Boston Walk For Choice

RSS

Posts tagged with "pro life"

When I say I’m pro-life…

desliz:

speakfortheweak:

It doesn’t mean I’m religious.
Because I’m not.

It doesn’t mean I hate LGBT community.
Because I am a supporter.

It doesn’t mean I force women to give birth.
Because I never will.

Take what you want from my blog, but never assume I’m just your stereotypical pro-lifer. It is VERY possible to ask questions, state your opinions in a civil manner on this blog. I am respectful and I enjoy answering all questions received! 

Thanks for following! :)
-speakfortheweak 

Let me tell you some things.

I used to investigate child abuse and neglect. I can tell you how to stop the vast majority of abortion in the world.

First, make knowledge and access to contraception widely available. Start teaching kids before they hit puberty. Teach them about domestic violence and coercion, and teach them not to coerce and rape. Create a strong, loving community where women and girls feel safe and supported in times of need. Because guess what? They aren’t. You know what happens to babies born under such circumstances? They get hurt, unnecessarily. They get sick, unnecessarily. They get removed from parents who love them but who are unprepared for the burden of a child. Resources? Honey, we try. There aren’t enough resources anywhere. There are waiting lists, and promises, and maybes. If the government itself can’t hook people up, what makes you think an impoverished single mom can handle it?

Abolish poverty. Do you have any idea how much childcare costs? Daycare can cost as much or more than monthly rent. They may be inadequately staffed. Getting a private nanny is a nice idea, but they don’t come cheap either. Relatives? Do they own a car? Does the bus run at the right times? Do they have jobs of their own they need to work just to keep the lights on? Are they going to stick around until you get off you convenience store shift at 4 AM? Do they have criminal histories that will make them unsuitable as caregivers when CPS pokes around? You gonna pay for that? Who’s going to pay for that?

End rape. I know your type errs on the side of blaming the woman, but I’ve seen little girls who’ve barely gotten their periods pregnant because somebody thought raping preteens was an awesome idea. You want to put a child through that? Or someone with a mental or physical inability for whom pregnancy would be frightening, painful or even life-threatening? I’ve seen nonverbal kids who had their feet sliced up by caregivers for no fucking reason at all, you think sexual abuse doesn’t happen either?

You say there’s lots of couples who want to adopt. Kiddo, what they want to adopt are healthy white babies, preferably untainted by the wombs and genetics of women with alcohol or drug dependencies. I’ve seen the kids they don’t want, who almost no one wants. You people focus only on the happy pink babies, the gigglers, the ones who grow and grow with no trouble. Those are not the kids who linger in foster care. Those are certainly not the older kids and teenagers who age out of foster care and then are thrown out in the streets, usually with an array of medical and mental health issues. Are they too old to count?

And yeah, I’ve seen the babies, little hand-sized things barely clinging to life. There’s no glory, no wonder there. There is no wonder in a pregnant woman with five dollars to her name, so deep in depression you wonder if she’ll be alive in a week. Therapy costs money. Medicine costs money. Food, clothes, electricity cost money. Government assistance is a pittance; poverty drives women and girls into situations where they are forced to rely on people who abuse them to survive. (I’ve been up in more hospitals than I can count.)

In each and every dark pit of desperation, I have never seen a pro-lifer. I ain’t never seen them babysitting, scrubbing floors, bringing over goods, handing mom $50 bucks a month or driving her to the pediatrician. I ain’t never seen them sitting up for hours with an autistic child who screams and rages so his mother can get some sleep while she rests up from working 14-hour days. I don’t see them fixing leaks in rundown houses or playing with a kid while the police prepare to interview her about her sexual abuse. They’re not paying for the funerals of babies and children who died after birth, when they truly do become independent organisms. And the crazy thing is they think they’ve already done their job, because the child was born!

