Pro-Choice
Related: About this forumThis sums it up perfectly
Stolen from a comment on Quora by Sarah Geer. This is 100% spot-on.
...well for starters the real issue ISNT whether a
fetus is a human life or not. The real issue is bodily autonomy rights.
Even if one were to pretend a nonviable, nonsentient fetus is a full person due rights under the law, the bodily autonomy issue remains: no person in our society is allowed to use the bodies or organs of other people unless they have that persons EXPRESS POSITIVE CONSENT, not even to save their own lives.
A man on the transplant list cannot force another man to donate him a kidney, even if that second man is the only match and the first will die without it.
A doctor may not take blood or organs from a corpse without that persons prior consent to posthumous organ donation, even to save the life of a dying child.
Thus a fetus cannot use a womans body and organs against her will and without her express consent. Contrary to popular claim by conservatives, sex is not consent to pregnancy (my consent for a man to have use of my vagina is NOT consent for a third party to take over my uterus and use my entire body for 40 weeks), and POSITIVE INFORMED consent is required for organ donation or use to begin with.
And the reason there is so much hate on this issue is because one side believes women are simply THINGS the moment they have sex; that they are nothing more than incubators who must risk their lives and health whether they want to or not in order to give birth. That they give up their rights to their bodies the instant they have sex.
The other side thinks women are actual people.
BaileyBill
(172 posts)you are allowed to use deadly force against anyone who enters your home without consent and causes you to be in fear for your life or safety. Yet they deny the same right if someone enters your body without your consent. The problem is expecting those on the right to respect logic, much less women.
handmade34
(22,926 posts)one side sees sex as merely a biological function and the other side sees sex as an enjoyable, intimate way to communicate and express yourself with another human
the former sees the need to punish women for enjoying sex
2naSalit
(92,813 posts)the ones who view sex as a biological exercise mean that it is only that for women, the others sex is allowed to enjoy it even when it's rape.
CousinIT
(10,228 posts)lostnfound
(16,651 posts)Thats an argument Ive never heard before and its an interesting one.
Wonder how many anti-abortion men have refused to consent to organ donation.
Fascinating.
GemDigger
(4,328 posts)Sucha NastyWoman
(2,898 posts)It is about the right to spread their seed, and the frustration that women can decide what happens to that seed, and there is nothing they can do about it except enlist the law to give them a say in the matter.
2naSalit
(92,813 posts)that they "right" to spread their seed also includes, in their reckoning, the woman's obligation to accommodate them.
amywalk
(255 posts)They dont want women to be able to have sex with other people without severe consequences.
dvan
(84 posts)The problem is- we keep expecting them to act like rational, caring, moral people. They are not and never will be. Its like playing a game with someone who doesnt care about the rules. You may get a moral victory because you didnt cheat like they did, but you still get the L. Im not saying we need to start breaking the law and cheating like they do, but we have to do everything in our power to defeat them and put our foot on their throats. Extreme methods must be used on these right wing extremists.
rampartc
(5,835 posts)sop
(11,236 posts)Last edited Sat May 11, 2019, 10:44 AM - Edit history (1)
The State has absolutely no right to control what a woman chooses to do with her own body. None whatsoever, under any condition. A state that arrogates that type of power over a woman's reproductive system to itself can also dictate how many children a woman can have, like the old China one-child policy.
I had to share this as it really hit home. My daughter recently endured a difficult pregnancy. Morning sickness, migraines, gestational diabetes (with insulin and a very restrictive diet) and near the end she developed HELPP syndrome, which is similar to pre-eclampsia except more likely to be fatal. She did all that because SHE WANTED THE BABY. Can you imagine being forced to risk your life like that against your will??
