Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?
Digby is fed up with paying for Viagra:
I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won’t ever need such a pill. And anyway, it’s no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don’t think there’s even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that.)
Many of the men who are prescribed this medication are on Medicare, so I think it should be stripped out of that coverage as well. And unlike the payments for abortion, which actually lower overall medical costs (pregnancy obviously costs much, much more) banning tax dollars from covering any kind of Viagra would result in a substantial savings[.]
[...]
I realize that many people disagree with my moral objections to men getting erections which God clearly doesn’t want them to get, but my principles on this are more important to me than theirs are to them. So too bad. If you want a boner, pay for it yourself.
197 Responses to “Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?”
Not nice.
At this point, who cares?
And besides, the one who is being 'not nice' is the one throwing charges of misogyny around that refuses to say why, despite multiple people questioning it.
Sorry, I meant that reply for KK.
But her silence is your answer.
Hey JD — If you take away elective abortion, you are taking away my health care options. Abortion is healthcare, and it most certainly does improve a health condition. I mean, I know you've never been pregnant, but I guess you don't have kids? Ever known someone who was pregnant? I could right now get elective surgery to fix the little eye flutter I got from too many years in contact lenses, and it would be covered by my insurance plan. This little flutter is really nothing compared to all of the medical issues that go along with being pregnant — not to mention with actually giving birth! I've never been pregnant, but I'm pretty sure there's a reason that pregnant women are monitored so very carefully by doctors; for example, why they are the first people on the top of the list for the swine flu vaccination. Think about it for 5 seconds and you'll realize that childbirth used to be the number one cause of death of women, and it takes an awfully lot of healthcare to keep that from being the case.
” abortion is an ELECTIVE procedure, which is never covered by insurance.”
Simply not true. My insurance plan would absolutely cover an abortion for me — medically necessary or elective for whatever reason. There's a good reason that they would do that, too — it's much easier and cheaper for me to get an abortion than to get 9 months worth of the overwhelmingly huge amount of medical care necessary to get a woman safely through pregnancy and childbirth. Again: huge huge healthcare issue. The average pregnancy/birth costs about $30K. The average early-term abortion generally costs about $1000. You want to drive the cost of health care up? Take away a woman's right to choose.
“You're promiscuous – you pay more too.”
It's pretty incredible that people think that promiscuous women are the only ones who get abortions. It's just as incredible that you think it would be preferrable for promiscous women to carry a pregnancy to term even if they don't want to. Why? To punish her?
I got that number from the Guttmacher Institute.
Polimom,
At the risk of confusing and/or frustrating you even more, I will try to explain what you are missing.
I fully understand that people who oppose abortion consider abortion to be murder. And on a purely intellectual level, I respect that belief. However, the issue of abortion — of being able to choose to end an unwanted or unviable pregnancy — is existential, and *I* feel that this point is not being understood or respected by the people that I am told I must respect.
What do I mean by existential? I mean that when a woman is pregnant, she is carrying another life inside her body. People who say abortion is murder “get” the first point quite well. But they do *not* get the second point, at all. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say they don't respect what that point means, in the deepest sense. It means that no matter how fervently and sincerely one believes that a fetus or a fertilized egg is a human being, or a child, or whatever, that “human life” or “child” is inside of the body of a woman. If a fetus has rights equal to a woman's, then the very least one can say is that the fetus's rights and the woman's rights are in conflict. Those rights are always in conflict, by definition. So it has to be an issue of whose rights prevail. They can't both prevail if you're saying that a fetus is a person. I don't happen to believe a fetus is a person, but if a fetus is a person, then certainly a woman is a person. And making abortion illegal or very difficult to get is telling a woman that her body rights don't matter — that the law can do whatever it wants to her body and she has no right to say no. That infuriates me. But beyond even this, what infuriates me even more is when I am told that I must understand and respect how upsetting it is for people who call themselves “pro-life” to think about women killing their unborn babies, when “pro-lifers” do not have any respect for the sensibility of a woman who feels her body is being violated by being forced to grow something inside it. So they tell you, “A woman isn't *forced* to get pregnant.” Well, this may be true — setting aside the fact that many unviable pregnancies are wanted, so keeping your legs closed is not relevant — but the fact that this woman IS pregnant, and that the embryo or fetus IS inside her body, still remains. The fetus or embryo is literally part of her body. “Pro-lifers” have no respect for this. I have even had anti-choicers (in other online forums, not here) tell me that an unborn baby is *not* part of a woman's body. Of course it's hard to make the case that the unborn baby is not inside the woman's body, but in this view it's not a part of the woman's body at all. It's an entirely separate human being that just happens to be sitting in a container inside her body.
Let me just say here that I know there are many women who think abortion is murder, too — and all I can say about those women is that they do not get it, either. It's shocking to me that they don't, since they're women, but they don't. And what I want to know is, why is it always so incumbent upon pro-choice people to understand that anti-choice people think abortion is murder when no one appears to expect anti-choice people to understand that pro-choice people — especially those who are female — are outraged that these people think it's okay to make a woman's body a battleground for a war over whether abortion is murder — and that they don't even understand that it's anything a woman even should be upset over.
