"COLUMBUS – Before getting a prescription for @#$%& or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.

The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week.

A critic of efforts to restrict abortion and contraception for women, Turner says she is concerned about men’s reproductive health. Turner’s bill joins a trend of female lawmakers submitting bills regulating men’s health. Turner said if state policymakers want to legislate women’s health choices through measures such as House Bill 125, known as the “Heartbeat bill,” they should also be able to legislate men’s reproductive health. Ohio anti-abortion advocates say the two can’t be compared."

[www.daytondailynews.com]

Quote
Grace62
"COLUMBUS – Before getting a prescription for @#$%& or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.

The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week.

A critic of efforts to restrict abortion and contraception for women, Turner says she is concerned about men’s reproductive health. Turner’s bill joins a trend of female lawmakers submitting bills regulating men’s health. Turner said if state policymakers want to legislate women’s health choices through measures such as House Bill 125, known as the “Heartbeat bill,” they should also be able to legislate men’s reproductive health. Ohio anti-abortion advocates say the two can’t be compared."

[www.daytondailynews.com]

That's really an ignorant thing to do. I don't think the two are comparable, but I also think it's ignorant to assume "Men" are the enemy when there are women who are anti-abortion, and men who are pro-abortion rights. Being anti-abortion is not anti-womens' rights. To frame it that way is unnecessarily polarizing. kj.

Go for it ! The more time Congress wastes, the less mistakes they make.

Quote
kj
. Being anti-abortion is not anti-womens' rights. To frame it that way is unnecessarily polarizing. kj.

Women currently have the legal right to choose abortion in the United States. Various state legislatures are working very hard to take away that "woman's right." So yes, it is anti-women's rights to work to take away an existing legal right that applies only to women, (being the only citizens with uteri.) It is anti-women's rights regardless of the gender of the person with the position. Yes, women can be and are "anti-women's rights" on a number of issues.

And what is more polarizing than all these anti-reproductive right's bills, including bills that would make hormonal contraception illegal, bills that require medically unnecessary invasive procedures meant to shame women, and bills such as the one referenced here, Ohio Bill 125, which would make abortion illegal earlier than pregnancy is sometimes even noticed by women?
Once a heartbeat is detected, now at around 6 weeks?

You don't find that polarizing?

I do.
And so do a lot of women and men serving in state legislators, who are introducing bills like the one above in order to make the point of how absurd it is to have lawmakers playing doctor and using women's bodies to score political points.

Quote
cbelt3
Go for it ! The more time Congress wastes, the less mistakes they make.

That's not Congress, it's your state legislature, the one that wants to make abortion illegal at or before 6 weeks.

>>Yes, women can be and are "anti-women's rights" on a number of issues.

I don't think so, unless you're saying they're stupid. If all those who opposed abortion were men, and all women were pro-abortion rights, I could see you having a point. As it stands, I think choosing to see it as a pro/anti-woman issue is purposely misunderstanding the point of view of millions of people. kj.

I'm not saying they are stupid, I'm just stating something that I believe is obvious to most people: There are women who do not support the progressive changes made over recent decades that have afforded women more rights than we had before. There has been major change for women, as I'm sure you are aware. Those changes represent new rights for women. Some women oppose those new rights. That makes you "anti-women's rights."
Maybe the term makes people with those beliefs uncomfortable?
It should.

Doesn't make you stupid, makes you socially conservative.

Quote
Grace62
I'm not saying they are stupid, I'm just stating something that I believe is obvious to most people: There are women who do not support the progressive changes made over recent decades that have afforded women more rights than we had before. There has been major change for women, as I'm sure you are aware. Those changes represent new rights for women. Some women oppose those new rights. That makes you "anti-women's rights."
Maybe the term makes people with those beliefs uncomfortable?
It should.

Doesn't make you stupid, makes you socially conservative.

Does it matter at all to you that the women who are anti-abortion don't feel that they are against women's rights? Why is it you've decided their self-reports are not valid? They say they believe abortion is killing a child. You decide they oppose abortion because they are against women's rights. Tell me why you know better than they? Btw, "it is obvious to most people" could be the most wretched argument ever used. kj.

