Boston Walk For Choice

RSS

Posts tagged with "prolife"

ADOPTION IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO PARENTHOOD NOT PREGNANCY!!!!

mstashers:

And personally I am sick and tired of people saying, “well why don’t you just put the child up for adoption instead of aborting it?”

For one, pregnancy and labor are among the hardest things the human body has to go through. It is no walk in the park. It is not easy. It is a huge deal. You have to change your entire lifestyle for 9+ months. You gain weight like crazy. Your immune system is compromised. Your life is at risk. Not to mention the social stigma that comes with being pregnant in certain social situations. Adoption does not fore go any of this. And the costs associated with just an uneventful pregnancy are astronomical let alone a pregnancy with complications. Abortion is the alternative to pregnancy. A person does not want to remain pregnant they get an abortion and that is their right. Their bodily autonomy dictates it to be so.

For two, I cannot speak for all countries, but at least in the U.S., the foster care/ adoption system is severely flawed. Single people cannot adopt. LGBTQ couples cannot adopt. There are thousands of children in the system that will be lucky if they are even considered for adoption. Why in the hell would I want to add another child to that? Why would I go through the trials and tribulations of pregnancy only to place a child in a severely flawed system and leave them with almost no hope of having a loving family? You call that love? You obviously have had no dealings with the system then.

Last but not least, when in the hell did it become the uterus-bearer’s job to carry children for those who cannot have them? Yes. If you cannot have a child of your own I am deeply sorry, but it is not my job nor the job of any other uterus-bearer to carry a child for you. If you want a child, there are children in the foster care/adoption system that need your love. If you don’t want o adopt one of those children, then you obviously do not want children as bad as you say you do.

I am going to leave you with this one more time, ADOPTION IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO PARENTHOOD NOT PREGNANCY!

subconciousevolution:

Queer Feminist & Pro-Choice

subconciousevolution:

Queer Feminist & Pro-Choice

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 2

inherhipstheresrevolutions:

propaganda-for-life:

anewsongtosing:

Now it’s not uncommon to hear conversion stories from headstrong pro-choice people like abortion doctors who eventually come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong, and they become pro-life advocates. Do you ever hear stories of pro-life advocates becoming abortion doctors or some other headstrong pro-choice advocate? No. That’s because abortion IS wrong. 

LOL YES YOU DO. Quite a few people have come to me on this blog and told me that they used to be pro-life but changed sides for some reason which was very significant to them. One person, in fact, said that they became pro-choice because they could no longer put up with pro-lifers being so divorced from reality. Here’s a well-written account of this from someone on Alternet.

A fail within a fail, failception.

I (littlelightx) used to be pro-life.

Silly OP.

Not to mention how many vocal pro-life advocates will secretly bring their teenage daughters in for an abortion, or get abortions themselves. Some of whom will go right back out and picket the same clinic. Because the pro-life position makes so much sense!

(Source: authentic-woman)

Planned Parenthood Clinic Bombed: Whodunit?

duyukdv:

stfuhypocrisy:

namelessgenxer:

CHRISTIAN TERRORISM

What else do you expect from brainwashed sheeple who live every second of their pathetic little lives cowering in fear of some mythical boogieman?

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood confirmed today that one of their Dallas-area clinics was the target of a violent attack last night. Holly Morgan, director of media relations and communications for Planned Parenthood in Dallas said that at around 11 pm last night, the attacker(s) threw a Molotov cocktail, consisting of diesel fuel in a glass bottle with a lit rag, at the building. “It didn’t penetrate the health center office and none of the staff or patients were there, which is great,” Morgan said.

Two observations:

1) I’m betting the firebomber wasn’t an Islamic extremist. Just a guess.

2) Whoever the attacker is, if he isn’t smart enough to know the difference in flashpoints between diesel fuel and gasoline, he’s probably not qualified to have a say in when life begins.

Pro “life” my ass.

Be very, very wary of anyone who considers people in potentia more important and “human” than the ones who are walking around disagreeing with them. (ETA: Or not, as the case may be. I didn’t mean for that to maybe come across sounding disablist.)

Contact the news websites and local stations about this. Let’s see the news cover pro-life terrorism fairly. If someone threw a molotov cocktail at a Christian church, it would be all over the national news.

(Source: sarahlee310)

I found the name of the pro-"life" organization that crashed our pro-choice fundraiser yesterday: Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust

riotisnotquiet:


And I’m really fucking pissed off, as somebody who is descended from actual Holocaust survivors, that these people are comparing a legal medical procedure to the horrors that took place during WWII.  These people obviously have a very limited understanding of how dire the Holocaust actually was.  Their name in itself disgusts and deeply offends me.

I showed this to my dad, and he was talking about how equating abortion to the Holocaust is a way of promoting violence towards abortion doctors and other people who enable abortions. Think about it: If Nazis are trying to kill you, you’re pretty much justified to do whatever it takes to stop them from killing you and/or anyone else even if that means killing them. So by calling themselves “Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust” they are equating people like us with Hitler supporters and doctors like George Tiller with active Nazis, making it “okay” to be violent towards us.

It also pisses me off because I have family that survived the Holocaust and were in concentration camps and I can guarantee you that it was absolutely nothing like being a fetus and that being a fully developed, conscious human being who can actually feel pain, starving so that you are practically a skeleton, watching your friends and family be systematically murdered every day, being tortured, and eventually brutally killed if you don’t get out of the fucking country is NOTHING like being aborted.

As an ethnic Jew with family who escaped from Holland during WWII, the fact that these people think it is okay to compare abortion to what my family went through makes me seriously angry.

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. 

subconciousevolution:

Pro-Choice Protestors!

subconciousevolution:

Pro-Choice Protestors!

subconciousevolution:

Graph Showing How Women’s Support for Legal Abortion are Steadily Declining.

I don’t know how they’re measuring this. If it’s true, it’s super-scary.

subconciousevolution:

Graph Showing How Women’s Support for Legal Abortion are Steadily Declining.

I don’t know how they’re measuring this. If it’s true, it’s super-scary.

Panel Recommends Free Birth Control; Anti-Abortion Groups Flip Out

brittanibotulism:

Further proof that the Anti-Choice movement cares little about women.

Apparently the argument behind this is a concern that medical insurers will begin covering Plan B-type medications, and that these particular forms of birth control are, in fact, an abortion.

Uh. No.

An abortion is the termination, most commonly the deliberate termination however an abortion can technically be any expulsion of a fetus, of a pregnancy. In order for something to be called an abortion at all the woman must have been pregnant. To be pregnant, implantation must occur. A pregnancy begins with the implantation—if implantation never occurs, then technically, the woman was never pregnant. Generally, Plan B prevents the egg from ever being fertilized—sometimes, if the fertilization has occured, the pill irritates the uterus and inhibits implantation.  In both instances, implantation has been hindered.

The glob of cells that is headed towards implantation is not a human. It is not a person, it isn’t even really a thing. It has the potential, sure, but if we built all of our arguments on the potentiality of something we’d all soon grow hoarse. Furthermore, the potentiality of this bundle of cells in no way registers on the same level of the woman’s decision when it comes to the control of her own body.

Plan B does, usually, effectively prevent a woman from becoming pregnant from a situation in which she might have otherwise been at risk.

Plan B is not a method of abortion. It is not an abortifacient, because it does not induce an abortion, and if you’re dead-set on the idea that this is false, then I’d better start seeing funerals after every woman’s menstrual cycle, because think about all those eggs her wicked body is getting rid of!

Be straight across the board in your insanity, or realize the insanity, refute it, and accept rationality. You can’t have both.