This inability to see, and dismissive response when it's explained, that the integrity of women's bodies is a self-determination and existential issue for many women — and that this issue is much deeper than the simple mantra that a fetus is a human being and abortion is murder — is *also* high-handed and demeaning. Yet this concept just does not appear to get through. To anyone.
Connecting this to Viagra…. A lot of women (I am most definitely far from being the only one) are sick and tired, fed up, and enraged by the fact that the appropriateness of arguing over exactly how and to what extent and by what means women's bodies will be regulated and controlled, whereas men *never* have to face this issue. Men are never asked to accept the premise that the state has the right to regulate a man's sexual or reproductive life. Indeed, it's considered a laughable absurdity even to suggest that there are two sets of standards for bodily autonomy here — as illustrated, I have to say, by your comments to me.
I have no idea if this will help you understand where I'm coming from. I'm doing my best, and that's all I can do.
The RNC insurance plan covers elective abortions. Hmmmmmm. Maybe your own house is not in order?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456…
“The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue,” [RNC spokesman] Gitcho said.
So, that means you believe up until the instant of birth, when the fetus is then a child, the woman has the right to kill the fetus.
Nice.
That, btw, does indeed put you in the nut-case far left side of the equation.
Unless I misstate your position and you DON'T believe that after all.
Of course, then you contradict yourself, and DO support women's bodies being regulated and controlled, and the argument is instead about when in the pregnancy that regulation and control is allowed.
Kathy, thank you for the comprehensive response. I think, perhaps, that where you and I diverge most strongly is on the anger at men. I simply don't have a blanket rage at them, as a gender.
“Indeed, it's considered a laughable absurdity even to suggest that there are two sets of standards for bodily autonomy here — as illustrated, I have to say, by your comments to me.”
I'll be blunt. I resent this strongly. Perhaps you simply dismissed my statement earlier that I'm pro-choice? Or maybe because I took offense at your belittling / demeaning or pro-lifers in this post, you thought I was being disingenuous?
Au contraire, I dislike it when either position dismisses or demeans the other in such a manner, as this post / thread does.
I must say, though, that in some ways I envy you your clarity, even as I do that of the zealous anti-abortionists. Unlike you and they, though, I'm cursed with the ability to understand and relate to all sides — and I continually strive to cast this curse upon others.
Wow, Roro…..You're full of all kinds of assumptions about me aren't you?
I have THREE children, thank you. And I was involved in every step of their gestation and birth (as much as my wife would allow me to be without being a pest).
“This little flutter is really nothing compared to all of the medical issues that go along with being pregnant “
Ok, Roro…. Does that mean that you purposely performed an act that you KNEW would cause the flutter? NO.
Do women purposely perform an act that they KNOW can cause a pregnancy?
YES.
You wrongly equate pregnancy and a life inside a woman's uterus – one of the most beautiful things on planet earth – a deformation or condition to be “fixed? I'll give every penny I have and hock every possession I own for the life of a child. Your $30K doesn't cover the worth of the child in a woman's uterus. If you think that human life can be dictated in terms of monetary value, then anything I say cannot help you.
I didn't insinuate that promiscuous women were the only ones who get abortions. But I have provided links to unbiased studies that say that well over 90% (91-93%) of all abortions were for reasons other than rape, incest, or for the life of the mother. The reasons given ranged from “I can't afford a baby right now”, to “I'm too inexperienced to have a child”, to “I'm not ready for a baby”.
Yes, Roro…. A person that has sex regardless of the consequences, is by defintition, promiscuous.
EDIT TO ADD: If a woman (promiscuous or not) does not want a child, I'll personally (or many like me) will take every single one if it would keep the child from dying. Yes, I do expect a woman to carry to term.
I guess that just comes from my upbringing where I was tought by my mother: “You made your bed, now lay in it.
I read your response to Polimom, Kathy.
First, it was very well written, and surprisingly to the point and does not talk around the issue. Thank you so much for that. You have frustrated me as well in the past – just as polimom was getting frustrated.
But you are missing our point as well. A woman has a right to do whatever she wishes to her body. You are absolutlely correct about that. With one exception….. She is not legally allowed to take her own life.
Once a woman (and a man by extension) makes love and conceives a child, they have created life. It is at that time when some of our more selfish “rights” get taken away. We can no longer be the selfish individuals we were. We must mature and step up to our obligations. A responsible human being (male or female) steps up to that responsibility. Irresponsible people wish to find a way out of their duties. This is true of parents that birth a child as well. There are many people out there who treat their children as an afterthought and continue with a “single” life as they did previously. They are in the wrong as much as a woman who shirks her responsibility to the child SHE created.
That HAS to make logical sense. Not only is this an intense “moral” issue for everyone, but on a pragmatic scale it has everything to do with personal responsibility. And far to often these days, people look for an excuse or an “out” instead of being a competent and honorable human being. That happens to be another reason our nation is in the mess it's in.
