Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.

Pro-Choice and Pro-Voice

Posts tagged autonomy

May 6 '14
"

I think abortion should be legal without any restrictions – no parental consent laws, no mandated ultrasounds, no waiting periods, no bans on late term abortions and no bans on federal funding for abortion. I also believe people should be able to become parents when they want, how they want and without interference from the government. (If you think restrictions on abortion and restrictions on parenthood are unrelated, you are wrong.)

If that were the law of the land, it would also mean an end to rape and incest exceptions – because we wouldn’t need them. Women wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) have to prove that their abortion is of the “acceptable” variety. We wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) have to pretend that women who are forced into sex are somehow more deserving of medical care than women who chose to have sex. We could rid ourselves of the hierarchy of “good” and “bad” abortions.

The decision to have an abortion is personal and complicated, and any legislation that seeks to control such decisions is based on an anti-choice ideology that thinks very little of women. It assumes that women, if not kept in check by the government, are not to be trusted to make good decisions about their bodies and families.

"

Commenters at the Guardian asked me: Am I actually arguing that there should be no legal limitations on abortion?

The short answer: yes.


Read more here.

(via jessicavalenti)

Abortion on demand, without apology. If you think that’s outrageous, you have clearly never met a human person or made a reproductive decision.

Think about it.

May 6 '14

Conservatives can’t grasp a pro-choicer excited about her pregnancy.

persephoneholly:

alphaeve:

rafi-dangelo:

Chelsea Clinton — pro-choice supporter, Liberal darling, and all-around rational human being — announced last week that she and her husband are expecting a child later this year.

This is the tone of some of the responses from the Right:

image

Way to keep it classy, Republicans.  You never fail to lower the bar for yourselves at every available opportunity.

Read More

they can’t even accept someone doing what they want with their own body even if they agree on the outcome

they can’t even accept someone doing what they want with their own body even if they agree on the outcome

Greatest thing anyone has ever said in the history of ever.

Apr 15 '14

Consent, bodily autonomy, and abortion

choosechoice:

An oft’ repeated argument by the anti-abortion sect is that “consent to sex is consent to pregnancy”. This ignores the concept of ongoing consent. When an action is not a single action, but an ongoing situation, it requires ongoing consent. I know the application of this concept to pregnancy is one not often considered, but it is fully applicable. 

So let’s break this down into the simplest form I can produce- a basic syllogism. 

  1. Does an ongoing action, condition or situation require ongoing consent? The law and common sense say yes. 
  2. Is pregnancy an ongoing condition, action or situation? Yes. 
  3. Therefore,  pregnancy requires ongoing consent. 

So even if the action of sexual intercourse itself is consent to pregnancy (which I personally disagree with, but that is not the topic at hand) the action of continuing to stay pregnant requires ongoing consent. If that consent is withdrawn, so too must the action of continuing to stay pregnant end. 

A parallel I have used in the past is the one most commonly associated with the concept of ongoing consent: sex. If my SO and I are getting sexy, and I decide, for whatever reason, be it convinience, mental state, health-related, my period, or just not feeling it any more, that I don’t want to continue having sex, and I communicate this to him, he is obliged to stop. If he does not, that is rape. 

According to the logic that anti-abortion types use, because I consented before the sexual experience began, I have no right withdrawing that consent in the middle of the sexual experience. Any logical, feeling person will see how that is not okay. Pregnancy is ongoing. And for pregnancy to continue, my consent must also continue. 

Apr 10 '14
pro-choice-or-no-voice:

lolatprolife:

This is such a trainwreck lmao - Rachel

I wasn’t really going to waste my time on this, but Rachel is right, this is a trainwreck, and just to ruin it even more, I’ll debunk it.
Double homicide was put in place by the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) in order to further punish the murderer for their crime, that’s it. In the Act itself it says that this cannot be used to punish anyone who may obtain an abortion as it is a legal medical procedure.
Furthermore, not every state uses double homicide in cases of a pregnant persons murder, some states practice this, and the majority of the states that do practice it, only consider it double homicide if the fetus was considered viable.
Straight from the Act itself:
Sec. 1841 subsection (A) 2.C:”If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.”
1111 being that of murder, 1112 manslaughter, 1113 attempt of murder or manslaughter.
Within the same act, under subsection (C):”Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— 
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.”
Seriously, just copying and pasting this argument now, lols. - Paige

pro-choice-or-no-voice:

lolatprolife:

This is such a trainwreck lmao - Rachel

I wasn’t really going to waste my time on this, but Rachel is right, this is a trainwreck, and just to ruin it even more, I’ll debunk it.

Double homicide was put in place by the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) in order to further punish the murderer for their crime, that’s it. In the Act itself it says that this cannot be used to punish anyone who may obtain an abortion as it is a legal medical procedure.

