My brain will kamikaze you.
I have about ten minutes of bitching before I have to go watch Skating With Celebrities. Enjoy, people.
So I'm on an online debate forum and I keep seeing this one mantra being repeated over and over again by the pro-lifers. "Women who get abortions are selfish".
Now, there is a vast list of things that pro-lifers can say that will really get me pissed off and thus into mega-pwn mode. A lot of it is the main line of argument for the pro-life philosophy, but let me get specific here. My list includes (but is not limited to):
"Women have a responsibility to give birth/carry to term."
"Don't make the baybee pay for the sins of teh father" (Referring to rape)
"Women who abort are selfish"
"If you don't want a baybee, keep ur slutty legs closed lol"
Those are the biggies.
In any case, I will be dealing with the afforementioned "selfish" quote in this round of bitching.
I find it hard to believe that this society, especially the political party which claims to have so much "respect" for mothers, (*cough*"Can I Live by Nick Cannon*cough*) can care so little about the actual trials and adversity that some pregnant women truly have to overcome during that nine months. I mean, fo' serious, do they really think it's a little puking, a little trouble bending over, and then *pop* brand new widdle cuddly wuddly baybee?!?!11?/ Wtf? Seriously, WTF?!
I mean, I think back on my sister's friend's pregnancy with her son Kai and then I think about "Women who abort are selfish" and my brain feels like it wants to jump out of my head, sprout arms, run over to the pro-lifer who just spouted that sexist rubbish, leap up and hug them around the forehead, and explode.
To me, I think "What's more selfish, aborting a pregnancy, or forcing women to endure health risks and physical hardships for a pregnancy that is unwanted in the first place just so the kid can end up in a foster home?"
My sister's friend puked so much that she had to go to the hospital with dehydration. There were days when stuff was coming out both ends in extremely large quantities. This went on for the first five months of her pregnancy, and even then she wasn't entirely healthy for the remainder. She was always pale and sickly. I remember how vibrant she looked before she got pregnant. . .not anymore. She was a shadow of her former self.
Now don't get me wrong, pregnancy is not always this bad. But to force women to go through it, when some can be poverty stricken, ignorant of their own health issues, students, teens, rape victims, etc.
Isn't THAT selfish? Isn't it selfish to force a political agenda onto women you don't even know and put it under the guise of wanting the unborn to be born? Even so, the reach of the pro-life selfishness is so vast that it stretches into other countries, where I mentioned before how there are born children who KNOW that they're STARVING and being RAPED and MOLESTED!
But no, we have to force women to give birth and take on inherent health risks of pregnancy because if they don't do so, they are SELFISH SLUTTY BITCHWHORES.
Ugh. I'm goin' to watch Kristy Swanson fall on her ass. Goodnight and good luck, peeps. Peace out.
18 comments:
The vast majority of pregnancies are uncomplicated-pregnancy is a normal, natural state in most cases, unlike being torn limb from limb by forceps.
In any case, aside from rape pregnancy is a completely preventable condition. Sadly for unborn children having been conceived by someone who doesn't want them is not.
Yeah, I have a real good chance of getting my comment published, I can see.
Your brain has so far, failed to kamikaze me.
Muhaha. No worries, you'll get one.
I pwomise.
=)
Dear anonymous:
While being ripped limb from limb by forceps isn't the norm on most days (you never know what might happen, though), fetuses are not normally ripped limb from limb by forceps when they are aborted. What you are describing there is Partial-Birth abortions, which are quite controversial and quite rare. 39 states have banned them outright except for in cases when the mother's health is at risk, thus making that the main cause (and really, the only cause) for any to be performed.
Therefore, it seems like the vast majority of fetuses do not get torn limb from limb by forceps just as most pregnancies are not awful, grueling, and fatal.
Therefore, I see we are equal in this stage of whatever kind of debate, comment-y-thingy we might be having.
Also, since it is natural for said mothers who choose to receive PBA's to save their life and health to die (meaning, they would die were abortion not available), does that mean they should?
If we're going by what's natural, since that's what you seem to want to force, should we force people to maintain STDs that they get? I mean, they were preventable (except in cases of rape) and they are a natural state that can occur after sex, correct?
So, do you think people should have to keep their clap?
P.S. Simply because I still HAVE my brain does not mean it hasn't kamikaze'd you. The reason you don't realize this? My brain survived it. Apparently yours did not. :)
Have a lovely day. <3
See! I'm like a flipping psychic!
I KNEW you would get one!
Yay!
Yay! See? Told ya.
