I don't see the circle of life. Maybe an unfair generalization on my part but I really dislike the pro life lobby. The difference between Bubba and I is while we might both be distasteful creatures I do not actively seek to control other peoples access to fundamental healthcare out of some religious need to enforce the will of a supernatural half-man/half-god with some distorted sense of right and wrong.
And I don't own a stitch of leather.

and therein lies the point.

Stereotypes never help anyone's argument. We always hate them when they are directed at us (not just transsexuals, whatever it is we are that is being stereotyped) and yet we (humans, not transsexuals) seem all too willing to wallow in them when it comes to others.

Don't we, among all people, have more reason to recognize the downside of people pre-judging others (most especially as a group) and not respecting them as individuals?

Don't we, among all people, most often suffer the real dangers of that kind of thinking?

I'm not trying to pick on you Becca, I love you a bunch but it's not just you. This is the third or fourth forum I've spent some time on for the trans community (or some part of it) and gosh knows how many more general ones besides and over and over again i see people in group X protest their mistreatment in one breath and turn around and belittle those in group Y in the next.

Maybe I should just learn to live with it, because my protests never seem to make a difference.

I'd just like to reiterate that I don't consider pro-life to be an inherently religious standpoint. Certainly a large proportion or likely the majority of the pro-life movement is religiously motivated, but I am not.

On most all issue's I am extremely pro-civil liberties. But abortion isn't one of them.

Quote(I'm not saying "abortion is murder!!" just speaking to the logic of the point made)

I'll say it then, abortion is murder.

QuoteI'm not trying to pick on you Becca

It's ok lol, I'm more just poking the bear than anything

Quote from: Laura Hope on December 18, 2009, 02:06:50 AM
I hesitate to say this...and do so with the greatest possible respect...but you make pregnancy sound like a disease.

It is a naturally occurring process which occurs in all mammals and has millions of years of evolution to bring it to a point where it is today. Nothing which happens in a normal pregnancy is "damaging" - it is simply "altering"

I'm not discounting it's positive effects on a person. I'm stressing the effects we don't talk about, 'specially not in a pro-life/choice situation because people seem to forget it at that time.

No, it's not a disease, it's a natural process, but natural does not mean safe, it does not mean side-effect free, it does not mean "good", and it does not mean pain nor damage free. Many of the side effects of pregnancy can only be considered damage.
It's a natural process that which is Highly Stressful on the body, any body.

Quote from: Laura HopeI can't help but suggest that your inborn aversion to the female condition perhaps colors your opinion of pregnancy. I think I can say with confidence that the vast majority of natal females would not agree with your description.

No, they wouldn't.
Partially because most of them don't "know" about the list of symptoms over the ones people talk about. And those that do don't talk about it, they talk about their beautiful babies.
They say a woman simply forgets the pain of childbirth in the first week of bonding with her child. Which isn't too strange since it is, after all, as you mentioned, something required for the survival of the species.
We have a strong instinct to breed and with good reason.

But that's hardly the point here. The reason I'm focusing on the negative aspects of pregnancy is for the purpose of the debate.
We all know the positive effects and potential good. We've all seen a woman who's happy for every effect she feels as it's a part of the miracle/joy of her carrying her own child to term. To many of these girls, the aches and pains are a reminder of the positive experience, even if they can feel extreme discomfort at the time.
But these aren't the women who want, at that time, the right to choose whether or not the "intruder" into her body is allowed to stay there.
Those that need the choice to say no to pregnancy, even once it's begun, aren't the ones that are happy about it. And for their sake it's important to point out exactly what we're forcing on them, against their will.
Majority of the side effects of pregnancy cause at the very least discomfort. A lot of these side effects cause pain, some an extreme amount of it, and birth isn't "pretty" when you look at it in the details (C section = you're cut open. Natural = frequently you tear open.), it's extremely painful and never comes without some blood being shed from the mother.
These are facts, one doesn't have to be uncomfortable with one's own female body to know the facts.

Quote from: Laura Hope(I know that sounds presumptions not being a natal female but I don't think you have to be one to know that)Of course not, and I didn't say that - i said that being trans would be prima facia evidence that such trauma was a potentially psychological trauma.Certainly. but that in and of itself is not justification for the procedure.

The point I was making is that there doesn't have to be anything even remotely like GID in the equation.
Psychological trauma is an innate factor of pregnancy (Trauma being an important part of life and development of an individual from a psychological standpoint and thus not necessarily something negative in this context.), it is a traumatic experience to loose control and dominion over one's own body, and birth is extremely obviously traumatic, not just physically but also psychologically.