Aphids give birth, girl. It’s no miracle. You want to speak for the weak? Get off your high horse and get your hands dirty helping the poor, the isolated, the ill and mentally ill women and mothers and their children who already breathe the dirty air. You are doing nothing, absolutely nothing, for children. You don’t have a flea’s comprehension of injustice. You are not doing shit for life until you get in there and fight that darkness. Until you understand that abortion is salvation in a world like ours. Does that sound too hard? Do you really think suffering post-birth is more permissible, less worthy of outrage?

“Pro-life” is simply a philosophy in which the only life worth saving is the one that can be saved by punishing a woman.

A Forced Eugenics Survivor Speaks Her Truth (Womanist Musings)

cydne-should-be-sleeping:

When North Carolina’s Eugenics program ended in 1974 more than 7,600 people were sterilized.  North Carolina had one of the most coercive eugenics program sterilizing people for “epilepsy, sickness and feeblemindedness.”  Though the aforementioned were the stated reasons they also sterilized for promiscuity, homosexuality and so-called criminal intentions. […]

Many White reproductive activists cannot relate to the experiences of Black women.  They have never had to fight for the right to be mothers, or fight for the right to keep their children off the auction block.  Unless the reproduction of a woman of colour is directly sanctioned by Whiteness, it is deemed an irresponsible act.  Such language continues to occur in discussions of so-called third world Brown and Black women. Mommy continues to be defined as White, middle/upper class, able bodied, straight, soccer mom in a mini van. Undocumented workers are routinely accused of having anchor babies to secure citizenship, but when this is played out in the media, they most certainly aren’t refering to the undocumented workers from countries that are considered White.  They mean the dangerous Brown and Black wombs reproducing at will.

 Women of colour are construed as a project in need of being saved, as long as the process does not mean truly acknowledging the role that race and class have played in our continuing oppression.  Innovations like the pill and Depo Provera, that have been touted as life saving, and important to the advancement of women’s rights, were tested on women of colour, long before they entered the precious bloodstreams of White women.  Yet, this history is erased to praise the ability of women to control their reproductive process. Once again, advancement for women was carried on the backs of women of colour. Even as I am writing this, I wonder how many blogs dedicated to reproductive justice have ignored this story and its historical significance, because it would mean confronting the horrible truth that reproductive justice is about far more than access to birth control, the right to have an abortion and supporting Planned Parenthood; its about validating the idea that women, and by women I mean women of colour, have paid the brunt of the cost in terms of violation due to the intersection or racism and sexism.

I don’t think that justice can ever truly be delivered to these survivors and no monetary award can ever return to them that which has been lost.  The only way to honour them is to ensure that in the future that women of colour have a seat at the table of plenty and are valued for who they are. If that small lesson cannot be learned from this atrocity, then their sacrifices have taught us nothing.

Next anti-choicer who says people should be forcibly sterilized after abortions should read this, then stfu forever.

(Source: keepyourbsoutofmyuterus)

I’m going to keep reposting these until someone answers them

bebinn:

Questions for pro-life people! As I stated before, I don’t need any snarky comebacks from pro-choice people; these are sincere questions that no pro-life blogger (or just anyone who identifies as pro-life) has taken the time to answer…yet.

I’ve linked to the original posts. Feel free to reblog this or either of them, or answer in my ask box any/all of the questions.

Here goes!

Questions

You say that embryos/fetuses deserve the full rights and protections of born human beings….

If this unborn person is to be treated as a born person, say, a child, they would be protected legally as a child, correct?

So, if a person was to have a miscarriage, would they need to be investigated for manslaughter, the crime of killing a human being unintentionally/without malice aforethought?

If a person engaged in activities deemed risky during pregnancy, would they need to be investigated for child abuse/endangerment?

If a person didn’t get prenatal care, or ignored/couldn’t comply with their doctor’s advice, would they need to be investigated for neglect?

If a person physically unfit to be pregnant (with some sort of illness or disability) became pregnant, would they need to be investigated for abuse, neglect, or something else?

If a pregnant person became suicidal, how should the government respond to ensure the person inside them would be safe?

