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:

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?

1) many women don’t live anywhere near an abortion clinic. Access is complicated further by waiting periods. So, even learning you are pregnant fairly early might not be soon enough.
2) I’m embarrassed for you. You can’t imagine a scenario where women might need access to abortion after the first trimester.

[Anonymous]

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’re simply close minded. You think you know better than everyone else and have shut your mind to the possibility that the issue is NOT about a woman’s choice at all. It’s about something more fundamental… when does human life begin? But, go ahead and hate all men. That is your prerogative.

As far as the state … they can take peoples lives (death penalty) … they can put people in prison. They do this to a lot more men then women too, so does the state hate men too? No, the state is simply a reflection of the people and the people in some states are very religious and elect and vote upon those lines. It’s not because they hate women, it is because they believe an unborn fetus is a person and thou shalt not kill. Funny enough they also believe in an eye for an eye so they vote for the death penalty. Anyhow, you’ll continue to never convince anyone of your point of view due to your strong hatred of men and insistence that pro lifers are so because they hate women. Just a dumb argument.

[Anonymous]

I'm vehemently pro-choice but I have always been puzzled as to why so many women in secular societies have so many unwanted pregnancies. I learned about how babies were made and how to prevent it, and literally have never had sex without a condom.

[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:

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?

1) many women don’t live anywhere near an abortion clinic. Access is complicated further by waiting periods. So, even learning you are pregnant fairly early might not be soon enough.
2) I’m embarrassed for you. You can’t imagine a scenario where women might need access to abortion after the first trimester.

#1 is a joke. Talk about lack of imagination. Doctors, clinics (over 1,600 in the US) the abortion pill and driving, taking a bus, etc to where you can get one even if it is over 100 miles away is all possible. Even for the poor. Yes, there may not be a clinic on every corner like you’d want, but if you’re motivated enough you can get an abortion before 24 weeks if you need one.

#2 I did imagine it and even noted scenarios in my post. I even stated that 24 weeks is the norm which is well after the first trimester. Go back and read my post without emotion. Pay attention and stop being so filled with hate and rage. But sure, if you’re having sex and not paying attention I suppose you might be the rare case of being too clueless to realize you’re pregnant before the third month. Fortunately in MOST states (like I said) you have 6 months (1/2 a year) to figure things out. I mean, how much time do you need? Then again, if you’re this dumb maybe we should pay you to abort your fetus as you’d likely be a horrible mother anyhow. Maybe that’s your real point. We should put all pregnant women prior to 24 weeks in front of a committee of mothers and have them determine if your mentally capable (willing and able) of raising a child. (Note I said mothers, not mean old, big bad white men). If not, your fetus is immediately aborted. Now, if your are deemed “fit” then you can still choose prior to 24 weeks to abort, but yes you’ll have to figure out how to get to the clinic on your own. Maybe you can use the Biden money to take the train. That is, if you haven’t already spent it on opioids or cigarettes or Starbucks, or a Big Mac. Is there anything else taxpayers can help you out with? Please let us know.

[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:

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?

1) many women don’t live anywhere near an abortion clinic. Access is complicated further by waiting periods. So, even learning you are pregnant fairly early might not be soon enough.
2) I’m embarrassed for you. You can’t imagine a scenario where women might need access to abortion after the first trimester.

#1 is a joke. Talk about lack of imagination. Doctors, clinics (over 1,600 in the US) the abortion pill and driving, taking a bus, etc to where you can get one even if it is over 100 miles away is all possible. Even for the poor. Yes, there may not be a clinic on every corner like you’d want, but if you’re motivated enough you can get an abortion before 24 weeks if you need one.

#2 I did imagine it and even noted scenarios in my post. I even stated that 24 weeks is the norm which is well after the first trimester. Go back and read my post without emotion. Pay attention and stop being so filled with hate and rage. But sure, if you’re having sex and not paying attention I suppose you might be the rare case of being too clueless to realize you’re pregnant before the third month. Fortunately in MOST states (like I said) you have 6 months (1/2 a year) to figure things out. I mean, how much time do you need? Then again, if you’re this dumb maybe we should pay you to abort your fetus as you’d likely be a horrible mother anyhow. Maybe that’s your real point. We should put all pregnant women prior to 24 weeks in front of a committee of mothers and have them determine if your mentally capable (willing and able) of raising a child. (Note I said mothers, not mean old, big bad white men). If not, your fetus is immediately aborted. Now, if your are deemed “fit” then you can still choose prior to 24 weeks to abort, but yes you’ll have to figure out how to get to the clinic on your own. Maybe you can use the Biden money to take the train. That is, if you haven’t already spent it on opioids or cigarettes or Starbucks, or a Big Mac. Is there anything else taxpayers can help you out with? Please let us know.