Furthermore, not every state uses double homicide in cases of a pregnant persons murder, some states practice this, and the majority of the states that do practice it, only consider it double homicide if the fetus was considered viable.

Straight from the Act itself:

Sec. 1841 subsection (A) 2.C:
If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

1111 being that of murder, 1112 manslaughter, 1113 attempt of murder or manslaughter.

Within the same act, under subsection (C):
Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

  • (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
  • (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
  • (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Seriously, just copying and pasting this argument now, lols. - Paige

(Source: loubscouturexoxo)

Apr 8 '14
plannedparenthood:

A thousand times YES. Everyone deserves to make their own decisions when it comes to their sexual health. Unfortunately not everyone has control in their relationships. Learn more here »

plannedparenthood:

A thousand times YES. Everyone deserves to make their own decisions when it comes to their sexual health. Unfortunately not everyone has control in their relationships. Learn more here »

Apr 1 '14
"It is women’s access to primal knowledge and primal power that is undermined in nearly all birth systems in all parts of the world. Until women are granted the right to be the final authority on every single choice about their bodies, we will have an unjust system. A system does not become suddenly just because midwives attain licensure, or all pregnant women have access to healthcare, or because ACOG released a position statement that addresses the cesarean epidemic."

Talking Circles and Missing the Point - Birth Anarchy

The battle looks different in every region. The ideal system does, too. What doesn’t change is the need for the pregnant person’s autonomy to be front and center.

Feb 25 '14
"Does giving up a baby for adoption erase all the extra personal expenses shelled out over the course of a pregnancy? Does it magically restore any pay or chance at advancement that you might have lost? Does the act of adoption fully return your body to its pre-pregnancy, uninjured state, such that you don’t need time off work to recover afterward? Does it decrease the cost of taking care of pregnancy-induced diabetes or other pregnancy-related conditions that don’t heal up right away? I don’t think so."
Feb 23 '14
Feb 20 '14

madamethursday:

Oh my god, I need to Tumblr savior pictures and I wish I could. GAHHHHH.

It’s just that I keep seeing that fucking “is it really just your body?” picture with a pregnant person sitting cross legged and there’s an x-ray type picture that show that person’s bones and a fetal skeleton.

And I just want to go at something with a baseball bat. Because I’m done listening to anti-choice arguments. I can put forth my best, but it boils down to this. 

If I tell you: “No one should be able to make something happen to a person’s body they don’t want to happen, either by forcing it on them or preventing them stopping it because people have a right to absolute control of their bodies” and your first response is to start lining up rebuttals, to start finding ways to chip away at other people’s bodies, we’re done. 

If that most basic and visceral right is something you can curtail in your mind, the problem isn’t the argument. The problem is you. The problem is that there’s somewhere in your mind where other people’s bodies are forfeit. The problem is that you’re still seeing bodies as things that can be owned by others. 

Because that is the anti-choice argument. There are circumstances in which a body is forfeit. A circumstance in which some other authority, some other force becomes the owner of that body, becomes the ruler of it. It’s why they don’t say anything about involuntary sterilizations, especially as performed on people of color or disabled people, or those simply not thought to be fit. Because it fits perfectly with their actual position which is that not only that bodies can be forfeit, but they should be forfeit to the people anti-choicers are actually out there pulling for, that they should be forfeit to the privileged and the powerful, that those bodies should be owned by a select few. 

And that image is just another sign of that. It is manipulative and wrong. Because it a person saying, “This is what a pregnant person’s body is for, being an incubator so why shouldn’t they have to do their duty, accept their responsibility, and take their punishment if they’ve had sex and it resulted in conception?”

The anger of anti-choicers is the anger of someone feeling that a thing that belonged to them by moral justification is being taken away. It is the anger of the powerful when that power is threatened. Anti-choicers feel entitled to wield sexual and reproductive moral authority over all others, and when that entitlement is challenged, they get very angry. 

So, in short. I just want to take a hammer to that image and I want to replace it with the images of the people killed by violent anti-choice actions. If they get to show fetuses (and many of those images are not from abortions, but miscarriages), we should get to show autopsy photos of the people they’ve killed and pictures of wounds from bombs, from guns, from those who were caught in the violence and didn’t die. 

I want to replace it an info graphic reminding people of just what kind of underhanded tactics have been used by anti-choicers. I want to remind them that the term “partial birth abortion” didn’t exist until 1995 when Congressman Canady came up with it to pass, wait for it, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. I want to remind people that the AMA and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists don’t even recognize the term as a valid medical term. 

Or just a big sign across it that says: “Not your uterus, not your business.”

Very few people think that when she has a miscarriage she is killing a fetus. We generally accept the power of the female body to turn back developing fetal life.

