Pro Choices @damnsoprochoice - Tumblr Blog

An infertile couple experiences the Planned Parenthood Videos: "They are our children, the dear offspring of our hearts for whom we have prayed, hoped, and waited so long."

“Yes, it is a boy. And we grieve him like a son.”

damnsoprochoice

So basically they want other people to give birth to children so they can have a baby. There are so many children in American foster care that are up for adoption. Look there. Don’t demand others to risk their health, lives, and their socioeconomic situation so that you can call a newborn “yours”. That’s not pro-life, that’s selfish. That’s not wanting to be a parent super badly. If you want to have a child that badly you have many more options than to make abortion illegal.

prolifeproliberty

The vast majority of pregnancies are not life threatening.

This couple and the thousands of couples like them aren’t just offering to adopt these children. In most cases, the adoptive parents pay for the medical and sometimes even living expenses of the birthmother throughout and for a period of time after her pregnancy. Adoption is actually a great option for women who can’t afford to care for a child.

We don’t want abortion to be illegal because infertile couples want to adopt. We want to make abortion illegal because it kills a preborn human being. This article is about how couples struggling with infertility feel when over a million children are killed in the United States every year while these couples wait years just to adopt one.

tipofthescepter

I haven’t read the article just these comments but for the love can we stop pulling the “look at all the kids in foster care” card about adoption? The majority of kids in foster care aren’t up for adoption. Reunification with parents is almost always the number 1 goal. Following that is kinship placement and preferred after that is often the foster parents. Plus there are other options besides adoption (guardianship for example) that may come into play.

damnsoprochoice

That would have been a relevant argument if I had claimed that all children in forster care are up for adoption. I specifically highlighted that there are children in forster care up for adoption, and couples should look at them, too, before crying about how unwilling women won’t mother their children.

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

source

prolifeproliberty

An infertile couple experiences the Planned Parenthood Videos: "They are our children, the dear offspring of our hearts for whom we have prayed, hoped, and waited so long."

“Yes, it is a boy. And we grieve him like a son.”

damnsoprochoice

So basically they want other people to give birth to children so they can have a baby. There are so many children in American foster care that are up for adoption. Look there. Don’t demand others to risk their health, lives, and their socioeconomic situation so that you can call a newborn “yours”. That’s not pro-life, that’s selfish. That’s not wanting to be a parent super badly. If you want to have a child that badly you have many more options than to make abortion illegal.

prolifeproliberty

The vast majority of pregnancies are not life threatening.

This couple and the thousands of couples like them aren’t just offering to adopt these children. In most cases, the adoptive parents pay for the medical and sometimes even living expenses of the birthmother throughout and for a period of time after her pregnancy. Adoption is actually a great option for women who can’t afford to care for a child.

We don’t want abortion to be illegal because infertile couples want to adopt. We want to make abortion illegal because it kills a preborn human being. This article is about how couples struggling with infertility feel when over a million children are killed in the United States every year while these couples wait years just to adopt one.

damnsoprochoice

A pregancy doesn’t have to be life threathening to end up taking a pregnant person’s life. The Economist currently has an article which is discussing the very high maternal death rates in the US.

The point is that the people who have abortions aren’t just having abortions because they can’t afford a child. The pregnancy in itself is a big factor. Also, not many people are willing to go through a pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption, because the adoption process in itself is riddled with problematic elements. Even open adoptions can legally turn closed after two years, because open adoptions are social contracts, not legally binding ones.

Problems in pregnancy can be many, for example one of my sisters have gone through two pregnancies to term, both of which she was on maternity leave from week 20 due to very painful SPD, early contractions, her lowered immunesystem lead to repeated pneumonia. Even if adoptive parents pay hospital bills, 20+ weeks of no income isn’t a viable option for some. To go through a pregancy you must also be willing to handle the complications that arise during it. Even with paying living expenses at the end of the pregnancy the person probably won’t have a job, anyway.

These couples make other people’s unwanted pregnancies about them. Pregnant people are more likely to be murder victims, they can face spousal of familial abuse, they can be outcast, put in economic jeapordy, if in school with a scholarship they might lose the scholarship due to missing school and/or slipping grades, and so on.

You are ignoring the very real reasons why people chose to go through an abortion, which are as many as there are abortions done.

prolifeproliberty

An infertile couple experiences the Planned Parenthood Videos: "They are our children, the dear offspring of our hearts for whom we have prayed, hoped, and waited so long."

