The cruelty and misogyny of forced birth politics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

Should we issue licenses on who can have babies?

Again, to your statement "What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want ... And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse ". If you feel this way, then why not allow infanticide by the parents? Why is killing a new born so horrific and taboo, while killing a fetus is to be protected? Or - are you willing to concede to the "life starts at" argument, with a particular, scientifically established # of weeks as that point in time? Anytime before, not an issue and anytime after this ... murder (or under your proposal, the parents' choice inclduing and up to "X" number of days, weeks, months, or year POST-birth. I mean, if the baby is not wanted by its parents (or specifically by its mama) then by all means, let's kill the darn thing.

Thousands of IVF embryos are destroyed each year. So do you think that's murder or not?

Because how is it different from infanticide?

You’ve avoided my question by asking one of your own. To me human life starts at 24 weeks after conception. Prior to that do what you want to your body. After that, treat that life the same as a newborn. When do YOU think human life starts? Just answer my question please.

[Anonymous]

Nine people in DC charged with civil rights violations. If convicted they each face eleven years in prison. Of the nine, only one could possibly have a viable uterus.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/feds-charged-blocking-dc-reproductive-health-clinic-837684

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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’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.

Yes, the pp who compared having an abortion to stepping on a cockroach or killing a mouse in your home…that’s the people that make me be pro-choice. Total disregard that a life is being taken. In an imperfect world, allowance has to be made for difficult decisions. But comparing a pre-born child ti a bug or rodent is just awful.

How about compared to a dog? Or a whale? How about a black person’s fertilized egg vs. a white person’s? I.e. making you think critically about the randomness of your choices makes you pro-choice? How odd. It sounds like you’re pro “your” choice and not other’s choices. What about the choice of one person to not allow another person to take a third “person’s” life? Is that not a valid choice? Or again, as I keep saying over and over: the only choice is to determine when something is in fact a “person.” Then prior to that time: do what you will with your body. After that time it is no longer just your body and therefore no longer just your choice. Why can’t you people comprehend this logic? I know why, because you’re conditioned to think based upon other’s opinions and culture and societal norms instead of thinking logically, emotionless, for yourselves based on science and fact. You inject BS like religion and men controlling women, and economics, and availability of clinics, and all this noise into a simple question: when is the entity a person and when is it not? To be or not to be, that IS the only question.

Pregnancy is a potentially dangerous and lethal condition. Women are human beings living in this world who should not be forced against their will to go through such a process that will change their body forever even if it doesn’t kill them.

Most pro-choice people are hypocrites. They only believe in a woman’s choice about her right to live / have a certain quality of life when it comes to pregnancy. They don’t really believe women or anyone else should have total control over their bodies and lives.

You're arguing that most pro-choice people are Republicans?

What does political party affiliation have to do with this??? I mean most pro-choice people are not in support of people who chose to end their own lives. They chalk that up to mental illness when somethings it is a rational decision based on one’s quality of life.

Gonna need to see some stats on this. And some that say that anti-choice people are A-OK with it.

You assume this is just a two-sided issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

Should we issue licenses on who can have babies?

Again, to your statement "What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want ... And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse ". If you feel this way, then why not allow infanticide by the parents? Why is killing a new born so horrific and taboo, while killing a fetus is to be protected? Or - are you willing to concede to the "life starts at" argument, with a particular, scientifically established # of weeks as that point in time? Anytime before, not an issue and anytime after this ... murder (or under your proposal, the parents' choice inclduing and up to "X" number of days, weeks, months, or year POST-birth. I mean, if the baby is not wanted by its parents (or specifically by its mama) then by all means, let's kill the darn thing.

These are different posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

Should we issue licenses on who can have babies?

Again, to your statement "What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want ... And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse ". If you feel this way, then why not allow infanticide by the parents? Why is killing a new born so horrific and taboo, while killing a fetus is to be protected? Or - are you willing to concede to the "life starts at" argument, with a particular, scientifically established # of weeks as that point in time? Anytime before, not an issue and anytime after this ... murder (or under your proposal, the parents' choice inclduing and up to "X" number of days, weeks, months, or year POST-birth. I mean, if the baby is not wanted by its parents (or specifically by its mama) then by all means, let's kill the darn thing.

