Anonymous wrote:
I’m the poster from p 37 (1:14) who described why I considered abortion for both my planned pregnancies due to complications. Luckily I didn’t need that option either time, but it changed my perspective on the value of having later abortions available. I find abortion really unappealing - obviously access to contraception, sex Ed, and support for children who are born (healthcare, food, shelter...) is needed - but I also think women shouldn’t be forced to be pregnant if they don’t want to be pregnant.

Someone wrote laws would affect women like me ... the thing is I know women whose families flew them to Europe for abortions and assume it would be the same (ie wealthy women would still have options). I was talking to my mom, who lives in GA, and she said “oh, I haven’t been following it. Women can just fly or drive to another state. That’s what people did before Roe.” The new laws criminalize this. Regardless, women who can’t afford a bus ticket or who don’t have ready access to health care (or women and girls who never had access to sex Ed and reliable contraception) seem more likely to be the ones having pregnancies they don’t want - it will continue cycles of poverty while wealthier women, the ones who could more easily raise children, continue to have options.


Someone asked why liberals are against adoption. Most women in America do not receive any paid maternity leave. For my second child I depleted all my sick leave during the pregnancy. In a different job (ie one without telework) I suspect I would have lost my job during my modified bedrest / first trimester. I also know I hemorrhaged giving birth to my first child and had a very hard time with post-partum depression.

It’s not a stretch for me to imagine a woman worried about her ability to house / clothe / feed / care for a child who can’t risk the complications of pregnancy and delivery and the unpaid recovery period afterward, especially if she already has children to care for. Add to that the stigma involved of (for instance) a 14 year old giving birth; or married parents of multiple children giving away a child (and the older children knowing they have a sibling the parents gave away) etc. That’s not even considering being forced to carry a pregnancy to term that you know isn’t viable; or was caused by a brutal attack etc. i don’t even consider myself very liberal, but it does seem to me that there is a lot of overlap between people who want to ban abortion and people who want to take away access to birth control and safety nets and then slut shame women / girls who carry unwanted pregnancies to term.



PP. in your situation, you make a very good case for adoption. With your complications and financial hardship caused by the pregnancies, it might have been better for you to adopt children, particularly after your first difficult pregnancy. Women who adopt may not need as extensive maternity leave as they’re bodies do not endure the rigors of childbirth and could get back to work sooner.

Anonymous wrote:You cannot preach the sanctity of life until access to safe and reliable contraceptives is freely available to poor, uninsured, working poor and those financially struggling

Anonymous wrote:I’m the poster from p 37 (1:14) who described why I considered abortion for both my planned pregnancies due to complications. Luckily I didn’t need that option either time, but it changed my perspective on the value of having later abortions available. I find abortion really unappealing - obviously access to contraception, sex Ed, and support for children who are born (healthcare, food, shelter...) is needed - but I also think women shouldn’t be forced to be pregnant if they don’t want to be pregnant.

Someone wrote laws would affect women like me ... the thing is I know women whose families flew them to Europe for abortions and assume it would be the same (ie wealthy women would still have options). I was talking to my mom, who lives in GA, and she said “oh, I haven’t been following it. Women can just fly or drive to another state. That’s what people did before Roe.” The new laws criminalize this. Regardless, women who can’t afford a bus ticket or who don’t have ready access to health care (or women and girls who never had access to sex Ed and reliable contraception) seem more likely to be the ones having pregnancies they don’t want - it will continue cycles of poverty while wealthier women, the ones who could more easily raise children, continue to have options.


Someone asked why liberals are against adoption. Most women in America do not receive any paid maternity leave. For my second child I depleted all my sick leave during the pregnancy. In a different job (ie one without telework) I suspect I would have lost my job during my modified bedrest / first trimester. I also know I hemorrhaged giving birth to my first child and had a very hard time with post-partum depression.

It’s not a stretch for me to imagine a woman worried about her ability to house / clothe / feed / care for a child who can’t risk the complications of pregnancy and delivery and the unpaid recovery period afterward, especially if she already has children to care for. Add to that the stigma involved of (for instance) a 14 year old giving birth; or married parents of multiple children giving away a child (and the older children knowing they have a sibling the parents gave away) etc. That’s not even considering being forced to carry a pregnancy to term that you know isn’t viable; or was caused by a brutal attack etc. i don’t even consider myself very liberal, but it does seem to me that there is a lot of overlap between people who want to ban abortion and people who want to take away access to birth control and safety nets and then slut shame women / girls who carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ejaculation does not cause pregnancy. Men ejaculate constantly and nobody gets pregnant.

