What was that about the extreme fight against reproductive access being imagined? Did someone say there is no war on reproductive health? I would beg to differ.
theoppressedlittlefetus reblogged
“Just give it up for adoption!”
Whenever the topic of abortion comes up in my conservative Christian community, the inevitable response is, “Why don’t they just give it up for adoption?” I was raised with a halcyon vision of adoption being the most beautiful miracle that could emerge from an unintended pregnancy. Newborn adoption can be a wonderful blessing for many people. It is not, however, the perfect alternative to abortion that I had believed it was.
- First, pregnant people overwhelmingly reject adoption. In the US in 1989, less than 2% of single white pregnant people and practically 0% of single black pregnant people placed their children for adoption. These numbers have not changed in 26 years.
- A significant increase in the number of people placing children for adoption would soon exhaust the supply of would-be adopters. As of 2002, only 614,000 people under age 45 had ever completed an adoption. Only a minority of these people adopted American newborns. Most adopted from foster care, from a relative, from a new spouse with children, or from other countries. If every person who got an abortion last year placed the child for adoption instead, the backlog of those looking to adopt would be wiped out in less than a year.
- Adoption is expensive. Not just to the adopters, who must pay between $10,000 and $25,000 in the US to adopt a newborn, but to those placing a child as well. While placing a child for adoption is usually free, lost wages, loss to education, and health risks from pregnancy must be paid for.
- Pregnancy can have a wide variety of negative health consequences including anemia, UTI’s, hypertension, diabetes, morning sickness, hemorrhoids, yeast infections, placental previa, placental abruption, preeclampsia, depression, and anxiety, in addition to the significant physical danger presented by childbirth.
- Deciding to put a child up for adoption doesn’t save pregnant people from having their lives endangered by pregnancy. It doesn’t make the pregnancy symptom-free so that the pregnant person never has to miss a day of work. It doesn’t allow the baby to teleport out of the uterus at the end of gestation, saving the pregnant person from the experience of childbirth and having to take time off work to heal.
- Adoptees are four times more likely to attempt suicide than non-adopted peers. Treating adoption strictly as a beautiful thing doesn’t allow many adoptees to express their true feelings.
- Pro-lifers frequently try to talk about how the majority of people who get abortions supposedly experience severe emotional trauma (though this claim has been discredited). They never seem to talk about the number of people who experience emotional trauma after placing a child for adoption. One study found that 12 to 20 years later, 75% of people who placed a child for adoption still felt grief and loss. Seventy-five percent.
- Having a child taken back by a birth parent who changes their mind is unspeakably painful for would-be adoptive parents. One woman I talked to described it as “the closest thing I’ve experienced to the death of a child.” Another woman had a baby girl taken back from her fifteen years ago. She said it still stung.
- Most important, many people just don’t want to be pregnant. They could have tokophobia, or they could have prescriptions for medications that are inadvisable to take while pregnant, or they could have a job that they would likely lose if they continued a pregnancy, or they could be in an abusive relationship and need to abort in order to protect themselves, or they could just not want a foreign entity growing inside of them for nine months. Adoption is an alternative to being a parent. It is not an alternative to being pregnant.
Further reading on the subject:
rhrealitycheck
See also: Adoption Is Not a Universal Alternative to Abortion, No Matter What Anti-Choicers Say, by Randie Bencanann at RH Reality Check
I think I need a cold shower after that one.
theoppressedlittlefetus reblogged
notisaidthekat-deactivated20160
You may have noticed
a change in the tone of my pro-life posts.
I’ve developed a bit of an attitude.
Why?
Because seeing people defend killing human babies makes me REALLY FUCKING ANGRY.
I’m sick of your shit, pro-aborts. I’m here to kick ass.
So much compassion in one text post.
notisaidthekat
I’m saving it for the babies
Did you know you can have compassion and empathy for both babies and adults? It’s actually pretty easy. You just have to realize that what a person wants for their own life is more important than what you want for their life because you are not them.
notisaidthekat
I have compassion for mothers and children, and fathers as well (a group the pro-choice movement completely disregards). You need to realize that what someone wants to choose for their own life can’t infringe on someone else’s ability to do the same.