"fetuses are not normally ripped limb from limb by forceps when they are aborted."
Actually, it's a commonly used second trimester abortion method. It's called dilation and extraction. The fetus is ripped apart by forceps and other surgical tools and removed in pieces. It is legal, as are all second trimester abortion procedures, in all fifty states for any reason per Roe v. Wade. Partial-birth abortion, also known as intact dilation and extraction, is when the fetus is killed by having scissors plunged into the back of its skull and its head collapsed and then removed all in one piece. It is used in later term abortions when the fetus is too large and the skull and bones too developed to be easily ripped apart surgically.
"Also, since it is natural for said mothers who choose to receive PBA's to save their life and health to die (meaning, they would die were abortion not available), does that mean they should?"
No, and every ban on partial birth abortion has exceptions for when the mother's life is in danger.
"If we're going by what's natural, since that's what you seem to want to force, should we force people to maintain STDs that they get? I mean, they were preventable (except in cases of rape) and they are a natural state that can occur after sex, correct?
So, do you think people should have to keep their clap?"
No, because getting rid of their STDs does not require the destruction of another living human being.
"The reason you don't realize this? My brain survived it. Apparently yours did not. :)"
Then perhaps you should use it to do a little research before you start posting more factually incorrect information.
"Have a lovely day."
You too. Thanks for posting my comments.
Just realized I made an error, pardon me. D & E is the usual way to refer to dilation and evacuation, not dilation and extraction. Same procedure (dismembering the fetus and removing the pieces), legal and commonly used in second trimester abortions. I apologize for using the wrong term.
As you have made an error, as have I. I realize I was mistaken about the PBA, but I knew it was a later-in-the-pregnancy form of abortion.
In any case, D&E is not the most commonly used form of abortion, as second trimester abortions in themselves are rather rare, according ot Religious Tolerance.
Also, I do believe I mentioned that every ban on PBA has a life exception. I was asking you if it should be used since it would be "unnatural" to save the mothers life by ripping the fetus apart.
So, it's not about "consequences"? It's about maintaining what you call "a living human being"?
So, in that case, that means that rape victims should be forced to remain pregnant against their will, basically making them government mandated incubators and giving them no say in what happens to their body at all?
Are you perhaps for forced sterilization or sterilization without consent?
Of course I would publish your comments, as I have come up against much more intimidating folks than you, my dear.
P.S. - I loved the "do more research don't post factually incorrect information" and then "Oopsy I was wrong and posted factually incorrect information". That was a good one. ;)
"I loved the "do more research don't post factually incorrect information" and then "Oopsy I was wrong and posted factually incorrect information". That was a good one. ;) "
I knew you would be all a twitter over that, I'm sure you view it as a sign of your superior intellect. It was simply a matter of typing one wrong word, as soon as I realized it I corrected myself immediately, however I figured you would use it as a cheap way to distract attention from your own factually incorrect post, in which you stated that the abortion method in which fetuses are torn limb from limb is banned in 39 states. It is completely legal in all 50. Much as you would like the world to believe that abortion is about sucking out a little cluster of six or eight cells, it's not.
"In any case, D&E is not the most commonly used form of abortion, as second trimester abortions in themselves are rather rare, according ot Religious Tolerance. "
I didn't say it was the most commonly used form of abortion, I said it was a common method of second trimester abortion. According to Guttmacher second trimester abortions account for about 10% of all abortions, so they are far from rare.
"Therefore, it seems like the vast majority of fetuses do not get torn limb from limb by forceps "
Ah well, guess that makes the ten percent which are just fine and dandy then. Of course most fetuses aren't torn into pieces by forceps, but rather sucked into pieces by vacuums. By the time most people even become aware they are pregnant, the fetus already has the beginning of limbs, az brain, and a beating heart,as well as a complete unique genetic code which is incapable of ever being replicated.
"So, in that case, that means that rape victims should be forced to remain pregnant against their will, basically making them government mandated incubators and giving them no say in what happens to their body at all?"
Well, since you seem to think something is okay as long as it only occurs in small percentages, the percentage of unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape is infinitesimally small. But yes-if a woman had no say in conceiving the child I agree she should not have to carry it and bear it. The small number of lives that would be sacrificed in cases like these is regrettable but probably necessary.
"Are you perhaps for forced sterilization or sterilization without consent?"
No, I'm simply for instilling in women the idea that they DO have control over what happens to their bodies, that sexual intercourse is NOT an unavoidable, uncontrollable act, and that if they CHOOSE to engage in it they should do so with the knowledge of the possible consequences and the ability to live with them. And I don't accept killing other living human beings as an acceptable way to deal with the consequences.