“The RNC insurance plan covers elective abortions. Hmmmmmm. Maybe your own house is not in order?”
Hey wait a darned minute, Green.
I'm a DEMOCRAT!
I'll be blunt. I resent this strongly. Perhaps you simply dismissed my statement earlier that I'm pro-choice? Or maybe because I took offense at your belittling / demeaning or pro-lifers in this post, you thought I was being disingenuous?
I know you are pro-choice, Polimom. I don't question that. I just don't understand why you have been saying to me that *you* don't understand why I can't see that I'm demeaning people who think abortion is murder, but you have not said — as far as I am aware — that you understand why many women (Digby and me being the two obvious ones at the moment) see a double standard in the way men's privacy is treated with regard to sexual and reproductive issues. I am not saying that Viagra and abortion are the same thing or that they have the same definition or do the same thing. I am saying that there's this deeper issue for many women than just the obvious surface dissimilarity between Viagra and abortion. I am saying that in an important way you don't appear to acknowledge, they are similar.
I am truly sorry that what I wrote offended you. It was not intended to offend you, and more than that, I didn't expect that it would. I thought it was straightforward that you hadn't acknowledged the point I made above. If you feel that I've misunderstood, please tell me. I feel that in certain ways you have misunderstood *my* position, and if that's the way I feel, then I am obliged (and want to) be open to any way in which I have misunderstood you.
“LOL, DaGoat, so because you “have no problem” with taxpayer-funded erectile dysfunction medication, and it's a “minor issue” to you, that means, objectively, that Digby is being juvenile”
DaGoat said that he “has no problem” with NOT funding ED meds with tax-payer money. It seems this thread (so far, I haven't made my way through all 111 comments) can be paraphrased like so:
Liberals: If you are going to restrict government funds for abortions because you are morally opposed, then I'm going to pretend I morally object to ED meds and restrict government funds for them to. Let's see how you like that!
Conservatives: Um, ok, sure, whatever.
Liberals: See! You're all a bunch of hypocrites.
If someone has a moral objection to ED meds being funding by the federal government, I invite them to do the same thing that pro-lifers do: call you representatives. Make your opinions heard. Form groups to fight for what you think is right. That's what democracy is all about. More power to you.
That HAS to make logical sense. Not only is this an intense “moral” issue for everyone, but on a pragmatic scale it has everything to do with personal responsibility. And far to often these days, people look for an excuse or an “out” instead of being a competent and honorable human being. That happens to be another reason our nation is in the mess it's in.
JD, it does make logical sense — except in the cases it doesn't. Abortion is not *always* an indication of personal irresponsibility. In fact, often it's not. Sometimes — many times — a woman who has an abortion is actually acting *responsibly.* How can that be? Well, because every time a woman gets pregnant, the reason for her being pregnant is not *always* that she was having recreational sex and didn't use birth control. Both Almoderate and I have written here more than once about specific situations in which a woman who wanted her pregnancy might have to end it. It's not irresponsible to have an abortion when the fetus has a fatal genetic condition that causes immense suffering — immense suffering, JD; unimaginable if you haven't seen it up close and personal — and a total lifespan of two and a half to five years — all but the first few months of which are spent in ghastly discomfort and suffering. That's not irresponsible. If someone made the choice to have a child knowing the child had this condition, I would respect that, but I do not think that making the choice I made was irresponsible.
It is not irresponsible to have an abortion if the pregnancy involves serious threats to the health or life of the mother. Especially if the pregnancy was wanted — which it is in many if not most cases.
Women are responsible and morally capable creatures, JD — for the most part. Same as men. No different.
It's pretty incredible that people think that promiscuous women are the only ones who get abortions.
Especially people who have been told over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that it's a misconception to think only promiscuous women have abortions. With supporting details, too.
Thanks for acknowleging the logic in my statement, Kat.
But you have to go back and read, and I mean REALLY read my last post.
I wasn't referring to women who HAD to have an abortion. I was referring to women who CHOSE to have an abortion. There is a vast difference there. I will not self-righteously stand here and say that there is no time a woman must be allowed an abortion.
As I have repeatedly stated….
1. Incest
2. Rape
3. Life of the mother.
4. Stillborn child – can't develop
5. Ectopic pregnancy (in the follopian tube for those who were unaware)
I'm sure there are more.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THESE INSTANCES. These are the exception and not the rule.
The personal responsibility argument I made above does not include these women. It's not their fault they were raped, molested, or that their baby is endangering their life.
For the women who IRRESPONSIBLY get pregnant with little regard to consequence or who arent financially or emotionally not ready for a child and have sex anyway – THAT is personal irresponsibility.
I respect your well thought-out explanation of your position on abortion, Kathy. And for the record, although I am pro-life I don't equate abortion to murder.