And you need to realize that is a two way street. Someone else’s life cannot be saved by impeding on the rights of another. You either value a person’s right to their own body and an abortion more, or you value a fetus’s right to use a person’s body against that person’s will so that the fetus may live more. You are completely ignoring the pregnant party’s body in your example.
And why the flying fuck would anyone care about a father’s opinion on his partner’s abortion, unless you’re implying that you’re okay with fathers forcing their partners to give birth to their child against their will, which is also a gross violation of a person’s rights.
In any situation you’re going to throw at me in which a fetus’s “rights” are being violated, you are ignoring the rights of the person who is pregnant if they do not wish to be.
notisaidthekat
“You either value a person’s right to their own body and an abortion more, or you value a fetus’s right to use a person’s body against that person’s will so that the fetus may live more.”
Sorry, I thought I made it abundantly clear that I value the fetus’s right to live far more. The right to life outweighs the right to bodily autonomy because actually, your right to live comfortably cannot impede on the right of someone else to not be killed.
It takes two to procreate. A mother does not own her child and a father should have equal part in that child’s life (with some exceptions that are also applicable to mothers, ie being abusive or negligent).
Sorry, your bullshit must have gotten lost in my notifications somewhere.
So, your opinion is that the right to life trumps all other rights, but we don’t grant rights based on opinions. A violation of rights is a violation of rights, no matter how noble or necessary you may think it. Human rights are inherent, and all are equally as important as the others. You are literally advocating for the violation of people’s rights. I honestly don’t even know what to say to that.
I guess it shouldn’t really surprise me then that you also advocate for a father potentially being able to enslave his pregnant partner for 9 months on the basis that her rights have disappeared.
I don’t even know how to continue this conversation so have fun promoting the enslavement and human rights violations of people, I guess? Thanks for admitting it? I don’t know, I’m honestly at a loss for words.
theoppressedlittlefetus reblogged
Anonymous asked:
I don't see how you can say "rights for all" and yet deny unborn children the right to life.
I don’t know that foetuses were given rights that were held above the rights of pregnant people.
-Ash
I’ve always been curious about how pro-lifers plan to navigate the conflicting rights between to parties like this if fetuses were actually given full human rights? Because we all have full human rights and we’re still not allowed to violate the rights of another person, even if our life is dependent on theirs. I have yet to hear any kind of explanation, so still I wonder.
Please someone (preferably a pro-life individual who believes in fetal rights being given) explain how you can grant a fetus equal (not elevated) rights and have pregnant people still retain their full rights as well. I’ve been waiting for years.
The argument I usually hear is “right to life trumps all other rights! A babies right to not be killed is more important than your right to your bodily autonomy!” It’s a shit argument that myself and others here have patiently refuted countless times but it’s all they got so they bring it up constantly.
Okay so fetal rights are the most important rights of all then? Or is it ALL life? Are they also working as vehemently to end the death penalty practice because life? If this is the case then are we also going to mandate things like people being obligated to give blood transfusions to people they’ve shot, stabbed, etc. in order to save their life because life? Are they gonna eventually admit that if the right to life trumps the right to body that restricting abortion is actually restricting a person’s rights and that pregnant people’s rights don’t really matter anymore then? Are we going to start INFORMING people that when they get pregnant they no longer have rights?
Damn. This is just creating more questions for me. I need a pro-life expert in here pronto.
Anonymous asked:
I don't see how you can say "rights for all" and yet deny unborn children the right to life.
I don’t know that foetuses were given rights that were held above the rights of pregnant people.
-Ash
I’ve always been curious about how pro-lifers plan to navigate the conflicting rights between to parties like this if fetuses were actually given full human rights? Because we all have full human rights and we’re still not allowed to violate the rights of another person, even if our life is dependent on theirs. I have yet to hear any kind of explanation, so still I wonder.
Please someone (preferably a pro-life individual who believes in fetal rights being given) explain how you can grant a fetus equal (not elevated) rights and have pregnant people still retain their full rights as well. I’ve been waiting for years.
moriah-explains-it-all
I’ve been asking @prolifeproliberty that very thing for years. She usually just ignores me or pretends that the pregnant person will fall in line no matter what if forced to remain pregnant.