“Yes, it is a boy. And we grieve him like a son.”

damnsoprochoice

So basically they want other people to give birth to children so they can have a baby. There are so many children in American foster care that are up for adoption. Look there. Don’t demand others to risk their health, lives, and their socioeconomic situation so that you can call a newborn “yours”. That’s not pro-life, that’s selfish. That’s not wanting to be a parent super badly. If you want to have a child that badly you have many more options than to make abortion illegal.

prolifeproliberty

When rights are based on what you can do rather than what you are, you run the risk of setting the bar too high or too low.

damnsoprochoice

The problem is that you take one argument out of context, and make a sweeping generalization of it, and the people who have this argument. The argument of ability is in relation to the person who is pregnant, as in we’re chosing between one autonomous being, and one being who is pretty much acting parasitic, i.e their existance hinges on someone else biological functions to nourish them as they grow within them.

It is also pretty ignorant, and willfully so, to compare a 10 week fetus to a newborn. The ability of a 10 week fetus doesn’t stretch beyond involuntary movemets, a heartbeat, and basic reflexes. A newborn has the ability to do much more than that.

Also, how is a dog not a being which deserves outmost respect and should be treated just as well as we treat humans? That’s a rather disgusting mentality about animals I had hoped we were starting to abolish

mysharona1987

Cervical Position can help you become familiar with your cycle and ovulation is by checking your cervical position. Checking your cervical position will allow you to notice changes throughout the month and get a personal prediction of your most fertile time of the month. It helps you to know when ovulation is about to occur and can also indicate whether or not pregnancy has been achieved.

I found this very interesting site where you can get to know your body. People seem to think that tracking your period and ovulation is only for those who are trying to concieve, but understanding your cycle can clear up a lot of confusion of it, and what you are feeling.

You can be greatly impacted by the hormonal shifts in your body, and tracking your PMS symptoms and when they occur is great. But also, knowing your cervix is an awesome way to get closer to your own body!

I know that I will be checking this out. Our bodies are amazing, don’t you think?

Wrote a reply and tumblr mobile ate it. Wth. Possibly a sign to let it be

thresholdofzero-deactivated2018

azspot

I don’t agree with the pro-life position on abortion for two reasons. One: If abortion is criminalized, all women of child-bearing years legally become public incubators. The ability to bear children will mean being subjected to special scrutiny by the government. If you believe women are more than just transportation systems for wombs, abortion—love it or hate it—has to be legal. Family planning, privacy and the right to keep personal decisions personal are at the core of what we know as choice.

Tina Dupuy (via azspot)

political-dissonance

#DefundPlannedParenthood #EndAbortion #ProLife

damnsoprochoice

Some choices are beyond your control.

I am meticulous about condoms. I do not have sex without condoms, and when I’m in my fertile window I’m even more careful. Last week, during my fertile window, the condom slipped off inside of me, and now there is a possibility that I face an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy. That was no choice I made, it was an active non-choice where I was unfortunate to experience that sort of mishap.

A baby is not a “consequence”, and should never be spoken of as such. A baby should be a choice that you are willing to bring to this world and care for, even if only in-utero. Political-dissonance, you are truly dehumanizing babies by claiming they are a consequence rather than, you know, human beings.

political-dissonance

I was liking what you were saying there until that last part. You should go back and re-read what I’ve been writing. I think you’re not understanding my point. Babies are a blessing. The pro-choicers that I talk to are the ones claiming they’re a consequence.

damnsoprochoice

Look at that picture. What does it say on it?

political-dissonance

Again, a “Consequence” is an outcome. My responses were to your statements using the word “punishment”

damnsoprochoice

I have a sight problem so that might make it difficult for me to see, but there’s no usage of the word “punishment” on my part.

Talking about abortion as “avoiding the consequences” IS calling a baby a consequence. Pro-lifers are more guilty of that than pro-choice people. In fact I see no reason why a pro-choice person would call a child a consequence as you are.

political-dissonance

Here is a screenshot of the Merriam Webster definition. You are trying to make this word into something that it isn’t

conservativedreamer

Is our education system so bad that people don’t understand what consequence means?

political-dissonance

I know, right?

driftingsilently

‘Consequence’ has a negative connotation, so I’m sure they just didn’t expect someone to actually be using the literal term for a change

political-dissonance

I totally get that. It’s the part where we then have to argue about it after I’ve pointed out the literal meaning where I can’t figure out what they’re trying to accomplish

damnsoprochoice

You didn’t say until that picture that you meant the “literal interpretation” of it, so don’t act like that. Any and all words are not only tied to their literal meaning but also to the social connotation which the word has. Consequence is negative, and result is positive. Just as the smell vs scent.