The point I was making was that there are millions of factors at play here, and that there can be women which, for all intents and purposes, are perfectly happy and healthy prior to their pregnancy, who experience such an overwhelming aversion to being pregnant, for any given reason, that they may be likely to commit suicide as a result of being barred from terminating. There's no way to know 'till the situation arises.

Quote from: Laura Hopethe legality or illegality of abortion must stand on it's own merit. Saying "people will do it anyway" makes no more sense than saying that we should have euthenasia centers that you can take the person you want to kill to so they can be put down safely.

Er, no. That's a straw-man argument and I'm sure you know that.
I never said "people will do it anyway", what I said is that women will, out of desperation, make attempts to try and do this, with methods that can cause them severe harm or even death, as they already do in countries where abortion is illegal.
There is a difference there.

Quote from: Laura Hope(I'm not saying "abortion is murder!!" just speaking to the logic of the point made)Which, of course, is a situation that (a) the great majority of people who call themselves "pro-life" wouldn't agree with and (b) falls under "threat to the life of the mother" and is thus not an argument relevant to the overall abortion discussion.

This is just an example of what can happen in a country that adopt a fully "pro-life" set of laws and thinking.
It is pertinent to the discussion the same way as mentioning the potential mis-use of abortion is.
_

And here's a quick copy-pasta of the short list of side effects of pregnancy;

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

    * exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
    * altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
    * nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
    * heartburn and indigestion
    * constipation
    * weight gain
    * dizziness and light-headedness
    * bloating, swelling, fluid retention
    * hemmorhoids
    * abdominal cramps
    * yeast infections
    * congested, bloody nose
    * acne and mild skin disorders
    * skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
    * mild to severe backache and strain
    * increased headaches
    * difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
    * increased urination and incontinence
    * bleeding gums
    * pica
    * breast pain and discharge
    * swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
    * difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
    * inability to take regular medications
    * shortness of breath
    * higher blood pressure
    * hair loss
    * tendency to anemia
    * curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
    * infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
      (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
      are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
    * extreme pain on delivery
    * hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
    * continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

Normal, expectable, or frequent permanent side effects of pregnancy:

    * stretch marks (worse in younger women)
    * loose skin
    * permanent weight gain or redistribution
    * abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
    * pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
    * changes to breasts
    * varicose veins
    * scarring from episiotomy or c-section
    * other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
    * increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
    * loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

Occasional complications and side effects:

    * spousal/partner abuse (in more than 30% of domestic violence cases, the abuse started during pregnancy)
    * hyperemesis gravidarum (unrelenting, excessive pregnancy-related nausea and/or vomiting that prevents adequate intake of food and fluids)
    * temporary and permanent injury to back
    * severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
    * dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
    * pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
    * eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
    * gestational diabetes
    * placenta previa
    * anemia (which can be life-threatening)
    * thrombocytopenic purpura
    * severe cramping
    * embolism (blood clots)
    * medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
    * diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
    * mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
    * serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
    * hormonal imbalance
    * ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
    * broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
    * hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery
    * refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
    * aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
    * severe post-partum depression and psychosis
    * research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
    * research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
    * research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:

    * peripartum cardiomyopathy
    * cardiopulmonary arrest
    * magnesium toxicity
    * severe hypoxemia/acidosis
    * massive embolism
    * increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
    * molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
    * malignant arrhythmia
    * circulatory collapse
    * placental abruption
    * obstetric fistula

More permanent side effects:

    * future infertility
    * permanent disability
    * death

_

Pregnancy is a serious thing.
It's not just something that you "get over with" in a "few months" with ease.
There is no woman that goes through a pregnancy that doesn't come out the other side with "some" permanent change in her body that can (often, can only) be considered damage.
Tooth rot, back-pains, stretched and torn muscles, scars, the damage caused by relaxin (My abs still have a gap in them, an inch wide gap, down the middle, and my daughter is eight years old!), etc, etc, etc...
It's not a disease, no.
It is a natural process, yes.
But that damage is still a matter of fact.
And No one should be forced to take that damage against her will.
No one should be forced to suffer the temporary effects against her will either.

To stress how the effects are simply temporary does not take away from the pain, discomfort, exhaustion, and psychological trauma involved.
I am Not saying that abortion is not traumatic, I'm saying that if a woman does not want to carry to term and risk any of the "potential" damage from that list, it would be beyond cruelty to say "tough luck" and force it on her.