>>Once a heartbeat is detected, now at around 6 weeks?

Sometimes at around 6 weeks, usually at 10-12, which is plenty of time to do 90% of abortions that are currently performed kj.

Only while the fetus is not viable outside the womb.

Previously this was defined to be at 6 months, but new technologies have pushed this back (so with future litigation, abortion could well be prohibited back into the second trimester).

Quote
Grace62
Women currently have the legal right to choose abortion in the United States.

If you want to define women's rights as abortion rights, that's your choice. There are a lot more issues in that spectrum though. And the fact that we are talking about denying women the right to effective contraception is especially chilling. Why don't the legislators outlaw condoms too? Why does the proscription of rights apply only to women? Why does Medicare pay for @#$%& and Cialis while legislators bray and scold over private insurance payments for contraception? It is the woman's insurance which she pays for, at least in part. It is NONE of her employer's, or her local Peeping Tom delegate's, business what she does with the insurance.

And if the legislators were not so closed-minded and prurient they would notice that roughly one-eighth of women use contraception for purely medical reasons--ovarian cysts, regulation of menstrual periods, etc.

Women are finally getting combat pay for serving in combat zones. That's a right that should have been recognized long ago.

Women's pay has inched up over the decades to the point where we make 66 percent of a man's pay, on average, for performing the same job. In the 1960s it was 58 percent.

It is absolutely none of your business how a woman who you do not know spends her money on health care. None. Your wife, your daughter, that's discussable, but you should not be allowed to prohibit.

But your neighbor down the street? Mind your own business, you snoop. If someone violated your privacy in the same fashion you would be furious.

Quote
kj

Quote
Grace62
"COLUMBUS – Before getting a prescription for @#$%& or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.

The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week.

A critic of efforts to restrict abortion and contraception for women, Turner says she is concerned about men’s reproductive health. Turner’s bill joins a trend of female lawmakers submitting bills regulating men’s health. Turner said if state policymakers want to legislate women’s health choices through measures such as House Bill 125, known as the “Heartbeat bill,” they should also be able to legislate men’s reproductive health. Ohio anti-abortion advocates say the two can’t be compared."

[www.daytondailynews.com]

That's really an ignorant thing to do. I don't think the two are comparable, but I also think it's ignorant to assume "Men" are the enemy when there are women who are anti-abortion, and men who are pro-abortion rights. Being anti-abortion is not anti-womens' rights. To frame it that way is unnecessarily polarizing. kj.

kj, I'm under the impression that far more men are anti-abortion than women are. I'm sure there's data on that somwhere. Unfortunately, it's already polarized along those lines.

To use the fact that there are some women who are anti-abortion as evidence against the argument that it's therefore not a women's rights issue, is like saying there were some african americans who were against the civil rights movement at the time, and so treating african americans equally as those of european descent was not a civil rights issue (or something like that).

If there was a move primarily made to restrict or ban a woman's right to vote, would that be considered a move against women's rights?

Leading up to the establishment of the 19th amendment in August, 1920 it was far from universal amongst women that they should be able to vote. Moves and counter-moves were made in the battle for woman's suffrage even after the amendment was passed.

Just because some women oppose/support does not invalidate the argument that there is currently a legal assault on women's rights in regard to privacy and health concerns. There will always be a variety of opinions on both sides of any issue. But when a move specifically targets a select group and seeks to remove their ability to continue doing something that is currently legal then by the very definition of common sense it is an attack on that groups rights.

I am a man, I have no business deciding health issues for a woman. I would argue that I do not even have the right to decide health issues for others of my sex. It is a very personal matter and should be decided solely by those directly involved.

Every woman has the right NOT to have an abortion. Every woman has the right NOT to take birth control. That is how it should be, to make it any other way diminishes the rights of individuals to make decisions based upon their own situation and morality.

---

You can tell a lot about a woman by her hands...
- For example, if they are wrapped around your throat she's probably slightly upset.

Quote

kj, I'm under the impression that far more men are anti-abortion than women are. I'm sure there's data on that somwhere. Unfortunately, it's already polarized along those lines.

[www.gallup.com]
May 23, 2011

Scroll down in the link for detailed numbers vis-a-vis gender.