If you want to be successful in your rhetoric you can not only fall back on the dictionary for it, you will also need to understand how the word is read and understood. If you want to talk about a result of a person’s action without the interpretation that the product of the action is negative… Use result.

Just a suggestion from a writer to you :) words have more than a literal meaning

political-dissonance

I appreciate that helpful advice. I wonder how all the medical journals I’ve been published in missed that flaw in my writing skills :-)

I will say that I am done with the conversation about the meaning of the word. Regardless of how people choose to interpret it, the message of the post is very clear.

damnsoprochoice

Medical journals and commentary on social phenomena, and on social media are different forums. It requires different language.

You write in medical journals, but this isn’t an issue of biology or medicine. This is social. A positivistic view on language when talking about relativistic experiences will always, always, cause the discourse to be… Well, riddled with misunderstandings. We couldn’t even agree if I said punished, or that you clarified early on what context you used “consequence” in.

The medical field is largely positivistic, so I understand the black and white view of the words you use. I don’t agree with that, but I’m in social sciences.

The message of the post is that people should be punished for their actions. Now I actually said punished, because I can read between the lines.

political-dissonance

Your words not mine.

You’re correct about medical writing being very black and white but at this point, I feel that all of the comments I’ve been getting about this from the pro-choice side are meant to distract from the point or try to vilify pro-life. It’s kind of a cheap tactic. At the end of the day, Pro-life will likely agree with me and pro-choice will likely try to continue the debate about the meaning of the word “consequences”.

Since I have no delusions about winning the hearts and minds of anyone on the pro-choice side, I view my blog as a pep rally for the pro-life side and an opportunity to pick off anyone who’s sitting on the fence. Judging by how much they re-blog and like my stuff and the private notes I get from them, they seem to like it so I’m going to keep on keepin’ on and be done with defending the legitimate meaning of that word. I will certainly take your comments under consideration for future memes though.

damnsoprochoice

Ok. Pro-life will always be about the robbing of life and a lack of understanding of the socioekonomic impact pro-life policies and discourse will have. In a world where many countries are getting on their feet, and where the U.S. has the highest maternal death rate, there is no way there is any room to budge on the reproductive rights.

Reproductive rights doesn't just impact an individual, but also a whole country, and a whole world. If you want to adhere to false ad populum for your opinions, fine. I will continue to be critical about the usage of language, and the discourse it shapes. Pro-life people have a very big tendency to say well, BS, and then try to claim that the other person misinterpreted to get out of a tricky situation.

This isn't just about a word, but the lack of responsibility the anti-choice movement takes for their action (while simultaneously deflating the pro-choice movement's arguments to a ridiculously simplified level, where it is obvious that you just d i d n o t g et i t... And then saying everyone in the movement has a contradicting opinion... Uh). Which is ironic, because that's what anti-choices scream that the people seeking abortion do.

The amount of research that supports abortion for socioeconomic reasons is growing. It promotes equality, lowers crime rates, it boosts economies, more people seek higher education, and so on. Not only is it about autonomy, which in itself is enough of an argument, but it has a positive impact on a whole society, long term.

These are things you can ignore in favor of messages of people who agree with you that "consequence" is a positive word in all sentences ;)

There is a reason why I stress on words used here. The power of language is incredible,and depending on the interpretation the most people will make you will have to shape your language according to it. The literal definition of gay is happy, that is the actual historical definition of it. Literally has changed meaning over the past decade, and the word awesome does not mean what it did 100 years ago.

You can hide under the chair nd say that you go by the real definition when it is really about wanting to hide from the effect the word will have. The word will have the effect that most people interpet it as, no matter how right you are in the actual definition of it.

Consequence is a word with negative connotations, and will be read as punishment by the majority of people. Consequences is associated with negative actions because of your own wrongful actions. It is possible to use the word consequence and have everyone involved understanding that it is meant to be the dictionary definition, and not discipline. In that image that wasn’t clear, in fact it was willfully not clear about it. It was meant to be a “deal with the consequences of your bad actions” type of phrasing. Not a “pregnancy is a potential consequence of sexual intercourse”.

