ProLife Debunked

This is the response, in full, I made to an argument on the Twitter #ProChoice Debunked page.


Once again, a kidney, heart, lung, liver, eye, blood, etc... are ALL designed to be used by ONE PERSON. In order for THIS ProLife argument to stand you must be opposed to ALL forms of organ, tissue or blood donation, because, just like a uterus is designed to be used by two lives, organ, tissue AND blood are designed to be used by ONLY ONE PERSON. Oi. A woman has breasts and lactates, but she is not compelled to use them. Men get erections but they are not compelled to use them. Just like women are not (and should not be) compelled to use their uterus. Thanks for making my argument that the issue of abortion IS completely relevant to organ donation.

Good thing I have never claimed there IS a right to abortion, then, eh? Right to abortion implies that there is a law mandating abortion unless, in some cases, certain circumstances apply. I have, however, claimed there IS a right to CHOOSE whether to terminate OR continue a pregnancy. I really don't see what the UN has to do with anything, either. It is WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION that no one may force another to give up their body, in part or in whole, in order to sustain another's life. If that were not true, there would be nothing to stop organ donation from becoming mandatory. And, yes, it IS a premise that makes abortion permissible. Not one ProLife person can come up with a reasonable argument to dispute that fact.

I don't think you were ever really ProChoice. You were probably one of those people who believed that incest and rape were the only times they could exercise their right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. Proving that it was all about punishment. If a woman has been punished enough for previously having consensual sex for purposes other than procreation, then she may be 'allowed' to have an abortion. If this is a sign of your debating skills, they've either really deteriorated over the years or you never really had any to begin with.

There is no right 'to' 'kill' a 'child', being discussed here, AT ALL, as I have told many ignorant ProLifers, including yourself, over and over, again. Again, a right to something implies that it is mandated by law, unless, in some cases, extraordinary circumstances apply. Killing refers to the cause of death. Cause implies responsibility. Women cannot be held responsible for the fact that their uterus SUSTAINS (not GIVES, but SUSTAINS) life. That fact only serves to IMPRISON them in their own bodies. (Something, I'm sure, ProLife salivates at.) The cause of death must also be direct. As is indicated by legal AND medical records. Abortion, ITSELF, is not direct, it affects the PLACENTA. One thing it does NOT do is affect the fetal body directly. However, some *methodologies* of abortion do, THUS killing the fetus. And a fetus is not a child. A child, AT THE VERY LEAST, is a baby that has been taken home from the hospital. THAT simple. REALLY.

So, abortion fits NONE of the definitions of murder. (Interesting to note that even when abortion was illegal, it was STILL not considered murder.) SO sorry.

AGAIN, biological design does not make one a man anymore than it makes one a woman. And you KNOW this, otherwise you wouldn't be letting men escape from their biological 'destiny' with impunity, as you HAVE. Doubtful? Case in point, then: A woman has a clitoris that is not needed in reproduction. A man needs to be erect in order to reproduce. Yet you are not claiming that a man is not a man if he doesn't engage in reproductive sex, let alone compelling him to do so.

Misogyny is anything that prevents women from becoming completely equal in society. You are seriously naive if you think women have not been passed over for promotions or simply not hired, because they can and do get pregnant. All of the laws in the world won't change that, unless attitudes change with them. But we are still living in an archaic patriarchy. And your policies would only serve to make the disparities between men and women that much more obvious.

You are not for defending life, as I have proven above. But here's something else for you to chew on, if that's still not enough for you: If a fetus DOES get the right to exist at all costs (anything else would be too arbitrary for what you are fighting for, after all), then a woman LOSES her right to life. Since pregnancy is the second leading cause of death in women worldwide. And, believe me, without those medical advancements that you ProLife fools always rail against, pregnancy would be even MORE life-threatening. Meaning that, according to ProLife's ideology that they know more than the medical or psychological professionals even with their advanced techniques, in a world where they wouldn't have to worry about such things, women would be dying FAR more frequently.

Women do accept their bodies. You want to force them to. But ONLY women, as, once again, I have proven above.

It is not a gift, if one does not want to get pregnant but wants to experience the SAME sexual freedoms that men can experience without similar fear of reprisal. How is that NOT obvious? A gift cannot be forced, after all. EsPECially when gifts elsewhere are only perceived when not forced. But that is what PROLIFE wants to do. Thus it is ProLife that wants to abuse a gift.

You obviously have no idea what the term force means. I suggest you look it up. If something is unwanted it is forced. Even if you believe that biology cannot be forced, (which is obviously not true, as, for the third time, I've pointed out above and as you believe that biology can be forced when women are mandated to get pregnant) since that is only your opinion and can only BE your opinion.

And, as *I* have pointed out that has no bearing on whether women are COMPELLED to use their uterus, just like men are not COMPELLED to use their sperm. It's that simple, really.