Since a large percentage of zygotes, or fertilized eggs, are lost before they get a chance to implant in the uterine wall, would we need to check everyone’s period to be sure there is not a dead person in there? I know it sounds silly, but if it’s a person from the moment of conception, or fertilization, then millions of people are dying every day because they aren’t able to implant.

Will we need to issue “conception certificates,” or any kind of legal documentation, once a pregnancy occurs? If they are a person, shouldn’t we have a record of them?

Should pregnant people have the right to sue for child support? They need prenatal care just as much as born children need to be fed and clothed, if they are to keep this person inside them healthy.

Could pregnant people list their fetuses as dependents?

Could pregnant people collect welfare for their fetuses?

Could the father of this unborn person sue for custody?

Will these regulations apply to frozen embryos in fertility clinics? If a fertility clinic is damaged by a natural disaster, who will be held responsible for the deaths of the embryos?

More questions on autonomy and “right to life”

Here’s something I’ve been wondering about, and since I’m not a legal expert, I don’t have an answer.

If we were to treat embryos and fetuses as people, with a right to life and all that, what would we do about the fact that they are using someone else’s body against their will? Can abortion be justified as self-defense? There is no intent on the part of the embryo/fetus, since it is not sentient, and I imagine that would affect how they are treated legally.

Would their right to life trump the pregnant person’s right not to have their body used against their consent? If so, could that precedent be used to erode other bodily autonomy issues? This relates back to my questions on fetal personhood.

If their right to life didn’t take priority over bodily autonomy, then what? Would physicians be restricted to only performing inductions, no matter at what stage of development the fetus was? That is, would the fetuses have to be surgically removed or birthed, so as not to commit murder? Would letting them die be infringing on their right to life? Would it be more cruel to keep a severely underdeveloped baby alive, knowing it had little to no chance of survival, but was in great pain and anguish, or would likely suffer severe developmental problems?

These are questions we need to ask. There has to be a solid reason for outlawing abortion, and the most common reasoning I’ve seen is this “right to life.” I think that the treatment of uterus owners pre-Roe would not be as accepted today (though stranger things have happened), so old justifications wouldn’t hold much water. So, what happens when two people with equal rights are residing in one body?

My question is: Are frozen embryos political prisoners? Should they be immediately implanted in random uteruses in order to be “free”?

Aug 1

10 Things I'd Say to the Anti-Choice Fanatics Trying to End Access to Abortion

1) Most abortions take place early in pregnancy. Anti-abortion propaganda tends to focus on late term fetuses and even pictures of babies and small children, falsely implying that what’s evacuated during your typical abortion is basically the same as a baby. They shouldn’t be able to get away with this, but instead should acknowledge that nine out of ten abortions take place in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Additionally, the growth of medical abortion means a much larger percentage of abortions—-62% overall—-take place before the 9th week of pregnancy. In fact, in most abortions, the term “fetus” is incorrect, as doctors classify it as an embryo until the 11th week of pregnancy. At 8 weeks, and embryo is about ½ an inch long, and at 12 weeks, the fetus is a little over 2 inches long. In contrast, a full-term baby is an average 20 inches long, a full 40 times larger than the size of the average embryo during an abortion. The response to the bloody fetus pictures anti-choicers love should be pictures showing how small ½ an inch really is.

2) If not for anti-choicers, even more women would get abortions much earlier in their pregnancies. Most women want to terminate unwanted pregnancies as soon as possible, but there are some women who wait until 12 or 16 or even 20 weeks to terminate a pregnancy for elective reasons. Why do about 10% of women having abortions wait until early in their second trimester? It’s not because they’re stupid or indifferent to the growing fetus inside them. Research indicates that women delay having abortions because they have trouble deciding, they struggle to come up with the funds, and because they may have to travel and overcome legal obstacles to get an abortion. When anti-choicers focus on abortions that happen at 14 or 16 weeks, they should be asked what they’re doing to make sure women are getting abortions earlier: Do they support Medicaid funding? Do they want to help make sure there’s an easy to access provider in every county? If abortions after an embryo turns to a fetus bother you so much, you should be making sure women who want abortions can get them earlier in their pregnancies.

