This is what happens when the state has control of reproduction

Comments

41 comments posted
I call Godwin's!

You lose

There is, incidentally, no constitutionally guaranteed right to reproduction.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai (not verified) on 22 December 2005 - 12:01pm
Sounds like Nazi apologia

You know, when people start sounding and behaving like Nazis, maybe it's worth noting. Personally I consider the behavior much much worse than the word.

And you're absolutely right, the State has no constitutional power over reproduction. Therefore, the right is reserved by the people.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 22 December 2005 - 2:24pm
Well, that's one way to look at it. Alternatively...

The State can, using proper democratic processes, put into law any regulation of any freedom not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. I can't drive without a license, though driving isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution. I can't smoke in certain restaurants, sell pornography to a 17-year-old or carry a gun on my hip in most states. There's no sanctity of the body, either: I am forced -- forced! -- to submit to a medical examination before I get a driver's license. I can be compelled to give up a DNA sample and can face criminal prosecution for having sexual relations if I know that I carry a veneral disease.

You may or may not believe some of all of these restrictions to be right or wrong, and I may or may not agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that under current law the State has the right to regulate reproductive rights.

And let's not forget, in a democratic society like the US The State is semantically equivalent to The People.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 22 December 2005 - 4:13pm
Re-read the constitution

...because you missed something:

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, the Constitution does not delinate -- or "enumerate" -- our rights, but rather lays out what the government can and cannot do. If it's not covered there, then the right remains with the people.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 22 December 2005 - 4:33pm
Indeed...

... and as I've previously established, the People are, in a democratic society, equivalent to the State -- in America's case, the individual States which, through duly democratic processes, have the right to make any law they want, so long as those laws don't conflict with the rights enumerated in the constitution.

We seem to be in agreement here, yet I feel that some discord yet exists.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 22 December 2005 - 4:51pm
You still seem to be saying

...that the people only have the rights enumerated in the constitution, and that simply is not the case.

By the by, when this country was founded, women had reproductive rights. The pro-criminalization efforts did not begin until some 100 years after independence, and was not really enforced until sometime in the 20th century. It's a recent attempt by a very vocal minority to strip away rights that, as far as the Government was concerned, women have had since always.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 22 December 2005 - 5:29pm
Not at all -- if I was

Not at all -- if I was unclear, I apologize. The people have the right to do anything they want not precluded by law -- but they also have the legal and proper ability to restrict or remove any rights from their fellow citizens that aren't explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, as long as they use the proper democratic processes. The only point that I'm trying to make is that there is no "right to reproduce" delineated in the Constitution, and therefore it's not unconstitutional for The People to make laws restricting it.

Make no mistake -- I'm necessarily not for laws restricting the right to reproduce. I'm just saying that they're not necessarily illegal.

Anyway, shifting gears from legalized mandatory sterilization for a moment, "modern" medical abortions didn't really exist until the mid-to-late 1800s or so. Before that it was, at best, on par with the so-called "medicine" of the time -- dangerous, nonstandardized, unsanitary and one step up from butchery. Furthermore, it wasn't available to the general public on the scale that it became available starting at around the 1870s. Your point about the beginnings of the illegalization of abortion, while technically correct, doesn't really paint the whole picture -- before the time that the organized anti-abortion movement began, there wasn't really large-scale organized abortion. It's sort of like there weren't very many roads with speed limits before cars became commonplace.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 12:50am
You forget about stare decisis

Supreme Court precedent dictates that there are constitutional rights that are not enumerated but cannot be abridged without Constitutional amendment.

Of course, if you're of the Scalito mind, you'll call that hogwash.

As for abortion before the modern medical era, it was not done the same way, but women's reproduction was not considered property of the State -- except for the slaves, of course. But what are constitutionally recognized are a women's right to equal liberty, due process and privacy. A woman's personhood is also a given.

Yet now we get people arguing that women are not really full persons, with equal rights and equal protection under the law. And we get weak-kneed party advocates who say that women should be "reasonable" and just give all that up, all in the name of The Party. And then, if we're good and nice and don't cause too much trouble, the Party will consider maybe giving some of those rights back.

The thing is, once the State takes control of something, it rarely if ever gives that up. State controlled breeding, once initiated, will never be dropped.

What happens when you're deemed "undesirable" and the State decides that you should be sterilized so you don't reproduce? By the same authority that the State controls women's wombs, it must control men's testicles. By the same authority that the State criminalizes abortion, it can also criminalize reproduction without permission.

And why should it stop at reproduction? After all, if the State owns the human body, then everything the human body does must serve the state's interests.