My post was to the point, and unemotional. You aren’t going to win anyone to your side. Not only because you lack a coherent argument ( lacking imagination), but your delivery isn’t great. Try to take a breath. No need for the forum to make you hostile and hateful.
Since you are having a hard time considering reasons why we need abortion, later in pregnancy, I will remind you that people can get very bad news about fetal abnormalities late in pregnancy. It’s very sad and a politician doesn’t need to be in the middle of that conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm vehemently pro-choice but I have always been puzzled as to why so many women in secular societies have so many unwanted pregnancies. I learned about how babies were made and how to prevent it, and literally have never had sex without a condom.

How do you know who is having abortions?
There are still communities in this country that have been
pushing abstinence. Certainly if you look at numbers, when safe sex education is promoted, unwanted pregnancies go way down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm vehemently pro-choice but I have always been puzzled as to why so many women in secular societies have so many unwanted pregnancies. I learned about how babies were made and how to prevent it, and literally have never had sex without a condom.

Do you really think most women choose to spend $1000 over a condom? Unwanted pregnancies are actually down. We still should have safe abortion. I guess if a woman has placental abruption in these states with a mid to late pregnancy the woman just has to bleed to death. Every effort is made to save the preterm baby but with the early intervention both baby and mother will die.

[Anonymous]

An abortion should be a decision between a woman and her primary care physician. No one else. In some states she has to be literally in the act of dying before they can intervene even if the fetuses are not viable. Check out what happened to the woman in Ohio who was pregnant with twins. She had to labor and birth them alone because they couldn't intervene until she was on the brink of death. Even then, two doctors had to agree. Then to make matters worse, one of the twins was born. Dad in Ohio refused to issue a birth certificate to him. Almost like he wasn't a person after all. And never was. The thing is that woman and her husband wanted those babies more than anything in the world but she shouldn't have to risk her life for them. She had other children at home as well.

[Anonymous]

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’re simply close minded. You think you know better than everyone else and have shut your mind to the possibility that the issue is NOT about a woman’s choice at all. It’s about something more fundamental… when does human life begin? But, go ahead and hate all men. That is your prerogative.

As far as the state … they can take peoples lives (death penalty) … they can put people in prison. They do this to a lot more men then women too, so does the state hate men too? No, the state is simply a reflection of the people and the people in some states are very religious and elect and vote upon those lines. It’s not because they hate women, it is because they believe an unborn fetus is a person and thou shalt not kill. Funny enough they also believe in an eye for an eye so they vote for the death penalty. Anyhow, you’ll continue to never convince anyone of your point of view due to your strong hatred of men and insistence that pro lifers are so because they hate women. Just a dumb argument.

This. I often see the argument from liberal pro-choice voters that the pro life crowd hates women. I disagree. I am pro-choice and a moderate but grew up in a very conservative, almost fundamentalist society. My impression is that this group of people thinks you’re killing a baby. If anything, the women are ignored. There isn’t anymore hatred of women than from the left. If anything, they think women should be worshipped and that their job of giving birth is an important one. There seemed to be almost an obsession with having babies and raising a family. I truly don’t think they hate women anymore than any other group hates women. If anything it’s just a strong opinion that the fetus is a baby.

I also don’t think that many liberal pro-choice voters understand how many people don’t support killing babies. My own husband is fairly liberal and after recent ultrasounds has talked about how he could never support a woman getting an abortion. That it’s cruel. Objectively, I support abortion fully but I also recognize and understand why people dislike it.

[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:

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?

1) many women don’t live anywhere near an abortion clinic. Access is complicated further by waiting periods. So, even learning you are pregnant fairly early might not be soon enough.
2) I’m embarrassed for you. You can’t imagine a scenario where women might need access to abortion after the first trimester.

#1 is a joke. Talk about lack of imagination. Doctors, clinics (over 1,600 in the US) the abortion pill and driving, taking a bus, etc to where you can get one even if it is over 100 miles away is all possible. Even for the poor. Yes, there may not be a clinic on every corner like you’d want, but if you’re motivated enough you can get an abortion before 24 weeks if you need one.

