blog for choice: 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade

[thejunipertree]

I find it astonishing and disheartening that in my office, the only two people who made mention of what today was were me and our Communications Coordinator, Steffy (who is all sorts of awesome). This would not have been the case a year ago and that is extremely disappointing. Therefore, I'm going in the steps of vivaemptiness and jennifer0246:

I vote pro-choice because women are not brood mares.

I vote pro-choice because no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy when they do not want to bring a child into this world, regardless of their reasons or if the pregnancy will lead to adoption.

I vote pro-choice because women should not be told, "well, you shouldn't have spread your legs."

I vote pro-choice because a child should never be a punishment.

I vote pro-choice because every child should be a wanted child.

I vote pro-choice because I do not want anyone else making decisions about what I'm going to do with my body.

I vote pro-choice because abstinence-only education obviously does not work.

I vote pro-choice because not every woman should be or wants to be a mother.

I vote pro-choice because this society should never return to the world of back alley procedures that usually ended in gangrene, perforated uteruses, sterility, or death.

I vote pro-choice because no birth control is 100%.

I vote pro-choice because a fetus does not have more rights than I do.

I vote pro-choice because the idea of "once you see the baby's face, everything willl change and you will fall in love!" is a complete and utter myth.

I vote pro-choice because there are still states in this country that are doing everything within their power to make it more difficult for a woman to have an abortion.

I vote pro-choice because I can't stand it when people say, "I'm only pro-choice as long as abortion isn't being used as birth control."

I vote pro-choice because every day, I see the faces of women who choose abortion and hear their stories. Where would they go if they didn't have this choice?

I vote pro-choice because women are still forced, intimidated, and coerced into having sex.

I vote pro-choice because we do not live in a theocracy.

I vote pro-choice because when I was sixteen years old, my eldest brother said to my mother, "I'm surprised she's not knocked up like you were when you were her age."

Comments

[meetzemonsta.livejournal.com]

At the risk of this entire line of discussion becoming a strawman

Too late.

It's a strawman, purely by your coming up with a grossly exaggerated situation that is highly unlikely to ever happen.

That being said, I'll still answer you.

I feel that, if you want to split hairs with a completely extreme situation that is highly unlikely to happen except maybe in cases of breaks from reality, it would still not be a violation of its rights because the birth is incomplete (despite the fact that at that point, the infant is no longer involved in a parasitic relationship with its host, the cord must be cut or the infant cannot live), but it would not be reasonable for a mother to do because it would be illegal.

There would, in fact, be a crime, just not the one you're attempting to get at, because elective third trimester abortions, which are what that act should technically be considered, are not legal. Furthermore, all abortions may only be legally performed by licensed medical clinicians.

Any woman who would commit such an act should be psychologically examined and if found to have been completely sane during the act, then prosecuted for violation of state and federal abortion laws and practicing medicine without a license.

(who is not yet a mother, no?)

A woman does not need to have completed the birth process to be termed a mother. A fetus is still offspring, regardless of how early in development. Offspring are products of reproduction. A mother is a biological (or social, but we're not discussing that type) female parent of an offspring.

Would you tell a woman who had their child be stillborn that they are not a mother any longer? Or a woman who suffered a miscarriage? No existing final product from the reproduction does not negate "motherhood".

(which it doesn't yet have, no?).

On a celluar level, as they are not inorganic or dead organisms. But then again, so do tapeworms and tumors. Socially, however, women aren't expected or demanded to unwillingly carry those organisms.

edited for HTML retardedness

[aprilrobin.livejournal.com]

but what if the baby was born it suddenly grabbed a nearby shank and tried to attack the mother, but the cord was not cut yet and she crushed it's skull with a metal implement in self-defense.

Would that be illegal?