"It is when a woman becomes a conscious agent in the act of abortion that she becomes subject to suspicion and condemnation. Women’s active involvement in life-giving matters threatens the entire system under which we live because it challenges male control." - Life Choices: The Teachings of Abortion

Feb 12 '14

Anonymous asked:

I know I could never have an abortion myself but I agree with abortions in the case of rape or a deficient child who would be in a vegetated state. But I hate the way anyone can have an abortion without a valid reason. What do you think?

provoice:

I think it’s very strange that people who have abortions must have their reasons validated by others. What are we going to do - have someone stand outside each clinic with a clipboard questioning every person who walks through the door? “No, sorry, just because you’re 34 and can’t afford to support a fourth child isn’t a valid reason for you to have an abortion. Better luck next time!”

I think if a pregnant person wants an abortion, their reason - if they have one - is valid.

Jan 31 '14
"And here we see the problem. With the anti-abortion activist movement embracing the stance of “pro-life from conception to natural death,” brain death creates a situation where science deviates from their politics and faith. They believe that a heartbeat equals life. Brain death—which is considered true, legal death by broad medical consensus and the laws of all 50 states—throws a monkey wrench into their simple, straightforward definition."

Is Life As Simple As A Beating Heart? How the strange and sad case of Marlise Muñoz poses awkward questions for pro-life activists.

Marlise Muñoz was 14 weeks pregnant when her husband found her unconscious in their kitchen. She was declared brain dead at the hospital, yet, against her and her family’s wishes, her body was kept on a ventilator for two months because of a Texas law requiring pregnant people to be kept on life support until the fetus is viable. Brain death is recognized as irreversible by the medical community, even if the heart can continue beating with the help of a ventilator.

Jan 25 '14
fuckyeahsexeducation:

femocracy:

icantbelieveitsalawblog:

Here’s Where Your Living Will Can Be Ignored When You’re A Pregnant Woman

Frightening, but I guess there’s no better way to show you think women are no better than incubators than ignoring their living will. 

*pregnant people

fuckyeahsexeducation:

femocracy:

icantbelieveitsalawblog:

Here’s Where Your Living Will Can Be Ignored When You’re A Pregnant Woman

Frightening, but I guess there’s no better way to show you think women are no better than incubators than ignoring their living will. 

*pregnant people

Jan 24 '14
Jan 18 '14
"When people say that women discussing our abortions with our partners is, as one person said to me last week, the “only decent thing to do”, they’re thinking of a particular kind of woman, and a particular kind of partner. They’re not thinking of women in abusive relationships, or women who aren’t in relationships at all. They’re not thinking- a surprise really, given a lot of the other rhetoric about abortion- about women who mightn’t be sure of who the father of the fetus is. They’re not thinking of relationships that, for one reason or another, might be intimate in some ways but not others. There’s no talk of, say, the person I dated who told me once that if I ever had an abortion we’d never speak again. Or of the person who longed for a child, but who also regularly spent days on end unable to leave the house. The image is always of women in loving, mutually supportive relationships who for no particular reason decide not to inform their partners that they’re pregnant and planning to terminate.

That idea? Is frankly ridiculous. If people are in a relationship where conversations on abortion would be welcome, where they feel safe and comfortable sharing intimate details with each other, and where they’ll support each other? They’ll talk about it. The pregnant person will talk about it. If, however, her partner is not someone she feels safe sharing with? Or if they’re simply not the person she thinks to go to, if there’s someone else who she is closer to?

That’s why, at the end of the day, the question of whether pregnant people “should” discuss their plans to have abortions- or not- with their partners is a meaningless one. If they have the kind of relationship where they talk about those things, then they will, and admonitions to do so are unnecessary. If they don’t? Then it’s nothing more than shaming women into doing something contrary to their best interests, in a situation which could be hurtful at best and dangerous at worst.

Which is why we say “trust women”."
Jan 16 '14
"

Being in control was very important to me. It was probably the primary reason I chose to have all four of my children at home.

But here’s what I mean when I speak about being in control:

The control comes in setting up my birth environment and the people who will be with me so that once I am in labor, the only task I have to focus on is working with the contractions. Home birth gave me the freedom to let go entirely during labor and just be in the moment.

I didn’t have to fight any battles over monitoring or what I was allowed to eat or drink. I didn’t have to wonder if the nurse or doctor would understand, let alone allow, my style of birthing. I didn’t have to worry about any strangers coming into my space. I didn’t have to be constantly vigilant to be sure my wishes were respected. I didn’t have to argue, negotiate, compromise, refuse, or accept. I just labored in peace. Being in control let me give up control entirely once labor began.

Control => autonomy

Control => freedom of thought, movement, time, and space

Control => the ability to let go entirely and to allow labor to unfold spontaneously

"