Thereby ignoring the fact that forcing someone to do something with their body against their own wishes is a huge violation of bodily autonomy and free will and therefore infringing upon their rights. That sounds about right.
theoppressedlittlefetus reblogged
Jesus fucking christ
WORDS MEAN THINGS
theoppressedlittlefetus reblogged
Anonymous asked:
I don't see how you can say "rights for all" and yet deny unborn children the right to life.
I don’t know that foetuses were given rights that were held above the rights of pregnant people.
-Ash
I’ve always been curious about how pro-lifers plan to navigate the conflicting rights between to parties like this if fetuses were actually given full human rights? Because we all have full human rights and we’re still not allowed to violate the rights of another person, even if our life is dependent on theirs. I have yet to hear any kind of explanation, so still I wonder.
Please someone (preferably a pro-life individual who believes in fetal rights being given) explain how you can grant a fetus equal (not elevated) rights and have pregnant people still retain their full rights as well. I’ve been waiting for years.
Just a reminder that this is started out as and continues to look like a tongue-in-cheek pro-life blog but this is actually a pro-choice blog and if you’re pro-choice you don’t need to message me about being pro-life and wrong because I’m neither of those things.
theoppressedlittlefetus reblogged
Anonymous asked:
In your description, saying 1 in 3 people will have an abortion is inaccurate. That implies that 1/3 of the entire population, male or female, has an abortion. This isn't true, since males are not having abortions. 1 in 3 women will have one.
I was waiting for someone to point this out! Surprised someone took this long.
I replaced “women” with “people,” because not only women get pregnant.
Trans men, non-binary individuals, and intersex people get pregnant, as well.
While the terminology can skew the stat if you don’t think about it, I also assumed people would understand which partner (the “impregnantee” versus the “impregnator”) the stat was talking about, inherently. Given the context.
I can replace it with “1 in 3 people capable of becoming pregnant,” but, frankly, I’m pretty sure people know exactly who the stat is referring to.
Followers, any particular preference? Or does anyone have more concise phrasing?
-Mod Al
Maybe pregnancy capable people? Because you’re right, women are definitely not the only ones having abortions, and I guess 1 in 3 people can sound like it’s referring to the entire population. I don’t know, I’ve been sitting here for like five minutes and that’s the best I came up with.
Also, anon, your thinking is very ciscentric and you should probably work on that.
theoppressedlittlefetus reblogged
Source: blogs.post-gazette.com
theoppressedlittlefetus reblogged
Shit anti-choicers say
I honestly don’t understand how a company that is literally called Planned Parenthood can be misrepresented so much as a company that only offers abortion. It’s in the name! People planning their fucking parenthood!
theoppressedlittlefetus reblogged
notisaidthekat-deactivated20160
You may have noticed
a change in the tone of my pro-life posts.
I’ve developed a bit of an attitude.
Why?
Because seeing people defend killing human babies makes me REALLY FUCKING ANGRY.
I’m sick of your shit, pro-aborts. I’m here to kick ass.
So much compassion in one text post.
notisaidthekat
I’m saving it for the babies
Did you know you can have compassion and empathy for both babies and adults? It’s actually pretty easy. You just have to realize that what a person wants for their own life is more important than what you want for their life because you are not them.
notisaidthekat
I have compassion for mothers and children, and fathers as well (a group the pro-choice movement completely disregards). You need to realize that what someone wants to choose for their own life can’t infringe on someone else’s ability to do the same.
And you need to realize that is a two way street. Someone else’s life cannot be saved by impeding on the rights of another. You either value a person’s right to their own body and an abortion more, or you value a fetus’s right to use a person’s body against that person’s will so that the fetus may live more. You are completely ignoring the pregnant party’s body in your example.
And why the flying fuck would anyone care about a father’s opinion on his partner’s abortion, unless you’re implying that you’re okay with fathers forcing their partners to give birth to their child against their will, which is also a gross violation of a person’s rights.
In any situation you’re going to throw at me in which a fetus’s “rights” are being violated, you are ignoring the rights of the person who is pregnant if they do not wish to be.
Volunteers for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's Republican presidential campaign will be distributing water on Wednesday to residents of Flint, Michigan -- but apparently, only to anti-abortion groups.
