueled by: 1) a lack of women in Australia prepared to do prostitution; 2) 'customer' demand for women seen as compliant; 3) 'customer' demand for women who they can be violent towards; and 4) racialized ideas that Asian women have certain qualities, for example that they are more compliant and will accept higher levels of violence.

That's all well and good, but Project Respect actually needs to supply some evidence in support of their assertions.

For example, the government estimates that there are 20 000 sex workers in Australia (http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/issue/i8.html). 95% of these are female. On the other hand the amount of women being trafficked into Australia is 300-1000. It is true that we don't have much evidence of turnover rate, but even if we presume that trafficked women are compelled to do sex work for three years at a time (in reality the chances of lasting that long before being busted by police would be pretty slim) - that still means that *at least* 85% (probably more) of sex workers are *not* trafficked. This certainly puts paid to the false assertion that there is a lack of women in Australia that are prepared to do prostitution.

So why are there still illegal sex workers from Asia in Australia? Probably the same reason that there are illegal Asian construction workers in Australia - the Asian workers figure economic opportunities are better here and illegal workers are generally willing to work for less. It seems that most such women are in their late twenties and thirties:-

http://www.scarletalliance.org.au/library/jeffreys08/

I suppose if you want to ban prostitution on the basis that there are illegal workers operating in the industry, you'd have to ban construction, agriculture and a lot of other industries that tend to employ illegal labour.

With that, I think I'll leave it there, unless you can come up with anything compelling. - its a pity the more erudite people on this board didn't continue with the conversation. You should try and read up on sex +ve feminists, they're a bit more stimulating than the tiresome neo-Victorian prudishness of the second-wave and third-wave writers.

Cheers.

[iverglas]

38. missed something, did you?

That's all well and good, but Project Respect actually needs to supply some evidence in support of their assertions.

Like, the link to the report published by Project Respect. You can probably find it in a library.

"Making Sex Work: A Failed Experiment with Legalised Prostitution"

"One victim of trafficking is one too many: counting the human cost of trafficking: cases of trafficking in Australia documented in Feb / March 2004."
Zhou, Hui; Woods, Shirley; Costello, Georgina; Maltzahn, Kathleen.
Collingwood, Vic: Project Respect, 2004, 48p, tables
The details of approximately 300 cases of sex trafficking victims are presented in tabulated form in this report. The research into these cases was carried out over a six week period, from 1 February to 13 March 2004. The report is prefaced by a description of the research process, the trends that emerged from an analysis of the data, and a set of recommendations. The researchers note the difficulties in identifying and accessing information about victims of trafficking, and suggest that the numbers given in the report represent less than one third of the real annual number of women trafficked to Australia for prostitution.

Legalizing prostitution solves the problem.

http://genderberg.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3706

Police Baffled by Prostitute Murder Mystery
Natalie O'Brien | January 31, 2009
Article from: The Australian

WITHIN minutes of arriving at Sydney airport on September 6 last year, Chinese tourists Jenny and Susan had vanished.

... But two months later, on November 13, inside apartment 4606, the decomposing bodies of the women were found in their bed.

... Police said the attack was so vicious and inflicted such horrific injuries to the faces of the women that they could not use photographs to help them with identification.

... In a chilling twist, the day their bodies were discovered, a Sydney pimp who places foreign prostitutes in local brothels was heard boasting about the deaths and using them as leverage.

... Sex industry sources say professional traffickers have changed their modus operandi to avoid Australia's anti-trafficking laws.

They pay the woman's airfare and expenses, but she is free to do as she likes as long she repays the agreed amount.

that still means that *at least* 85% (probably more) of sex workers are *not* trafficked.

My fucking dog. One in ten, shall we say, of the workers in an industry - a legal industry - are trafficked. No big deal. Why, the same could be said of the auto industry, or the pharmaceutical industry, or the fast food industry ...

This certainly puts paid to the false assertion that there is a lack of women in Australia that are prepared to do prostitution.

Don't think so.

Quite apart from the fact that it says nothing about the nature of the "choice" made by those other women.

So why are there still illegal sex workers from Asia in Australia? Probably the same reason that there are illegal Asian construction workers in Australia

Ah. "Trafficked" = "illegal". Well there you are, no problem. It all just depends on how you define your words.

I suppose if you want to ban prostitution on the basis that there are illegal workers operating in the industry, you'd have to ban construction, agriculture and a lot of other industries that tend to employ illegal labour.

There ya go! Why didn't I see that! I want to ban prostitution on the basis there are illegal workers operating in the industry.

Well, now that you put it that way ... never mind, eh?


its a pity the more erudite people on this board didn't continue with the conversation. You should try and read up on sex +ve feminists, they're a bit more stimulating than the tiresome neo-Victorian prudishness of the second-wave and third-wave writers.

Hahahahaha! And there you have it, folks. We've been put in our places again. I wonder why we can't learn to just stay there??

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Double huh?

Yes, we all know what a model of modern society Australia is when it comes to women's equality.

I should stop reading these threads from the bottom to the top. Anyway, when it comes to equality here, I wasn't aware that we were doing badly in that regard or anything. But what would I know? I'm only a woman who's been born and raised here....