Views Differ by Generation and Party, Not Gender

Men and women are nearly identical in their views about the legality and morality of abortion, as well as in the percentage labeling themselves "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life."

I think that introducing legislation regarding @#$%& is a perfect rejoinder to the sudden fascination by legislators regarding women's access to reproductive healthcare. It's not so funny when someone of the opposite sex wants to intrude into your private life, is it?

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Quote
$tevie
I think that introducing legislation regarding @#$%& is a perfect rejoinder to the sudden fascination by legislators regarding women's access to reproductive healthcare. It's not so funny when someone of the opposite sex wants to intrude into your private life, is it?

This is Ohio House bill no. 125, which was passed last year but is now stalled in the Senate. If passed in its current form, it would outlaw nearly all abortions, or make doctors who perform those abortions felons.
It contains this language:

(E)(1) Except as provided in division (E)(2) or (3) of this section, no person shall knowingly perform an abortion on a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of the unborn human individual that the pregnant woman is carrying and whose fetal heartbeat has been detected according to the requirements of division (C) of this section. Any person who acts based on the exception in division (E)(2) or (3) of this section shall so note in the pregnant woman's medical records and shall specify in the pregnant woman's medical records which of the exceptions the person invoked.

(5) Whoever violates division (E) of this section is guilty of performing an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, a felony of the fifth degree.

[www.legislature.state.oh.us]

The fetal heartbeat can be detected at week 4 of pregnancy.
It is possible to detect heartbeat one week, then not detect it a few days later, then detect it again a few days after that.
Just part of the insanity of the "doctor playing" involved in this bill.

In the United States, most abortions are performed in the 9-12 week stage.

Quote
Acer

Quote

kj, I'm under the impression that far more men are anti-abortion than women are. I'm sure there's data on that somwhere. Unfortunately, it's already polarized along those lines.

[www.gallup.com]
May 23, 2011

Scroll down in the link for detailed numbers vis-a-vis gender.

Views Differ by Generation and Party, Not Gender

Men and women are nearly identical in their views about the legality and morality of abortion, as well as in the percentage labeling themselves "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life."

Well ain't that something...that surprises me. While that poll seems credible, I'd be curious to see some more. Not finding much via Google...

Quote
kj
That's really an ignorant thing to do. I don't think the two are comparable, but I also think it's ignorant to assume "Men" are the enemy when there are women who are anti-abortion, and men who are pro-abortion rights. Being anti-abortion is not anti-womens' rights. To frame it that way is unnecessarily polarizing. kj.

It absolutely is an anti-womens' rights stance. Even worse, it is all about removing womens' rights based on imposition of a specific set of religious beliefs on nonbelievers. Yes, some women (those who want to push their religious beliefs on others) do take an anti-womens' rights stance. There are many women in this country who believe that men are superior and that women should be subservient to them (in many cases this is a religious belief also).

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

"Beliefs", especially when arbitrarily imposed on others, are extremely dangerous.

Quote

When it comes to beliefs, I have none. I’m a facts and numbers guy. Having beliefs indicates a lack of knowledge and/or the ability to draw conclusions based on known facts. I have no problem admitting when I have no knowledge of something, so I simply don’t need to believe.

Suren Ter

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

Quote
Spock
"Beliefs", especially when arbitrarily imposed on others, are extremely dangerous.

Quote

When it comes to beliefs, I have none. I’m a facts and numbers guy. Having beliefs indicates a lack of knowledge and/or the ability to draw conclusions based on known facts. I have no problem admitting when I have no knowledge of something, so I simply don’t need to believe.

Suren Ter

Do you believe that, or is it a fact? Or do you believe it's a fact? I think when we make decisions, we all use more than just facts. kj.

I'll try to be more clear. It's not a Men vs. Woman issue. The implicit logic is that men are trying to take away womens' rights, so we'll return fire. Unfortunately, a huge number of the men that would be affected by the legislation are pro-abortion rights. Whoops, a little collateral damage. AND, a huge number of those who are anti-abortion are women. Why do they get a free pass? The legislation is completely illogical, except that it is a stunt that will probably get some politicians some votes. But it doesn't "punish" the right people because it is not a Men vs. Women issue. kj.