There are a lot of other things that are "just temporary" that we would never consider "okay" simply because they are.
Rape's just temporary, Torture's just temporary, Spousal-Abuse is just temporary (per time), etc..
But in all those situations, even pregnancy, the situation can turn permanent(deadly).
A healthy woman can die as a result pregnancy.
I'm not saying she will, I'm saying it's a chance that isn't my business, nor anyone's business, to force anyone to take against their will.

QuoteThey say a woman simply forgets the pain of childbirth in the first week of bonding with her child.

If I remember correctly it's  actually the result of the same hormone that keeps us from eating our young and creates some of the drives that prolly fuel this entire debate 

Quote from: Becca on December 18, 2009, 03:20:23 AM
If I remember correctly it's  actually the result of the same hormone that keeps us from eating our young and creates some of the drives that prolly fuel this entire debate 

*nods*
It's easy to love a baby, cause we're hard-wired to do so.

Quote from: Ashley4214 on December 18, 2009, 02:54:26 AM
I'll say it then, abortion is murder.

See? You are saying that a fetus and even an embryo -- even just a fertilized egg -- is morally equivalent to baby or a child or an adult. I respect that, and I disagree. You'll see my position at the heart of all arguments in support of abortion rights, and yours at the heart of all arguments against. Everything else is irrelevant and just increases the level of acrimony.

Where is the space for compromise? I just don't see it.

I'm Pro-Life

Quote from: Alyssa M. on December 18, 2009, 01:19:34 PM
See? You are saying that a fetus and even an embryo -- even just a fertilized egg -- is morally equivalent to baby or a child or an adult. I respect that, and I disagree. You'll see my position at the heart of all arguments in support of abortion rights, and yours at the heart of all arguments against. Everything else is irrelevant and just increases the level of acrimony.

Where is the space for compromise? I just don't see it.

I think my post reresents a decent stab at a middle ground.

if abortion rights activist will come off the absolutest position that ANY reason for ANY abortion right up until the ninth month MUST be uninhibited in law....and if pro-life activist will come off requiring even the fertilized egg to be protected in law....

then there is room for a solution in which neither side gets everything it wants but both sides gain something significant.

if a window is established wherein abortion is legal in the first 8 weeks (10 at the outside) andrestricted to extreme circumstances thereafter, then pro-lifers can know that at a minimum they have prevented the potential that an aware being is suffering a painful death and pro-choicers can know that at least they have an opportunity for, in particular, chemical abortifacients which should, in all but health related cases, be the method of choice for various reasons.


the thing is, too many people are married to the all-or-nothing position.

Quote from: Laura Hope on December 18, 2009, 05:55:40 PM
if abortion rights activist will come off the absolutest position that ANY reason for ANY abortion right up until the ninth month MUST be uninhibited in law....

Uhm, I have yet to see a single person of that view... at all...

Laura,

That's possible, but looking at it a different way, you are just chosing a different starting point for the beginning of what I'm calling "personhood." There's a hint of that when you talk about an "aware human being." I respect your point of view and see its benefits, but I don't think you'll find a lot of support from people on either side, only from the few in the middle.

I'm always glad when a topic like this comes up and we can show the world how open minded and accepting we really are.  And how, as reasonable adults raised in the sweet bosom of democratic values and tolerance we can demonstrate how people raised in one of the top scientific and technological environments can rationally look at scientific evidence and come to a measured response that cares for the rights of the women as equal members of society who can make their own medical decisions. 

Just kidding.  I put on the popcorn and sat back, because I've never seen one of these threads end well, they tend to end like the old-school NASCAR races, with cars all over the track and the drivers out on the infield beating the snot out of each other.  Good Times.

But really, I do love them because the political contortions people go through on this one issue is really worthy of a top level circus act.  People who don't think that the Gubm't has no business telling them what they should do with their body, or better not even try to tell them they can't be strapping serious heat when they venture out in public, are all of a sudden peachy-keen with shoving the Gubm't between a woman and her doctor and deciding in her place what the best decision for her is.

And there is very little middle ground that I've ever seen.  Either we as a society have a right to make decisions about what medical procedures someone may/or may not undergo, or choose - or - those decisions, medical decisions, are between a person, their doctor, and whoever is covering the insurance or writing the check, and as such are private matters in which the State does not have an interest, or a control.  One or the other.  Doubtful you can really go both ways on that.

What I find more interesting, is any debate of this sort, ie, a serious, yet non trans issue, people expect others to be 'hyper liberal' as they are... or hold the same views because they share a condition with them...

Do all Tennis fans like the same music?
Do all Artists prefer Edam?
Do all Asthmatics drive Fords?

