Thoughts about reproductive choice and feminism, plus some peaceful and adorable cat pictures to ease the stress of having to continually defend the concept that a human right still counts even when it doesn't apply to wealthy straight white cis men.
Itâs tough to be vocally pro-life on here because tagging anything with #abortion or #pro-life is the most surefire way of getting your post flamed or getting anon hate
There is no debate to be had. I believe everyone has the right to bodily autonomy and you believe pregnant people should have their bodily autonomy violated and you actively campaign to try and make that happen⊠and then whine and complain when people challenge you on the fact that you are doing that.
A fetus isn't capable of bodily autonomy. It's body is unable to function without being physically connected to a host's body from which it will draw nourishment required to sustain life. It is literally attached to someone else and will die if removed because it cannot self-sustain.
As long as that is true, bodily autonomy is not possible.
Once you're born, you need care to survive (i.e. you are dependent), but you are autonomous. That's when your right to bodily autonomy begins.
Iâm not a pro-life blog. Iâve had an abortion and do not regret my abortion whatsoever. Abortion regret happens, but why does this mean women should be barred from choosing abortion? People regret becoming parents, and adoption regret is probably even more common. Why does it only matter to you when itâs abortion? The turnaway study revealed consistently more negative emotions and more detriment to women when denied an abortion. While the most common feeling after an abortion is relief, and most report they would make the same decision to abort if they had another chance.
We donât need to protect adults from things they might feel. They deserve the autonomy to make their own choices about their body. End of story. Women who do feel regret deserve support, care, and compassion. They donât deserve to have their stories used to promote harmful ideology.
They love their heart-wrenching anecdotes, but only when taken out of the context that the most common emotion experienced following an abortion is relief. It's also quite possible to regret having to have an abortion while also acknowledging that it's the best option available at the time.
Which is why we're pro-CHOICE: because real life is complicated and messy and there isn't one right choice that's going to work for every person. And because we don't presume to know what choices will inspire regret for anyone but ourselves.
I guess killing children with big lifeâs ahead of them is an ok thing now⊠it never was. Still isnât. And never will be. Why is it ok to kill my growing child in my stomach when it isnât allowed to kill my one month, 12 months year old child? They canât talk, speak, or even correctly think yet. But itâs different because now you have to look them in the eyes one last time before they die. If any woman could look at their unborn childâs face they wouldnât kill them.
This probably wasn't asked in good faith, but I'll answer anyway.
The reason why it's okay to end a pregnancy but not to kill an infant is that an infant isn't using one person's body to live in a comparable way to how a fetus uses the pregnant person's body. Yes, an infant is dependent . . . but I can hand my infant to someone else if I need a break. I can relinquish parental rights and someone else can give care. If using my body to feed the infant is harming me, I can stop. Pregnancy is hard on the body, and the work can't be divided up between multiple people.
Because it's so intense, consent is absolutely required and it needs to be ongoing throughout the process. At a certain point, the fetus is developed enough that you can end the pregnancy with birth instead of abortion, but the entire process requires consent.
And no, consenting to sex is not consenting to be pregnant any more than going on a date is agreeing to marry someone.
Thatâs a pretty narrow view, considering the majority of pro-lifers support people being forced to remain pregnant at the expense of their physical and mental health, and taken off their medications to protect the fetus.
Assuming that everyone has the health to carry a pregnancy to term is quite ableist.
While it can be ableist, supporting abortion in the case of fetal disability is not inherently ableist. I support abortion under any circumstance because people deserve the right to control their bodies even if I donât agree with their reason, and because I recognize that disabled children require extra care that not everyone can afford.
I love it when pro-choicers tacitly admit that they think poor people/the children of poor people deserve to die because âthey canât afford themâ Bitch people are worth more than the amount of money it costs to raise them, there are a shitload of charities and other resources that can help poor families. The fuck is wrong with you?
Well thatâs a wild and purposeful misinterpretation. We donât think the poor donât deserve to live?? Like, the actual fuck, buddy. We just recognize that some people are fucking poor and thatâs a huge barrier.
Charities arenât sufficient, and charities arenât the answer.
The current safety nets in place arenât enough. I support fixing this; a living wage, affordable housing, universal healthcare, and disability payments you can actually live on are all steps to fixing this issue. I support societal change so that people arenât living in poverty and that poverty isnât a potential barrier.
And even if/once this is accomplished, people also still have the rights to control their body.