Thousands of IVF embryos are destroyed each year. So do you think that's murder or not?

Because how is it different from infanticide?

Some feel IVF is cruel and unusual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

Should we issue licenses on who can have babies?

Again, to your statement "What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want ... And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse ". If you feel this way, then why not allow infanticide by the parents? Why is killing a new born so horrific and taboo, while killing a fetus is to be protected? Or - are you willing to concede to the "life starts at" argument, with a particular, scientifically established # of weeks as that point in time? Anytime before, not an issue and anytime after this ... murder (or under your proposal, the parents' choice inclduing and up to "X" number of days, weeks, months, or year POST-birth. I mean, if the baby is not wanted by its parents (or specifically by its mama) then by all means, let's kill the darn thing.

Thousands of IVF embryos are destroyed each year. So do you think that's murder or not?

Because how is it different from infanticide?

You’ve avoided my question by asking one of your own. To me human life starts at 24 weeks after conception. Prior to that do what you want to your body. After that, treat that life the same as a newborn. When do YOU think human life starts? Just answer my question please.

Ahhh… we’re back to the forced birther red herring of forcing dying women to die for their pregnancies or women with wanted pregnancies to carry a dying or dead pregnancy to term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nine people in DC charged with civil rights violations. If convicted they each face eleven years in prison. Of the nine, only one could possibly have a viable uterus.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/feds-charged-blocking-dc-reproductive-health-clinic-837684

That link doesn’t work for me so here’s a better one. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/crime/anti-abortion-protesters-indicted-on-felony-charge-for-blocking-dc-clinic-lauren-handy-william-goodman-jonathan-darnell/65-1f6cd1f5-f5f9-4a05-a640-b0df577f19bd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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’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.

Yes, the pp who compared having an abortion to stepping on a cockroach or killing a mouse in your home…that’s the people that make me be pro-choice. Total disregard that a life is being taken. In an imperfect world, allowance has to be made for difficult decisions. But comparing a pre-born child ti a bug or rodent is just awful.

How about compared to a dog? Or a whale? How about a black person’s fertilized egg vs. a white person’s? I.e. making you think critically about the randomness of your choices makes you pro-choice? How odd. It sounds like you’re pro “your” choice and not other’s choices. What about the choice of one person to not allow another person to take a third “person’s” life? Is that not a valid choice? Or again, as I keep saying over and over: the only choice is to determine when something is in fact a “person.” Then prior to that time: do what you will with your body. After that time it is no longer just your body and therefore no longer just your choice. Why can’t you people comprehend this logic? I know why, because you’re conditioned to think based upon other’s opinions and culture and societal norms instead of thinking logically, emotionless, for yourselves based on science and fact. You inject BS like religion and men controlling women, and economics, and availability of clinics, and all this noise into a simple question: when is the entity a person and when is it not? To be or not to be, that IS the only question.

Pregnancy is a potentially dangerous and lethal condition. Women are human beings living in this world who should not be forced against their will to go through such a process that will change their body forever even if it doesn’t kill them.

Most pro-choice people are hypocrites. They only believe in a woman’s choice about her right to live / have a certain quality of life when it comes to pregnancy. They don’t really believe women or anyone else should have total control over their bodies and lives.

You're arguing that most pro-choice people are Republicans?

What does political party affiliation have to do with this??? I mean most pro-choice people are not in support of people who chose to end their own lives. They chalk that up to mental illness when somethings it is a rational decision based on one’s quality of life.

Gonna need to see some stats on this. And some that say that anti-choice people are A-OK with it.

You assume this is just a two-sided issue.

No, there I was assuming that the PP is FOS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

Should we issue licenses on who can have babies?

