hewillguideyou:

There are people out there who believe tax payers should pay for abortions even if they are against them because people have to pay for wars they are against.

This fails to recognize that we as people have inherent rights to expect to be protected by and from our government (hence having a defense department and the 2nd ammendment). This right is so inherent that when most people hear about countries allowing or participating in the killing of their own people, we are horrified. It’s our human right.

Abortion is “clearly” not a humans right issue since only the woman is involved, so we as a nation have categorized it as a women’s right issue. So no, I should never have to pay for you to suck or pluck your child from your uterus. It is your choice, it is your bill.

Sorry not sorry.

And before anyone gets all up in arms about human rights, you would have to multiply the number of Americans who have died in war by 50 to get the number of children killed since 1973 by “choice”.

Abortion isn’t a human rights issue, because only women* are involved - and women “clearly” aren’t humans. That about sum it up?

rhrealitycheck:

cognitivedissonance:

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the “lone wolf” hypothesis personified.

Just let me point out the cognitive gymnastics Kirsten Powers is performing here: A Muslim man is not necessarily a terrorist, but could be; however, an abortion clinic bomber is never a terrorist because that person is crazy and is totally and 100% not representative of the pro-life movement.

So… just like the miniscule minority of Muslims who commit terrorism are not representative of the overwhelming peaceful majority who follow the teachings of Islam?

Just so we’re clear, domestic terrorism motivated by radical anti-choice ideology is just that — terrorism.

I just can’t…

There’s a long history of anti-choice terrorism.

Bombing abortion clinics, threatening their staff…KILLING THEM - terrorism. Point blank.

"

Why do we have an abortion rate 20% higher than France’s (and more than twice as high as Germany’s), especially considering most doctors here won’t perform them? The answer is any country that has universal health care, where contraception is free, where child care is free or inexpensive, where there is less poverty because people don’t become bankrupt over medical bills — those societies are simply going to have fewer unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

And there the mask gets pulled off the Bart Stupaks and the “Christians.” If the statistics show that countries with government-provided universal health care and nearly-free abortions are, in fact, the countries with the fewest abortions, then why on earth wouldn’t the Right be the first in line to support universal health care?

Because it isn’t about “universal health care.” It’s about controlling women, period. It’s about sticking your nose in other people’s business. It’s about pushing your religious beliefs on everyone else because voices in your head tell you your Jesus is The One — even though your Jesus never said one single solitary word in any of the four gospels of the Bible about abortion or fertilized eggs being human. You’ve just gone and made it up about “life beginning at conception.” Jesus never said that. The little voice in your head said that, the same little voice that wants your grubby paws on women’s uteruses. You need help. Please get some help and leave the rest of us alone, Mr. Stupak and friends.

"

Michael Moore: My Congressman, Bart Stupak, Has Neither a Uterus Nor a Brain (via veruca-assault)

(via stfuconservatives)

"I’m personally pro-life, but I vote pro-choice, because you can’t make that decision for anyone else. You just can’t."

Representative Kathy Hawken, North Dakota on separating personal beliefs and others’ rights.  (via floridatranslation)

You know how they do these polls on how many people identify as pro-choice v. pro-life? Next time, they need to simply ask, “Do you believe people should not be allowed to have abortions?”, then get more specific from there. Enough with “pro-choice” and “pro-life,” because I really think a lot of people don’t know what the hell either term means.

(via stfuprolifers)

sunshine-and-bubbles asked:

So, I’m pro-life. It’s hard to have an actual talk with somebody about it, without them shouting “You’re wrong!” or staring incredulously. You, on the other hand, seem pretty well-informed on this subject. So, I have a little proof that I’d like your opinion on. 1) Fetuses are humans. 2) All humans are people. 3) It’s immoral to kill people unnecessarily. 4) Conclusion: It’s immoral to kill fetuses unnecessarily. Are there any observable flaws in my logic? Thanks for your time :)

It’s possible to be well-informed on a subject and tired enough of anti-choice bullshit not to be polite about it. You believe people don’t have a right to their own bodies - that’s enough reason to make anyone angry.