Get it?

Your words have an impact, and these people are very well aware of that. They just chose to ignore it when you call them out on it. I know that playbook, and I despise it.

political-dissonance

#DefundPlannedParenthood #EndAbortion #ProLife

damnsoprochoice

Some choices are beyond your control.

I am meticulous about condoms. I do not have sex without condoms, and when I’m in my fertile window I’m even more careful. Last week, during my fertile window, the condom slipped off inside of me, and now there is a possibility that I face an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy. That was no choice I made, it was an active non-choice where I was unfortunate to experience that sort of mishap.

A baby is not a “consequence”, and should never be spoken of as such. A baby should be a choice that you are willing to bring to this world and care for, even if only in-utero. Political-dissonance, you are truly dehumanizing babies by claiming they are a consequence rather than, you know, human beings.

political-dissonance

I was liking what you were saying there until that last part. You should go back and re-read what I’ve been writing. I think you’re not understanding my point. Babies are a blessing. The pro-choicers that I talk to are the ones claiming they’re a consequence.

damnsoprochoice

Look at that picture. What does it say on it?

political-dissonance

Again, a “Consequence” is an outcome. My responses were to your statements using the word “punishment”

damnsoprochoice

I have a sight problem so that might make it difficult for me to see, but there’s no usage of the word “punishment” on my part.

Talking about abortion as “avoiding the consequences” IS calling a baby a consequence. Pro-lifers are more guilty of that than pro-choice people. In fact I see no reason why a pro-choice person would call a child a consequence as you are.

political-dissonance

Here is a screenshot of the Merriam Webster definition. You are trying to make this word into something that it isn’t

conservativedreamer

Is our education system so bad that people don’t understand what consequence means?

political-dissonance

I know, right?

driftingsilently

‘Consequence’ has a negative connotation, so I’m sure they just didn’t expect someone to actually be using the literal term for a change

political-dissonance

I totally get that. It’s the part where we then have to argue about it after I’ve pointed out the literal meaning where I can’t figure out what they’re trying to accomplish

damnsoprochoice

You didn’t say until that picture that you meant the “literal interpretation” of it, so don’t act like that. Any and all words are not only tied to their literal meaning but also to the social connotation which the word has. Consequence is negative, and result is positive. Just as the smell vs scent.

If you want to be successful in your rhetoric you can not only fall back on the dictionary for it, you will also need to understand how the word is read and understood. If you want to talk about a result of a person’s action without the interpretation that the product of the action is negative… Use result.

Just a suggestion from a writer to you :) words have more than a literal meaning

political-dissonance

I appreciate that helpful advice. I wonder how all the medical journals I’ve been published in missed that flaw in my writing skills :-)

I will say that I am done with the conversation about the meaning of the word. Regardless of how people choose to interpret it, the message of the post is very clear.

damnsoprochoice

Medical journals and commentary on social phenomena, and on social media are different forums. It requires different language.

You write in medical journals, but this isn't an issue of biology or medicine. This is social. A positivistic view on language when talking about relativistic experiences will always, always, cause the discourse to be... Well, riddled with misunderstandings. We couldn't even agree if I said punished, or that you clarified early on what context you used "consequence" in.

The medical field is largely positivistic, so I understand the black and white view of the words you use. I don't agree with that, but I'm in social sciences.

The message of the post is that people should be punished for their actions. Now I actually said punished, because I can read between the lines.

prolifeproliberty

Because I’m tired of people telling me the organization that commits more abortions than any other in the United States is somehow “preventing” the very thing they do nearly 900 times each day.

antiprolife

Without Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive and sex education services, they could potentially be performing anywhere from 200,00 to 500,000 more abortions per year than they already do.

They do more to prevent abortion than any “pro-life” organization ever has by harassing people. Sorry.

caercutta

Prolifeproliberty, do you think a woman should be forced to give birth against her will? Do you think a woman has final say over her future, her body, her mind? Do you think you have the right to force her to do anything she doesn’t want to do? Because that’s what we are talking about here. Force.

prolifeproliberty

I think a woman does have a right to her own body. She does not, however, have the right to have her child dismembered.

I answered this in a other post earlier, so I’ll sum it up here.

If I’m holding a newborn, I have the right to not hold that newborn if I don’t want to. That doesn’t give me the right to drop the newborn on the ground.

raised-right-republican-deactiv

Sex education?