It's impossible to pidgeon hole a personality by one factor alone, (unless thats politician), and I've yet to meet a trans person that lives upto the ideals almost coveted and lorded by the trans community... Tollerance is a very two way street.... It's very easy to be tollerant about being trans when one is... but it doesn't mean they are tollerant about all things.

We must learn to take people as people, not trans people, or we fall foul of the same traps we lament on these very boards.

I return to the "debate?" with trepidation -well, OK, not really, but with the sense of futility that any meaningful result will, well, result. Miniar and Tekla very well cover my attitudes about whose freedom are we going to respect - the pregnant woman, or the potentially future person planted in her, with or without her consent.

So, in light of Miniar's graphic and lengthy list of side effects of pregnancy, I pose a question, and would suggest it be limited to only the male-to-female  pro-life persons out there:
If you should receive SRS at some time in the past, present or future, would you accept random surgical procedures to be administered to you at that time that provide one or more of those side effects to you, from minor to fatal, from that list, so you can fully experience the female prospective upon transition? Or would you absolutely insist that no gender specific medical downside occur for you? If you say that the risk goes with the territory, then you mean what you say; if not, will you then give furtile females the same choice?

I know that this is so completely hypothetical that it may be meaningless, but come on pro-lifers, would you commit to recieving a full and complete male to female transition, or just the appearance of being female without the baggage? And no fair claiming since you can't become pregnant it doesn't count; if the surgical addition of pregnancy related challanges would be possible, so would the full monte! Or Monique!

SusanKG

Pro-choice here, even though I was raised in a denominnation that declares that abortion is a fatal sin and the woman is doomed thereafter.

I am not religious, but Jesus Christ never uttered any such words.

Quote from: SusanKG on December 18, 2009, 11:57:41 PM
I return to the "debate?" with trepidation -well, OK, not really, but with the sense of futility that any meaningful result will, well, result. Miniar and Tekla very well cover my attitudes about whose freedom are we going to respect - the pregnant woman, or the potentially future person planted in her, with or without her consent.

So, in light of Miniar's graphic and lengthy list of side effects of pregnancy, I pose a question, and would suggest it be limited to only the male-to-female  pro-life persons out there:
If you should receive SRS at some time in the past, present or future, would you accept random surgical procedures to be administered to you at that time that provide one or more of those side effects to you, from minor to fatal, from that list, so you can fully experience the female prospective upon transition? Or would you absolutely insist that no gender specific medical downside occur for you? If you say that the risk goes with the territory, then you mean what you say; if not, will you then give furtile females the same choice?

I know that this is so completely hypothetical that it may be meaningless, but come on pro-lifers, would you commit to recieving a full and complete male to female transition, or just the appearance of being female without the baggage? And no fair claiming since you can't become pregnant it doesn't count; if the surgical addition of pregnancy related challanges would be possible, so would the full monte! Or Monique!

SusanKG

I'm sorry, but that hypothetical is just stupid. And has seemingly little if any relevance to the topic.

What you should really be asking is "if you were capable of becoming pregnant in the first place, would you still feel the same way". Because otherwise, the hypothetical is just absurd.

It would be like telling an intersexed female person that in order to get any corrective surgery, they also need to undertake that random chance. They can't give birth and if they want to be more like normal female's they need to take the risk, right?

And that's just the start of the problems with that hypothetical.

I'm not going to answer your question, one because I think the answer is obvious, and two it would validate what is a completely rediculous hypothetical.

I will answer the far more legitimate question I'm surprised nobodies asked yet, which is if I could get pregnant, would I still feel the same way about abortion and advocate the legal restriction that would also encompass me against abortion, then yes, I would.

The closest hypothetical to yours that I can think of that makes sense would be asking "Would you have SRS if it meant having periods", which would also get a yes answer. But not unlike your hypothetical, it doesn't have any relevance to the abortion debate either. The only way to make the hypothetical you've given make sense, would be if 100% of all females got pregnant the moment they became physically capable.

Quote from: Miniar on December 18, 2009, 06:27:56 PM
Uhm, I have yet to see a single person of that view... at all...

In real life - no, neither have I.

but in the political wars, it is the ONLY acceptable position.

Let any politician come out with ANY proposed legislation that infringes in ANY way on unrestricted abortion and Planed Parenthood and the rest of the pro-"choice" lobby mobilizes in force to stop it at all cost.

---

Post Merge: December 19, 2009, 01:58:53 AM

---

Quote from: Alyssa M. on December 18, 2009, 07:07:19 PM
Laura,

That's possible, but looking at it a different way, you are just chosing a different starting point for the beginning of what I'm calling "personhood." There's a hint of that when you talk about an "aware human being." I respect your point of view and see its benefits, but I don't think you'll find a lot of support from people on either side, only from the few in the middle.