[iverglas]

70. not top of the list

European countries have more of the social supports that are needed for women to have and use opportunities, Canada has fewer restrictions on women's exercise of reproductive rights, e.g., and I suspect is a little better on the social supports side.

http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Gender%20Gap/index.htm

The Global Gender Gap Report 2007
The Global Gender Gap Report 2007Sweden (1), Norway (2), Finland (3) and Iceland (4) once again top the rankings in the latest Global Gender Gap Report. All countries in the top 20 made progress relative to their scores last year – some more so than others. Latvia (13) and Lithuania (14) made the biggest advances among the top 20, gaining six and seven places respectively, driven by smaller gender gaps in labour force participation and wages. The Report covers a total of 128 countries, representing over 90% of the world’s population.

Global Gender Gap Index

Rank 2007
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Country
Sweden
Norway
Finland
Iceland
N. Zealand
Philippines
Germany
Denmark
Ireland
Spain

Score*
0.814
0.805
0.804
0.783
0.764
0.762
0.761
0.751
0.745
0.744

Rank 2006
1
2
3
4
7
6
5
8
10
11

*0 to 1 scale: 0=inequality, 1=equality

Well crap, that copied badly, but it's readable. Philippines? Hmm.


http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/rankings2007.pdf

Australia and Canada are consistently ranked consecutively in that order, separated by minute percentage points. I haven't looked at the ranking criteria. The US is many rungs lower, and frankly, I just don't buy that women's equality is greater in Colombia, e.g., than in the US.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article722869.ece

The survey uses four categories to analyze and rank how well countries have done to close their gender gaps: economic participation and opportunity; educational attainment; political empowerment; and health and survival.

Political involvement and educational achievements were key areas responsible for Canada's drop in the global rankings. The weak representation of women in ministerial government positions was the main factor dragging down the country's political ranking, according to the survey.

And for that we have a right-wing federal government to thank ...


One thing none of this measures is attitudes, and particularly adherence to patriarchal values. I'd be interested to see Australia's results on that score. ;)

http://erg.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=456

Nearly 20 years ago, my colleagues at Environics in Toronto and CROP in Montreal began a study of Canadian social values. In our first survey of Canadian values in 1983, we asked Canadians if they strongly or somewhat agreed or disagreed that: "The father of the family must be the master in his own house." We posed more than 100 such questions to respondents that year. Our intention was to track these 100 items over time, dropping some, adding others; we hoped we'd measure what was important to Canadians or what was changing in our values and perspectives on life.

The "father must be master" question has become legendary at Environics. We love it because it measures a traditional, patriarchal attitude to authority in our most cherished institution: the family. ...

The basic thing here is that I think that the existence and pervasiveness of prostitution is itself a measure of women's equality. The more pervasive it is, the less equality women obviously enjoy.

[iverglas]

35. but my goodness

http://www.humantrafficking.org/updates/10

Sex Slavery in Australia
September 2005

According to Project Reach, an Australia-based nongovernmental organization, Australia's sex slavery laws are failing and police are not doing enough to free enslaved women. A sex industry insider says traffickers are turning to Korean women after police cracked down on the importation of Thai sex slaves.

The Australian Crime Commission confirmed that while the number of Thai sex workers in Australia had decreased, the number from South Korea had increased.

Industry insiders say traffickers will switch again as there have been no successful prosecutions for sexual servitude in Australia. Former federal police officer Chris Payne gave an example of one Melbourne brothel where five Thai women were allegedly used as sex slaves. The brothel later changed owners and continue its business as usual.

http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/australia

Australia

Australia is a destination country for human trafficking. Australian authorities believe that traffickers are primarily of individual operators or small crime groups that often rely on larger organized crime groups to procure fraudulent documentation.1

Destination
Australia is a destination country for victims trafficked who are from East Asia, South East Asia, and Eastern Europe, particularly the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand. There are several reports of migrants, particularly from India, the People’s Republic of China, and South Korea, who voluntarily migrate to work in Australia but are later coerced into exploitative conditions.2 The Australian Crime Commission reports that deceptive practices in contract terms and conditions appeared to be increasing among women in prostitution, while deceptive recruiting practices appeared to be decreasing.3 There are no reliable estimates on the number of trafficking victims in Australia. However, the Australian NGO Project Respect estimates up to 1,000 victims are currently under debt bondage, not including those who have been trafficked but already paid off their debt.

Causes
There are many causes of human trafficking to Australia. Project Respect argues that the demand for trafficked women in Australia is fueled by: 1) a lack of women in Australia prepared to do prostitution; 2) 'customer' demand for women seen as compliant; 3) 'customer' demand for women who they can be violent towards; and 4) racialized ideas that Asian women have certain qualities, for example that they are more compliant and will accept higher levels of violence.

Damned women. If they would just do their economic duty and fill those positions. I'll bet there are women loitering around on social assistance and unemployment benefits who are being allowed to turn those perfectly good, well-paying, secure jobs down.

Where there is prostitution, there will be human trafficking. It is INHERENT in the phenomenon.

There just isn't enough supply of the things in demand -- women -- otherwise.

[Djinn]

66. thats fairly selective reading there

I don't disagree that trafficking for sex work is an issue here (mainly because I've spent many years working with the Prostitutes Collective) but the key point is they ALL work in ILLEGAL brothels.

