The cruelty and misogyny of forced birth politics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People come before cells that may or may not form humans.

Why is this even a question?

People don't care much about babies after they are born, otherwise we would universal health care, day care and other supports.

Stop lying, pro birthers.

FORCED BIRTHERS

says you, who has a vaccine in their body, developed with the cells from a human who didn’t give consent for their cells to be used in such a manner.

Sweetie, not only did I get that vaccine…
I donated my left over embryos from IVF for science.
Why? Cause they aren’t humans. They belonged to me and I gave consent.
Suck it.

They are definitely humans.

Human embryonic development, or human embryogenesis, is the development and formation of the human embryo. It is characterised by the processes of cell division and cellular differentiation of the embryo that occurs during the early stages of development.

Oh they are definitely not humans. They are spliced apart in a lab somewhere.

They are human embryos used in experiments. But human no matter what. What process can make non- humans, human? Or humans, non- human? None. You are confused about basic biology. Just because humans are experimented on, doesn’t take away their humanness . You are not very bright.

If a deranged person cuts another person, it doesn’t make the cut person non-human.

I realize it’s worthless arguing with you, so I’ll try to make this my last post. You are convinced that an acorn and a tree are the some thing, with equal value. They are not.
The cells I donated will go to help actual humans.
1-2 cells that might one day become a human isn’t a human.

Those are some very unpersuasive semantics you have there.

Where is your evidence that human embryos are not human?

No one is saying that it is an embryo for anything other than a human.
It’s species is human.
It’s the building block of a person.
If allowed to progress it would grow organs and limbs.
No one disagrees.
I just don’t care about it.
Like… at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People come before cells that may or may not form humans.

Why is this even a question?

People don't care much about babies after they are born, otherwise we would universal health care, day care and other supports.

Stop lying, pro birthers.

FORCED BIRTHERS

says you, who has a vaccine in their body, developed with the cells from a human who didn’t give consent for their cells to be used in such a manner.

Sweetie, not only did I get that vaccine…
I donated my left over embryos from IVF for science.
Why? Cause they aren’t humans. They belonged to me and I gave consent.
Suck it.

They are definitely humans.

Human embryonic development, or human embryogenesis, is the development and formation of the human embryo. It is characterised by the processes of cell division and cellular differentiation of the embryo that occurs during the early stages of development.

Oh they are definitely not humans. They are spliced apart in a lab somewhere.

They are human embryos used in experiments. But human no matter what. What process can make non- humans, human? Or humans, non- human? None. You are confused about basic biology. Just because humans are experimented on, doesn’t take away their humanness . You are not very bright.

If a deranged person cuts another person, it doesn’t make the cut person non-human.

I realize it’s worthless arguing with you, so I’ll try to make this my last post. You are convinced that an acorn and a tree are the some thing, with equal value. They are not.
The cells I donated will go to help actual humans.
1-2 cells that might one day become a human isn’t a human.

Those are some very unpersuasive semantics you have there.

Where is your evidence that human embryos are not human?

No one is saying that it is an embryo for anything other than a human.
It’s species is human.
It’s the building block of a person.
If allowed to progress it would grow organs and limbs.
No one disagrees.
I just don’t care about it.
Like… at all.

The law doesn’t care either

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People come before cells that may or may not form humans.

Why is this even a question?

People don't care much about babies after they are born, otherwise we would universal health care, day care and other supports.

Stop lying, pro birthers.

FORCED BIRTHERS

says you, who has a vaccine in their body, developed with the cells from a human who didn’t give consent for their cells to be used in such a manner.

Sweetie, not only did I get that vaccine…
I donated my left over embryos from IVF for science.
Why? Cause they aren’t humans. They belonged to me and I gave consent.
Suck it.

They are definitely humans.

Human embryonic development, or human embryogenesis, is the development and formation of the human embryo. It is characterised by the processes of cell division and cellular differentiation of the embryo that occurs during the early stages of development.

Oh they are definitely not humans. They are spliced apart in a lab somewhere.

They are human embryos used in experiments. But human no matter what. What process can make non- humans, human? Or humans, non- human? None. You are confused about basic biology. Just because humans are experimented on, doesn’t take away their humanness . You are not very bright.

If a deranged person cuts another person, it doesn’t make the cut person non-human.

I realize it’s worthless arguing with you, so I’ll try to make this my last post. You are convinced that an acorn and a tree are the some thing, with equal value. They are not.
The cells I donated will go to help actual humans.
1-2 cells that might one day become a human isn’t a human.