Whoa whoa now, lets try to keep this a clean argument alright...
Hahahah!! <3333333 Megan!
"I knew you would be all a twitter over that, I'm sure you view it as a sign of your superior intellect."
If you say I have a superior intellect. :)
"It was simply a matter of typing one wrong word, as soon as I realized it I corrected myself immediately, however I figured you would use it as a cheap way to distract attention from your own factually incorrect post, in which you stated that the abortion method in which fetuses are torn limb from limb is banned in 39 states. It is completely legal in all 50. Much as you would like the world to believe that abortion is about sucking out a little cluster of six or eight cells, it's not."
Mm hmm. Yes. I am stupid and you are wonderful.
It's no wonder why you should be able to control my body, you're sooo smart.
"I didn't say it was the most commonly used form of abortion, I said it was a common method of second trimester abortion. According to Guttmacher second trimester abortions account for about 10% of all abortions, so they are far from rare."
Well, in comparison to 90%. . .;)
In any case, I never said you said they were common, however, when you use that as your only form of emotababble, it's implied.
"Ah well, guess that makes the ten percent which are just fine and dandy then. Of course most fetuses aren't torn into pieces by forceps, but rather sucked into pieces by vacuums. By the time most people even become aware they are pregnant, the fetus already has the beginning of limbs, az brain, and a beating heart,as well as a complete unique genetic code which is incapable of ever being replicated."
And a woman has those things and then some, but if she dies from the pregnancy you forced her to carry, I'm sure you'd be blameless, right?
That's not the point, though. The point is: I don't care what the fetus has. It's genetic code doesn't give it special rights, and neither does it's reptilian brainwaves.
"Well, since you seem to think something is okay as long as it only occurs in small percentages, the percentage of unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape is infinitesimally small. But yes-if a woman had no say in conceiving the child I agree she should not have to carry it and bear it."
So, you think that women should be punished with pregnancy? Only the sluts that should have kept their legs shut have to become incubators. That's SUCH a better policy, because it's okay if rape fetuses are sucked out limb from limb or ripped apart by forceps, right? Pffft.
"The small number of lives that would be sacrificed in cases like these is regrettable but probably necessary."
So, now you get to say what lives are dispensable, but the woman who is being forced to forfeit her bodily resources for said "people" doesn't?
Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.
"No, I'm simply for instilling in women the idea that they DO have control over what happens to their bodies, that sexual intercourse is NOT an unavoidable, uncontrollable act, and that if they CHOOSE to engage in it they should do so with the knowledge of the possible consequences and the ability to live with them. And I don't accept killing other living human beings as an acceptable way to deal with the consequences."
So, it's your way or the highway, and I'm sure that you can prove that a fetus is a human person deserving of equal rights (in fact, I certainly hope you can). Haha. You're funny. :)
Dear Steve:
I would have no problem with that. However, apparently I have a superior intellect that no one has told me about until this very moment, and well, sadly it isn't enough to allow me control over my own body. Therefore, someone one the internetz has to correct me. :)
I do appreciate the peacekeeping efforts, but sadly, with feminist bitches and baby-savers, I don't think it's possible. <3
14 comment!?! Geebus, Meg. I hate you!
<33.
Hey :)
I love your blog, and I agree with you completely.
I do, however, think you're very lucky.
Atleast you can go out and protest or freely talk about what you don't like.. Where I'm from that's illegal.
"Yes. I am stupid and you are wonderful."
I neither said you were stupid nor that I am wonderful. You certainly have a propensity for putting words in people's mouths.
"And a woman has those things and then some, but if she dies from the pregnancy you forced her to carry, I'm sure you'd be blameless, right?"
Unless a woman is raped, no one can ever "force her" to carry a pregnancy. The choice to conceive a child or not to is hers and hers alone.
So, you think that women should be punished with pregnancy? Only the sluts that should have kept their legs shut have to become incubators.
No, it's not about punishing sluts. It's about women being responsible for their choices. Apparently you believe women are helpless and incapable of preventing unwanted pregnancies. I give women a little more credit than that. If it were not for easy, convenient and cheap access to abortion there would be a lot less unwanted pregnancy. And that would be best for women as well as their unborn children.
"That's SUCH a better policy, because it's okay if rape fetuses are sucked out limb from limb or ripped apart by forceps, right? "
No, it's not okay, it's horrible sad and not something I would ever do. However in a case where a woman did not have any choice in the matter, I agree, she should not have to carry the child.