With regards to this:
“If a fetus has rights equal to a woman's, then the very least one can say is that the fetus's rights and the woman's rights are in conflict. “
True. The rights of the two are in conflict (since you are assuming for the sake of argument that the unborn child has rights). But you have come to the conclusion then that the rights of the mother should always win out. I agree in the case that the life of the mother is at risk. If, in a simplistic case, the choice is between the life of the mother or the life of the baby, very few people would side with the baby in that case. However, very often that is not the case. Very often abortions are performed not because of dire medical concerns but because the mother and/or father decides that they are just not ready.
In the unfortunate circumstance when we are forced to balance the rights of one person against the rights of another person (which can happen even outside of the abortion issue), the extent to which rights are being violated seems relevant to me. If we have to choose between one person living or another person suffering some lesser injustice (like being forced to carry a baby to term), it seems reasonable that we should side with the person whose life is at stake. So, I wouldn't say that the life of the baby is more important than the life of the mother, but I would say that if we consider them to have equal rights, the rights of the baby are infringed on to a much greater degree if the abortion occurs, compared to the rights of the mother that are infringed on by being forced to carry the baby to term. This is especially true when you consider that raising a child is not the only alternative to abortion–there is adoption.
Now, I expect I might get a reaction like, “not all abortions are just because the mother is not ready–sometimes there are complications, etc.”. Yes, I have children and know too well that pregnancy can involve complications. So, as a preemptive defense, I would be perfectly willing to accept a law that restricts abortion except in the case of a pre-natal complication, even a non-life threatening one, and of course in the case of rape or incest.
I also realize that you were only considering that the child has rights for the sake of argument, and you don't really hold that position. So I don't expect that above to change your mind regarding abortion. However, I offer it as an attempt to help you understand where the other side is coming from, just as you did very well at explaining your own side.
You wrongly equate pregnancy and a life inside a woman's uterus – one of the most beautiful things on planet earth – a deformation or condition to be “fixed? I'll give every penny I have and hock every possession I own for the life of a child. Your $30K doesn't cover the worth of the child in a woman's uterus.
This moves me and angers me at the same time.
Let me ask you something. You say that the life inside a woman's uterus is one of the most beautiful things on planet earth. What would be your assessment of the beauty or lack of beauty of the life outside a woman's uterus?
Another question: Can you identify the point at which a child is no longer worth every penny you have and every possession you own? Is it when they stop being “cute”? Or when they hit adolescence? Maybe when they turn 18? Is a female child no longer one of the most beautiful things on planet earth when she is not a child anymore? How about when she's 24? Or 38? Or 59? When does a woman's life become something less than one of the most beautiful things on planet earth?
Actually, that was more than one question. So it goes.
These are the exception and not the rule.
Except that they are *not* the exception. They may not be the rule, either, but they're not exceptional cases. There are many such cases — and certainly many more than most people would think.
So, as a preemptive defense, I would be perfectly willing to accept a law that restricts abortion except in the case of a pre-natal complication, even a non-life threatening one, and of course in the case of rape or incest.
By a prenatal complication, I'm assuming you are referring to one that affects the mother's health or life, not the fetus's.
What would you conclude about a pregnancy in which the fetus had a significant deformity or abnormality, or a medical condition that was incompatible with life? I'm not talking about a cleft palate here or even mild Down's syndrome. I'm talking about no brain in the skull or only the brain stem. That happened to the sister-in-law of a former co-worker. I'm talking about severe Down's syndrome or developmental disorders that will prevent the child, if born, from ever being able to do even simple tasks or have any kind of independent life. I'm talking about a fatal genetic condition like Tay-Sachs, in which the child, if born, is guaranteed to die by the age of five and suffer horribly until that day. As I've already mentioned, that happened to me.
Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion in cases like these?
However, I offer it as an attempt to help you understand where the other side is coming from, just as you did very well at explaining your own side.
Understood.
Why should some medical conditions be covered by health insurance while other medical conditions not be covered by health insurance?
Erectile dysfunction is a medical condition. As such I think the drugs which treat it should be covered by insurance. The benefits of sexual intercourse are numerous, not just for immediate pleasure. Sexual intercourse relieves stress, brings us closer to other people, makes us happier people and sometimes results in pregnancies and births of beautiful people. How many of us have ever said (or thought), “He (or she) needs to get laid?” I hope most of us realize that sex is not just about immediate gratification, at least not all the time.
Which of these benefits are not worthy of treatment?
AustinRoth's original comment nailed it on the head…. Sex isn't just about a man getting it up for his pleasure alone; it takes two to tango. How many of us, men and women, would be grumpy, or irritated if our partner (male or female) could never again have sex with us? If your partner said they could never have sex with you again, would you just accept it or would you try to find a treatment?
As far as the pure pleasure aspect…. Doesn't medicine exist to make our lives more comfortable? Who among us have NEVER seen a doctor for a cold or flu or headaches? Sometimes we go to doctors knowing full and well that we will recover from a nasty flu or cold but there are drugs that we can take which will help us recover faster and make us feel better. If people do not believe that ED should be covered because ED is not a “medical necessity”, meaning it is not a life or death situation, then where do we draw the line in providing treatment for other non life-threatening situations which people regularly expect their doctors to treat?