Sex causes pregnancy.

Here we are in lala liberal land- where it’s perfectly acceptable to state a man is solely responsible for pregnancy.

It’s so delusional. No wonder women can’t take responsibility- they are deemed as completely removed from pregnancy.

If it’s sex and not ejaculation that causes pregnancy, why don’t lesbians get pregnant when they have sex? Seems like there’s a component missing there.

Sexual intercourse (or coitus or copulation) is principally the insertion and thrusting of the penis, usually when erect, into the vagina for sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both.[1] This is also known as vaginal intercourse or vaginal sex.[2][3] Other forms of penetrative sexual intercourse include anal sex (penetration of the anus by the penis), oral sex (penetration of the mouth by the penis or oral penetration of the female genitalia), fingering (sexual penetration by the fingers), and penetration by use of a dildo (especially a strap-on dildo).[4][5][6] These activities involve physical intimacy between two or more individuals and are usually used among humans solely for physical or emotional pleasure and can contribute to human bonding.[4][7]


Lesbian sex, gay sex, etc, that’s sexual activity. It’s not sex.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse

So you're saying that pregnancy requires a penis ejaculating into a vagina. Interesting.

I take it you are one of those liberals that doesn’t know how babies are made. It’s all a mystery, eh?

The stork was a lie, in case you are wondering.

I don't know what your point is. Are you saying that you can get pregnant without ejaculate?

You absolutely know the sperm and egg meet and fertilization occurs.

If it’s rape that’s one thing. But consensual sex takes 2 and both are needed for pregnancy to occur.

Under what circumstance beside rape does a man ejaculate in a woman? Sex, of course.

You can get pregnant from a man ejaculating outside the vagina if it he does it on the vulva. It's harder for the sperm to get there so the risk is lower, but penetration isn't strictly necessary for conception.

So the man has to ejaculate in a special place to cause prehistoric?

If a man ejaculates on it in a woman without her consent- it’s rape.

If a man and woman have consensual sexual, the woman allows a man to ejaculate on her or in her.

It’s a process that takes to consenting adults.

I understand women are helpless, ignorant creatures that are unaware of that process. I guess that’s why America has close to a million abortions per year.

The point is men are responsible for creating pregnancy by ejaculating. Hence Mandatory Universal Vasectomy (MUV) is the only reasonable solution to make sure men don't use abortion as birth control.

Exactly. Why are MEN using abortions as birth control? If they were responsible and actually used a condom + spermicide or got a vasectomy then we’d significantly cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. If they can’t act responsive we should implement MUV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New idea- what if we all agreed that a fetus is in fact a person, and abortion is homicide. Then, we can claim the fetus looked at us funny or “threatened” us, so we had to kill it, just like all those sick coward cops killing innocent born humans without consequence. Everyone wins!

To conclude, it’s homicide all right, but justifiable homicide.

Is that how the cops describe it?

How else could they describe it? Homicide refers to the act which a person kills another. Manslaughter and murder are homicide plus some level of intent. The law recognizes that some homicides are considered okay (justified by the circumstances) and shouldn’t be punished. So I’m just proposing that we treat women aborting fetuses the same way a conservative would treat a white cop shooting up an innocent black guy. Seems like a win win to me!

Anonymous wrote:New idea- what if we all agreed that a fetus is in fact a person, and abortion is homicide. Then, we can claim the fetus looked at us funny or “threatened” us, so we had to kill it, just like all those sick coward cops killing innocent born humans without consequence. Everyone wins!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New idea- what if we all agreed that a fetus is in fact a person, and abortion is homicide. Then, we can claim the fetus looked at us funny or “threatened” us, so we had to kill it, just like all those sick coward cops killing innocent born humans without consequence. Everyone wins!

To conclude, it’s homicide all right, but justifiable homicide.

Is that how the cops describe it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New idea- what if we all agreed that a fetus is in fact a person, and abortion is homicide. Then, we can claim the fetus looked at us funny or “threatened” us, so we had to kill it, just like all those sick coward cops killing innocent born humans without consequence. Everyone wins!

To conclude, it’s homicide all right, but justifiable homicide.

Anonymous wrote:New idea- what if we all agreed that a fetus is in fact a person, and abortion is homicide. Then, we can claim the fetus looked at us funny or “threatened” us, so we had to kill it, just like all those sick coward cops killing innocent born humans without consequence. Everyone wins!