When you were attacked, you simply got lucky. There was a woman, in the news once, who was attacked by her sleepwalking son-in-law. She was killed. But she would still have been able to use deadly force to defend herself. She just would have been LUCKY if her attempts didn't result in the death of her son-in-law, in that case. Anyways, in most instances when one is attacked, don't you think an attacker is MORE likely to make sure there is no escape route for the victim? One reason, right there, why I doubt that victims of an attack would be forced to take even such MINIMAL precautions. It's the same thing when one is being raped. Rape is not life-threatening, in and of itself, nor is it as intimate a violation as unwanted pregnancy, but deadly force may still be used in this case. (Still though, the only difference between both pregnancy and rape and the examples you gave are the likelihood of an escape route being presented.)

You may thank me for your edumacation, now.


To see the full text of the post I'm responding to, follow the link, here.

Removal of Connective Material Linking Two Bodies Does NOT Equal Cause Of Death for EITHER Body

...Or, in other words, abortion does not equal killing.

(For clarity's sake, and future reference, abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy, which, in turn, refers to the implantation of the fetal portion of the placenta into the uterus.  The methodology of said abortion, refers to the procedures utilized by the provider to facilitate it.)  

I have had at least one anti try to compare apples and oranges, as if to say that any old comparison to abortion will quickly put paid to the idea that abortion is not equivalent to killing.  However, if we look at it more carefully, we will discover that there are some very unique differences between killing (cause of death) and removal of life support, that render these comparisons useless, even though human life is present:

First off, here is my theory (which has two parts to it): Killing equals cause of death.  However, under medical/legal guidelines, if artificial life support is removed, the cause of death is listed as lack of brain function, NOT the removal of the life-support, itself.  Also, a fetus becomes incompatible with life upon separation from the uterus.  Any other interpretation merely results in misplaced responsibility being laid at the woman's door for the way her own biology functions;

Secondly, here is one comparison the anti tried to pass off as irrefutable: If a person is 'removed' from a cliff side, then the one who 'removed' that person did not kill them, by my logic.  But that is based on an erroneous interpretation of my analogy.  For one thing, that person's body was being affected directly;  Since the *methodology* of SOME abortions (thanks, Auragasmic!) affect the fetal body directly, thus resulting in fetal death, those could be correctly termed killing, and would be a more apt comparison to the above analogy;  For another, there was no removal of connective material (see title of post, above), involved; There was nothing that kept the second person tethered to the cliff side, much less something such as that that was being targeted by the first person to remove the former from the cliff side.  A more apt analogy would be two people who were tied together by a rope.  One person was standing on top of the cliff, while another was dangling down the side of the cliff from that same rope.  (Much like in pregnancy, the first person's life would be endangered by the second.) If the first person were to cut the rope, that would not be listed as the cause of death for the other person.  Most likely it would be the impact listed as such.

I simply hope this blog has, at least, provided anyone who runs across it, some food for thought.

The Rape, Slavery and Entrapment of Women....

This is a response I made to a particularly virulent anti, here:

How is vile, disgusting, sickening, vicious, bile OR filth potty-mouthed, when they weren't even directed at YOU, but your WORDS?  None of those are swear words.  Do you even know what the word potty means (well, at least the version of it you are using, anyways)?

What YOU fail to see is that you want to blame noone BUT the woman.

How are you NOT punishing women for an anatomical function (that IS outside of her control), when you attempt to modify behaviour (and you DO see it as behaviour modification if you think making abortion illegal will reduce its rates), such as consensual sex for non-procreative purposes, by imposing a 'natural' consequence on it, a 'natural' consequence that has no corollary elsewhere?  The fact that I was born with a uterus means everyone can feel free to strip me of either my rights or my sexual freedoms and that they can feel free to deny me medical remedy that is denied to no one else whose organs aren't functioning the way someone wants them to?  

Makes me SICK that I was born female and that I have to undergo either 1. Invasive medical surgery (which most doctors won't perform without serious medical complications, due in LARGE part to attitudes like YOURS), when no one else's medical privacy is invaded in such a manner or 2.  SRS (which most of you extreme right-wing conservative ProLife Christian fundamentalists don't even SUPPORT) in order to satisfy the fanatics, such as yourself, that I am not holding any dreams, desires, wishes, hopes or wants beyond fulfilling the role of incubator or baby-making machine.  I KNOW what my mom had to go through before anyone from the medical profession would even consider performing a hysterectomy on her.  I also know that some of the organs held in place by the uterus can fall into the empty space left behind and cause problems with THOSE organs.   And I DEFinitely do not identify as anything other than cisgender.  

She knows her body and she knows the risks just like the driver of a car knows the car and the risks of driving it, so, shouldn't zie be disallowed medical remedy, too, if zie causes an accident and receives minor injuries, I mean if you want to prove that this really isn't about punishing women?

She didn't 'wilfully' allow it, unless you really ARE punishing her for it, unless you really ARE seeking to entrap her in a body she has no escape from, a body with natural processes that occur inside it, whether she likes it or not, and that can only be used against her.  What crime did she commit against you that you think you can use her body as a prison for her? 