Legal brothels here (and actually the vast majority of prostitution in Australia is women working out of their own homes) are more regulated than any other business. They'd be no more prone to exploiting trafficked women than my local bottle shop would be to selling sly grog - why on earth would you risk your livelihood when there's no need.

I've worked with legal brothels here (again with the Collective now known as RhED) and I can GUARANTEE you there is no shortage of willing workers.

Legal Brothels here have, in my experience, also been FAR more helpful in regards to vocally opposing trafficking and lobbying governments for better laws and more thorough application of the laws we already than several of our better known womens or human rights groups have been.

YES there are men who want trafficked women and it's because they're violent psychopathic arseholes who want to beat a woman and/or not practice safe sex, something legal brothels will have their security beat the living shit out of you for.

You could go back and criminalise prostitution here and ALL that will do is make ALL women (and men) in the industry vulnerable to those same arseholes. Not sure how that's a good idea.

I can't say I can be bothered pulling up numerous papers to give a more balanced side to this because I doubt anyone ever changes their minds on these boards but on the remote chance someone is looking for balance (and views from people IN the sex industry rather than academics speaking FOR them) RhED's website is a good start.

If anyone really wants to read stuff and isn't just looking for forum point scoring (that's not directed at iverglas who I usually agree violently with just a general cynicism with boards these days) PM me and I'll give you some links.

[iverglas]

36. and hee hee

http://prostitution.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000243

Does legal prostitution lead to human trafficking and slavery?

PRO (yes)
The U.S. Department of State, in its June 2007 issue of the "Trafficking in Humans Report," stated:

CON (no)
The Bureau of the Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings, in its Mar. 2005 report "Trafficking in Human Beings - Third Report of the Dutch National Rapporteur," stated:

Oops. The Netherlands seems to have changed its mind.


Not everyone in Australia is as sanguine about legal prostitution as you are.

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Sex-Work-Experiment-Prostitution/dp/1876756608
"Making Sex Work: A Failed Experiment with Legalised Prostitution"

"One victim of trafficking is one too many: counting the human cost of trafficking: cases of trafficking in Australia documented in Feb / March 2004."
Zhou, Hui; Woods, Shirley; Costello, Georgina; Maltzahn, Kathleen.
Collingwood, Vic: Project Respect, 2004, 48p, tables
The details of approximately 300 cases of sex trafficking victims are presented in tabulated form in this report. The research into these cases was carried out over a six week period, from 1 February to 13 March 2004. The report is prefaced by a description of the research process, the trends that emerged from an analysis of the data, and a set of recommendations. The researchers note the difficulties in identifying and accessing information about victims of trafficking, and suggest that the numbers given in the report represent less than one third of the real annual number of women trafficked to Australia for prostitution.


Lots more here:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/research/trafficsexwork.html
(with many dead links, unfortunately)

[musette_sf]

29. you refuse to answer the question

as to why you conflate reproductive HEALTH CARE rights with the so-called "right" to be a hooker or in pr0n, so ta-ta.

[shaayecanaan]

30. How do you distinguish them?

You believe women have the right to an abortion? Fine. You probably also believe that people have the right to be in same-sex relationships as well, and to marry the person of their choice - after all, what business of it is the government to decide what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom, right?

The common principle is bodily sovereignty. You either believe in individual freedom ("choice", if you will) or you don't.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. According to you I must be a hideous human being. I think I'll manage to cope...

please tell us all about how happy, proud, and thrilled you would be if your sister, your mother, your daughter performed sex work for a living.

My sister-in-law works in the adult industry, though you may have to move me down a notch from *hideous human being* to a mere *quite horrible person* as I don't feel happy, proud and thrilled, but rather apathetic in the same apathetic way I feel about me having a job. Maybe things are different here than in the ever-prudish USA, but in what is a well regulated industry that has its own union representation, I'm not really sure why there's supposed to be a stigma, but then again I'm still flummoxed as to why so many Americans get so bent out of shape about the fact that women have abortions....

p.s. Hi keb! Long time, no see!

on edit: Damn this stupidarse html crap!

[iverglas]

23. hey, look what I found!

A couple of hours ago I was googling for something else, and ran across this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=341&topic_id=10207&mesg_id=10207

iverglas
Fri Aug-03-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #5

13. there's a method to their menschness

They don't oppose women being able to control our reproductive lives -- so we don't get to oppose anything at all that they want.

They'll let us have abortions, so we have to let them have all the guns they can eat. Oops, I mean, we have to let little weak women carry guns around to protect themselves from big bad sexual predators ... even though women are at most risk of harm from the men they love. They'll let us have abortions, so we have to let them have all the prostitutes they can buy. Oops, I mean, we have to let other women decide what to do with their bodies, even though the overwhelming majority of women in prostitution have made no choice in any meaningful sense of the concept at all.

The idea that any of them actually give a shit about women is not credible. It's just more misogyny -- heaping more exploitation on the exploited, by using them to advance agendas that are contrary to their interests.

Fits right in, don't it?

;)

[iverglas]

25. why are you afraid to say you are pro-war?

I'm sure you believe that some wars are just and justified. So obviously you are pro-war. Will you admit it?


You thought ...

"Justification" tends to be in the eye of the beholder.