Those are some very unpersuasive semantics you have there.

Where is your evidence that human embryos are not human?

No one is saying that it is an embryo for anything other than a human.
It’s species is human.
It’s the building block of a person.
If allowed to progress it would grow organs and limbs.
No one disagrees.
I just don’t care about it.
Like… at all.

Well, be clear then, we are using the cells of humans without consent of those humans. Let’s not play the one cell is too much game…because it’s a fallacy. We use cells from humans w/o their consent and pretend they aren’t human cells. I guess that’s how people pretend it’s ok while maintaining their bodies are sacrosanct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why stop at birth? Ancient Romans let people decide whether to let children up to age 4 live. If the kid didn’t seem to be developing the way they liked, they could kill it without guilt. Choosing to say birth is where we draw the line is just as arbitrary.

That doesn’t make any sense at all lol.

Religion has warped the brains of so many people. Look at this “reasoning” we have to listen to!

Funny not religious. I also think that quality of life decisions should extend beyond the physical (that is, assisted suicide should not be limited to those who are on a ventilator, for example). Currently, we are not allowed to make life or death decisions if we otherwise appear fine to people. 🤷‍♀️

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the “if something can’t survive on its own then it is not a big deal to abort its life” philosophy to me? Do you apply the same rationale to newborns, elderly people, and severely disabled people?

I’m not aware of any newborns, elderly people, or severely disabled people that need to be tethered to the bodily systems of another human being to survive. Some require organ transplants or blood infusions, but there is no law requiring their friends or family to give it to them.

Heck, in America, a corpse has more rights to its body than a pregnant woman.

It’s this.

PP who’s feigning stupidity, you know we can see through you, right? We cannot compel people to donate blood, pieces of liver, marrow or kidneys. We can’t even take perfectly good live-saving organs after death without the appropriate permission. But forced birthers want to compel women to stay pregnant, and as the Michigan GOP has demonstrated, they want to take away women’s ability not to get pregnant.

Covid vaccine was developed using fetal cells from an abortion. What about that?

How does this make sense? Some men give birth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8205255/





This blows the whole “fetuses are not people!” argument away. If fetuses aren’t people, why are we using their cells to help people?

And we are using human cells without any consent; the pp that says she couldn’t use one, a single one, of her father’s cells to save her own life got that wrong. We are definitely using cells from aborted babies to save our lives.

Wow.

Cells from an abortion belong to the mother. Consent was given by the person whose body produced the cells. This really doesn’t even warrant a response but I am feeling generous this morning.

Why didn’t we just use the mother’s cells to develop the covid vaccine? Her body “produced “ these life saving cells?

We did. You are the only person who doesn’t see that clearly.

no, because we could not use the mother’s cells. we used the her cells and the father’s cells combined: the cells of their child.

No, every cell in an embryo was created by the mothers body. The father only provided DNA. DNA is not a living cell. DNA are only the instructions.

If you don’t understand science that is ok but don’t act like you have some secret knowledge and everyone else is just ignorant.

A fertilized sperm cell and egg cell combination is known as a zygote, and the singular cell will start to divide rapidly in the days following successful fertilization.

The whole process needs a sperm cell. We can’t create life without a sperm cell and egg cell combination. Why does the “we can’t use one cell w/o consent!” skip over that detail?

The father provided a sperm cell. Every cell in the embryo would not even exist w/o the sperm cell.

A zygote consists of a single cell. That single cell was made by the body of the woman. The zygote was never a part of the man. Period. The first cell of an embryo does not exist independent of a womans body. The man gave “consent” when he provided his sperm to the female egg.

This is a completely absurd discussion!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np- it doesn’t matter if the zygote is one cell or two. It isn’t a person and can’t give consent.
But I encourage forced birthers to forego all vaccines.
Please do the world a favor.

The definition of zygote does matter. Again- you have an opinion but your opinion isn’t fact. Zygote is defined.

Defined as a single cell. Single. Cell. Made by the female body. Only the genetic code remains from the male sperm cell.

The live sperm cell fertilized the zygote. The sperm cell was made by the male body. The zygote would not be alive and exist w/o the sperm cell.

Dp- and it still isn’t a human that can give consent.
Just so we are all clear on that.

But an infant is human and can’t give consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People come before cells that may or may not form humans.

Why is this even a question?

People don't care much about babies after they are born, otherwise we would universal health care, day care and other supports.

Stop lying, pro birthers.

