The cruelty and misogyny of forced birth politics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You do realize that a majority of women in the entire world, which is made up of more than white liberal cat ladies (I know, shocker), would find this whole argument to sound unhinged and ridiculous, right? See how far this argument gets you with women in France, which has far stricter abortion laws than here. Better yet try this argument with women in Instanbul, Nairobi, Jakarta, etc.

Dp- I live in the US. I don’t care what they think.

This. Just because women in developing countries have no rights and are conditioned to be content with that doesn’t me I have to be in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You do realize that a majority of women in the entire world, which is made up of more than white liberal cat ladies (I know, shocker), would find this whole argument to sound unhinged and ridiculous, right? See how far this argument gets you with women in France, which has far stricter abortion laws than here. Better yet try this argument with women in Instanbul, Nairobi, Jakarta, etc.

Dp- I live in the US. I don’t care what they think.

This. Just because women in developing countries have no rights and are conditioned to be content with that doesn’t me I have to be in the US.

It's also not true that women in other countries don't care: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/feb/22/colombia-legalises-abortion-in-move-celebrated-as-historic-victory-by-campaigners

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

The mother consented to having male reproductive cells deposited where her female reproductive cells are. The mother voluntarily allowed that to occur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are pro-abortion you should also be pro-right to die — whether the person is physically healthy or not.

I’m anti-life.

You are anti-life for babies. You are already alive.

[Anonymous]

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.

I bet there's a long list of things you are forced to do to be in the military, or lose your job. When you sign up for the military you lose your autonomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are pro-abortion you should also be pro-right to die — whether the person is physically healthy or not.

I’m anti-life.

You are anti-life for babies. You are already alive.

Anti life for zygotes.
Don’t get it twisted now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are pro-abortion you should also be pro-right to die — whether the person is physically healthy or not.

To be clear, it’s not exactly hard to commit suicide very effectively in a country with more guns than citizens. And if you aren’t effective and end up the ER, you get a psych hold and treatment. Women don’t commit suicide effectively because they tend to use pills, not guns. But if you are determined enough, you can kill yourself. And if you miss the first time, 72 hours later, you are free to try again. People are not criminally charged for suicide attempts. I know this first hand, unfortunately.

And we are talking about being charged with a crime for abortion. Not societal disapproval. Not the loss of a job. A criminal conviction. Please stop arguing losing your job. And being sent to jail are the same. They are not.

Um … I’m not the one argument about losing your job. I’m talking about the right to a safe and humane suicide in which no one else gets physically hurt. Also, it is illegal in some parts of the world. And attempted suicide can have legal consequences. If it were available in a hospital setting, this would be less of a problem. And I think the battle goes hand in hand with abortion rights. If you can kill off a part of your body (fetus, or in the case of some athletes and others — fingers/limbs) in one’s body, why can’t you kill of lf the whole thing?

[Anonymous]

I’m very consistent in my pro death beliefs
Pro assisted suicide
Pro death penalty
Pro abortion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m very consistent in my pro death beliefs
Pro assisted suicide
Pro death penalty
Pro abortion

Any exclusions and nn assisted suicide — not terminally ill or any one, including children like Belgium?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m very consistent in my pro death beliefs
Pro assisted suicide
Pro death penalty
Pro abortion

Any exclusions and nn assisted suicide — not terminally ill or any one, including children like Belgium?

I’m pretty much pro death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know of a good lawyer to follow on Twitter about the abortion fight? I follow Marc Elias for info on voting rights lawsuits and it makes me feel so much better to hear from someone "in the trenches" actually doing something. Anyone similar for abortion lawsuits?

Imani Gandy (though she does insist on using the tedious “pregnant people”) https://twitter.com/AngryBlackLady?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor and Jessica Mason Pieklo https://twitter.com/Hegemommy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

At first I found “pregnant people” tedious, but a shocking number on the right wing actually need reminders that cis/straight women are, in fact, people, as opposed to hosts for the glorious, God-sustained fetus. To say nothing of the folks that don’t identify as women. So I’m ok with it. Pregnant humans, citizens that are pregnant, humans that are actively sustaining potential humans by their blood and organs, whatever it takes.

Potential human? A human is a human. Nothing on earth changes from non-human to human.

Missing the point -- not everything in a uterus is a human, or even a potential human, and certainly not independent of the actual human whose uterus it happens to be in. Not every product of copulation is a potentially viable human -- often it's a mass of cells, life threatening to the host human, but not itself human.

[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?

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.

The mother consented to having male reproductive cells deposited where her female reproductive cells are. The mother voluntarily allowed that to occur.

Are you for real?

[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:

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.

OMG people, we use all kinds of human cells for research that are not by themselves human beings; only cells! Ever hear of stem cell research? Ever hear of Henrietta Lacks?

[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:

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.

OMG people, we use all kinds of human cells for research that are not by themselves human beings; only cells! Ever hear of stem cell research? Ever hear of Henrietta Lacks?

I’m not sure who you are responding to.

[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:

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.

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.

Speaking of science, do you not know sperm is the male reproductive cell?

Did you know that the male sperm cell ceases to exist once an egg is fertilized? The first cell of an embryo is a zygote. A zygote cannot be divided into less than 1 cell. Therefor the zygote is produced by the female body. She doesn’t need consent to do whatever she wants with cells produced by her own body.

Another (weird) lie. It doesn’t cease to exist; it’s half the zygote.

A zygote is a single cell. Two cells cannot makeup one single cell without ceasing to be two independent cells. 1+1 /= 1

In human fertilization, a released ovum (a haploid secondary oocyte with replicate chromosome copies) and a haploid sperm cell (male gamete)—combine to form a single 2n diploid cell called the zygote.

Exactly. One single cell.

Comprised of a cell each from the parents. That’s inconvenient for you, but you don’t seem to
mind be wrong, so full speed ahead!

This is the fallacy of abortion being "a women's choice." It's not a natural choice nor a natural right anymore than stepping on a bug, killing a mouse, or eradicating an internal disease. The only thing that matters in all of this is the legal determination of when this entity is considered a human life. At that point, killing that human life would be the same as killing a newborn, an invalid, an elderly person with dementia or terminal disease, etc. Prior to that point it should be equivalent (legally) to killing a foreign body in the woman's body (germ, virus, parasite, etc.). Scientifically, the argument is that this point is around 20-24 weeks. Some states are trying to make it 15 weeks. Either way that is at least 3 months from time of conception. Is it really that difficult, if you're a woman having sex with one or more partners to monitor your monthly cycle and take a home pregnancy test in those first 3 months if you miss your normal period? If you're positive and don't want a child, then get an abortion immediately. The boyfriend/partner/husband can also participate in this same decision process, with the decision still being the woman's prior to the 15 or 24 week point.

In cases of rape - do the same. Take a pregnancy test early and take action as desired. In case of a dangerous pregnancy (threat of life to mother and/or child) then different laws should apply with protection of mother being the priority with consultation of doctor and spouse (when applicable).

Why is this so hard to comprehend and agree to?

This is such a privileged and simplistic point of view. What’s it like to go through life without an imagination or empathy?

Dumbest counterargument ever. What are you even talking about? Empathy for whom? The woman who doesn’t care enough or is too lazy to take a pregnancy test? Really?