And of course there are some people who do abuse Viagra. But many other drugs are abused, too. So should we not cover the cost of any drug which might be abused? No. It is up to the doctor to provide an accurate diagnosis. Drugs which treat erectile dysfunction are like any other drug used for any other medical condition.
“By a prenatal complication, I'm assuming you are referring to one that affects the mother's health or life, not the fetus's.”
No, I was referring to complications which affect the mother or the fetus.
“Let me ask you something. You say that the life inside a woman's uterus is one of the most beautiful things on planet earth. What would be your assessment of the beauty or lack of beauty of the life outside a woman's uterus?”
I do not understand what you are asking. (?) Beauty or lack of beauty. Pregnancy is not to be classed with visual beauty. For example, “pretty” girls are not always beautiful. Unattractive girls can be beautiful. The same applies to men. Since I have no idea what you are talking about, I cannot answer correctly.
And your assessment of beauty seems to be sexist.
All women are beautiful to me. There have been few exceptions, but those were vile women full of hatred with no inner or outer beauty. Their hatred permiated their facial expressions and blackened their hearts – true lack of beauty. Men are the same way. We are a bit more simplistic that women in general, however.
Life is beautiful until it is overcome by evil – any and all forms of hate.
That is the point when ANYONE becomes “un”beautiful. And it's a progressive condition that snowballs. The longer people stay in that state, the harder it is to overcome.
So, since you didn't address my last post……
I'll say it again. I did not say that women who NEEDED abortion were promiscuous. The vast majority of abortions do not fit into this category. Women who seek to erase their mistakes (fail to step up to the duty they have CREATED) are irresponsible.
Stockboy….
No one is saying that sex is bad. Go for it. Enjoy! I personally believe it should remain within marriage (which eliminates a whole host of marital problems later for those who do not), but that is everyone's right to believe otherwise.
All we are stating is that those who “relieve stress” without precaution, or without any consideration to the vast responsibility that a child can bring; should not expect for society to bail them out with abortion. That's the moral side. The pragmatic side is that of personal responsibility itself. No one these days wants to take responsibility for their actions. That's a problem we shouldn't enable.
JeffersonDavis, thanks. My comment was geared towards the topic of the post: paying for erectile dysfunction. Nothing in my comments should be construed to address the separate (though closely related) issue of abortion which naturally cropped up. Sorry if my comment wasn't clear.
No, actually, you completely misunderstood what I was asking. (My fault, not yours). I wasn't comparing pregnancy to visual beauty. I was comparing your lyrical, rapturous tone when talking about unborn life inside the womb, to your condemning, judgmental tone when talking about what you call “promiscuous” women.
There certainly are promiscuous women, just as there are promiscuous men (Magic Johnson comes to mind, i.e.. Also David Duchovny, who we are told has a medical condition called “sex addiction.”) People are not perfect. In a word, people are not innocent. No one past the age of 12 is entirely innocent anymore. Fetuses are innocent. But their innocence has no moral content, because there is no choice involved.
Wanted pregnancies should be nurtured and cherished. And children are beautiful in their openness, in their sense of wonder, in their ability to be totally present in the moment, and in many other ways.
Having said that, I perceive more beauty in the moral complexity of a living person who has experienced and overcome and survived, who has compromised and made imperfect choices, than I do in the mere simple innocence,of a human life which has not yet been born, and thus of course cannot possibly have done anything wrong or made any bad choices.
I did not say that women who NEEDED abortion were promiscuous. The vast majority of abortions do not fit into this category.
And this is simply not true.
“compared to the rights of the mother that are infringed on by being forced to carry the baby to term”
This isn't as much a reply to you, but to all who bring it up. I've asked this question before, but never got an answer: Does anyone know of a woman who was “forced to carry the baby to term”, that is, they didn't get an abortion because they couldn't afford it?
Kathy, in this comment you repeatedly refer to prolifers as not 'getting' this point or not respecting it, but you fail to realize that the flip side of that is completely true for you. You, in this comment, after being pressed on it, say that you intellectually understand why some people consider abortion murder- but you show no understanding of how that concept motivates a deep, unwavering commitment to protect the fetal life. Instead, your initial comment to me was that unless I can prove otherwise, people who say that they believe in right to life for the fetus are actually motivated by a desire to repress women. That's incredibly offensive, but until several people pushed you into it you refused to state your position in less obnoxious ways.
What you seem incapable of is understanding that people can SEE your viewpoint but disagree with it. It seems that unless people hear you out and decide that you are correct and they are wrong, that you will continue to believe that they (we) are oblivious to your viewpoint.
Of course there is a conflict between the rights of the pregnant woman and the fetus. I don't know anyone who denies that or ignores it. Most prolifers feel though that the right to life is such a primary and inalienable right that it trumps other concerns (which doesn't mean necessarily that we take those other concerns lightly.)