Oh, I surely agree.

The hard-liners will never buy it, which is why we'll never have any sane peace on the subject.

Yes, it is absolutely an arbitrary legal definition of "personhood"

but we already make such decesions in law when we are dealing with the END of life so there is clear legal precedent, reasoning, and logic for finding and establishing a legal begining of life and in my humble opinion, the most obviously logically defensible such definition would be to define the begining by the exact same criteria with which you define the end.

But, being a logical, sane, and rational concept - it has no prayer of ever getting through ANY legislative body.

---

Post Merge: December 19, 2009, 03:05:11 AM

---

Quote
People who don't think that the Gubm't has no business telling them what they should do with their body, or better not even try to tell them they can't be strapping serious heat when they venture out in public, are all of a sudden peachy-keen with shoving the Gubm't between a woman and her doctor and deciding in her place what the best decision for her is.

I see that simplistic canard all the time and it's nonsense.

such a remark derives from the obviously false logic that all government actions are equal.

To wit:
Two situations -

An officer of the government witnesses a parent beating his 8 year old child with a steel pipe.

An officer of the government witnesses a parent giving his 8 year old child an unhealthy sugary drink


Are we to believe that if I oppose government meddling in the latter case that I am thus logically bound to oppose government meddling in the former?

Obviously not.

thus, that whole little bit of BS in the preceding quote is as useless to this argument as pixie dust.

---

Post Merge: December 19, 2009, 04:09:46 AM

---

Quote
So, in light of Miniar's graphic and lengthy list of side effects of pregnancy, I pose a question, and would suggest it be limited to only the male-to-female  pro-life persons out there:
If you should receive SRS at some time in the past, present or future, would you accept random surgical procedures to be administered to you at that time that provide one or more of those side effects to you, from minor to fatal, from that list, so you can fully experience the female prospective upon transition? Or would you absolutely insist that no gender specific medical downside occur for you? If you say that the risk goes with the territory, then you mean what you say; if not, will you then give furtile females the same choice?

that's awfully convoluted and confusing so let me distill it a bit into something workable:

IF the ONLY surgery available for M2F transsexuals was a surgery that would leave one indistinguishable biologically from a natal female and, with the same statistical chance of suffering potential negative effects from all the things which happen to natal females including menstration, pregnancy, and menopause, would I (finances and such aside) consent t the surgery and assume all the risk that my ciswomen acquaintences are born into without choice?

No just yes but oh HELL yeah!

Clear enough?

In fact, I challange you to find a single M2F TS on this or any other board who now desires SRS but would decline that opportunity if all those circumstances applied.

I  strongly suspect such a woman doesn't exist.

Quote from: The None Blonde on December 18, 2009, 10:50:47 PM
What I find more interesting, is any debate of this sort, ie, a serious, yet non trans issue, people expect others to be 'hyper liberal' as they are... or hold the same views because they share a condition with them...

Do all Tennis fans like the same music?
Do all Artists prefer Edam?
Do all Asthmatics drive Fords?

It's impossible to pidgeon hole a personality by one factor alone, (unless thats politician), and I've yet to meet a trans person that lives upto the ideals almost coveted and lorded by the trans community... Tollerance is a very two way street.... It's very easy to be tollerant about being trans when one is... but it doesn't mean they are tollerant about all things.

We must learn to take people as people, not trans people, or we fall foul of the same traps we lament on these very boards.

I agree with most you say The None Blonde.

I stated pro abortion above, but maybe I just should have qualified my answer. After 10-12 weeks the tiny fetus begins to resemble a tiny human being, this is where it becomes very difficult.  Sure the brain hasn't developed, but a tiny heart beat is present.

Quote from: Laura Hope on December 19, 2009, 03:55:33 AMIn real life - no, neither have I.

but in the political wars, it is the ONLY acceptable position.

Let any politician come out with ANY proposed legislation that infringes in ANY way on unrestricted abortion and Planed Parenthood and the rest of the pro-"choice" lobby mobilizes in force to stop it at all cost.

That makes no sense what so ever you know.
There is no (remotely sane) politician that supports "month 9 abortion".

Where abortion is considered a right it's not fully "unrestricted" either.
There's limitations on how late you can terminate (for example).

Suggesting that the pro-choice lobby would "mobalize in force" to stop a law that would set a time limit on abortion (such as, first trimester only) is suggesting that the pro-choice lobby wants abortion to be available even if you're 24 hours from birth, which is absurd at best.