Again, to your statement "What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want ... And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse ". If you feel this way, then why not allow infanticide by the parents? Why is killing a new born so horrific and taboo, while killing a fetus is to be protected? Or - are you willing to concede to the "life starts at" argument, with a particular, scientifically established # of weeks as that point in time? Anytime before, not an issue and anytime after this ... murder (or under your proposal, the parents' choice inclduing and up to "X" number of days, weeks, months, or year POST-birth. I mean, if the baby is not wanted by its parents (or specifically by its mama) then by all means, let's kill the darn thing.

Thousands of IVF embryos are destroyed each year. So do you think that's murder or not?

Because how is it different from infanticide?

You’ve avoided my question by asking one of your own. To me human life starts at 24 weeks after conception. Prior to that do what you want to your body. After that, treat that life the same as a newborn. When do YOU think human life starts? Just answer my question please.

Ahhh… we’re back to the forced birther red herring of forcing dying women to die for their pregnancies or women with wanted pregnancies to carry a dying or dead pregnancy to term.

I see you’ve again avoided my question and are deflecting because you’d don’t like your answer’s consequences. The overwhelming number of abortion have nothing to do with “dying women” or “dead/dying babies”, so just stop with that argument. And believe it or not MOST mothers (and fathers) are willing to die for their children. We see that you obviously are not one of these people (how selfish of you). Obviously, when the physical health of the mother or child are medically in question the laws should (and most do) account for that. I am not arguing it shouldn’t. So let’s get back to the main point:

Just answer my question, when do you believe human life begins?

BTW, I actually believe in the right to decide to end one’s or one’s dependent’s life due to a terminal condition, so even if a born baby was terminally ill, I believe the parents should have the right to pull the plug per se.

Finally, the answer to this question would be applied to all humans regardless of the procreation method (for the poster that’s been talking about IVF).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

Should we issue licenses on who can have babies?

Again, to your statement "What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want ... And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse ". If you feel this way, then why not allow infanticide by the parents? Why is killing a new born so horrific and taboo, while killing a fetus is to be protected? Or - are you willing to concede to the "life starts at" argument, with a particular, scientifically established # of weeks as that point in time? Anytime before, not an issue and anytime after this ... murder (or under your proposal, the parents' choice inclduing and up to "X" number of days, weeks, months, or year POST-birth. I mean, if the baby is not wanted by its parents (or specifically by its mama) then by all means, let's kill the darn thing.

Thousands of IVF embryos are destroyed each year. So do you think that's murder or not?

Because how is it different from infanticide?

You’ve avoided my question by asking one of your own. To me human life starts at 24 weeks after conception. Prior to that do what you want to your body. After that, treat that life the same as a newborn. When do YOU think human life starts? Just answer my question please.

Ahhh… we’re back to the forced birther red herring of forcing dying women to die for their pregnancies or women with wanted pregnancies to carry a dying or dead pregnancy to term.

I see you’ve again avoided my question and are deflecting because you’d don’t like your answer’s consequences. The overwhelming number of abortion have nothing to do with “dying women” or “dead/dying babies”, so just stop with that argument. And believe it or not MOST mothers (and fathers) are willing to die for their children. We see that you obviously are not one of these people (how selfish of you). Obviously, when the physical health of the mother or child are medically in question the laws should (and most do) account for that. I am not arguing it shouldn’t. So let’s get back to the main point:

Just answer my question, when do you believe human life begins?

BTW, I actually believe in the right to decide to end one’s or one’s dependent’s life due to a terminal condition, so even if a born baby was terminally ill, I believe the parents should have the right to pull the plug per se.

Finally, the answer to this question would be applied to all humans regardless of the procreation method (for the poster that’s been talking about IVF).

DP. What about the language in the Missouri bill that appears to make treatment of an ectopic pregnancy illegal?
I'm a mother of 2 little girls. I would absolutely die for them, without question. But I was not willing to leave them motherless when I was diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy.
I have 2 friends who have undergone TFMR. Both of those pregnancies were very much wanted; in fact, one was the result of IVF. In both cases, complications arose which impacted the health of both mother and fetus. Impact to life and health of the mother or baby as a reason for TFMR or resolution of ectopic pregnancies aren't as rare as you seem to think they are, and anti-abortion legislation absolutely DOES have an impact. Take a look at the case of Savita Halappanivar and other women like her to see what happens when such limits are placed on abortion access.

