NEWS: There's a Difference Between "Should" and "Must"

CULTURE: There's a Difference Between "Should" and "Must"

On Friday, New Hampshire got rid of its parental notification law. Good for New Hampshire (although effectively this doesn't change anything--the law had never been enforced because of a court challenge). The issue at stake was that it didn't contain any health provision; thankfully the Governor of New Hampshire is somewhat more humane than five of the current Supreme Court Justices.

But the real reason I'm posting this is to draw attention to a quotation in the article that gets to the heart of one of the central issues about abortion legislation. Reactionary Republican party chairman

Actually, Mr. Cullen, no. He's not saying that. He's saying that there is a difference between "should"--yes, of course girls ought to talk to their parents about unwanted pregnancies--and "must."

Which is the gist of abortion legislation, in a nutshell. We can all sit around all day thinking of things other people should, or shouldn't, do. I think people shouldn't drive when they can walk. But, you know, we oughta think through the ethics and consequences of making our personal shoulds into law. Ethically, it's pretty fundamental that pregnancy is an imposition and sacrifice, that human DNA is not a "baby," and that a woman isn't just a mason jar--her body is doing the necessary work to turn human DNA *into* a baby, and inasmuch as forced servitude is morally wrong, trying to pass laws to force women to use their bodies to produce children is wrong. Period.

But those who can't quite grasp that concept should, at least, be able to think a little bit about the practical consequences of trying to control fundamental and involuntary human activities through legislation. For instance, contrast the situation in Mississippi, where there's one abortion clinic, a two-parent notification requirement, a 24-hour waiting period, and abortion's illegal after the 12th week--with the situation in, oh, say, Nepal. (Both links are to Salon, so you may have to watch an ad to read 'em.) I, for one, didn't even know I was pregnant until I was about 12 weeks along--I can't be bothered to track my stupid periods every month, we were using condoms, and time flies when you're having fun. And I wasn't a teenage girl (young women often have pretty irregular periods), or using a form of contraception that messes up your cycle. But I believe I *did* have some spotting in the first month--which isn't unusual--which I mistook for a period. So anyhoo, in Mississippi I would have been shit out of luck, especially if I'd had to add to not figuring it out needing to get up the guts to tell both my parents, track down one of 'em if he weren't around, save money and schedule time off to travel to Jackson, and wait around for 24 hours in order to go through with the procedure.

Which is of course the point, and yay Mississippi, more poor and young women are surely having babies they can't support and don't want as a result.

But, as Nepal's finding out, one consequence of trying to make abortion go away by making it "illegal" is that women who can't support and don't want children . . . will go ahead and try to abort anyway. After all, it's their damn body, and unless you're willing to put all childbearing women under constant surveillance, we're going to be able to do what we want with our bodies. And Nepal's figured out that, in the absence of competent medical help, that's gonna mean people dying.

But most people don't really want to put women under constant surveillance, and in fact most pro-lifers don't really want to make abortion illegal--they just want to make it impossible to get, because they think that doing so will somehow make it go away. Hence the logic that doctors should be controlled and burdened with legislation and the threat of jail, combined with the reluctance to recognize that if abortion = murder, women ought to go to jail. And of course, most attempts to legislate abortion operate on this principle--the threat of punishment is against the provider who doesn't obtain both parents' signatures, or who doesn't require the 24-hour waiting period, etc.

Which works because the provider isn't the one that's pregnant, and therefore is truly in a position to "choose" between performing an abortion or going to jail. Pregnancy not being a choice--which is to say, it isn't something one decides to do through conscious action, y'know; it just kinda happens--women aren't really able to "choose" to continue a pregnancy.

Not unless we can choose not to.

Bitch_PhD doesn't really want to deal with the inevitable argument that women can too choose to become pregnant. No; they can choose to try to become pregnant--but whether or not they do so isn't up to them. Otherwise there would be no infertility, and no need for birth control.

amen, sister. amen.

This is the only thing I have ever read that has made me question being pro-choice. I still am, of course, but it horrifies me to think that by defending abortion I am encouraging women to be ignorant of what is going on with their bodies.

Sweetie, get over yourself. Women's relationship with their bodies doesn't really depend on your opinion as much as you'd like to think.

VERY well-said (written)!

Here is the one thing that i never understood about this debate. How is parental notification that different from the parents right to make other medical choices for their children? In those situations the parents do have the right to make the choices although if a disagreement about treatment the court can step in. I am not saying abortion should be illegal but parental notification doesn't seem that out of step of other laws that govern parents and their children's medical choices.

Enjoyed the article, thank you.