She had an emergency c-section when her blood pressure spiked and had a healthy baby girl, a little early at 35 weeks but otherwise fine. She also got her tubes tied so it doesnt happen again. The forced birthers object to that too, would prefer that she die after a short life of constant childbearing.
orleans
(35,002 posts)and i'm very glad both her and her baby are doing well.
thank you for posting this
Moostache
(10,163 posts)The slippery slope goes from number to permissible number of sexual acts, to number of sexual partners, to permissible times for sexual acts, to permitted positions for insemination, etc...
Small government? Who will staff the Inter-uterus investigation patrol? Where will the judges on the Reproductive Crimes units come from - appointees? elections? How long will they serve on the bench? Lifetime appointments? 2-year terms? 4? 6? Who DECIDES a viable pregnancy when potential harm, loss of fertility or death are possible for the pregnant woman? Like EVERYTHING out of a conservative pea brain, there is no "there" there....no plans, no thoughts, no logic, no consistency...
Reduce abortions? BULLSHIT...you only INCREASE the health risks to women and the number of deaths from dangerous abortions in uncontrolled underground and back alley 'services'.
Think of the 'child'? Yeah, riiiiiiight, until it goes home and needs food or health care or education or support for the parents. Without MANDATORY child welfare laws ATTACHED to anti-abortion laws they are nothing but state sanctioned cruelty writ into law.
I really abhor the anti-choice, control the women crowd. Almost as deeply as a I hate Trump. Fuck them all with the same rusty garden tool.
keithbvadu2
(40,167 posts)Pro-life is a myth.
The supposed pro-lifers cared naught when the state of Texas (republican gov, republican Prez) deliberately killed living baby Sun Hudson against the mother's wishes because he was an inconvenience to the state.
It is not a matter of life to the supposed pro-lifers.
It is a matter of control.
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)It's ALL about MEN having CONTROL over WOMEN's bodies.
To these men, women are something to be owned.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(26,730 posts)Of course, all the anti-choice people simply don't believe that females should have any autonomy whatsoever.
And I notice that all of those forced pregnancy states are likewise enthusiastic supporters of state sanctioned pre-meditated murder, which they call by the strange name of "The Death Penalty".
Fresh_Start
(11,342 posts)if women have to donate their bodies...
then every adult in the US needs to also be on call to donate from their bodies and that donation has to be more than a pint of blood.
let them give a kidney, part of your lung, part of your liver, bone marrow, part of your pancreas, part of your intestine, part of your skin....., veins, you can even survive with one eye....
if some people are expected to be demanded to give of their bodies, so should all people be demanded to give of their bodies.
let's see how many of the pro-lifers can walk that walk.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)I do not consent to becoming a thing.
Freddie
(9,698 posts)Forcing a woman to give birth against her will is an insult to her worth as a human.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)🤯🤬
Delmette2.0
(4,264 posts)Rec'd for exposure.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,791 posts)and one I have never heard before. Excellent find!
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,911 posts)is God's way of punishing the woman.
orleans
(35,002 posts)i hope they don't last long at the job.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,911 posts)he asked. "I'd never have one," I said, hoping to deflect the entire conversation I knew what was to follow. He pressed the issue and I said I'd discuss it seriously with him, but first I needed to write something down.
The conversation continued throughout the lunch period, with him giving the usual bullshit bullet points and me refuting his arguments with facts. Finally I got him backed into a corner where he admitted he thought God didn't approve of sex outside of marriage, and that making the woman bear the child that results from it is His way of punishing her.
I handed him the paper I had written on at the beginning of the discussion. On it I had written, "____ will say that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and forcing the woman to bear a child is God's way of punishing her."
"We could have saved a half hour if you had just told the truth when we began this discussion," I said as I got up to return to work.
That was the last time he brought up the topic.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)It shut him up real good!! 👍🏾
orleans
(35,002 posts)Freddie
(9,698 posts)Those evil wimmen do it all by themselves.
I read a comment by a conservative in which they said that one of their main principles was no one should have children unless they can afford them. And in the meantime make it difficult to prevent them! They actually say this stuff with a straight face.