But 'the law', in the case of legal restrictions on abortion, doesn't 'do' anything to a woman's body- it proscribes what she can or cannot do to another individual. She and her sexual partner were the ones who 'did' something to her body. This is one emotional touchpoint that I see in your beliefs (and those of many other ardent abortion rights supporters, particularly female ones.) It appears to me that the crux of your argument really is that it's unfair that women have no choice by nature but to be the ones who can get impregnated during an act of intercourse, so that they can't just walk away from the consequences like men can. You seem to feel that the law should step in to remedy that by providing her with the choice of abortion. I think that's wrongly reasoned, and I also think it is a mistake for feminists to look to this as a solution. With abortion rights in place (meaning abortion on demand, not just abortions which are medically necessary for a woman's health, or rape/incest, or severe fetal abnormalities), I feel that men are actually MORE absolved of responsibility than ever before. A man is free to have sex and let the woman then bear the burden of 'choice' if she becomes pregnant as a result. So, there's a levelling of the playing field theoretically, to give the woman options to undo a pregnancy, but she is the one on whom the burden still falls and many women bear emotional scars about a choice that they really didn't want to make but felt coerced into (either by other people or by circumstance.) The leveling of the playing field is first of all in the wrong direction (trying to absolve both parties of dealing with the consequence of an unplanned pregnancy instead of getting both parties to take more responsibility for it) and it's ultimately unsatisfactory because for many women the choice of abortion has negative consequences potentially as bad or worse than carrying the pregnancy to term would have had.
One final point is in regard to several comments you've made about the reasons that women choose abortions. A few commenters have mentioned that the vast majority of abortions are NOT for the reasons that you had, and you've argued that they are incorrect in that assertion. Have you ever actually read the Guttmacher stats? By far, the majority of women who have abortions state the reasons as things that are called 'social' reasons- they feel they can't afford a child, or the child would inconvenience them, or they don't have a partner who is willing to help raise the child. Now, there's certainly nothing wrong with thinking along those lines- but the point is that for many women and the men that they were involved with, those choices are being made after a pregnancy has occurred instead of beforehand when the decisions wouldn't have necessitated the termination of a fetal life.
Anyway, my point here is that you seem to believe that your own situation is the norm with regard to pregnancy. No one denies that there are many women who face similar circumstances- but as a percentage of the 1 million plus abortions in the US each year, it's a very small fraction. I think you have to realize that most people have a much different reaction to the choice that you made vs. the choice to electively abort a fetus that is unwanted. Your situation shows compassion and care about the child you would have been bringing into the world, and the quality of life that he/she would have had. The other (much more common) situation does not regard the fetus as a growing child at all and makes a choice to dispose of it- even if there is some thought process there too to determine what the quality of life would be for a child under the circumstances, making that decision after the fetus already exists is treating it as an inconvenient ball of tissue instead of an actual human, living being. And its that capriciousness that is morally repugnant to a lot of people.
That infuriates me. But beyond even this, what infuriates me even more is when I am told that I must understand and respect how upsetting it is for people who call themselves “pro-life” to think about women killing their unborn babies, when “pro-lifers” do not have any respect for the sensibility of a woman who feels her body is being violated by being forced to grow something inside it. So they tell you, “A woman isn't *forced* to get pregnant.” Well, this may be true — setting aside the fact that many unviable pregnancies are wanted, so keeping your legs closed is not relevant — but the fact that this woman IS pregnant, and that the embryo or fetus IS inside her body, still remains. The fetus or embryo is literally part of her body. “Pro-lifers” have no respect for this. I have even had anti-choicers (in other online forums, not here) tell me that an unborn baby is *not* part of a woman's body. Of course it's hard to make the case that the unborn baby is not inside the woman's body, but in this view it's not a part of the woman's body at all. It's an entirely separate human being that just happens to be sitting in a container inside her body.
Kathy -
I do not want to keep any 'feud' going between the two us where you feel the need to completely ignore my questions and comments to you.
However, I have been sincere that I have no clue, none, as to what in my original post you found misogynist. I truly want to know what I said, or what you felt was implied in my words, that so offended you.
We have communicated strongly back and forth in the past, but never have either of us gotten to the point of completely refusing to communicate, so I have to assume whatever it was deeply offended you. And again, I have no idea why.
I cannot think of a nicer way to ask you to work through the apparent anger you seem to be feeling towards me about this issue.
“You're full of all kinds of assumptions about me aren't you?”
Not at all JD, I just figured that if you don't consider pregnancy a medical condition then you couldn't possibly have any clue. But it seems you do have children, and still have no clue. So maybe my assumption about you was that your assertion came from a place of ignorance and not from just ignoring the facts.
“Do women purposely perform an act that they KNOW can cause a pregnancy?
YES.”