"So, now you get to say what lives are dispensable, but the woman who is being forced to forfeit her bodily resources for said "people" doesn't? "
Again, if she wasn't raped no one has "forced" her to forfeit anything. Gee, wonder why can't I just decide after my kids are born that I don't want to "forfeit" all the time and energy it takes to care for them, and just exterminate them? But as long as they haven't passed through the birth canal I shouldn't be "forced" to care for them, in fact I should be allowed to kill them.
"So, it's your way or the highway, and I'm sure that you can prove that a fetus is a human person deserving of equal rights (in fact, I certainly hope you can)."
Can I "prove" a fetus is a human being deserving of rights? Of course not, anymore than you can "prove" it's not. I'm just someone who believes that if we don't know for sure if it is or isn't life we ought to err on the side of not terminating it.
"Haha. You're funny. :) "
Glad I amuse you. I find you cavalier attitude about the destrcution of innocent life heartbreaking actually.
"I neither said you were stupid nor that I am wonderful. You certainly have a propensity for putting words in people's mouths."
You and I are very alike in that respect. :)
"Unless a woman is raped, no one can ever "force her" to carry a pregnancy."
Umm. . .pro-lifers would love to do it. You don't (always) force her to GET pregnant, but you DO force her to CARRY the pregnancy to term.
"The choice to conceive a child or not to is hers and hers alone."
HAHA!
"Dear ova,
I'm going to have sex tonight, so please be in my uterus so I can conceive, because you know, I have this kind of power over you.
K thnx."
You're so funny!
"No, it's not about punishing sluts."
It certainly is. If it wasn't, you'd force rape victims to carry pregnancies, too.
"It's about women being responsible for their choices."
Women only. The menz don't have to give up their right to bodily autonomy for the cuddly widdle baybee.
"Apparently you believe women are helpless and incapable of preventing unwanted pregnancies."
Not at all. Many do it all the time, however, those of us who never want to get pregnant but don't want to join convents are probably going to have a hard time preventing every unwanted pregnancy, as every pregnancy would be unwanted and if a woman is sexually active, she has a chance of becoming pregnant.
However, I do believe you are the pot calling the kettle black, as you wish to take LEGAL action to deny a woman the right to choose for herself what she can do with her bodies. Talk about making women helpless, you're doing it.
"I give women a little more credit than that."
We can all see that when you make decisions for them.
" If it were not for easy, convenient and cheap access to abortion there would be a lot less unwanted pregnancy."
HAHA! You're so wrong.
"And that would be best for women as well as their unborn children."
Abortion does not make unwanted pregnancies, and illegalizing abortion does not make women suddenly want to be pregnant. What the hell kind of backwards logic is that? Do you even KNOW any women?
"No, it's not okay, it's horrible sad and not something I would ever do."
But you'll allow it to happen (you know, with your aultimate authority).
"However in a case where a woman did not have any choice in the matter, I agree, she should not have to carry the child."
So, she can kill the baybee then? Why should the "child" have to die because of a choice it's father made or because it wasn't conceived in a way that you approve of?
"Again, if she wasn't raped no one has "forced" her to forfeit anything."
There is no invisible pregnancy contract. Sorry, buddy.
"Gee, wonder why can't I just decide after my kids are born that I don't want to "forfeit" all the time and energy it takes to care for them, and just exterminate them?"
Why? Because that has nothing to do with them living off your bodily resources as a way for them to maintain homeostasis. They are not physically dependent on you for maintaining their life. If you were to cut ties with them, they could live independent of your bodily resources. They don't need you to breathe for them, eat for them, excrete waste for them, etc.
Also, I do believe that if you wanted to, you could put them up for adoption, no?
"But as long as they haven't passed through the birth canal I shouldn't be "forced" to care for them, in fact I should be allowed to kill them."
If they are using your bodily resources, you should be allowed to take your bodily resources back, and if they die as a result, well, they die. No one has a legal obligation to forfeit their bodily autonomy for anyone.
"Can I "prove" a fetus is a human being deserving of rights? Of course not, anymore than you can "prove" it's not. I'm just someone who believes that if we don't know for sure if it is or isn't life we ought to err on the side of not terminating it."
And make women give up their rights for your assumptions. Good job! ;)
"Glad I amuse you. I find you cavalier attitude about the destrcution of innocent life heartbreaking actually."
So, if I was killing guilty babies I'd be alright with you?
I guess it's a good thing I haven't made an teriyaki fetus references then, huh?
Post a Comment