3) Doctors perform late term abortions because of medical indications, often on women who desperately wanted the baby. Anti-choicers like to lump all abortions together, implying that women wait until they’re 20 weeks pregnant or more to terminate a pregnancy because it somehow just occurred to them that they didn’t want to have a baby. But the rule of thumb with abortion is, “The later the termination, the higher the odds that the woman needed it for medical reasons.” Indeed, doctors who perform abortions after 24 usually require, as a matter of practice and of law, that the women have medical necessity reasons for abortion. Before he died, Dr. George Tiller had to have a second doctor confirm every diagnosis of a medical condition allowing post-24 week abortions. When he was accused of fudging these records to allow for elective abortions, the court found that Dr. Tiller innocent of all the charges.

Anti-choicers should be asked if they really can look a woman in the face whose fetus has defects incompatible with life or whose blood pressure is rising so high that it will kill her, and tell that woman that she shouldn’t be able to save herself or her family because later term abortions gross them out.

4) Women who get abortions aren’t afraid of being mothers. Anti-choice protesters like to shout at women going into clinics about how they would really like motherhood if they tried it out. In reality, women who have abortions are fully cognizant of the joys and pains of motherhood; 61% of women having abortion are already mothers. Anti-choicers who wax poetic about motherhood should be asked to explain why women who are already mothers would therefore choose abortion.

5) Abortion is physically safe. Anti-choice propaganda dwells on calling abortion clinics “abortion mills” and even going so far to call, as Michele Bachmann did, abortion an “act of violence” committed against the woman getting it. The truth is that abortion is a simple outpatient procedure that’s on the high end of safety for a medical procedure. The vast majority of abortions have no complications at all, and abortion is considered many times safer than childbirth. There are no long term health effects of abortion; anti-choice claims that it’s correlated to breast cancer have been repeatedly shown to be false. When anti-choicers get hysterical about how abortion is “violence”, they should be made to answer for the statistics that show it’s much safer than childbirth.

6) Abortion is mentally safe. In order to dissuade women from abortion, anti-choicers claim it will invoke depression and possibly even post-traumatic stress disorder. But repeated studies show not only that abortion doesn’t cause depression, but that giving birth can. In fact, mental illness can be a medical indicator for abortion; for women for whom giving birth can aggravate mental health problems, an abortion is often necessary to prevent further degradation of their mental health. Andrea Yates is good evidence against the contention that childbirth is a panacea, but anti-choicers should explain why they think they know better than the American Psychological Association when it comes to the mental health effects of abortion.

7) Women who get abortions take responsibility for their decision. Much anti-choice propaganda and legislation portrays women getting abortions as too stupid or cowed to understand the gravity of their decision. Supporters of mandatory ultrasounds argue that once women realize there’s an embryo in there, they’ll dash out of the clinic, an argument that assumes women must think they’re growing puppies or lemons in there and have to be set straight. The truth is that women who get abortions know that they’re terminating a pregnancy and are determined to do it long before they set foot in the doctor’s office. When dealing with supports of ultrasound laws, I recommend referencing this study of women who looked at ultrasound images before an abortion. The research showed that none of the women who did so changed their minds, and a substantial majority found that the images didn’t have much of an effect on their feelings at all.

8) Abortion providers are responsible medical professionals who work to make sure their patients are healthy and avoid future unintended pregnancies. Anti-choicers refuse to acknowledge that abortion providers are medical professionals who put their patients first, instead using terms such as “abortion industry” and claiming that abortion providers are trying to increase the abortion rate to make more money. First of all, abortion prices are relatively low compared to other medical procedures. Your average abortion costs around $500. The average cost of childbirth is 17 times as much. Ask an anti-choicer why a doctor who is just in it for the money wouldn’t go for the more lucrative profession of delivering babies.