[Anonymous]

I am a women who is staunchly pro-choice. I accept the idea of late-term abortions.

That said, a lot of the people who are anti-abortion really do just believe “It’s murder,” period. My father, my brother, and all my uncles and male cousins are circumcised. Growing up, that was the norm for me. It is the family tradition. Being “pro-life” (which most of my family is) is not that different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

Should we issue licenses on who can have babies?

Again, to your statement "What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want ... And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse ". If you feel this way, then why not allow infanticide by the parents? Why is killing a new born so horrific and taboo, while killing a fetus is to be protected? Or - are you willing to concede to the "life starts at" argument, with a particular, scientifically established # of weeks as that point in time? Anytime before, not an issue and anytime after this ... murder (or under your proposal, the parents' choice inclduing and up to "X" number of days, weeks, months, or year POST-birth. I mean, if the baby is not wanted by its parents (or specifically by its mama) then by all means, let's kill the darn thing.

Thousands of IVF embryos are destroyed each year. So do you think that's murder or not?

Because how is it different from infanticide?

You’ve avoided my question by asking one of your own. To me human life starts at 24 weeks after conception. Prior to that do what you want to your body. After that, treat that life the same as a newborn. When do YOU think human life starts? Just answer my question please.

I don't know. That's my answer. It's a complicated question. As you know, scientists, scholars, priests and politicians can't decide, and neither can I.

You're preaching to the choir here since I am still raising my child from an unwanted, medically risky pregnancy.

But the question of when we consider a fetus a person is not my point. My point is the inconsistency with which pro lifers treat embryos based on whether they are in a test tube or a woman. Which is very telling to me. Almost as if this isn't just about baby life. But something more complicated.

I am personally pro life and pro baby and pro embryo. I don't want male politicians deciding that for me or any woman or taking out bounties on women who have abortions, restricting interstate travel, or interfering in patient doctor situations. That is all. The philosophical question of when fetal "life" begins is secondary to all of that, to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a women who is staunchly pro-choice. I accept the idea of late-term abortions.

That said, a lot of the people who are anti-abortion really do just believe “It’s murder,” period. My father, my brother, and all my uncles and male cousins are circumcised. Growing up, that was the norm for me. It is the family tradition. Being “pro-life” (which most of my family is) is not that different.

Yes, it's easy to decide, especially for men, that you are simply "pro life" and not bother to think through all the nuanced situations that can arise, or have to pick and choose what situations or laws you think are appropriate, or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a women who is staunchly pro-choice. I accept the idea of late-term abortions.

That said, a lot of the people who are anti-abortion really do just believe “It’s murder,” period. My father, my brother, and all my uncles and male cousins are circumcised. Growing up, that was the norm for me. It is the family tradition. Being “pro-life” (which most of my family is) is not that different.

Yes, it's easy to decide, especially for men, that you are simply "pro life" and not bother to think through all the nuanced situations that can arise, or have to pick and choose what situations or laws you think are appropriate, or not.

PP here. Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nine people in DC charged with civil rights violations. If convicted they each face eleven years in prison. Of the nine, only one could possibly have a viable uterus.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/feds-charged-blocking-dc-reproductive-health-clinic-837684

That link doesn’t work for me so here’s a better one. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/crime/anti-abortion-protesters-indicted-on-felony-charge-for-blocking-dc-clinic-lauren-handy-william-goodman-jonathan-darnell/65-1f6cd1f5-f5f9-4a05-a640-b0df577f19bd

I think the only woman in the above civil rights case with a functioning uterus kept her own aborted fetuses at home. DC Police did a search warrant on her home and found remains of five preborn children. Was she getting pregnant just so she could abort them? Wow what a nut. She proves how hypocritical the violently pro life group is.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/anti-abortion-activist-fetuses