Actually, no. Justification tends to be a constitutional doctrine developed by the authoritative elements of the judicial branch of government, in places like where you and I live.

If I'd meant to refer to someone's personal opinion, well, I'd have been typing pixels in the ether for not much point, wouldn't I?


The truth is, you need more than "justification" to interfere with someone's liberty.

Huh. That's your opinion, is it? Pixels in the ether ...


You need to show that your rights are prejudiced in some way by the exercise of that other person's right (the old adage, the freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose).

Ah, we have a loonytarian come to visit.

Yes, indeed, there is no justification for laws banning the hunting of endangered species. No one's nose is in danger there.

Take a couple of constitutional law / rights theory courses, and we'll talk. You could even auto-didact your way to some enlightenment. Google awaits.


I fail to see that the decision by someone to prostitute themselves is any of your business whatsoever.

More pixels in the ether, from someone who seems to think only that their opinion is a whoooole lot more important than anyone else's.


After all, isn't that what "my body, my right to decide" is all about?

Could be. Don't care. Because "my body, my right to decide" isn't what anything is about. "My body" is just the opening volley, and "my right to decide" is just one potential outcome of whatever dispute it is lobbed in.


And the parallels between each of those scenarios and either prostitution and pornography are...?

How big is your bum?

What you quoted, and responded to with that little herring, was said in response to your statement about GUNS, not about either prostitution or pornography. Your statement, in case you forget, was:

The usual rejoinder is that abortion advocates aren't actually advocating abortion but simply want for women to have the election to do so. But you could equally say that the gun lobby doesn't want to force people to buy guns, but merely to preserve that choice for people that have that predilection.

Want to try again?


With respect, that analogy makes no sense.

Without a shred of respect, you are either incapable of understanding what I wrote or have chosen to pretend that you are. Whatever.

I could try to help you out a little. You made an assertion about something that was the purest and most baseless opinion. So did I. You proposed interference in someone else's exercise of their rights on the basis of pure, baseless opinion. I posited exactly the same thing.


Okay. Do you at least consider that a fetus should be anaesthetised in the case of a late-term abortion?

Whew. And on to the next demand.

There is some evidence that at a certain stage in pregnancy, the cerebral cortex in the fetus is sufficiently developed that something at least analogous to a pain sensation might occur. You may be aware that if this is the case, many of the few late-term abortions that occur are in circumstances where, if the fetus is capable of some sort of pain sensation, it would undoubtedly already be in pain, e.g. from seizures in utero.

This could be a situation where an excess of caution might point to the use of anaesthesia. It is also a situation in which no treatment should be administered to the patient - the woman - that is not in her best interests.


This is a serious question, which I'll put to you:- do you consider that a fetus/baby/whatever is at least entitled to a painless death?

I have no clue whatever what a "fetus/baby/whatever" is.

A baby is a human being with human rights. Things that are not human beings do not have rights, and thus are not "entitled" to anything. Many people may feel that things that are not human beings should still be objects of human concern. That concern should never, and does not, supercede the rights of a human being.

Unless, of course, there is justification.

:rofl:


Again, I reiterate that I am not opposed to late-term abortion in order to save the woman's life/health. I also support the right of parents to infanticide in the case where a baby is born with such serious disabilities that the parents (usually the mother) would otherwise be consigned to a life of full-time care. But in either case, at least I have the honesty to acknowledge that a human is being killed.

And you can reiterate it all you like. It's still a dog's breakfast.

[uppityperson]

39. I'm not, I LUV abortions!

My saddest moment of having a hysterectomy was realizing I could no longer have an abortion. tiny tear.

My happiest moment was going with 4 friends to get out 5th, 2nd, 19th and FIRST (VIRGIN!) abortions a few years back. We were so happy that we wouldn't be over populating the Earth, as well as saving our aborted children from being abused by our alcoholic boyfriends! The party we had that night!

[shaayecanaan]

40. I just hope some sex workers got invited

to the party, I mean. Not the hysterectomy.

[uppityperson]

41. We are all sex workers!

That is what all women do, don't you know? Have sex for advantages and fun! fun fun fun! So much fun having sex with random men!

[shaayecanaan]

44. Its a good thing we're all sex customers then!!

Me, I go through 3 sex workers just on my way home from the office. Its what I like to do when I'm not moping around the house mourning the fact that women have access to abortion. I guess I'm like most members of the worldwide patriarchy in that regard.

[Babykayx]

42. I'm sure there are pro-abortion people out there

I'm sure there are pro-abortion people out there, people who would tell me that I should have an abortion because I don't have the ideal situation to have a baby, or who would abort my baby without my consent because it would kill me, or I already had another child and they needed population control (China).

But most people who are Pro-Choice really are Pro-Choice, they think that a woman should have a choice, not that they should abort. Furthermore, there are also people in the gun lobby that think that everyone should have a gun (for protection... it'll decrease crime... yaddayaddayadda).

Some people do believe that abortion should be on demand up until birth because of unforeseeable consequences or situations, and they believe such in good faith. Or they think that the government has no business in our medical decisions or personal choices.