When the words “abortion industry” come up, it’s fun to ask anti-choicers if they know what the term “non-profit” means, as the nation’s single largest provider of abortions, Planned Parenthood, is a non-profit. Additionally, Planned Parenthood works tirelessly to reduce the abortion rate by promoting sex education and contraception, the very tools necessary to prevent unintended pregnancy and therefore abortion. Contraception counseling to prevent future abortions is a regular feature in abortion care.

9) Women get abortions because they’re being responsible. Abortion is often characterized, even by some pro-choicers, as the result of women’s irresponsibility. Women are assumed to get pregnant because they were being irresponsible, and all too often, abortion is characterized as the “easy way out”. The truth is more complex. More than half of women getting abortions were trying to prevent pregnancy by using a contraception method the month they got pregnant. Moreover, it’s not like abortion is all cake and roses, but in fact it’s an unpleasant medical procedure that resembles all those other ones you get when you’re being responsible for your health. Most women getting abortions cite their personal responsibilities as a reason to get an abortion: responsibilities to actual children, financial responsibilities, work and school responsibilities. An honest society would view waiting to have children until you’re prepared for them as a sign that someone is responsible, instead of evidence that she’s irresponsible.

10) Conservative policies cause the abortion rate to be higher than it needs to be. No one wants an abortion. Women aren’t getting pregnant on purpose so they can enjoy an expensive suctioning of their uterine lining. So why are there 1.2 million abortions a year in America? Part of it is just bad luck; sometimes contraception fails and unwanted pregnancies happen. That will always be with us.

However, 46% of women who get abortions weren’t using a contraceptive method the month they got pregnant, indicating that conservative policies that discourage regular contraception use—-everything from abstinence-only education to objecting to any measures that make contraception cheaper and easier to obtain—-have been effective in keeping women from using contraception as regularly as they should. In addition, abortion rates are much higher for women living in poverty, and three quarters of women getting abortions say they can’t afford a child. If anti-choicers start moaning about the high rate of abortions, ask them what they intend to do about it. Do they want to make birth control free for all women? What about expansive social welfare that makes it easier for pregnant women living in poverty to say yes to having this baby? Most anti-choicers are generally conservative, and most will get really angry really quick if you start to mention concrete solutions to lower the abortion rate.

Affordable Care Act Ensures Women Receive Preventative Services at No Additional Cost

bebinn:

Historic new guidelines that will ensure women receive preventive health services at no additional cost were announced today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Developed by the independent Institute of Medicine, the new guidelines require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services such as well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, and contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible.

Last summer, HHS released new insurance market rules under the Affordable Care Act requiring all new private health plans to cover several evidence-based preventive services like mammograms, colonoscopies, blood pressure checks, and childhood immunizations without charging a copayment, deductible or coinsurance. The Affordable Care Act also made recommended preventive services free for people on Medicare.

Today’s announcement builds on that progress by making sure women have access to a full range of recommended preventive services without cost sharing, including:

  • well-woman visits;
  • screening for gestational diabetes;
  • human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older;
  • sexually-transmitted infection counseling;
  • human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling;
  • FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling;
  • breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; and
  • domestic violence screening and counseling.

New health plans will need to include these services without cost sharing for insurance policies with plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012.  The rules governing coverage of preventive services which allow plans to use reasonable medical management to help define the nature of the covered service apply to women’s preventive services.  Plans will retain the flexibility to control costs and promote efficient delivery of care by, for example, continuing to charge cost-sharing for branded drugs if a generic version is available and is just as effective and safe for the patient to use.

The administration also released an amendment to the prevention regulation that allows religious institutions that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraception services. This regulation is modeled on the most common accommodation for churches available in the majority of the 28 states that already require insurance companies to cover contraception.  HHS welcomes comment on this policy.

“Women” in this case should apply to everyone with a uterus.