FORCED BIRTHERS

says you, who has a vaccine in their body, developed with the cells from a human who didn’t give consent for their cells to be used in such a manner.

Sweetie, not only did I get that vaccine…
I donated my left over embryos from IVF for science.
Why? Cause they aren’t humans. They belonged to me and I gave consent.
Suck it.

They are definitely humans.

Human embryonic development, or human embryogenesis, is the development and formation of the human embryo. It is characterised by the processes of cell division and cellular differentiation of the embryo that occurs during the early stages of development.

Oh they are definitely not humans. They are spliced apart in a lab somewhere.

They are human embryos used in experiments. But human no matter what. What process can make non- humans, human? Or humans, non- human? None. You are confused about basic biology. Just because humans are experimented on, doesn’t take away their humanness . You are not very bright.

If a deranged person cuts another person, it doesn’t make the cut person non-human.

I realize it’s worthless arguing with you, so I’ll try to make this my last post. You are convinced that an acorn and a tree are the some thing, with equal value. They are not.
The cells I donated will go to help actual humans.
1-2 cells that might one day become a human isn’t a human.

Those are some very unpersuasive semantics you have there.

Where is your evidence that human embryos are not human?

No one is saying that it is an embryo for anything other than a human.
It’s species is human.
It’s the building block of a person.
If allowed to progress it would grow organs and limbs.
No one disagrees.
I just don’t care about it.
Like… at all.

Well, be clear then, we are using the cells of humans without consent of those humans. Let’s not play the one cell is too much game…because it’s a fallacy. We use cells from humans w/o their consent and pretend they aren’t human cells. I guess that’s how people pretend it’s ok while maintaining their bodies are sacrosanct.

No one is pretending they aren’t human cells.
But a human cell is not a human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, was explain one situation in which the government forced anyone to get a vaccine. I imagine we will be waiting all day because it didn't happen.

My sibling had to get vaccinated to stay in the military and keep their military career intact.

But that's not being lined up and injected forcibly with fear of imprisonment. That is a choice. And a bad example since military personnel have to give up lots of personal freedoms to be in the military anyway.

pp didn’t ask if anyone was threatened with imprisonment; they asked if the vaccine was forced, which it was in the case of thousands of people.

Just because you serve in the military, you should not give up all your rights. As you note, people who serve do give up alot of rights and make sacrifices which are not appreciated by many ppl.

Again, the vaccine was not forced. Military personnel had the option of being discharged. And yeah. You do give up a lot of rights when you join the military. The military have to obey lots of rules that civilians don't.

At any rate, I still have not heard one case of anyone being forcibly injected or threatened with imprisonment. Which is the only thing the government can do. Still waiting to hear how being given a choice you don't like is the same as being forced to do something

So pp should have asked who was threatened with imprisonment if they weren’t vaccinated. They didn’t ask that. They asked who was forced, and military personnel were given the choice of loss of their job, or vaccination. Forced to be vaccinated or lose your job. Threatening the financial support of a Service Member and his or her family, which is extremely manipulative. That’s force.

Moving the goalposts doesn’t make the original question invalid. If you want to know if people were going to be imprisoned, that’s a different metric.

Dp- that is still a choice. More choice than the military usually gives.

They were forced to be vaccinated or lose their source of income for themselves and their families. They would be forced out of the military if they refused to comply.



https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/03/18/army-announces-first-soldiers-pushed-out-of-service-over-covid-19-vaccines.html/amp

People are forced out of the military all the time for not complying. They have these things called orders.

[Anonymous]

OP of this thread here and the forced birthers have amply proven the fatuousness of their arguments, basically arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but missing the actual point which is:

You’re overjoyed to punish women. Like you’re clearly giddy about it. The hateful politics of forced birtherism - and yes, it has its roots in the patriarchy and organized, conservative religion - exist to punish women for existing, but especially to punish women for imagining that they should have some say what happens to their body.

Sepsis wards will be back. Children will be left motherless. Women will be maimed and made sterile and families who wanted to have more children will be broken. This is the real deal, not whether or not a zygote is a human.

The state cannot even compel someone to donate blood, yet here it is, compelling women to donate their body and life to a state they don’t want. If you say, “well, they chose to have sex!” I’m willing to play along in your Pollyanna world in which women and girls are always granted bodily autonomy (although your forced birth politics prove that they are not). It doesn’t matter. Humans get to say what happens to their bodies, especially something as life altering as pregnancy and birth.

Carry on with your cruelty though, but be aware that the game is up. No one believes you give a rat’s about life anymore. You just hate women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People come before cells that may or may not form humans.