It's an ugly, slippery slope, and it's being pushed by people who seek to abandon constitutional principles.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 1:29am
What happens when you're
What happens when you're deemed "undesirable" and the State decides that you should be sterilized so you don't reproduce? By the same authority that the State controls women's wombs, it must control men's testicles. By the same authority that the State criminalizes abortion, it can also criminalize reproduction without permission.

Well, yes. You're absolutely correct. I'm saying that the State, legally, has the capacity to possess that power, should the people so decide.

For the record, I'm not for that sort of governmental control. In fact, quite vehemently the opposite.

Also for the record, I am an originalist with constructionist leanings when interpreting the Constitution. I disagree with a lot of Scalia's interpretations, but his general method of examining law is sound.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 11:53am
That's an awfully strange view of the Constitution

...especially for a self-labeled libertarian. By your reckoning, we're all born slaves and only the Bill of Rights prevents that from actually happening.

Next you'll tell us about the Divine Right of Kings?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 12:44pm
I'm afraid you have a skewed

I'm afraid you have a skewed idea of my point of view. The Bill of Rights keeps us from the possibility of losing the (very important!) privileges specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

I don't see how slavery or Divine Right of Kings enters into this.

Look, my point -- the first and only point that I was trying to make in this entire thread -- is that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to reproduce or the right to have access to any medical procedure, abortion or otherwise. It allows those rights, in that it does not specifically restrict them, but it does not guarantee them. I feel that that's a very important distinction.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 2:12pm
Certainly not guaranteed

...when right-wing authoritarian activist judges -- aka "strict constructionists" -- seek to make law from the bench.

I still consider your reading of the Constitution wrong, and way out of line with Constitutional thought -- historically, philosophically and legally.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 2:38pm
Well, then I suppose it's

Well, then I suppose it's lucky for both of us that Constitutional Thought isn't some monolithic entity, but rather an ever-evolving fracticious body of debating jurists. There's room for all sorts of opinions.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 2:47pm
Careful now

That statement is heresy to dyed-in-the-wool "strict constructionists"! ;)

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 2:51pm
I'll remember that you

I'll remember that you warned me when they excommunicate me.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 3:09pm
hey troll

do your AD&D friends and your brothers without banners buddies know you and your buddy trackerneil troll feminist sites for kicks?

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 23 December 2005 - 3:23am
You're seeing a conspiracy

You're seeing a conspiracy where none exists. I enjoy a spirited political debate, as does Trackerneil, but he's a lefty Green-party neo-socialist and I'm a better-dead-than-red laissez-faire libertarian. We know each other previously, it's true, but could hardly be more opposed, politically speaking. We're hardly going to troll feminist sites for kicks -- we're too busy taking potshots at each other.

Anyway, howsabout we steer this conversation away from me and back to the issue at hand? I've taken great pains not to personalize things, and would appreciate it if you would do the same.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 11:45am
so im supposed to believe

so im supposed to believe you two show up on the very same day and its not coordinated? and i'm not supposed to believe your not a part of this?

trackerneil.blogspot.com/2005/12/baiting-pseudo-feminists.html

so howzabout you steer yourself somewhere else.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 23 December 2005 - 11:52am
Coordination implies

Coordination implies planning. Trackerneil said to me "Hey, I found this blog called Mediagirl and I think you'll find it interesting" and so I checked it out. He did not say "Hey, let's troll this blog I found for shits and giggles!" His reasons for being here are his, and mine are mine. There's no reason to paint us both with the same brush.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 2:00pm
so whats your opinion of your troll buddy?

well he's obviously trolling, he comes out about that at his blog. so how do you feel about your buddy's actions? approve? disprove? think its ethical? mannerly? whats your take on your good buddy?

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 23 December 2005 - 2:04pm
Once again, I point out that

Once again, I point out that I'm trying very hard not to personalize things. Regardless of any personal feelings about the people involved in an argument, I think that it's good policy to focus on the arguments involved, and not the people behind them -- because then it's all too easy for the substance of an argument to be lost amid fruitless and upsetting mud-slinging.

In other words, I'm not taking your troll-bait.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 2:19pm
Apparently we already are troll bait

Judging by your friend's declared intention.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 2:35pm
Him trying to troll you is

Him trying to troll you is no excuse for you trying to troll me. Is it so impossible to believe that I earnestly believe what I say, and that I want to open up a dialogue to enhance our understanding of various important issues?

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 2:45pm
How am I trolling you?

Your from-the-hip interpretations of the Constitution do not sway me. Is that trolling?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 2:50pm
Oh, no. You're not.

Oh, no. You're not. Bayprairie is.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 3:08pm
I don't see that

When you stated that you weren't in on Tracker's deliberate trolling, she backed off, and said:

so whats your opinion of your troll buddy?

well he's obviously trolling, he comes out about that at his blog. so how do you feel about your buddy's actions? approve? disprove? think its ethical? mannerly? whats your take on your good buddy?