I agree with you though, it is very rare to find doctors willing to do routine late-term abortions... or late term abortions period. The later the stage, the more risk to the mothers health as the abortion procedure mimics giving birth to differing degrees, but adds risk which isn't there during a birth--- thus it's usually better to go with inducing labor or Cesarean for the woman (not always the fetus) rather than risk leaving body parts behind or going through 3 days of forced dilation. Keep in mind I'm talking about 3rd trimester abortions which are past the point of viability.

[uppityperson]

43. "who would abort my baby without my consent because it would kill me"? wtf?

You seriously believe there are "pro-abortion" people who "would abort my baby without my consent because it would kill me" ? Where?

[iverglas]

45. possibly

the reference was meant to be to someone incapable of making medical decisions but whose wishes were known - choice between me and fetus, save fetus - and someone else stepped in to make a different decision.

Just a guess! The one that puts it in the best possible light, I'll admit. ;)

[Babykayx]

46. Totally what I meant

That's totally what I meant iverglas-- like someone who was in a coma because of cancer, a cancer which couldn't be treated because I'm pregnant. A pro-abort would see me as a more productive member of society while my fetus would be a dependent without at least one parent-- a pro-choice person would respect my wish to die in place if that's what I wanted.

[uppityperson]

47. had a patient in hosp yrs back, with botulism. Brain dead, on respirator/etc. Pregnant

Her husband was doing what she wished, let her die. But they both had wanted to have children so he was waiting to "pull the plug" until after she was far enough along to do a cesarean. It was odd, but what they wanted, so that is what happened.

Pro-choice is allowing choice, respecting choice.

[iverglas]

48. sorry, you're just making shit up

A pro-abort would see me as a more productive member of society while my fetus would be a dependent without at least one parent-- a pro-choice person would respect my wish to die in place if that's what I wanted.

Words actually have meaning, you know.

"pro-abort" (what in the ...?) doesn't mean what you say, or even carry those connotations.

That's all just silly.

[Scout]

49. "pro-abort" is right wing misogynist bullshit speak for pro-choice n/t

[Babykayx]

50. Pro-abort

Iverglas, like what the above poster said, most people who use the term Pro-abort are Pro-Lifers referring to Pro-Choicers... but I do believe that there are people out there who are Pro-Abortion (like people who support whats going on in China to womens rights).

And no, I am not the dictator of language, I don't get to make shit up, and it dawned on me some time ago that words have meaning (how silly of me to have forgotten /sarcasm).

I'm sorry, but you don't get to be Pro-Choice if you think that certain people ought to be forced to have an abortion or forced sterilization. Just like someone doesn't get to be Pro-Life if they believe in the death penalty or human euthanization or killing abortion clinic workers. So if you don't want to call them Pro-Aborts or Anti-Choicers, what terms would you use?

[iverglas]

51. memes

(like people who support whats going on in China to womens rights)

Which is?

I'm sorry, but you don't get to be Pro-Choice if you think that certain people ought to be forced to have an abortion or forced sterilization.

Without apologies: no one said you did.

If you think that, "you", if you exist, aren't "pro-abortion" (what I think you mean by the odd term "pro-abort"), you are possibly any number of things, none of them likely having anything to do with your position on abortion.

That would be what I meant by not making up meanings and assigning them to words.

[AaronAgassi]

89. semantics

If I'm pro-car, does that mean actually forcing people to drive?
--
Check out my petition at:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/surgeon-general-please-break-the-healthcare-deadlock

[Control-Z]

53. Maybe a family member

or someone close to you:

'I'm sure there are pro-abortion people out there, people who would tell me that I should have an abortion because I don't have the ideal situation to have a baby'

However, I have NEVER met or heard of any 'pro-abortion people out there' who would do that. If someone has met one of these people, please correct me.

[lovecanada56035]

52. They're afraid of being attacked

By bible-thumping morons, and etc.

[Control-Z]

54. I am pro-abortion

for any woman who wants one. Yep. No problem saying it.

[marshall]

57. Compare it to old adultery laws

I know the comparison is not absolute (there are big differences between the two, I know) but one can support the choice to commit adultery without being jailed (or stoned or put in stocks or banished or burned as we used to do) without being "pro-adultery".

Adultery is a failure of trust in a marriage (most of the time), just as abortion can be a failure of birth control.

I know there a big differences, but my point is we wouldn't want to go back to criminalizing sexual choice between consenting adults but at the same time we wouldn't necessarily want to promote every such act.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Piwi2009]

59. It's pretty simple for me, I'm pro abortion if the woman wants one,

and anti abortion if she doesn't.

[h9socialist]

60. Call me "Pro Reproductive Freedom"

We're getting a bit carried away here! All that most of us are saying is that for women to be truly equal citizens they should have the right to make their own reproductive decisions -- decisions that might entail abortion as one of the options. That's not the same as "pro-abortion." If "pro-abortion" means recommending that women get abortions regardless of the circumstances, no, I'm not "pro-abortion." If it means keeping abortion as a safe and legal option for a woman to consider in choosing the direction of her own life, then yes, I am "pro-abortion." But the term "pro-abortion" is much too subject to misunderstanding.

[marybourg]

62. Because being pro choice is NOT being pro abortion. sheesh. nt.

[Djinn]

63. no hypocrisy here

I believe everyone should be free to do whatever they want with their own bodies, abortion, drugs, porn. No-one else has any right to dictate what you do with your own body that does not effect another PERSON - note person and human are different things only simpletons (and anti abortionists attempting to skew the debate) ever say that a fetus isn't human.