Why is this even a question?

People don't care much about babies after they are born, otherwise we would universal health care, day care and other supports.

Stop lying, pro birthers.

Pp states that not a single cell from another human can be used without consent. Even to save lives.

Then dcum started pretending sperm isn’t live reproductive cells, zygotes form from only the mother’s cells and the food she eats⁉️, pre-born babies aren’t human, but we use their cells to help and heal other humans.

You can’t build a house without blueprints but blueprints are not the same as the house itself. Please try to be logical. The first cell of an embryo is created by the mother. It is not separate from the mother mo matter how much you want women to be mere baby factories.

[Anonymous]

It’s simple. You’d never consider letting a 14-24 year old poor single woman adopt a child, so why on earth would you think it’s acceptable to force her to give birth to one?

Additionally, if an underage person is to be forced to be a parent, they should be granted the rights of an adult parent so they can find enjoyment in parenthood. In other words, a 16 year old mother should be allowed to rent a car, rent a hotel room and fly to Disney world with no chaperone if she can manage to afford to do so. Parents are mature and adult-like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s simple. You’d never consider letting a 14-24 year old poor single woman adopt a child, so why on earth would you think it’s acceptable to force her to give birth to one?

Additionally, if an underage person is to be forced to be a parent, they should be granted the rights of an adult parent so they can find enjoyment in parenthood. In other words, a 16 year old mother should be allowed to rent a car, rent a hotel room and fly to Disney world with no chaperone if she can manage to afford to do so. Parents are mature and adult-like.

Just like 18yo should be able to smoke and drink without parental consent since they are old enough to die for their country in the military.

[Anonymous]

You can't argue with hate, people. You can't use logical arguments and biological facts against religious nutjobs and women-haters.

The time for civil discussion of this forced birth issue is over. This time we put them on the defensive, instead of trying to explain logic, biology and misogyny to them.

The next time some forced birther tries to bring this up, I'm just going to say, "Go join the Taliban if you hate women so much."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s simple. You’d never consider letting a 14-24 year old poor single woman adopt a child, so why on earth would you think it’s acceptable to force her to give birth to one?

Additionally, if an underage person is to be forced to be a parent, they should be granted the rights of an adult parent so they can find enjoyment in parenthood. In other words, a 16 year old mother should be allowed to rent a car, rent a hotel room and fly to Disney world with no chaperone if she can manage to afford to do so. Parents are mature and adult-like.

Just like 18yo should be able to smoke and drink without parental consent since they are old enough to die for their country in the military.

Yes, they should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the “if something can’t survive on its own then it is not a big deal to abort its life” philosophy to me? Do you apply the same rationale to newborns, elderly people, and severely disabled people?

I’m not aware of any newborns, elderly people, or severely disabled people that need to be tethered to the bodily systems of another human being to survive. Some require organ transplants or blood infusions, but there is no law requiring their friends or family to give it to them.

Heck, in America, a corpse has more rights to its body than a pregnant woman.

It’s this.

PP who’s feigning stupidity, you know we can see through you, right? We cannot compel people to donate blood, pieces of liver, marrow or kidneys. We can’t even take perfectly good live-saving organs after death without the appropriate permission. But forced birthers want to compel women to stay pregnant, and as the Michigan GOP has demonstrated, they want to take away women’s ability not to get pregnant.

Covid vaccine was developed using fetal cells from an abortion. What about that?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8205255/





This blows the whole “fetuses are not people!” argument away. If fetuses aren’t people, why are we using their cells to help people?

And we are using human cells without any consent; the pp that says she couldn’t use one, a single one, of her father’s cells to save her own life got that wrong. We are definitely using cells from aborted babies to save our lives.

Wow.

Cells from an abortion belong to the mother. Consent was given by the person whose body produced the cells. This really doesn’t even warrant a response but I am feeling generous this morning.

Why didn’t we just use the mother’s cells to develop the covid vaccine? Her body “produced “ these life saving cells?

We did. You are the only person who doesn’t see that clearly.

no, because we could not use the mother’s cells. we used the her cells and the father’s cells combined: the cells of their child.

Also, did the father give consent to use his cells? the baby wouldn’t have existed without his sperm cells.

Unless he was raped, the father consented to depositing his cells in a place where a zygote might grow. So he voluntarily gave someone his cells, yes.

Both parties must accept responsibility for any consequences that may arise from that. For a person with a uterus, that could be pregnancy, miscarriage, or having to obtain an abortion.