We don't withold medical care because people do something willingly that can cause a medical condition. We treat people who fall off of bikes. We treat people who cook hot things in the kitchen. We treat people who eat too much fat and cholesterol. We treat people who do all sorts of things that can and do cause medical conditions.
“Your $30K doesn't cover the worth of the child in a woman's uterus”
No, it doesn't. But it sure does become something of a stumbling block if you don't happen to have $30K to keep yourself and your potential child healthy. Doesn't it?
“A person that has sex regardless of the consequences, is by defintition, promiscuous.”
From dictionary.com: promiscuous — characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.
Obviously, you didn't know the correct definition in the “by definition” part of your comment, so I've generously provided it for you. Now go rethink your statement, with the consideration that I probably would have gotten an abortion if I had gotten pregnant in the last few years, during which I've been in a very stable and monogamous relationship with someone who is now my husband. Also consider that roughly half of abortions where “I can't afford a child” is given as the reason are for women who already have children. (Check out Guttmacher for this stat.)
“Yes, I do expect a woman to carry to term.”
Good for you. Luckily, your expections of the women of the world are not law, and aren't particularly important to anyone but the women in your own life. See, women are allowed to have expectations *of themselves*, and for some women, those expectations don't involve carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.
@dduck12: “Many women are also asking their docs for libido enhancers. That ok?”
I'm not pretending to tell women what's best for their healthcare. Again: you're totally missing the point. I am not, nor is the original post, saying there's anything wrong with getting ED drugs, or libido enhancers, as the case may be. On the contrary, the point is that it is entirely inappropriate to tell other people what sorts of medical treatments they do and do not need.
“Does anyone know of a woman who was “forced to carry the baby to term”, that is, they didn't get an abortion because they couldn't afford it?”
Yes. Couldn't afford it, didn't have a ride to the nearest urban area to get it, didn't realize it was an option, was threatened by the father or her parents if she did get it, didn't realize she was pregnant until after month 3 and couldn't make it 3 states over to get the more difficult procedure, and on and on and on. So: not just money, but access and pressure from others. BTW, these are not hypotheticals. I did Spanish-English translation at clinics a while back.
Austin,
Thank you. I'm going to post separately with an explanation. I wanted to post this to forestall any assumption on your part that I'm ignoring your request. What you need to understand is that (a) my circadian cycle is such that I am up very late and then sleep very late. It's 2 pm now and I just got up maybe half an hour ago, and just turned on the computer and just saw this request. I haven't even had my first cup of coffee yet.
You should take this as a sign of my regard for you that I'm explaining all this as opposed to just waiting until I'm awake to respond.
There will be a post here later this afternoon with an explanation.
Austin,
You wrote,
This whole debate seems to assume there is no benefit for women when their man has to take Viagra.
Okay. When I saw this, it angered me for a couple of reasons. Maybe most immediately important, it pushed a button: I have seen this sentiment expressed before, and there is a dismissive quality to it: as though the issue we were discussing — of public funding being denied for abortion but included for erectile-enhancing medication — was trivial and unimportant when placed next to the unquestionable benefit to women of an erect penis.
Also, although you may not have intended this meaning, your statement emphasized that very point (which had been explicitly mentioned here by, I think, roro), that it's just naturally assumed that the physical and psychological benefits of Viagra to the relationship between a man and a woman *are* benefits, while simultaneously ignoring or dismissing the fact that ending an unwanted, unviable pregnancy has similar very real benefits for that same relationship. Also, just focusing on the man, it is so taken for granted that a man being able to perform sexually is so so extremely important — to the man, to the relationship — but it is just totally ignored that a woman being able to have an abortion when she needs one is just as much of a benefit for a woman (and ultimately for any relationship she's in) as have the operational equipment to *make* a woman pregnant is for a man.
And this brings me to the third aspect of this that angered me. This underlying message, or assumption, that a woman should weep in despair when her man's penis isn't working, and leap for joy when it's “fixed” flies in the face of the *other* underlying message (and sometimes not so underlying — often, in fact) that if a woman doesn't want children, she should abstain from sex. Sex is for procreation, not for pleasure, right? If a woman isn't ready for a pregnancy, she should not have sex at all. She should keep her legs closed. If she chooses to have sex, which she should never, ever be having at all, in her life, ever, unless she is prepared to get pregnant and have a baby, then if she does get pregnant, it is her fault, her doing, her choice, her responsibility — and the man…. Wait a minute. What man? Do you see a man around here? I don't.
The hypocrisy and the double standard inherent in touting the benefits of Viagra for a man while heaping all the blame on the woman for the results of sexual activity is unjust, and infuriating.
I understand (now) that you probably did not intend all of this baggage to accompany your statement. I only ask that you take another look and see how I could have taken it that way.
Also, by the way, I have not been ignoring you because of the original statement you made. I've been ignoring you because of the way you asked for an explanation. Your tone. There was a lot of mean-spirited, ad hominem, insulting, and belligerent stuff in there. When I saw your new comment — the one I'm responding to now — all my anger vanished. Words are powerful.