[iverglas]

67. so how the hell are you?

You've been in even shorter supply than moi around here. ;)

Afraid you won't be persuading me to change my position on prostitution ever, but luvly to see you!

[Scout]

68. so how the hell are you?

:hi:

[iverglas]

69. busy!

busy busy busy ... very heavy workload this fall.

Not making proper use of my generously donated star I'm afraid!

[beyurslf]

71. I am pro-chioce and agree that women should have the right to

prostitute themselves.

[iverglas]

72. yippee

Aren't you fine?

[uppityperson]

75. WTF? Right to abortion access="prostitute themselves"?

[benEzra]

73. Because for most of us, it IS about choice, not about liking abortion.

I don't like abortion, but it is not my place to make that decision for someone else. And yes, that is entirely consistent with my position on gun ownership, about which I am also pro-choice.

I don't understand how people can support choice on one of those issues but not the other, personally, although plenty of people from both ends of the political spectrum seem to do so.

[iverglas]

74. it is just such fun to see the menz joining us

Here and in Women's Rights, the gun-fixated fellas just can't stay away.


I don't like abortion, but it is not my place to make that decision for someone else. And yes, that is entirely consistent with my position on gun ownership, about which I am also pro-choice.

Actually, what it is, is completely irrelevant.

About as irrelevant, and nonsensical, and obnoxious, as someone saying that their position on dog ownership was consistent with support for women's reproductive rights.

You let us know when anyone's abortion has killed or maimed another person, or maybe when women have been terrorized and abused by men who keep abortions for that purpose, or someone's abortion was stolen and used to hold up a retail store or intimidate a neighbourhood or kill a family member, or a depressed teenager or old person committed suicide by abortion, and you might have yourself an analogy -- and some justification to regulate access to abortion in a manner analogous to the justified regulation of access to firearms.

Until then, why don't you just keep your icky gun talk where it's supposed to stay?



typos ...

[benEzra]

76. This forum is called the Choice forum for a reason...

and since 1973, the issue is and has always been about a woman's right to make choices concerning her own body, not about perceived collective social benefits a la Freakonomics. And had you read the OP, you would have noticed that it was the OP who introduced the "icky gun talk" in this thread, to which I replied:

My criticism of the term "pro choice" is that it is disingenuous - indeed most appeals to "freedom of choice" generally are. If women have sovereignty over their bodies, then logically they should have the right to prostitute themselves and appear in pornographic films. However this tends not to be the position of most "pro choice" advocates, at least from my experience. Any libertarian sentiment that might be implied by the use of the word "choice" seems to be limited mainly to the decision whether to have an abortion.

The usual rejoinder is that abortion advocates aren't actually advocating abortion but simply want for women to have the election to do so. But you could equally say that the gun lobby doesn't want to force people to buy guns, but merely to preserve that choice for people that have that predilection.

Her statement is a valid one, and I believe it does frame both issues well. The fact that some people aren't as willing to extend choice to porn or gun ownership doesn't mean choice isn't at the core of the abortion issue.

BTW, if you notice, this is a DU topic forum devoted to Reproductive Choice, not a DU women's group. Refer to the DU Rules if you have a problem with "menz" posting in the Choice forum; you are undoubtedly as aware as I am of the difference between DU Forums and DU Groups, and the rules that apply.

Again, the reason I am pro-choice isn't that I think abortion is wonderful; I don't, and think it is almost always a sad and difficult choice to have to make. As a parent of a medically complex special-needs child (now 10 years old), I am well aware of the sacrifices and tradeoffs involved in weighing the termination of a viable but disabled fetus vs. raising that child to adulthood and the potential quality-of-life issues, and it is a choice we ourselves had to face with regard to subsequent pregnancies. If you've never been pregnant with a fetus that you thought had a 50/50 chance of something like 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, you wouldn't know how scary the choice to bring that child to term can be, or (on the other side of the coin) the upside. That's not a choice I'd presume to make for others.

This forum is called Choice for a reason. The individual right to privacy, NOT perceived social benefits, was the legal and moral foundation of Roe v. Wade, as you also well know, and that is still the case both judicially and morally.

[iverglas]

77. Yuppers

And, if you notice, this is a DU topic forum devoted to Reproductive Choice, not a DU group limited to women.

Absofuckinglutely.

And nothing to do with guns. Regardless of whether you or the OP author or the man in the moon wants to pretend it is.

Analogies are good methods of reasoning. Specious analogies are stupid and in many cases obnoxious. This particular one is sick, and I'm tired of it.


Refer to the DU Rules if you have a problem with "menz" posting in the Choice forum

Refer back to my post if you actually had some difficulty grasping what I really said.

If you prefer to pretend I said something I didn't, have a picnic.

What I have a problem with is people bringing their obnoxious, misogynist firearm "analogies" to a forum about women's reproductive rights.

It's just a big coincidence that the ones who do it are men, I know.


It IS the height of misogyny to tell women that our right not to be compelled to do something that carries risks of death and serious physical and/or psychological injury is analogous to your right to stockpile weapons.

