Read on Twitter
Thread attempt
This is not a "political" issue. This is human rights, to its very core. And, unfortunately, it needs to be THOUGHT OUT, not snapped at with some emotional, pompous non-argument....so here goes:
This is not a "political" issue. This is human rights, to its very core. And, unfortunately, it needs to be THOUGHT OUT, not snapped at with some emotional, pompous non-argument....so here goes:
Sex CAN be for procreation, but it is also for pleasure. Humans like to have sex. Even in the deepest valleys of the Bible Belt, in the staunchest abstinence-only cultures, teenage pregnancy is pervasive.
We hit puberty and we want to have sex, despite all the fear and preaching otherwise. It is baked into our biologyâŠand there is nothing wrong with that. To deny this fact is to be dismissed from this subject entirely.
The notion that âbut then sex is only for procreationâ is disqualified as well. Easiest way to support this? There are a whole host of medical issues that could render a female unable to conceive and a male unable to fertilize. Those people still get to have sex. Case closed.
People have a right to their own bodies, their own biology, their own health, including reproductive health. Even when lives are demonstrably at risk, we donât dictate that people must come in and donate organs or blood, or be hooked up a machine to help keep someone else alive.
When a woman allows a man to inject sperm into her body during sex, he does not get to âlay claimâ to her body now that he did so. Why would it suddenly be the case due to the additional random occurrence of fertilization, either on purpose or by accident?
If she wishes to not get pregnant, she is entitled to all of the contraceptive methods available (I will stick to the âpreâ methods). Here are the issues with that: they are not infallible, for one, and two, this does not preclude dishonesty. A man could promise to withdraw.
He could claim heâs sterile. He could intentionally sabotage a condom. It is unrealistic to saddle a woman with the entirety of the risk.
And letâs be clear: we are saddling only the woman. Even if I did hear any talk of trying to âlock inâ the father (we donât)
And letâs be clear: we are saddling only the woman. Even if I did hear any talk of trying to âlock inâ the father (we donât)
itâs simply not possible to make it comparable. He has no biological investment after the sperm leaves his body. Maybe you could TRY to force his physical presence, but you canât make him actually participate as a father. You canât make him pay money if he doesnât have it.
You could call him a criminal and jail him, but how does that help the child, pro-lifers? You simply cannot penalize the father in ANY comparable way to the mother. If you outlaw abortion, you are, in fact, locking in a woman to use her body in a way she doesnât want to â OR â
you will (re-)force women into the back alleys, risking their very lives.
âBecause a thing now exists that may develop into a human babyâ is insufficient. An egg and a sperm are independently things that âmay develop into a human baby,â too, yet as stated,
âBecause a thing now exists that may develop into a human babyâ is insufficient. An egg and a sperm are independently things that âmay develop into a human baby,â too, yet as stated,
we donât govern anyoneâs use of those at all (rightfully so). Just because the two met and are now a bit farther along in that process is not the end of the road. A fertilized egg still needs an exorbitant amount of additional resources from the motherâs body.
Her body does this at great risk to itself and with extensive modification. A motherâs organs literally change location, shape and capacity during pregnancy. Pregnancy is an inherently dangerous health condition, period.
The many successful completions of it nowadays speaks more to the state of medicine and technology than it does conflict with my statement.
What about the âyouâre killing a human life!â argument? First, we value non-human life all the time.
What about the âyouâre killing a human life!â argument? First, we value non-human life all the time.
Millions are against the senseless killing of dogs, e.g., yet are staunch proponents of their euthanasia. A ZEF being âhumanâ is wholly insufficient as a point of fact. âKillingâ is not explanatory, either. Legal terms like âjustifiable homicideâ exist for a reason.
While we recognize the loss of life, these inherently speak to its LACK of âwrongness. â In the end, âyouâre killing a human lifeâ is a non-statement, it is an appeal to emotion. They are hoping you envision a mugging/stabbing on the street, and overlook the salient differences.