#2 I did imagine it and even noted scenarios in my post. I even stated that 24 weeks is the norm which is well after the first trimester. Go back and read my post without emotion. Pay attention and stop being so filled with hate and rage. But sure, if you’re having sex and not paying attention I suppose you might be the rare case of being too clueless to realize you’re pregnant before the third month. Fortunately in MOST states (like I said) you have 6 months (1/2 a year) to figure things out. I mean, how much time do you need? Then again, if you’re this dumb maybe we should pay you to abort your fetus as you’d likely be a horrible mother anyhow. Maybe that’s your real point. We should put all pregnant women prior to 24 weeks in front of a committee of mothers and have them determine if your mentally capable (willing and able) of raising a child. (Note I said mothers, not mean old, big bad white men). If not, your fetus is immediately aborted. Now, if your are deemed “fit” then you can still choose prior to 24 weeks to abort, but yes you’ll have to figure out how to get to the clinic on your own. Maybe you can use the Biden money to take the train. That is, if you haven’t already spent it on opioids or cigarettes or Starbucks, or a Big Mac. Is there anything else taxpayers can help you out with? Please let us know.

Taking a greyhound bus (4+ hours for a 200 mile or so trip) during an ectopic pregnancy. Sounds like paradise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm vehemently pro-choice but I have always been puzzled as to why so many women in secular societies have so many unwanted pregnancies. I learned about how babies were made and how to prevent it, and literally have never had sex without a condom.

Yes, we should be a totally secular society when it comes to sex. But we are not, are we? People are taught secrecy and shame about sex from an early age. Pharmacists may decide not to hand you your BC pills. Your employer may decide your pills won't be covered under the health care plan (but John in accounting can have his viagra). You could go for free care at Planned Parenthood - if you still have one, and you're willing to pass the picket lines.
Maybe your husband is Catholic and doesn't want you to take BC. Or maybe your abusive and controlling partner sabotages your BC. Some men won't wear condoms.

Your comment comes from a place of deep ignorance and privilege.

PS Most women having abortions are married mothers who realize that it would be a serious mistake to bring another child into an already difficult situation. So it's not just on women.

[Anonymous]

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’re simply close minded. You think you know better than everyone else and have shut your mind to the possibility that the issue is NOT about a woman’s choice at all. It’s about something more fundamental… when does human life begin? But, go ahead and hate all men. That is your prerogative.

As far as the state … they can take peoples lives (death penalty) … they can put people in prison. They do this to a lot more men then women too, so does the state hate men too? No, the state is simply a reflection of the people and the people in some states are very religious and elect and vote upon those lines. It’s not because they hate women, it is because they believe an unborn fetus is a person and thou shalt not kill. Funny enough they also believe in an eye for an eye so they vote for the death penalty. Anyhow, you’ll continue to never convince anyone of your point of view due to your strong hatred of men and insistence that pro lifers are so because they hate women. Just a dumb argument.

Riiiight, women who are against your "die it out" approach hate men, whereas as you quite literally want women to die from ectopic pregnancies do not hate women....Got it, nutter!

[Anonymous]

And why are the deciders all men, or mostly men? Why aren’t these decisions, said to be the viewpoint of many Americans, being espoused and voted on by tables of all women? I said ALL women because there have been tables of ALL men deciding these matters, so what would be wrong with a few rounds of all women, instead? Or maybe can have one guy on the panel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. Stop it.

It is not equal to the women carrying it.

WOMEN FIRST!

all humans are equal

Nothing is human until it is born. If it can't survive on its own it is not human.

A 6 month old baby is born and can’t survive on his or her own. A born toddler or preschool child is born but can’t survive on his or her own. Apparently according to dcum baby killers, those children aren’t human.

A baby inside it’s mom is a human in early stages of development. Thread calling people monsters is really monsters openly admitting they don’t feel babies aren’t human and are ok with killing them. Sick people here.

Adult humans on life support can’t survive on his or her own, do they lose the human classification during that time? What about children that mature into adults but are born with physical or mental disabilities and will never be able to care for themselves? Are they human?

Those 6 month old babies can be taken care of by anyone, same with adults on life support. They are born and of this world. They do not rely on the body of one particular human being.

When you are pitting an actual woman born and living in this world against a zygote that can only continue to grow by borrowing her body, and concluding that the zygote is more important, then you are dehumanizing the woman by denying her ability to decide for herself if she is going to loan her body for a potentially lethal process.

As someone who suffered through a terribly difficult pregnancy that left life-long physical health problems in me, I say a big FU to people who don't recognize the humanity and autonomy of women who aren't willing to go through the disruption and adversity of 9 months of pregnancy, the suffering of giving birth, and the challenges of post-partum recovery that will never return you to your pre-pregnancy body. You are horrible people.

All I hear is “I’d rather kill my own kid than lose my figure.”

Is that what your church tells you?? because I'm sure thats all you listen to. Women die of child birth every day so just STOP!

[Anonymous]

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.

And not having kids helps moms keep their careers intact. The question isn’t career convenience. The question is if vaccination has been forced. Has anyone been charged with a crime for not vaccinating?

This!