There are actually analogies to the situation at hand -- a military draft being about the closest analogy I know of. Even it loses force when the question of justification for the coercion involved is considered.

A military draft is imposed -- people are compelled to do something that carries risks of death and serious physical and/or psychological injury -- to address a serious threat to the survival of a society and its individual members. There is arguable justification. (If it's imposed for some other reason, of course it is unjustified.)

There is more than arguable justification for REGULATING access to firearms, and in fact denying access to firearms to some people. As far as I know, even bloody you take that position.

The human race is not in any danger of extinction, and no individual is endangered by another individual's abortion. So there is NO justification for denying access to abortion, or for regulating access beyond any regulation that applies to medical services generally.


This constant attempt BY MEN at this site to portray their desire for firearms, whatever lies behind that desire, as analogous to a woman's choice not to carry a pregnancy to term is so foul it almost leaves me speechless.

It trivializes women's core interests. It trivializes women's fundamental rights. It trivializes women.

It really is just one more in the many ways that men use firearms to intimidate and control women.



And by the way:

The individual right to privacy, NOT perceived social benefits, was the legal and moral foundation of Roe v. Wade, as you also well know, and that is still the case both judicially and morally.

I don't give a flying fuck what the foundation of Roe v. Wade was, and I happen to think it is a bullshit decision. Where I'm at, which happens to be part of the same world you live in, equally important and more advanced both "judicially and morally", the foundation of women's right to choose is this:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

-- and maybe someday women in the US will have the same recognition of their rights.

"Morally", women are human beings with human rights, fundamental among which are life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof either without due process and the other requirements of fundamental justice or without the justification that is required in a free and democratic society to do that.

And what the fuck a "perceived social benefit" might be, I wouldn't know. Except another revolting attempt to trivialize women by calling women's life, liberty and security of the person "perceived social benefits".

[benEzra]

78. Thoughts...

(iverglas)
I don't give a flying fuck what the foundation of Roe v. Wade was, and I happen to think it is a bullshit decision. Where I'm at, which happens to be part of the same world you live in, equally important and more advanced both "judicially and morally", the foundation of women's right to choose is this:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

-- and maybe someday women in the US will have the same recognition of their rights.

Good for you. We all bow before your moral superiority compared to us poor denizens of the United States and Australia.

In this country, which happens to be the subject of this forum, the keystone decision overturning state restrictions on abortion was indeed Roe v. Wade. I see you have heard of it, even way up there in the Promised Land. Most U.S. progressives don't view it with quite the same scatological contempt as you do, but again, we are mere Americans, so what would we know.

And what the fuck a "perceived social benefit" might be, I wouldn't know. Except another revolting attempt to trivialize women by calling women's life, liberty and security of the person "perceived social benefits".

That would be this part of the OP, which I take it you didn't read as you hurried downthread to eviscerate posters who don't sufficiently venerate all views Canadian:

(OP)
Personally, I think abortion is a social good. Before there was abortion, there were children growing up in institutions, often as victims of abuse. There is a pretty good case to be made that the decrease in violent crime over the past few years in the US is attributable to abortion.

I also support abortion for the usual environmental reasons - too many people and not enough resources, basically. I'd probably go further and say that I support Peter Singer's idea of parents having the election to euthanase newborns in certain cirumstances.

Those things may be the case (the authors of Freakonomics certainly state so explicitly), but as I pointed out, such questions were irrelevant to the Roe v. Wade decision, which hinged solely on a woman's right to privacy and self-determination.

[iverglas]

79. do you do magic tricks?

In this country, which happens to be the subject of this forum, the keystone decision overturning state restrictions on abortion was indeed Roe v. Wade. I see you have heard of it, even way up there in the Promised Land. Most U.S. progressives don't view it with quite the same scatological contempt as you do, but again, we are mere Americans, so what would we know.

Well, I guess I wouldn't know.

Here's what I do know, though: I'd guess there are two people on this site who have ever read the reasons in Roe v. Wade. And I'm one of them. I've read it multiple times in the last 10 years. And I have yet to make sense of it.

So ... here's your chance.

Tell us, in your own words, what the basis for the decision was in Roe v. Wade. I'm not talking about "privacy", or even this "self-determination" you now throw in, as the rights that were in issue. I'm talking about the basis for the decision that U.S. states MAY interfere in women's reproductive choices.

Please be sure to quote passages from the reasons that demonstrate what you say.



That would be this part of the OP, which I take it you didn't read as you hurried downthread to eviscerate posters who don't sufficiently venerate all views Canadian:

Ah, do you then.

The basis for your assertion would be that ... I was posting in this thread in July, while you showed up a couple of hours ago. Wait ... does not compute ...

Your reference to "perceived social benefits" was in a reply addressed to me. I'm still trying to figure out why.

In any event, another of the things I don't give a flying fuck about is what you venerate, or even what you know. If you don't know that decisions of courts in the US are not the be-all and end-all determinants of human rights -- let alone "morality"!! -- and that many things said outside that venue are really very worth knowing about, it's your loss. Your deficiency does impoverish the discourse, of course.

[uppityperson]

81. "I happen to think it is a bullshit decision"? Hi iver, what do you mean?