But letâs delve into the implications of, ânow that itâs fertilized, other people can make decisions. â For one, if the presence of a fertilized egg permits public access, why wouldnât women be ordered to take pregnancy tests? This is not even a slope, let alone slippery.
Courts order DNA tests for potential paternity all the time. All you need as evidence for potential maternity is âsheâs a woman and is sexually active. â Why wouldnât these just be standing orders for any and all sexually active women?
âMonthly pregnancy tests for allâ sound like America to you? Of course, it would end up public (letâs be frank, this entire premise implies nothing about a womenâs reproductive health is private anymore).
Good news, though: if a women tests as infertile, she could avoid future testsâŠright after itâs made public that sheâs infertile, of course! The forced birther inherently advocates the complete elimination of healthcare privacy for women.
So weâve forced her to take a test, we know sheâs pregnant, what now? Her body is taking the brunt of this process. How is her blood pressure? Her blood sugar? Is she eating enough? Resting enough? Exercising enough? Taking all her pre-natal vitamins?
Going to all of her doctor visits? The medical bills? Are we providing all of that care as a collective nation? Whoa, whoaâŠis this socialism?!?!
Moving on⊠What if thereâs an issue? Whose decision is it as to how to proceed? What if the pregnancy is risking her very life?
Moving on⊠What if thereâs an issue? Whose decision is it as to how to proceed? What if the pregnancy is risking her very life?
What if itâs not risking her life, but is risking, say, kidney failure and sheâd have to have one removed? Who is deciding? Not her, remember⊠Is it her doctor?
What if her doctor âsuddenlyâ exposes his religious beliefs (religious freedom, of course!), wonât let her abort it to save her own health and we wonât let her change doctors (rememberâŠsheâs not making her decisions anymore)?
There is NO OTHER INSTANCE where we would even nearly take all of this out of the actual patientâs own hands, unless that person was deemed mentally unable to make their own decisions (living will, e. g. ). This is no different. Itâs the motherâs body at risk, it is her decision.
But letâs now go to the birth: maybe sheâs lucky, maybe itâs been mostly uneventful, or maybe sheâs endured 40 weeks of constant nausea and fatigue. Maybe sheâs had to take a few weeks of bed rest; I sure hope her employer is understanding
because sheâs also got a pile of medical bills which, remember, she is the patient, so sheâs on the hook for, personally. Sheâs still going to need time off from work. How is our consistency of paid maternity leave among all of the employers in our country? Itâs crap.
We are miles behind the world, so this woman could EASILY be out of a job because she had to carry this baby to term.
So what about adoption? Everyoneâs go-to fallback. âJust give it up for adoption!â Well, first, remember, this is not an alternative to being pregnant.
So what about adoption? Everyoneâs go-to fallback. âJust give it up for adoption!â Well, first, remember, this is not an alternative to being pregnant.
She would still be forced to gestate to term and give birth, both dangerous, risky and consuming. But let's just say she will endure that in order to have a baby that can be adopted. What comes to mind when you hear someone was a foster kid? I rest my case.
Our adoption system is SHIT, and itâs getting worse, as âreligious freedomâ is now seeking to ensure that even FEWER people are allowed to volunteer to be foster parents. There are adopted kids who turn out to be fantastic people, sure. Adoption is STILL Russian roulette, fact.
So realizing adoption is a dead end, she keeps itâŠand now sheâs home raising an infant, consuming veritably every single minute of her dayâŠ. . an infant SHE DIDNâT WANT.
This is, inarguably, a BAD situation.
This is, inarguably, a BAD situation.
She may âloveâ the baby, she may feel a swell when she sees it, but she DIDNâT want it. Maybe she wasnât ready for the obligation? Maybe sheâd hoped to be more financially secure before starting a family?
Maybe it was just recreational sex with a man she didnât really see as a long-term partner, but was just fine as a casual relationship (how many of you just thought âwhore!â)? Whatever the reason, unwanted babies are a BAD thing for society.
