The cruelty and misogyny of forced birth politics

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

And parents are forced to provide food and shelter for their newborn babies. You can’t legally bring your newborn home and leave them outside in the cold or refuse to feed them. You are de facto forced to do this for the good of the newborn. Are you okay with that?

I’m really trying to see your logic.

[Anonymous]

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.

And parents are forced to provide food and shelter for their newborn babies. You can’t legally bring your newborn home and leave them outside in the cold or refuse to feed them. You are de facto forced to do this for the good of the newborn. Are you okay with that?

I’m really trying to see your logic.

Boy, if this is “really trying,” I can see why forced birthers don’t understand much.

Here, take care of this dying woman’s dying fetus. Help her kidneys out. What’s that? You can’t help her? Why not?

Here, take care of this dying woman’s newborn. Thanks for helping out.

Still not there, are you?

[Anonymous]

6 month baby- laying untouched can breath and function on its own. It can survive hours without any intervention. Any person can assist it.
6 month fetus- can not survive any moment unassisted.

[Anonymous]

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?

Yes. The republicans care about none of these three groups.

They bleated (and continue to bleat) on and on about how the elderly, babies, and disabled people don't matter and will just have to get Covid and die so everyone else can go back to "normal."

So, yes, the republican party applies this philosophy to everyone BUT fetuses. The fetuses allow them to control grown women, which is their plus to the republicans, I guess.

[Anonymous]

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?

Don't pretend to be stupid. We're not talking about dependent people. We're talking medically. I can remove a living thing - zygote, fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it - from my body if I don't want it there. If it dies because it no longer can use my body, that is my right.

My dad made me. If I get a disease and a SINGLE cell from his body is all the scientists needed to generate a cure for me, but he doesn't want to give me his cell, then I am out of luck. Even if he's a corpse! If he didn't sign an organ donor authorization, I have no claim on any part of his body, even if it's a matter of life and death for me.

We're not talking about parental, familial, or societal obligations to care for other people. We are talking about the ownership and disposal of one's own body. Bodily integrity.

If we citizens cease to own our own bodies, the government owns us. Male or female. Simple.

[Anonymous]

And PS, as a lib, this is why I agree with the SCOTUS decision on mandatory vax. You can't force a citizen to put something in their body. Maybe you can have it as a requirement for the military or certain bona fide professions (which a person can quit) but generally speaking, the government's rights stop at my skin.

But of course this affects men so that's why the court decided the way it did....

[Anonymous]

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?

Don't pretend to be stupid. We're not talking about dependent people. We're talking medically. I can remove a living thing - zygote, fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it - from my body if I don't want it there. If it dies because it no longer can use my body, that is my right.

My dad made me. If I get a disease and a SINGLE cell from his body is all the scientists needed to generate a cure for me, but he doesn't want to give me his cell, then I am out of luck. Even if he's a corpse! If he didn't sign an organ donor authorization, I have no claim on any part of his body, even if it's a matter of life and death for me.

We're not talking about parental, familial, or societal obligations to care for other people. We are talking about the ownership and disposal of one's own body. Bodily integrity.

If we citizens cease to own our own bodies, the government owns us. Male or female. Simple.

So how do you feel about the death penalty or being conscripted into a war? This is nothing new. The rest of us live so that those in power can use us for their benefit. That’s the way humans work.

[Anonymous]

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?

Don't pretend to be stupid. We're not talking about dependent people. We're talking medically. I can remove a living thing - zygote, fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it - from my body if I don't want it there. If it dies because it no longer can use my body, that is my right.

My dad made me. If I get a disease and a SINGLE cell from his body is all the scientists needed to generate a cure for me, but he doesn't want to give me his cell, then I am out of luck. Even if he's a corpse! If he didn't sign an organ donor authorization, I have no claim on any part of his body, even if it's a matter of life and death for me.

We're not talking about parental, familial, or societal obligations to care for other people. We are talking about the ownership and disposal of one's own body. Bodily integrity.

If we citizens cease to own our own bodies, the government owns us. Male or female. Simple.

So how do you feel about the death penalty or being conscripted into a war? This is nothing new. The rest of us live so that those in power can use us for their benefit. That’s the way humans work.

I'm anti death penalty but understand war conscription. Which will also have to start applying to women.

[Anonymous]

Tennessee to Texas, hold my beer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tennessee to Texas, hold my beer.

See? It’s all about punishing women. You didn’t want to stay pregnant with your rapist’s baby? The rapist’s mother would like another grandchild and doesn’t appreciate the abortion.

[Anonymous]

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.

And parents are forced to provide food and shelter for their newborn babies. You can’t legally bring your newborn home and leave them outside in the cold or refuse to feed them. You are de facto forced to do this for the good of the newborn. Are you okay with that?

I’m really trying to see your logic.

Again, no. If you accept responsibility for a child, you can't neglect it. The state will take it away. You will be charged with a crime. Don't want the baby, leave it at the hospital.

Or have an abortion.

[Anonymous]

"I'm really trying to understand your logic". LOL

No one can use someone's body without permission. Not for pregnancy. Not for sex. Not for body parts or fluids. Not to enhance mass vaccination goals. Your right to decide or do anything to my body stops at my skin.

Permission can be revoked at any time. If we are having sex and I say stop, you stop. If you are drawing blood and I say stop, you stop. If I get once covid shot then decide not to get anymore, I don't have to get anymore. If I am pregnant and decide to stop, that is my choice and my right.