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. Bronchitis isn't a choice, nor is cancer or a car accident. It's the parents' responsibility to care for their children. Consensual sex is a choice. They've made the choice to have sex, they should decide how to deal with the consequences of it. Rape is different, but I still think it's up to the affected to decide how to handle it.

That being said, I think parental notification is a smart idea, but not one that should be legislated. People should take responsibility for their own actions and decide how to deal with the consequences how they feel fit, even if they choose to do it the dumb way.

(EDIT: Grammar fix and I repeated myself so many times it's like I repeated myself several times.)

It is kind of ironic (or is it?) that in past threads you've categorized pregnancy as an extremely risky medical condition that should be taken very very seriously. Going so far as to list all of the possible health risks in detail. Then in this thread you say you couldn't be bothered to do a simple check on whether you were or were not pregnant. Not for 12 weeks after conception. Not a big deal really, just kind of amusing to me.

*applause*

So I'm supposed to take a pregnancy test every four weeks? Gimme a break.

But do you deny what he's saying?

-TM

Good write, deep issues, thanks.

Do you usually go 3 months without a period?

Conversely, I know women who do go more than a month between periods. There are a lot of reasons why that can happen.

I know it would be so very much easier if periods came like clockwork every twenty-eight days, with a precise flow level and duration, and made it so that you'd have to be a total idiot not to realize immediately that you're pregnant, but unfortunately that's not the case. (Notice, if you will, that thus far none of the commentors of the menstruational variety have expressed extreme shock at the idea that a woman might not automatically know at her next period that she is pregnant. Not to play the "you're a man, you don't understand" card, but.)

Did you read the post? I had some breakthrough bleeding--not unusual in the early stage of a pregnancy--which I mistook for a period.

Also, not that it's any of your goddamn business, but my normal cycle isn't 28 days; it's more like 35. Which means that at ten weeks, I'd only missed one period (which I thought I'd had, b/c of the breakthrough bleeding). So two weeks after the first period I knew I'd missed, I went and got a pregnancy test.

The fact that you guys think you have the right to second-guess this crap without knowing the details, or how women's cycles and/or pregnancy work, is precisely why you oughta shut the fuck up on abortion, n'est-ce pas?

My friend didn't know she was pregnate until almost four months in because her periods are so speratic because of all sorts of lady part problems and before hand she started gaining weight because she was doing the comfort food thing. So, you never know.

To simplify -- "one prick, no vote". & no, I'm not being sarcastic; nor am I saying that only females should have any say in governmental deliberations with respect to abortion. But abortion is an area where the protagonist should lead the discussion.

"Do you remember when my last period was?" isn't that strange of a question. Hell, we were *trying* to get pregnant and my wife still took multiple tests to be absolutely sure (cause her body wasn't telling her so). It isn't rocket science, it is biology... and it doesn't alway go smoothly.

If you don't want babies... use multiple forms of birth control if you can afford it. Abortions are and should be, a last resort.

You're telling me that, instead of responding to CKDexterHaven's post, which made an honest point, with answering his questions, or @least saying "not all periods are the same, here's why" in a civilized manner, you go back to bashing us all simply because we have penii? Perish the thought!

Maybe, instead of telling us to "shut the fuck up on abortion" (which is ignorant to a point I won't even acknowledge) you could be a little more willing to educate and give the benefit of the doubt?

But no, that'd be too easy.

And BTW, you still never denied CKs claim.

-TM

Yes sir. From here on out, I'll shut the fuck up about abortion. I'll quit espousing my tainted pro-choice views, and challenging your rigid views on the subject. And I encourage all other men who don't know each woman's specific cycles to do the same. Take Bitch PhD's advice and keep your mouth shut about abortion. Leave the discussion and activism to the ladies. Good plan, good plan.

Admittedly I painted with a broad brush. I should have said "some" of you guys oughta shut the fuck up.

And if you think the real issue here is that it's rude of me to "bash" someone who makes presumptions about women without actually knowing what he's talking about--as opposed to, say, the rudeness of making such presumptions in the first place--then I submit that you, too, might wanna rethink some of your sense of entitlement.

Point to where I said I was "entitled." All I said was that things could've been said nicer. Was I a little...snarky about it? Yes. But I still feel my opinion is valid.

After reading the pertinent part of the article (the article, as a whole, I agreed w/wholeheartedly, and it's well-written to boot) I can understand your argument better. But simply because we, as males, don't have periods, get pregnant, have abortions, etc. shouldn't make us unqualified to comment on such, nor be insulted to attempting to do so.

Pregnancy and abortion don't always affect the women only. Far from it.

-TM