But you gotta rein in your imagination there, buckaroo. Youâre way off the mark.
As in most if not all cases, the anti-abortion side is so committed to drumming up sympathy for a fetus that does not have the sentience to experience being poor or disabled, they forget to account for the fact that a pregnant person may be poor or disabled too, and actually experiencing the consequences of same.
If abortions are off limits because "the poor don't deserve to die", you're condemning poor people to stretch their thin resources for survival even thinner supporting a child they hadn't intended to bring into the world (not to mention the judgment heaped on families who have a child they can't afford).
If abortions are off limits because "the disabled don't deserve to die", you've taken away they means for already-existing disabled people to match their circumstances to their level of ability.
If you think that adding stress, judgment, physical strain, emotional strain, and lack of bodily autonomy to the lives of poor and disabled people can't end their lives prematurely, you're just flat out wrong.
White people like it so we just gotta keep rewriting history like they invented it, right? Iâve also heard people say conversations about hummus and bubble tea are âthe whitest conversations ever.â Are yâall serious?Â
Implying that genital-based statements of feminism are trans-inclusive because they include the genitals of trans guys is pretty dicey. The Women's March was for and about women. That's not what trans men are and it's not where they want to be included. JFC.
Fetuses arenât people, but even if we granted them personhood the right to abortion wouldnât change.
No person is allowed to use your body without your consent, even if they will die if you refuse. You have a right to defend yourself if someone is trying to use your body without your consent, and killing in self defense is justified. If you donât want to be pregnant, you have the right to choose abortion; thatâs equality.
To deny someone the right to abortion is not only granting fetuses a right that no person has, but also stripping rights from pregnant people.
But then again it was never about fetal rights or equality and all about punishing people for choosing to have consensual sex/having the ability to get pregnant.
Expecting everyone to engage in perfectly safe sex is entirely unrealistic because it ignores the people that have been denied comprehensive sex education, those who cannot afford or access reliable birth control, people with medical conditions that make affordable types of birth control unsuitable, those who are in relationships where they are denied access to birth control by their partner, and the fact that no birth control is 100% effective (youâll also see in effectiveness statistics both âperfect useâ and âtypical useâ statistics, because humans make mistakes sometimes). Itâs idealistic and unreasonable.
So yes, unrealistic. How about we give people who can get pregnant equal rights instead?
Also? It seemed really clear to me that the person who posted "unrealistic request" was responding to each bullet point in the preceding list separately. The first point, "unrealistic request", appears to have been meant to apply specifically to "don't have sex". Which is an unrealistic request, thanks all the same.
Sex is part of the spectrum of human experience. Not everyone has it or wants it, and that's fine. But there's something really twisted about the idea that not everyone deserves to make that choice for themselves.
Unsurprising, perhaps, from the same people who think a potential future person should supercede a present, autonomous, sentient person's choice about whether to gestate a pregnancy. But callous and scary nonetheless.
Like seriously I wish we had a more comprehensive sex education program in the U.S. You know how many guys I know who had no idea an unaroused vagina is only 2-3 inches deep? Or that the cervix raises up when aroused to accommodate dick? Or that if a girl is âtightâ that generally means sheâs not turned on and youâre shitty in bed? Or that the cervix has an entire cycle it goes through throughout the month where is changes hardness, placement in the vagina, wetness? Like, when youâre ovulating your cervix gets soft and raises high up into the vagina and your hormones get you really horny. Itâs like natures way of moving the furniture around and fluffing the pillow for dick because it wants to get pregnant. And before menstruation, it gets really hard and low in the vagina. Itâs basically inactivating itâs Facebook and saying âI just need some alone time for a few daysâ
Ladies and gentlemen, take a moment to learn about vaginas. Men, take an interest into your womanâs menstrual cycle!
I highly recommend that everyone with a vagina/uterus read up on the âfertility awareness methodâ or FAM.
Yes, on the face itâs a way to either time sex so you either do or donât get pregnant, but read about it even if you donât plan on using it for that, because you will learn SO MUCH. If youâre on hormonal birth control or for other reasons not ovulating, a lot of it wonât apply, but itâs still just good stuff to know.
Did you know that if you take your temperature every morning, you can tell when you ovulate? And if you combine that and other signs like your cervix position and the consistency of your cervical mucous (itâs like egg whites around ovulation), FAM has effectiveness rates similar to condoms. This is not the rhythm method; even if you use an app, tracking your periods only tells you what happened last month, and thereâs no guarantee your cycle will be the same this month. This lets you check every day and know when youâre about to ovulate vs when youâve already ovulated and canât get pregnant.