Don’t a lot of middle school and high schools have those? Even some elementary schools

antiprolife

Sex education in most (american) schools is very limited by abstinence-only or abstinence-based laws. It’s more scare tactics and doesn’t involve a whole lot of actual educating.

prolifeproliberty

Again, if Planned Parenthood cared so much about prevention and education and preventing abortion, why wouldn’t they drop abortion and just focus on education and prevention? It would be easier for them to get funding and they wouldn’t be nearly so controversial.

damnsoprochoice

Because prevention is not 100%. There is still gaps in knowledge, accessibility, and the “it won’t happen to me”, and false information being spread around. Also, there is so much research still being done in this area that it’s impossible to be 100% accurate. And then, even then, no birth control protects 100% against pregnancy. There is always a risk.

So, abortion will still be sought after even with the most comprehensive sex-Ed and best preventative work in the world. People also change their minds, or their sutuation changes so they have to have abortions.

prolifeproliberty

That doesn’t mean we need abortion. It means we need resources for moms and babies. Planned Parenthood doesn’t have to do abortions. They do them because they get revenue from them.

damnsoprochoice

We need both. Prevention, resources, and abortion. Even with resources they might not always be enough. I live in a country with a massive amount of resources, and people still need abortion. They might be too young, in school, not want a child, not want to be pregnant, people who are in economic hardship, people who are… There are as many reasons as there are abortions performed.

It would be great if we could minimize the amount of abortions needed. That is by people who would like to stay pregnant, but can’t do it for some reason, can get a REAL choice. And that people don’t have to get pregnant in the first place.

prolifeproliberty

Are any of those things reason to kill an already born child?

damnsoprochoice

Read my other response. You need to base your debate in reality and not in sensationalism.

prolifeproliberty

Because I’m tired of people telling me the organization that commits more abortions than any other in the United States is somehow “preventing” the very thing they do nearly 900 times each day.

antiprolife

Without Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive and sex education services, they could potentially be performing anywhere from 200,00 to 500,000 more abortions per year than they already do.

They do more to prevent abortion than any “pro-life” organization ever has by harassing people. Sorry.

caercutta

Prolifeproliberty, do you think a woman should be forced to give birth against her will? Do you think a woman has final say over her future, her body, her mind? Do you think you have the right to force her to do anything she doesn’t want to do? Because that’s what we are talking about here. Force.

prolifeproliberty

I think a woman does have a right to her own body. She does not, however, have the right to have her child dismembered.

I answered this in a other post earlier, so I’ll sum it up here.

If I’m holding a newborn, I have the right to not hold that newborn if I don’t want to. That doesn’t give me the right to drop the newborn on the ground.

raised-right-republican-deactiv

Sex education?

Don’t a lot of middle school and high schools have those? Even some elementary schools

antiprolife

Sex education in most (american) schools is very limited by abstinence-only or abstinence-based laws. It’s more scare tactics and doesn’t involve a whole lot of actual educating.

damnsoprochoice

I live in a very “sex liberated” country (so much more than the US), but there was so much they missed in our 3 month sex-ed course.

Also if you don’t want to hold a newborn you can give it to someone else to hold. You aren’t required to hold it for 40 weeks, feed it, and deal with the pains of holding a growing baby. So. Bad metaphor.

prolifeproliberty

What if you had a newborn in your arms and nobody else was around to hand the baby off to?

damnsoprochoice

Well that’s a hypothetical situation very few people will be in (like probably only 1 in 7 billion) so there’s no need to answer that question

prolifeproliberty

But it matters, because we need to know whether it’s okay to kill a vulnerable person just because you don’t want to care for them.

damnsoprochoice

You seem to be unable to grasp the difference between the dependency a fetus has on a person, and the dependency an infant has. One is biological and tied to a single person, the other is biological and can be given to other people. I can babysit for two hours, I can't pregnancysit.

It's not something you can say is the same, because it's two very different things. It sets the debate off skewed because one of us is framing the debate from reality, and you are basing your points in a false equivalence which doesn't have root in reality. There's no comparision.

prolifeproliberty

Because I’m tired of people telling me the organization that commits more abortions than any other in the United States is somehow “preventing” the very thing they do nearly 900 times each day.

antiprolife

Without Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive and sex education services, they could potentially be performing anywhere from 200,00 to 500,000 more abortions per year than they already do.