Data strongly supports, even under criticism and reanalysis, that abortion reduces crime. Allowing people to have babies only when they want to have those babies is a good thing for society. Conversely, forcing people to have babies they donât want is BAD.
Which leads me to where I feel every âpro-liferâ is probably at in this point of the conversation, which is why I started where I did. I can almost guarantee that many people are reading this (intentionally bleak) progression and desperately want to put a bow on it by saying,
âwell, she shouldnât have had sex. â So Iâll say it again: Humans like to have sex. We are going to have sex. It is ok to have sex. If you want to wear your purity ring, your chastity belt or your âmorality necklace,â feel free. You donât get to claim thatâs the universal truth.
Itâs not. Women get to have sex. They have a right to take all measures at their disposal to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. That includes prophylactic AND post-pregnancy measures, including abortion. This is part and parcel of their human rights.
You can either make it safely available, or you can doom them to extremely unsafe methods, risking their very lives. Remind how âpro-lifeâ you are again?
And what about the idea of punishing women for abortions?
And what about the idea of punishing women for abortions?
Hereâs why that is maniacally immoral and fully contradictory to our current philosophy of law and order:
Letâs say Joe is walking down the street. Mary walks up and punches him. Bob is in favor of punishing Mary because, in essence, he says âthat could be me.â
Letâs say Joe is walking down the street. Mary walks up and punches him. Bob is in favor of punishing Mary because, in essence, he says âthat could be me.â
If Mary would punch Joe, it is reasonable to assert she could punch Bob. We punish to recognize societal harm Mary poses. When we deem behavior to be a potential threat to any given âevery person,â that is when we punish.
If you want to speak up about punishing someone for a behavior, there HAS TO BE some equivalence made, a âthat could be me, and I donât want that to happen to meâ argument.
Murder, rape, robbery, vandalism...all can be validly argued should be punished because virtually any person can say, âI could be in that victimâs position at some point in the future, and I donât want that crime to be done to me.â Abortion lacks any such potential argument.
No one can validly say, âI could be in that ZEFâs position one day, and I donât want to be aborted.â This is what makes pregnancy utterly unique; there is no equivalence to being punched, to being murdered or any other punishable crime.
A ZEF is in a position that NO ONE will ever be able to CURRENTLY claim could be their situation at any point in the future. Ever. The argument of âit canât speak for itselfâ does not hold any water, either.
Take the situation of a person in a coma (yes, letâs stick to the ACTUAL definition of âperson,â shall we?). I may end up in that situation one day and be unable to speak for myself.
However, what I CAN do is, right now, as a person who can speak and make my own decisions draw up a legal contract to govern such a situation and have my wishes be carried out. In that sense, I will still be speaking for myself at that point.
A ZEF cannot do this, ever. Why? Because it has not been born and has never achieved any level of autonomy or sentience. Forced-birthers constantly overlook this blatant fact as if it isnât absolutely crucial and salient to the discussion.
The MOMENT a child is born, the game changes. If â as forced birthers love to fantasize â the moment a child is born, a doctor, or anyone else, kills a child (yes, now, and not before, we call it a âchild,â for valid reasons), my initial reasoning above comes into play.
Now, someone validly may â MAY - claim an âit could be me/my childâ argument for punishment. It is an entirely different scenario to terminate the pregnancy of a ZEF inside a womanâs uterus, and ending the life of a child no longer in a womanâs uterus. Why?
Because ALL of us are outside a womanâs uterus. The universe of potential harm has ENTIRELY changed. So, yes, forced birthers, the birth canal is the âmagicâ line, because it differentiates between who is at risk from an action and who isnât.
Unless you are ever going to crawl up into a womanâs uterus at some future point, neither you â nor ANYONE else â is subject to the impact of an abortion, and thus, you have no right to assert punishment.
And make sure you read this thread, too
https://twitter.com/designmom/status/1040363431893725184âŠ
And make sure you read this thread, too
https://twitter.com/designmom/status/1040363431893725184âŠ
If there are any questions remaining, I simply doubt your ability to reason and empathize.