But the point here isnât to convince you to use this as birth control. Honestly itâs kind of a pain to track all that and probably more worth it for getting pregnant than avoiding it, or if you canât use other methods for various reasons.
The point is that did you even know you could figure out whatâs happening in your ovaries and uterus with that much accuracy? I learned about it when I was planning to start trying for a baby, and I was just blown away by all this knowledge that is out there but that most of us are never, ever taught.
But y'know what else I wish we covered in sex ed? People outside the statistical average.
Because now I know this information, but I still have absolutely no idea if it applies to me and my absurdly irregular cycles. Even doctors kinda shrug and tell me "talk to us when you want to get pregnant" and assume there's no other reason I would want to understand or treat the underlying condition.
People are reading this and feeling "aha! I feel more informed about my body!" and I just have to imagine what that might be like.
The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case about anti-abortion fake health clinics, which trick pregnant people into believing theyâre real health facilities, but then try to guilt them into not having abortions. Here are six must-read pieces that sum up why these clinics are so dangerous.
Theyâre also bad for people who donât want abortions. âCrisis pregnancy centersâ are NOT licensed medical facilities and do NOT offer medical services. They do not have equipment or medically trained staff to actually assess or treat a pregnant person. The people there are unqualified (& usually) volunteers who are only there because they are way too passionate about keeping people from getting abortions or even information about abortions. They are not there to help you. They are there to spread their ideology. They are there to trick you.
This is an English assignment that I did during the first semester. We were to write a persuasive essay on a topic of our choice. And of course, I had to do it on abortion and contraception. I have always been a pro-life activist. Surprise, surprise! I got an A đ I got carried away when I started off. I was too brazen and harsh with my words. If you want to win people over, you have to be a little more compassionate with the way you present your message. Hope you enjoy my toned down finished product.Â
One of your tags is âUniversity of Pennslyvaniaâ.
University. College level.
Iâm sorry, but this teacherâs doing you dirty like that. Iâm in university as well, and if I were to turn this in to my English professor Iâd be failing in no time flat. Itâs hard to believe
So this going to be incredibly long. Both as a counterargument and what youâre lacking for this to even to be a persuasive essay if thatâs what he assignment was.
so you will fail them because you dont agree with their opinion is what youâre saying. They are allowed to question laws and the ethics of having a abortion. You guys act like pro choicers have no biases and have never been manipulative, but u literally have the American Abortion Society not wanting advances in unltrasounds because it âhumanizesâ the fetus. Like how ironic is that statement. Iâm pro choice but I do not think it is ethical.
Not failing them for not agreeing, failing them for not having any actual sources to back up their claims. They teach people what to use site-wise in college and how to source properly. Saying things without sources, such as the supposed effects of contraception and what not, is pretty dangerous. Iâd also fail them for not doing an essay properly. There is a format to this in college. Canât use âiâ statements. Need a rebuttal and a counterargument.Â
A persuasive essay is more than just how one feels about it. Yeah, a doctor thinks abortion is murder? So? That doesnât persuade anyone. Just because a doctor thinks so doesnât mean that abortion is murder.Â
And âAmerican Abortion Societyâ isnât a thing. I looked it up. Not a thing that exists. And unless you mean âNational abortion Federationâ I found nothing to support your claim.Â
Not to mention the condescending sarcasm towards the intended reader, the lazy stereotypes (folks get abortions because pregnancy cramps their style!), the total failure to rebut opposing viewpoints because you really haven't engaged with them being a surface caricature of what LifeSite told you feminists think. (See: strawman fallacy.)
This isn't a persuasive paper to anyone who doesn't already agree with the pro-life position.
Women of color bear the brunt of Catholic hospital restrictions on abortion, sterilization, contraception, gender-affirming procedures, and other care under religious directives.
Catholic hospitals restrict access to abortion, sterilization, contraception, gender-affirming procedures, and other care under religious directives, which govern one in six acute-care beds nationwide.
A groundbreaking report reveals how women of color like Bertram Roberts bear the brunt of these restrictions. Researchers with Columbia Law Schoolâs Public Rights/Private Conscience Project analyzed data from 33 states and Puerto Rico. In 19 of those states, women of color were more likely than white women to give birth at a Catholic hospital. Nationally, 53 percent of births at Catholic hospitals are to women of color, versus 49 percent of births at non-Catholic hospitals.