They do more to prevent abortion than any “pro-life” organization ever has by harassing people. Sorry.

caercutta

Prolifeproliberty, do you think a woman should be forced to give birth against her will? Do you think a woman has final say over her future, her body, her mind? Do you think you have the right to force her to do anything she doesn’t want to do? Because that’s what we are talking about here. Force.

prolifeproliberty

I think a woman does have a right to her own body. She does not, however, have the right to have her child dismembered.

I answered this in a other post earlier, so I’ll sum it up here.

If I’m holding a newborn, I have the right to not hold that newborn if I don’t want to. That doesn’t give me the right to drop the newborn on the ground.

raised-right-republican-deactiv

Sex education?

Don’t a lot of middle school and high schools have those? Even some elementary schools

antiprolife

Sex education in most (american) schools is very limited by abstinence-only or abstinence-based laws. It’s more scare tactics and doesn’t involve a whole lot of actual educating.

prolifeproliberty

Again, if Planned Parenthood cared so much about prevention and education and preventing abortion, why wouldn’t they drop abortion and just focus on education and prevention? It would be easier for them to get funding and they wouldn’t be nearly so controversial.

damnsoprochoice

Because prevention is not 100%. There is still gaps in knowledge, accessibility, and the “it won’t happen to me”, and false information being spread around. Also, there is so much research still being done in this area that it’s impossible to be 100% accurate. And then, even then, no birth control protects 100% against pregnancy. There is always a risk.

So, abortion will still be sought after even with the most comprehensive sex-Ed and best preventative work in the world. People also change their minds, or their sutuation changes so they have to have abortions.

prolifeproliberty

That doesn’t mean we need abortion. It means we need resources for moms and babies. Planned Parenthood doesn’t have to do abortions. They do them because they get revenue from them.

damnsoprochoice

We need both. Prevention, resources, and abortion. Even with resources they might not always be enough. I live in a country with a massive amount of resources, and people still need abortion. They might be too young, in school, not want a child, not want to be pregnant, people who are in economic hardship, people who are... There are as many reasons as there are abortions performed.

It would be great if we could minimize the amount of abortions needed. That is by people who would like to stay pregnant, but can't do it for some reason, can get a REAL choice. And that people don't have to get pregnant in the first place.

prolifeproliberty

Because I’m tired of people telling me the organization that commits more abortions than any other in the United States is somehow “preventing” the very thing they do nearly 900 times each day.

antiprolife

Without Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive and sex education services, they could potentially be performing anywhere from 200,00 to 500,000 more abortions per year than they already do.

They do more to prevent abortion than any “pro-life” organization ever has by harassing people. Sorry.

caercutta

Prolifeproliberty, do you think a woman should be forced to give birth against her will? Do you think a woman has final say over her future, her body, her mind? Do you think you have the right to force her to do anything she doesn’t want to do? Because that’s what we are talking about here. Force.

prolifeproliberty

I think a woman does have a right to her own body. She does not, however, have the right to have her child dismembered.

I answered this in a other post earlier, so I’ll sum it up here.

If I’m holding a newborn, I have the right to not hold that newborn if I don’t want to. That doesn’t give me the right to drop the newborn on the ground.

raised-right-republican-deactiv

Sex education?

Don’t a lot of middle school and high schools have those? Even some elementary schools

antiprolife

Sex education in most (american) schools is very limited by abstinence-only or abstinence-based laws. It’s more scare tactics and doesn’t involve a whole lot of actual educating.

damnsoprochoice

I live in a very “sex liberated” country (so much more than the US), but there was so much they missed in our 3 month sex-ed course.

Also if you don’t want to hold a newborn you can give it to someone else to hold. You aren’t required to hold it for 40 weeks, feed it, and deal with the pains of holding a growing baby. So. Bad metaphor.

prolifeproliberty

What if you had a newborn in your arms and nobody else was around to hand the baby off to?

damnsoprochoice

Well that's a hypothetical situation very few people will be in (like probably only 1 in 7 billion) so there's no need to answer that question

A 17 year old girl wants an abortion. In comes a 30 year old woman who has been trying to get pregnant for 6 years and gets pissy. Don't compare yourself to a 17 year old girl with very religious parents, awesome grades, and with no preparation or desire to have a child. Other people don't owe you to have a child because you can't have one. So don't call her a murderer please.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Pro Choices