I believe that the life has rights.  I just don't believe that it has MORE rights than anyone born.  Are you really such a dunderhead, that you can't comprehend simple sentences like that, even when they're repeated over and over for you? 

That isn't sexual freedom, that's sexual oppression, of women, moron.

If I did see the uterus as an evil thing, it'd ONLY be because of people like you.  Because of people like you that find it so convenient and easy to enforce pregnancy on women, so those 'dirty sluts' won't dare to live outside their 'biological imperatives', anymore.

The man has EVery right that the woman has up to and inCLUding the moment the fetus no longer occupies her body, he even has every right that she has AFTer that moment.  But, here, I see, you've finally admitted you see pregnancy as behaviour modification (punishment). After all, how can a man have rights to the fetus when he DOESn't have the physiological function, but a woman can't have rights when she DOES have the physiological function?  

Abortion doesn't involve killing, btw. 

So, woman as non-victim OBviously DOESn't cut it.

Yes, I have.  It makes me squeamish only because it looks like any other surgery with blood.  I have an even BIGger problem watching bloody, gory movies because they're even more bloody and gory.  If abortion is violent, cruel and inhumane, childbirth is violent, cruel and inhumane for BOTH the woman AND the fetus.  If abortion is inhumane, then killing someone after they've been directed to experience pleasure and pain is even MORE inhumane.

You have a warped view of life.

Julie, 44 :: NARAL Pro-Choice America

Julie, 44 :: NARAL Pro-Choice America As part of a Naral project, women are gathering together online, through a Naral ProChoice blog, to give the reasons why they are ProChoice. And asking others to read their stories and publish them online either via FB and/or blogs. I've chosen to stand for this woman (and her grandmother) on both.

Some good reading material gathered from the Pedgehog at AciAa!

One just discovered, another already familiar:

Revolushuneyz

And

Joyce Arthur

Public News Service

A wonderful faith-based organization that provides services and counselling to all women who require sexual and reproductive health care now has a podcast available.

Disadvantages, sociobiological feminism and (possibly) why I identify as a cissexual female and cisgender woman.

Let's begin with what I believe is the most advantaged and disadvantaged.  If you're a rich, white, western, commonly abled, heterosexual, cissexual male and cisgender man (and I'm sure I've forgotten a few 'categories'), then, congratulations, you won the privilege lottery!  If you're a rich, white, western, commonly abled, heterosexual, cissexual female and cisgender woman (as I am), you are slightly less privileged than your male counterpart.  A quick succession of changes to the rest of those categories and you will eventually find yourself at the bottom, the place where the least privileged reside: This would be the poor, black, non-western, uncommonly abled, homosexual, trans/intersex/non binary and femme-identifying person.   Even in cases where privilege would not exist this would be true: Women/femme identifying and female assigned persons have more challenges to face just by virtue of being who they are.

Sociobiological feminism is a term I like to use to describe the antithesis of evolutionary psychology.  Rather than a case of the Culture of Matter, it is the Matter of Culture.  The first is often used to defend much of the victim-blaming that goes on within our societies, with the responsibility to change one's behaviour placed on the victim and which was the impetus for making phrases such as 'boys will be boys' more acceptable in current mainstream society.  While the latter suggests that much of what we perceive as encased in stone when it comes to gender and their roles, is actually rooted deep within the socialization of oneself into his/her culture.  Turning this on its head requires that we take back ownership of our bodies and take responsibility for our actions and change the way we are socialized within each of our respective, and throughout all, cultures.

Cissexual female and cisgender woman are terms to describe a female/woman who identifies with the body and roles they matured and developed in.

How these all work together to define who I am, at least in one manner, comes to this:  I believe that I must work to change the disadvantages that I, as a woman, experience and I feel that the best way for me, PERsonally, to do this is to not only work from a vantage point with the best possible understanding of these disadvantages but also the best possible place to make changes.  That means the vantage point where the most burdensome role of society's and nature's expectations reside entirely on me. And yet also where the responsibility of the position that can best affect change along that axis lies. As a woman/femme-identifying person and assigned female I will be the one socialized to want and expect to have kids. And as women/femme identifying persons and assigned females, we are the only ones who will be forced to accept the reality of that prospect.  Even if you are a (non-op) trans/intersex/non-binary man/masculine identifying person or a (pre-op/post-op) trans/intersex/non binary man/masculine identifying person, your expectations or reality are definitely going to vary from that one once you have identified who you are, of court's.

I am also non-sexual (activity-wise, NOT identity) and have no idea whether I would be able to take certain kinds of birthcontrol/contraception.  You might think that this completely blows out of the water my previous theory on disadvantages, but I don't think it does.  I believe that the way the body is structured is sexist, as I pointed out earlier.  I (again, PERsonally) think that making use of these functions (functions in the body usually assigned female that differ from the body usually assigned male) only underscores that sexism. 

What do YOU think...?