âPregnant women of color are more likely than their white counterparts to receive reproductive health care dictated by bishops rather than medical doctors,â the authors wrote in the report, âBearing Faith: The Limits of Catholic Health Care for Women of Color.â
The results are particularly stark in some states:
In New Jersey, women of color represent 80 percent of births at Catholic hospitals, even though they make up only half of all women of reproductive age, and 53 percent of births at non-Catholic hospitals.
In Maryland, three quarters of births at Catholic hospitals are to women of color, who make up less than half of births at non-Catholic hospitals. While Black women in Maryland had 10,000 fewer births overall, they had nearly 3,000 more births at Catholic hospitals than white women.
In Maine, Black women are nearly three times more likely than white women to give birth at a hospital that follows Catholic restrictions.
In Wisconsin, which was the setting of a Rewire investigation about a doctor who was forced to watch her patient sicken at a Catholic hospital, more than half of births to Black women take place in Catholic hospitals, versus one in three births to white women.
The Trump administration on Thursday moved to give these hospitals broader latitude to deny care to patients, unveiling a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division to protect providers who reject transgender patients or refuse to perform medical procedures like abortions.
âThis office is giving providers a license to discriminate,â Susan Berke Fogel, director of reproductive health at the National Health Law Program told Rewire. âThe government is going to give these providers permission to deliver substandard care.â
And as the new report shows, these restrictions wonât fall equally on all patients.
âWhenever there is any type of law or guidelines that can cause harm, I think that people need to take the necessary look at how those type of laws harm those who are the most disenfranchised and the most vulnerable, and those are usually women and people of color,â Kira Shepherd, co-author of the âBearing Faithâ report, told Rewire in an interview, before the new office was announced.
Letâs get real for a moment - I really hate seeing the âIâm pro-choice but Iâm not pro-abortion!â posts.Â
All this is doing is continuing the stigmatization over abortion and implying abortion is inherently bad. If you are pro-choice you have to be pro-abortion, but you are not pro-abortion in the same way that anti-choicers are pro-birth. We have decided to be pro-many options. They are only pro-birth. Itâs a false comparison.Â
If you are pro-choice you are pro-abortion, pro-birth, pro-adoption, pro-keeping it, etc. You are pro-choice and that includes all choices. You canât hide from one of them and continue the stigma.
Iâve seen these posts saying, in the words of one of them, âIf your job requires you to go against your religious beliefs then perhaps it is time to change careers?â in reference to healthcare workers and government employees who want to deny services to lgbt ppl or others whom they condemn, and i just feel like those posts donât attempt to understand internal logics at all
like, fundamentalist christian doctors donât deny trans people medical care because they believe that somebody should provide the care but they just donât want to be the one to do it. they deny the care because they donât believe the person should receive care. Their refusal to provide care isnât just âoops youâre in the wrong field,â as if they were a person with a peanut allergy working in a peanut factory. It is an intentional and calculated part of why they are in the field in the first place â to extend religious control and condemnation to the medical realm.
the pediatrician who spent an entire consultation telling one of my friends at 16 or 17 that he would go to hell if he kept choosing to be gay wasnât just ânot cut out for the job,â he was specifically in that job in order to do that particular thing. Kim Davis didnât deny the gay couple a marriage license because she couldnât personally do it, she denied them a marriage license because she thought that people like them should not get marriage licenses and that a clerk should deny them and by god she was going to be that clerk
Saying âif you canât provide services then why are you in that job!!!â to fundamentalist christians almost always misses the point â that they are in that job specifically so they can selectively deny service
Ok so would personal beliefs be stigmatizing to abortion? Even though those beliefs have been ingrained into a person since birth, but they understand the value of an abortion but they choose to follow their beliefs when it comes to their choice?
If theyâre ascribing negative attributes to abortion, they would be stigmatizing abortion.
To me, I think the distinction is whether you're making it a blanket statement that applies to everyone or to the universal concept of abortion, versus just your own experiences.
I can say "I think I would be really sad if I got an abortion", and that's about me. (Though there are certain ways of expressing this with a judgmental tone that implies people who feel differently are wrong.)
But when you say "having an abortion is always sad" or "I feel bad for anyone who has an abortion", you're prescribing how others should feel about abortions, and specifically that they should feel bad about them. That's stigmatizing.