You say that's trolling, or "troll-bait" or both. I see a lot of questions -- an invitation and opportunity to distance yourself from such intentions.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 3:25pm
There's denotation and then there's connotation

And I see an antagonistic tone and an invitation to trash someone, fomenting insults, ill-will and flames. I'm not going to play that game.

Bayprairie, you're only playing into Trackerneil's hands by pursuing this, you know. He gets to rub his hands together and chortle because he got to you, and you're playing into his stereotype of a shrill, unreasonable faux-feminist with a persecution complex. Why are you playing his game?

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 3:35pm
That's not trolling

Just because you read all sorts of stuff into the questions doesn't mean that it's really there. You could have responded to the questions, or refused to answer. But you instead toss out accusations, as if merely asking about whether you agree with a troll's blog post amounts to trolling itself.

And just because he enjoys making a fool of himself doesn't mean anyone is playing into his hands. His hands seem to be quite full of himself as it is.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 3:54pm
I think to say that I'm

I think to say that I'm "good buddies" with someone she's identified as a troll, and with whom she's implied that I'm cahoots with, is pretty insulting when she does so without any sort of evidence besides a prior association between the two of us -- one which I neither deny nor tried to hide. Her tone, I feel, was insulting and peremptory. I've done my damndest to be level-headed, fair and not deliberately insulting or inflammatory in these threads.

I thought that my refusal to answer was pretty clear, but if not:

I refuse to answer.

Listen, I came here looking for a dialogue or a debate, not a mudslinging fight.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 4:42pm
Implying is not trolling

...though I readily admit the determination of what constitutes trolling is subjective. Still, it was an invitation to respond. You in fact did not simply refuse to answer, you instead took offense and responded in kind. If she were trolling, then so were you and you'd be gone by now.

That aside, I don't recall putting in the terms of usage for this site any right not to be offended. I'm sorry you felt insulted. I feel insulted by many comments that are posted on this site. I feel insulted by the government we have. I feel insulted by the politicians who pretend to represent us. I feel insulted by would-be pundits who advise women to give up their rights for the good of the Party. The list goes on.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 5:07pm
Regarding trolling, I

Regarding trolling, I disagree. Further semantic disputes will bear no fruit.

It must be terrible to be so insulted so frequently. I don't know if I could cope with the stress, myself.

Yagathai's picture
Posted by Yagathai on 23 December 2005 - 6:47pm
If you cannot define your terms

...then you cannot hope to engage in the dialectic you claim to desire. It's the foundation of critical thought. If you're projecting stress over that, that's your story. But thanks for the crocodile tears all the same.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 8:14pm
Why are you playing his game?

it drives up traffic to the site.

what i find laughable is this mistaken idea you espouse of him "getting" to me.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 23 December 2005 - 7:32pm
editing double post

n/t

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 23 December 2005 - 7:34pm
bayprairie's link

...is quite revealing. The whole thing is for kicks.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 12:50pm
Thank you, well put.

And one doesn't have to go to British Columbia. It's happened here before.

Psyche's picture
Posted by Psyche on 22 December 2005 - 12:31pm
And once special interests

And once special interests cede authority

to the state to enforce special protections they

accept "the states" authority in such matters until such time

as this recognition of authority of special protections

is wrested back by a super-majority(2/3, 3/5, depending)of "the people" willing to reclaim personal responsability.

CaptDMO's picture
Posted by CaptDMO (not verified) on 22 December 2005 - 6:29pm
Forced sterilization.

"Forced sterilization.

Because if the State can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, it can force a woman to be sterilized."

I'm just wondering if it would be less of a problem if they sterilized men instead? (safer to take the bullets out of the gun, then to wear a bulletproof vest)

Darknbitter's picture
Posted by Darknbitter (not verified) on 23 December 2005 - 3:13pm
Interesting, but...

To allow the State to intrude on a man's personal sovereignty? Unthinkable!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 December 2005 - 3:27pm
male sterilization??

Not likely. The Pill has been available for 40 years, putting more blame on the women for unwanted pregnancies. For men, only the condom exists and the only reason it's used very much at all is due to AIDS. The next best thing made for men is Viagra, but ooops!, it contributes to pregnancy.

Male potency is so ingrained in our (and our world's) culture, it is immovable. You simply CANNOT threaten a man's ability to fertilize. But you can try to limit a woman's right to control that effect. Overwhelmingly, men cannot accept that they are just as to blame as a woman. It is ALWAYS the woman's fault and it's the women who are to blame and be controlled. This is the prime definition of the second-class citizenship women rebel against.

www.manicexpressions.net

www.bitchingandmoaning.org

gballsout's picture
Posted by gballsout on 24 December 2005 - 8:42am
Good point

Well said!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 December 2005 - 9:26am