Quote
kj
The legislation is completely illogical, except that it is a stunt that will probably get some politicians some votes.

Yes, it's a stunt, primarily to show the absurdity of the anti-abortion and anti-contraception bills that it is designed to mimic. I'm not sure that I agree with the anti-@#$%& bill stunt, but only because it means that Senator Turner is stooping to the same level as the crazy people pushing the anti-abortion and anti-contraception bills.

Quote
kj
But it doesn't "punish" the right people because it is not a Men vs. Women issue. kj.

Horsefeathers! The anti-abortion/anti-contraception bills are being legislated by a 99% white male christian crowd, none of whom are affected in the slightest by the legislation, and the population that they affect is 100% women. Your position is absurd.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

kj, look at it this way...do you believe that if the gender proportions in Congress were reversed (in other words it was a vast majority female crowd), that there would be any legislation brought up against the pro-choice position?

Quote
Carnos Jax
kj, look at it this way...do you believe that if the gender proportions in Congress were reversed (in other words it was a vast majority female crowd), that there would be any legislation brought up against the pro-choice position?

Yes, I absolutely do think so because women congress people are just as likely to be anti-abortion (well, and represent the populace, where large numbers of women are anti-abortion). And davester, how does the legislation target the congressmen who are responsible for the legislation? It doesn't, it targets all men, half of whom are pro and half of whom are anti. It makes no sense, unless you buy into the propaganda that men are completely responsible for the anti-abortion position. kj.

>>none of whom are affected in the slightest by the legislation, and the population that they affect is 100% women. Your position is absurd.

I'm also going to call complete B.S. on the idea that it doesn't affect men. The non-aborted children are born, and there's no reason at all to believe that doesn't affect the men involved. kj.

Appears kj didn't get the memo. Being pro choice does NOT equate with being pro-abortion, one can be anti-abortion and still pro-choice. How you describe your position is more than just a semantic argument.

Adopting an anti-choice attitude makes it easier to justify allowing politicians to interfere with doctor patient relationships or mandate unnecessary and sometimes invasive medical procedures.

That's what I'm curious about. I disagree with abortion in principle, but am pro-choice on the matter as it relates to individual liberty. I'd be curious if the alleged gender split takes into account this.

It's a bit like saying the rights of women in the middle east is not a 'womens rights' issue since most women there are currently in favor of those 'orthodox' traditions.

Quote
RgrF
Appears kj didn't get the memo. Being pro choice does NOT equate with being pro-abortion, one can be anti-abortion and still pro-choice. How you describe your position is more than just a semantic argument.

Adopting an anti-choice attitude makes it easier to justify allowing politicians to interfere with doctor patient relationships or mandate unnecessary and sometimes invasive medical procedures.

Uh, Rog. Where did I say pro-abortion? I understand a lot of people personally think abortion is wrong, but think it should be legal. I'm not sure it's a tenable position, but I understand it. Personally, I think abortion is killing a child, so I can't really see how I can also think it should be legal. If I didn't think it was a child, I'm not sure why I would have a personal problem with it, though.

And Carnos, here we are in this thread with a bunch of pro-choice guys just dying to figure out a way to make this a men vs women thing. Would this legislation target you because you're a man? Yes, it would. If it's a man vs woman thing, you're on the man side! kj.

Quote
kj

Uh, Rog. Where did I say pro-abortion? I understand a lot of people personally think abortion is wrong, but think it should be legal.

You said: ...a huge number of the men that would be affected by the legislation are pro-abortion rights. Whoops, a little collateral damage. AND, a huge number of those who are anti-abortion are women.

Why is it in your lexicon pro choice is "pro-abortion rights" while you're simply "anti-abortion" rather than "anti-abortion rights"?

Would it be because to word it that way might imply a right to abortion?

Claiming you don't say pro-abortion is a distinction without a difference. By your linguistic logic - if we're pro choice then you must be anti-choice. Call it what it is, not what you'd like it to appear to be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2012 02:13AM by RgrF.

Quote
RgrF

Quote
kj

Uh, Rog. Where did I say pro-abortion? I understand a lot of people personally think abortion is wrong, but think it should be legal.