Wendy Lynn Day, the Michigan state director for the Cruz campaign, announced on Facebook last week that the water will be delivered to crisis pregnancy centers for "expecting moms and moms of little ones."
Those aid efforts will assist only a small portion of the Flint's approximately 100,000 residents, who have been suffering from lead poisoning and a lack of clean water since 2014, when the city decided to cut costs by switching its water supply.
Day reportedly said the donations underscored Cruz's "pro-life values." Her Facebook post didn't mention whether the campaign will also donate water to children who are already suffering from lead poisoning, or to other city residents.
Once again proving pro-life is only for the lives of a select few.
Tip: You can’t call yourself pro-life if you’re neglecting lives that don’t suit your agenda.
theoppressedlittlefetus reblogged
Florida CLEARLY doesn’t give a single shit about wasting taxpayer money with this unconstitutional garbage.
“By an 8-3 vote Monday afternoon, a House criminal justice panel voted to advance the more sweeping piece of legislation (HB 865), which would make performing an abortion or operating an abortion clinic a first-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to 30 years in prison. Just hours earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated its long-standing ruling affirming women’s right to the procedure.
“The bill recognizes that both the mother and the baby are citizens of the state of Florida… and we are therefore compelled to protect their lives,” said Rep. Charles Van Zant, R-Keystone Heights, the bill’s sponsor.”
Also this
“The Legislature finds that all human life comes from the Creator, has an inherent value that cannot be quantified by man, and begins at the earliest biological development of a fertilized human egg,” the bill says.”
Well that sounds like a big ol’ violation of Church and State.
theoppressedlittlefetus reblogged
Imagine a world where a company, illegally funded by taxpayers against their will, aborts babies and sells their body parts, breaking federal law, and the people who expose its lawbreaking are indicted.
matt-ruins-feminisms-shit
What I’m confused about is how can you clear PP of all wrongdoing and then charge one of the people who was pretending to buy body parts…for trying to buy body parts. If there was never any body part selling going on…how does that make sense. I guess the lesson we can learn from this is if an organization has ties to the government they can do no wrong and don’t you dare say otherwise or we’ll throw you in jail. Land of the free…as long as you are in or supported by the government. If you are feel free to pedal human parts, distribute guns, drugs and child porn, pollute and extort to your hearts content.
Let me google that for you.
The investigation of PP had been going on for months. The investigation found nothing. End of investigation.
THEN, the judge indicted Daledian and Merrit for creating fake government ID’s. Daledian and Merrit also tried to BUY body parts, which is illegal.
haunt-my-miles
It doesn’t matter if a place isn’t selling body parts; you can’t ask them for it?
Like, if I go into Stop & Shop and ask where the body parts are they are going to call the police? Like, that is a grocery store. They do not sell body parts (obviously). They will think I want to buy limbs or some crap.
They even filmed themselves asking to buy body parts.
When you AREN’T a law enforcement agency, and you ASK to buy something that is illegal and you film yourself doing it, yeah, that is illegal. And you just created your own evidence against yourself.
WHY ARE PEOPLE STRUGGLING SO HARD WITH THIS? HAVE YOU NEVER SEEN COPS? IT’S STILL ILLEGAL TO TRY TO PROCURE ILLEGAL THINGS WHETHER THE PERSON YOU’RE ASKING HAS THEM OR NOT. INTENT TO BUY OR WHATEVER.
Also LOLOLOLOL YOU’RE RUINING YOUR OWN SHIT MATT I’M EMBARRASSED FOR YOU
Source: poorrichardsnews.com
I don’t know if any of you watch The View but I do (because I love daytime tv and it’s a long story, don’t judge me) and Paula Faris was just trying to defend David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt because “They found that PP wasn’t selling human body parts so how can you charge someone for trying to buy something that doesn’t exist?!” In the same way you can be charged when trying to solicit sex work or buy drugs from a cop, it’s illegal to try to procure these things whether the person you’re soliciting has them or not. What is so hard to understand about that? Why do pro-lifers want to promote all these laws being made restricting abortion while proving that they really don’t understand how laws work in the first place? You wanna legislate against reproductive access and criminalize abortions but all these other laws that hinder your agenda are bogus and shouldn’t exist to charge people with? Nah, I don’t think so. I really dislike Paula Faris.