I am one who read all the (brain fart) opinions (is that the right word?) that the Justices wrote with Roe v Wade and the whole thing they based it on, all their writings. It was eye opening how they voted, and based on what, but I don't know what you mean by "I happen to think it is a bullshit decision".

Thanks.

[iverglas]

82. in a nutshell

The Court (Blackmun J.) stated that the state has an interest in "the potentiality of life", whatever that might be. It never gave any basis for that assertion. What it means, in the context, is that the state has an interest in an individual woman's pregnancy. What is the state's interest? Who knows?

The Court then stated that there was a point at which the state's interest in "the potentiality of life" became compelling. It never gave any basis for that assertion. What is compelling about that interest? Who knows?

Based on those bald assertions, the Court then authorized the state to interfere in women's decisions about their pregnancies.

Bullshit decision, I'd say.

I don't think gun militants would be putting up with bald assertions like that as the basis for banning handguns.

They like the analogy, so here they are. Women may get some abortions but not others, under Roe v Wade and subsequent laws, like "partial-birth abortion". Women should be satisfied. How about you can get some firearms but not others? Sound good, guys? Assault weapon ban, anyone? I think the two are distinguishable, and there are grounds for denying access to some firearms, and I can state those grounds. If the court thought some abortions were distinguishable from others, it should have stated its grounds.

The main thing is that the Court (and of course presumably the pro-choice parties) fixated on "privacy", when pregnancy brings women's more fundamental life, liberty and security of the person interests into play.

The Supreme Court of Canada did mutter similar things about state interests in pregnancy, similarly unelaborated, in R. v. Morgentaler. But it was focusing on the fundamental rights, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (e.g. due process). And so it came to the correct conclusion that Canada's abortion law (requiring certification of medical necessity by a committee) violated those rights and principles, and it has been clear since that there is no imaginable law that would not. It just isn't possible to have a law that compels someone to do something against their will that involves serious risks to life and health, where the person has committed no wrong, and meet even due process standards.

If you look back at Roe v. Wade and Blackmun's assertions about the state's interest and the compelling nature of that interest, you'll see what I mean.

Had the real interests of the woman that are in issue -- life, etc. -- been balanced against whatever the state's interest in "the potentiality of life" might be, even if that interest had been made explicit, I don't think it's possible to find that the state's interest outweighs the woman's. There really aren't a lot of state interests that outweigh an individual's interest in their own life, and not being compelled to put it at risk against their will.

[iverglas]

80. btw

In reference to the opening post, you say:

Her statement is a valid one

The profile of the author of the opening post states that he is male.






Duh.


I quoted myself upthread, but since you seem to be under the impression I just joined the discussion today, you must have missed it.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=341&topic_id=10207&mesg_id=10252
(edited to add direct link)

iverglas
Fri Aug-03-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #5

13. there's a method to their menschness

They don't oppose women being able to control our reproductive lives -- so we don't get to oppose anything at all that they want.

They'll let us have abortions, so we have to let them have all the guns they can eat. Oops, I mean, we have to let little weak women carry guns around to protect themselves from big bad sexual predators ... even though women are at most risk of harm from the men they love. They'll let us have abortions, so we have to let them have all the prostitutes they can buy. Oops, I mean, we have to let other women decide what to do with their bodies, even though the overwhelming majority of women in prostitution have made no choice in any meaningful sense of the concept at all.

The idea that any of them actually give a shit about women is not credible. It's just more misogyny -- heaping more exploitation on the exploited, by using them to advance agendas that are contrary to their interests.

It really is old, tired and ugly.

[AaronAgassi]

88. sex and guns

I think that I can accept your problem statement, except that having come in somewhat in the middle, I am unclear as to the conspiratorial "they." Please advise. Also, I would qualify that I do not believe, for example, that jailing prostitutes is the way to afford them better choices. Choice to be choice, must include bad choices, but real choice also includes better choices. Do you disagree?

--
Check out my petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/surgeon-general-please-break-the-healthcare-deadlock

[PeaceNikki]

83. Because some assholes call them murders.

Right here on DU even. Imagine that... being called a murderer for having a legal medical procedure.

Sick sick shit.

[AaronAgassi]

87. Oh, poor innocent little zygote!

Oh, poor innocent little zygote! Bah, humbug! Check out my petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/surgeon-general-please-break-the-healthcare-deadlock

[Piwi2009]

84. ""Why are people afraid to say they're pro abrtion""

WHICH people? If you mean regular, everyday people, they shouldn't be afraid to say it, because it doesn't carry any downside to speak of, nothing you shouldn't be able to handle.

But if you mean POLITICIANS -- well, there are consequences to saying something like that, because elections aren't about reason and logic, they're about numbers.

[ehrnst]

85. Because pro-choice is anti forced abortion as well as anti- forced childbearing

I am not pro ANY childbearing decision that is forced or coerced. So no, you can't describe my position as pro-abortion, or pro-chilcdbearing without caveats.

I am pro-abortion rights, and pro-childbearing rights.

[AaronAgassi]

86. Bad choices with the good

Indeed, how can choice be free that does not open bad choices too? There are many social ills to which repression only makes things worse, whereas there are other more effective and helpful choices in response than coercion. Yes, we want more choices all around. Abortion? Yes, it's a good thing!

--
Check out my petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/surgeon-general-please-break-the-healthcare-deadlock