You said: ...a huge number of the men that would be affected by the legislation are pro-abortion rights. Whoops, a little collateral damage. AND, a huge number of those who are anti-abortion are women.

Why is it in your lexicon pro choice is "pro-abortion rights" while you're simply "anti-abortion" rather than "anti-abortion rights"?

Would it be because to word it that way might imply a right to abortion?

Claiming you don't say pro-abortion is a distinction without a difference. By your linguistic logic - if we're pro choice then you must be anti-choice. Call it what it is, not what you'd like it to appear to be.

No Rog, nothing weird. I think both sides play games with words, and I'm trying not to do that. While we're at it, why do people say semantics? Semantics is the study of meaning. Don't people actually mean syntax? kj.

Quote
kj
And Carnos, here we are in this thread with a bunch of pro-choice guys just dying to figure out a way to make this a men vs women thing. Would this legislation target you because you're a man? Yes, it would. If it's a man vs woman thing, you're on the man side! kj.

I think kj, you seem to be trying hard not to make it a man versus woman thing (which is noble), but the fact of the matter is if polled, most people would identify it as such. It's the same with other restrictions against women in many parts of the world, regardless if most women from those same areas are 'for' those restrictions (i.e. tradition).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2012 08:54AM by Carnos Jax.

Quote
Carnos Jax

Quote
kj
And Carnos, here we are in this thread with a bunch of pro-choice guys just dying to figure out a way to make this a men vs women thing. Would this legislation target you because you're a man? Yes, it would. If it's a man vs woman thing, you're on the man side! kj.

I think kj, you seem to be trying hard not to make it a man versus woman thing (which is noble), but the fact of the matter is if polled, most people would identify it as such. It's the same with other restrictions against women in many parts of the world, regardless if most women from those same areas are 'for' those restrictions (i.e. tradition).

So because you are a man, you are an enemy of women's rights? Just because a hypothetical poll says so? Wow. It doesn't matter that the people being polled are wrong? kj.

I don't see where you're coming from on the whole "man being an enemy of woman's rights" thing, I have a feeling you're chasing a wild goose there.

And if you mean that an opinion poll and fact are two different things, technically you're correct, they don't 'have' to be. In this case they coincide. If I interpret you're rational correctly, then would you're position be the same on the issue I stated in the last sentence of my previous post?

Please read this carefully, 'cause I'm done. Legislation is introduced to show the "other side" what it's like to be oppressed. The "other side" is exclusively men. The "same side" is evidently only women. The fact is, the other side is both men and women. AND the same side is both men and women. Attacking all men is not logical.

It's a pro-abortion rights against anti-abortion rights thing, both sides being made up of men and women. The legislation doesn't target anti-abortion rights people. Just men. In what way do you, as a man who is pro-abortion rights, deserve to be punished by this legislation? What point would that make? Would it "teach you a lesson"? I guess according to the congresswoman, it should, since you are a man. kj.

Well, what u call a fact I'd have to disagree (as do many folks). You're basing the premise of your entire argument on this it seems. So I think what seems logical to u is not so to others. There's nothing that seems will change your view of it currently. I guess in the end we (as well as many people) just disagree.

Quote
Carnos Jax
Well, what u call a fact I'd have to disagree (as do many folks). You're basing the premise of your entire argument on this it seems. So I think what seems logical to u is not so to others. There's nothing that seems will change your view of it currently. I guess in the end we (as well as many people) just disagree.

That's amazing Carnos. I didn't expect you to agree, but that's just weird. Out of Acer's link:

>>Men and women are nearly identical in their views about the legality and morality of abortion, as well as in the percentage labeling themselves "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life."

Do you really expect me to change my mind because "many folks disagree"? kj.

No, it's just your insistance on using that fact as evidence for it not being a woman's rights issue (for the same reason I referenced the rights of women for example in Saudia Arabia).

Quote
Carnos Jax
No, it's just your insistance on using that fact as evidence for it not being a woman's rights issue (for the same reason I referenced the rights of women for example in Saudia Arabia).

Ah, so you agree it's a fact. Fwiw, I've been saying Men vs Women, not Womens' Rights. I'd argue with both though