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

And of course the guys here had to turn it into a referendum on my personal character and my personal decision making, rather than recognizing the point--which is that *in the real world* pregnancy is dangerous *and* happens without our knowing its happening, and that it's actually *quite* easy to get through the first trimester without knowing you're pregnant.

And the reactions in this comment thread are leading to another point, which is that *the entire reason* that (some) people's opinions on abortion are asinine (and those people really "should" shut up) is that they're offering opinions without knowing what the hell they're talking about, and their ideas about how *other people* "should" behave are unrealistic, smug, and (ahem) sexist.

You said it, we didn't.

Seriously, sometimes I think some guys deliberately act like dumbasses in order to bait women into saying "all men are dumbasses" so that they can start shrieking about how sexist we are.

Nah, I don't think it's question-begging. A zygote isn't a baby; it's about four undifferentiated cells. DNA is a map, of sorts, or a blueprint: it's not the thing it maps or blueprints.

The problem with the argument that a zygote (or an embryo, or a fetus, or for some freaky people an unfertilized egg) = "a baby" is that it erases the role of women in, y'know, actually turning the egg+sperm/zygote/embryo/fetus *into* a baby.

I'd be begging the question if I said a zygote isn't "human life," but that's not quite the same thing.

Re. "right to know" vs. "has to inform"--I still disagree. The parents may have a right to know (in most cases), but that doesn't mean that the law has to necessarily enforce that right, especially when it conflicts with (say) the girl's right to get medical care. It depends on what one means when one is discussing "rights"--do we mean, things that the law already recognizes and enforces, or do we mean things that the law *should* recognize? When I'm talking about women's rights, alas, usually I'm discussing the latter.

SQ, you rock--for this, and all your other comments in this thread.

A woman's relationship with her body has nothing to do with me at all. I agree with that. However, there are people who think abortion is wrong, and I'd argue that using the phrase "I can't be bothered..." will only enrage these people and drive them to act, with results that only make abortions more difficult to obtain, and likely less safe. Why do I think this? Well, it certainly made me think twice about my stance (which, as you've stated, doesn't fucking matter). But there are those who think their stance does matter, and though your position may be the one which maximizes freedom in a perfect world, you may want to consider the effect that your language will have on your message.

In other words, you're right - but beware stirring up the crazies, lest it do more harm than good.

Yeah, you're right. I don't have much else in the way of a response, but I like to give credit where it's due.

I'm wondering if you can quote anything I've said about abortion that backs up the point you're trying to segue into there.

Well sometimes it doesn't need to be said... y'know. *shrug*

You honestly don't think that kind of bait-and-switch is gender-specific, do you?

An uncharacteristically well-written and well-argued post. I particularly liked the comparison of forced pregnancy to involuntary servitude.

I do, however, think your argument loses some stability because you rely in certain parts on the intellectual crutch of morality, claiming in particularly that forced servitude is "morally wrong." If you're going to claim that this is some sort of universal truth than you are devoid of all logic and reason. Morality is inherently relative, and is determined by the particularly religious/philosophical beliefs of the individual.

While I'll concede that most people in this country would agree with your statement, for your to then take that and use it as justification for stating an arbitrary belief as a concrete fact must invariably call all the rest of your argument into serious question.

Again, though, I am simply playing Devil's Advocate. On a personal level, I can never seem to shake the idea that this whole subject is silly to argue over, simply because I can easily put myself in a woman's metaphorical shoes, and can then easily imagine the horror of someone telling me that I have no choice but to let some long, painful biological process take place that will have physical consequences to me, potentially serious risk.

To me that seems straight out of 1984, so I can only begin to imagine how shortsighted and narrow the view of the world must be for those who call themselves so ironically "pro-life."

thankfully, science has designed a way to create sperm from a woman's own bone cells. eventually, men will be replaced and this whole debate will become a moot point. viva la science!

Amen. My own sister went for six months without realising she was pregnant. She still had periods, she didn't gain weight, no morning sickness and had virtually no belly to speak of even by six months. The only symptom she ever had was indigestion in the early stages, which she went to the doctor about and even he failed to pick up on it.