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:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

You mean the rapist? Or the boyfriend?

Anyone leaving sperm where its not wanted.

[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:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

You mean the rapist? Or the boyfriend?

Anyone leaving sperm where its not wanted.

+1 Consent to sex is not consent to childbirth and parenting.

[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:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

You mean the rapist? Or the boyfriend?

Anyone leaving sperm where its not wanted.

+1 Consent to sex is not consent to childbirth and parenting.

+1. I’ll further add that consent to pregnancy does not equal consent to continuing a pregnancy that could kill you or result in a child that will not live.

[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:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

You mean the rapist? Or the boyfriend?

Anyone leaving sperm where its not wanted.

+1 Consent to sex is not consent to childbirth and parenting.

+1. I’ll further add that consent to pregnancy does not equal consent to continuing a pregnancy that could kill you or result in a child that will not live.

It’ll take the White suburban mother dying completely unnecessarily for the forced birther movement to be turned back completely.

[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:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

You mean the rapist? Or the boyfriend?

Anyone leaving sperm where its not wanted.

+1 Consent to sex is not consent to childbirth and parenting.

+1. I’ll further add that consent to pregnancy does not equal consent to continuing a pregnancy that could kill you or result in a child that will not live.

It’ll take the White suburban mother dying completely unnecessarily for the forced birther movement to be turned back completely.

Really? I think they’d welcome a martyr.

[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:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

You mean the rapist? Or the boyfriend?

Anyone leaving sperm where its not wanted.

+1 Consent to sex is not consent to childbirth and parenting.

+1. I’ll further add that consent to pregnancy does not equal consent to continuing a pregnancy that could kill you or result in a child that will not live.

It’ll take the White suburban mother dying completely unnecessarily for the forced birther movement to be turned back completely.

Really? I think they’d welcome a martyr.

They’d welcome a martyr, but the other White suburban mothers would realize that they, too, might bleed out from placenta percreta and that the forced birthers won’t care.

[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:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

You mean the rapist? Or the boyfriend?

Anyone leaving sperm where its not wanted.

+1 Consent to sex is not consent to childbirth and parenting.

Perhaps allow adoption.

[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:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

You mean the rapist? Or the boyfriend?

Anyone leaving sperm where its not wanted.

+1 Consent to sex is not consent to childbirth and parenting.

Perhaps allow adoption.

Adoption is a good option for some but, before you continue to push adoption, maybe you should take a good, long look at the countless issues surrounding the private adoption industry and foster care, as well.

[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:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

You mean the rapist? Or the boyfriend?

Anyone leaving sperm where its not wanted.

+1 Consent to sex is not consent to childbirth and parenting.

Perhaps allow adoption.

We have no shortage of children waiting to be adopted.

[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:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

You mean the rapist? Or the boyfriend?

Anyone leaving sperm where its not wanted.

+1 Consent to sex is not consent to childbirth and parenting.

Perhaps allow adoption.

Adoption involves childbirth.

[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:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

You mean the rapist? Or the boyfriend?

Anyone leaving sperm where its not wanted.

+1 Consent to sex is not consent to childbirth and parenting.

Perhaps allow adoption.

Is adoption not allowed? I wasn’t aware.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Stop lying. It would cost you body autonomy, physical discomfort and pain, time off work/school, possibly social standing, possibly some relationships, possibly your mental health, a few women would lose their future fertility due to complications from a pregnancy that didn’t even yield a child they were going to raise themselves, and most importantly: it would cost some women their lives. There are still women who die in childbirth. There are women who are murdered by sexual partners who don’t want a baby.

I suffer from infertility and I would never want another woman to be coerced into continuing an unwanted pregnancy just so I could benefit from her situation. You don’t speak for “loving women who are infertile.”

Also if people are so desperate to adopt how come there's still so many children in foster care who are searching for families? How come the pro-life people haven't adopted them all? I think if you are going to be publicly pro-life and you can be forced to adopt any child that needs a home.

[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:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.

Killing and getting all the child’s parts out of me would a million times more traumatic. Women have been giving birth and mothering their precious babies since the beginning of time.
But women in crisis situations deserve options that don’t leave her to terminate the baby when she doesn’t really want to.

Women don’t regret their abortions.
You are right. Women in crisis deserve options.
That includes choosing to no longer be pregnant.

Wear a condom. Or don’t have sex. Problem solved.

Tell the father that.

Tell the sperm donor that. FIFY.

Tell the irresponsible ejaculator that.

You mean the rapist? Or the boyfriend?

Anyone leaving sperm where its not wanted.

+1 Consent to sex is not consent to childbirth and parenting.

Perhaps allow adoption.

Adoption is a good option for some but, before you continue to push adoption, maybe you should take a good, long look at the countless issues surrounding the private adoption industry and foster care, as well.

Talk is cheap when it comes to pro-life first you think that more of them would be adopting children and trying to support child welfare. It is easy to be pro-life in abstract when you don't actually have to do anything about poverty, orphans or entrenched issues of the child welfare bureaucracy system

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Stop lying. It would cost you body autonomy, physical discomfort and pain, time off work/school, possibly social standing, possibly some relationships, possibly your mental health, a few women would lose their future fertility due to complications from a pregnancy that didn’t even yield a child they were going to raise themselves, and most importantly: it would cost some women their lives. There are still women who die in childbirth. There are women who are murdered by sexual partners who don’t want a baby.

I suffer from infertility and I would never want another woman to be coerced into continuing an unwanted pregnancy just so I could benefit from her situation. You don’t speak for “loving women who are infertile.”

Also if people are so desperate to adopt how come there's still so many children in foster care who are searching for families? How come the pro-life people haven't adopted them all? I think if you are going to be publicly pro-life and you can be forced to adopt any child that needs a home.

Exactly. It’s all a big lie to keep poor people poor and powerless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?

Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.

Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.

It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Stop lying. It would cost you body autonomy, physical discomfort and pain, time off work/school, possibly social standing, possibly some relationships, possibly your mental health, a few women would lose their future fertility due to complications from a pregnancy that didn’t even yield a child they were going to raise themselves, and most importantly: it would cost some women their lives. There are still women who die in childbirth. There are women who are murdered by sexual partners who don’t want a baby.

I suffer from infertility and I would never want another woman to be coerced into continuing an unwanted pregnancy just so I could benefit from her situation. You don’t speak for “loving women who are infertile.”

Also if people are so desperate to adopt how come there's still so many children in foster care who are searching for families? How come the pro-life people haven't adopted them all? I think if you are going to be publicly pro-life and you can be forced to adopt any child that needs a home.

There are children ready to be adopted, but not through foster care. Foster care prioritizes the reunification of families.