How has Planned Parenthood taken advantage of you?

fuckyeahchoice:

They gave me free cancer screenings/check ups when I could not afford it and extremely cheap pre-natal care. They were also very nice to me. What a terrible organization.

Who else has been taken advantage of? 

Does The Bible Support the Pro-Life Stance?

depressingfacts:

One characteristic of many anti-choice images and posts on the internet is that they reference God or one’s religion as a reason for them being “pro-life”. God made everybody special and unique, what are we to deem God’s creations unworthy and abort them?

This brings one question into the picture then, does the bible support the pro-life stance?

The answer? A vague not really. 

The first thing to examine is does the bible straight out denounce abortion. With many issues, such as homosexuality, there are bible verses which will straight out ban or denounce such things. However, when it comes to abortion, there are no such bible verses.

So, what does the bible have to say about abortion or the value of fetuses. Quite a lot actually, but not in the way most pro-life people would assume the bible would.

First off, the bible, in Exodus 21:22-23 states that a fetus is not to be valued as equal to that of a human who has been born. 

This is further reinforced by Leviticus 27:6 and Number 3:15-16 in which God places no value on fetuses, instead, counting an individual as a child from the moment they become more than a month old (This is, because of the much less developed medical situations, speculated to be due to the fact that children under a month old were extremely vulnerable, and thus had a much higher mortality rate than current times).

Not only that, God sometimes approves of killing fetuses (Numbers 31:15-17, Hosea 9:14-16, Hosea 13:16) while also describing, in the bible, how to induce an abortion in a women who has been unfaithful to her husband (Numbers 5:11-31).

The most damaging verse to the pro-life argument that a sacred fetus should not have to die due to its mother’s choice though, is Genesis 38:24, where God approves of burning a pregnant adulteress, therefore demonstrating that a fetus is not a separate entity from its mother’s choice. 

So, how do priests and people who pour over the bible daily still claim that abortion is wrong?

The Sixth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill. Personhood is irrelevant, as a zygote or a fetus is life of human genetics, and therefore it is a sin to kill it.

Right?

Right?

Nope. 

The Sixth Commandment is actually one of those things which has been lost in translation and so the original nuance of the verse has actually been changed when the script went from Hebrew, was translated various times, and you read it in English.

So what did the Sixth Commandment ACTUALLY say?

It actually does say, roughly, Thou shalt not kill, but the keyword here is kill. When we trace the word back to the Hebrew manuscripts, the word is RASACH, or translating to roughly murder, or an illegal killing judged harmful to society, by society. How does this differ with the Sixth Commandment which most people know? The first one is an absolute denouncement of all killing, the original one is a subjective denunciation of killing which is harmful to society.

Even within the bible, God orders the people of Israel to kill other people, and this is not a violation of the Sixth Commandment because it was not deemed harmful to society (1 Samuel 15:3).

So what does this difference make to the pro/anti-choice debate?

Because fetuses are not considered people, an abortion can not be considered a murder, and therefore is not in violation of the Sixth Commandment. 

Not only that, if we are the descendants of Adam, as the bible claims, then God creates us in his image as he created Adam. The creation story of Adam is that his full form was created from dust of the ground, and only then was he given a soul. If we are to take this as a parable, or as an analogy of the birth of a child, then we can easily claim that the only fetuses who have souls are those which are passed the 8 months mark when all their physical organs and structures are fully formed and the fetuses begin to show signs of sentience.

So in conclusion, based solely on biblical evidence, no pro-life person can claim that having an abortion is a sin, nor can they claim that the bible says that abortion is wrong, evil, or murder. 

Jul 8
feministblackboard:

I thought you all could use some humor today.Here is a link to the 70 best Walk for Choice Signs from across the Country! Click Here


For anyone who missed it the first time. :)

feministblackboard:

I thought you all could use some humor today.
Here is a link to the 70 best Walk for Choice Signs from across the Country!
Click Here

For anyone who missed it the first time. :)