Kathy — You're awesome. Whole thread. (((hugs)))
Thank you, roro.
ME: “I did not say that women who NEEDED abortion were promiscuous. The vast majority of abortions do not fit into this category.”
YOU: “And this is simply not true.”
Kathy…. I have provided sources for my statement. YOU have not. Back up your statement. I already have.
“if you don't consider pregnancy a medical condition then you couldn't possibly have any clue. “
I didn't say it was not a medical condition. GEEZ!!!!! I said that it wasn't a “disease or affliction” like cancer, flu, a fleck in your eye, etc. Diseases and afflictions are not a “direct” result of your actions that you should take responsibility for. Pregnancy is a “direct” result of unsafe sex (irresponsibility).
Why do you keep suggesting that pregnancy is just like these diseases?
And I stand corrected by the “promiscuous” definition. But besides symantics, which obviously is more important that the meat of the argument I presented; my assertion stands, correctly, that unwanted pregnancies are from lack of self control, or lack of precaution. If I do not want cancer, there is nothing I can do to stop it. If I do not want a child, I can CHOOSE not to have sex.
“your expectations of women….aren't particularly important to anyone but the women in your own life”
It isn't MY expectations I am worried about, Roro. It should be SOCIETY'S expectations for self-discipline and personal responsibility. Like I said before, that is a HUGE problem in America. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions. It's tied to the entitlement mentality of liberals.
“if she does get pregnant, it is her fault, her doing, her choice, her responsibility — and the man…. Wait a minute. What man? Do you see a man around here? I don't.
”
Once again, you are man hating. Above, I outlined personal responsibility for both men and women. Safe sex is the responsibility of both parties. Stepping up to their duty and responsibility when a child is CREATED; is the responsibility of both parties. This is a problem within our culture. Sex is seen as a hobby or something to be taken lightly. It just isn't the case. Many responsibilities are involved in the “simple” act of having sex. If a man isn't “around”, then bust his butt in court for everything he has. If he doesn't have the honor to step up, then he must be forced to do so. If a woman doesn't have the honor to step up, she too must be forced to do so.
I was not clear. I meant that the female version should also be covered, per the ORIGINAL topic of this thread.
Dostoevsky called. He said the horse was still dead.
“Diseases and afflictions are not a “direct” result of your actions that you should take responsibility for.”
(a) How about falling off a bike? You CHOSE to ride the bike, knowing that you could fall off. You CHOSE to eat at McDonald's every day, so we're not going to cover your double bypass. You CHOSE to deep fry those potatoes, so we're not going to cover the treatment for the burn.
(b) having an abortion IS taking responsibility for her actions. The fact that you don't like that option doesn't mean that's not the case. It's just an option that doesn't change the rest of your entire life.
“which obviously is more important that the meat of the argument I presented”
But it's not semantics. The point is that YOU do not know the circumstances behind the abortion of anyone. That's not semantics — that's the real life issues involved in a decision that you do not and should not have any control over.
” It should be SOCIETY'S expectations for self-discipline and personal responsibility.”
Again: abortion is one way to take responsibility. Sometimes it is the best way to take responsibility.
Your comment was in reply to me, perhaps by mistake (?), so I figured it had something to do with my comment. If not, ok I guess, but surely you can see my confusion.
I apologize. I meant the whole thread.
“Safe sex is the responsibility of both parties.”
Yet it's very easy for one of the parties to skirt this responsibility, and essentially impossible for the other party. “Busting his butt” is a great option for those rich women whose men take off. Otherwise, out of luck. Your refusal to understand and acknowledge this very real distinction comes off as at best ignorance or at worst woman hating. If Kathy comes off as “man-hating”, hell, I can't really blame her.
“Yes. Couldn't afford it, didn't have a ride to the nearest urban area to get it, didn't realize it was an option, was threatened by the father or her parents if she did get it…”
Which still sounds like this whole discussion is about something that won't make a bit of difference in the real world.
Roro…. we can spend all of our time going through every single knee scuff, eye problem, and tumor possible. None are the same as a pregnancy. It's a good attempt to further your belief, but it's not the case. Riding a bike does not directly result in falling off a bike. Riding a bike INCORRECTLY results in falling off of a bike. Having sex does not directly result in pregnancy, but having UNPROTECTED sex does.
Do you not see that point?
One again, I can only go by the reasons women give for abortions. 9% or less are for reasons other than choice (rape, incest, medical requirement, life of the mother).
My argument is not inclusive of these.
Abortion is NOT a way to take responsibility. It is a way to SHIRK responsibility.
Adoption is a way to take responsibility. Not having sex or having safe sex are ways to take responsibility.
“Your refusal to understand and acknowledge this very real distinction comes off as at best ignorance or at worst woman hating”
That's crap, roro. And you darned well know it.
Once again, you use the EXCEPTION to validate the MAJORITY. Just like Kathy.
Which, by the way, kathy has yet to address the issues I pointed out.
She doesn't care about answers, only about her opinion being right.
As are you.