Anyway.

Yes, there are a lot of observable flaws in your logic. Leaving aside the personhood debate, since it’s really been done to death on this blog (which you would know if you’d spent any time looking through it before sending me this ask), I’d like to talk about your use of the word “necessarily.”

It’s a rather vague term to use in what’s supposed to be a proof. Define it. Tell me who makes that judgment call. I can guess you don’t think it’s the pregnant person, which is strange, given that it’s that person who’s donating the use of their body for 9 months - not you, not politicians, and not religious leaders.

So what is “necessary?” Is it when:

1. A fetus has little chance of surviving outside the womb, or when their life would be short and agonizingly painful?
2. A person is so traumatized by the circumstances of their pregnancy that they can’t - emotionally, mentally, or physically - handle being pregnant?
3. A person can’t afford to be pregnant, much less a parent?
4. A person has a disability that prevents them from carrying a healthy pregnancy to term?
5. A person is in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy ties them tighter to their abuser/puts their life in greater danger?
6. A person is already caring for their children/an aging parent and doesn’t have the internal or external resources to care for another being, much less a newborn baby?
7. A person, using their knowledge of themselves, their resources, their community, their future plans, and their family, decides they are not ready to have a baby?

In my opinion, any of those situations are one in which an abortion is necessary - if the pregnant person decides it is. See, it’s not my place to make those decisions for other people, no matter how well I know them.

So you can logic away about real people’s lives, if that makes you happy. Spit out all the proofs you want on complex circumstances you know nothing about. It sure would be simpler if life was logical, black and white, but it’s not.

Let me know when you have a proof explaining how people feel qualified to make major life choices for complete strangers.

Unethical, Cruel, and Likely Illegal: Anti-Choicers Make Family’s Tragedy Public Without Their Consent →

rhrealitycheck:

Anti-choicers have been using the private tragedy of a family without their consent to push their agenda, with no regard of the surviving family members’ wishes. Is what respecting life looks like?

Marie’s mother-in-law expressed to a reporter how upsetting the publicity has been and pleaded for her son to be allowed to mourn in peace. Instead, strangers are tweeting pictures of him with his dead wife, photographing him leaving her funeral, making accusations about their decisions, and “remembering” a woman he just lost and they never met.

Unethical, cruel, likely illegal…and completely typical for the anti-choice movement.

Think about who you align yourself with.

BREAKING

Your hurt feelings are not more important than the fact that when you support anti-choice policies, people die.

Anti-Abortionist Stabs Man At Protest Outside of Planned Parenthood →

thepersonalispolitic:

socialismartnature:

This is horrible. But kudos to this woman and her father for fighting back against a bigot trying to block access to a Planned Parenthood. We need a mass struggle to utterly demolish the anti-woman, anti-abortion movement in this country and send it into the dustbin of history next to the likes of the old Witch-hunters, Prohibitionists, and Anti-Miscegenationists.

===

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — A man was stabbed Tuesday during a violent confrontation with an abortion protester outside a Planned Parenthood health center, police said.

Ted Clair was stabbed seven times in the abdomen and neck during a fight with Christopher Tolhurst, who had signs denouncing abortion and Planned Parenthood, officials said.

Witnesses said that earlier in the day, Clair’s 22-year-old daughter, Kailah Clair, argued with Tolhurst and kicked over his protest signs, Lt. Dennis Ward said.

They said Tolhurst pushed the woman, and she returned later with her father, who confronted Tolhurst.

Ward said in a statement that witnesses reported Ted Clair pushed Tolhurst to the ground and punched him “numerous times” in the face, and then Tolhurst stabbed Clair.

Tolhurst’s signs denounced abortion and Planned Parenthood, but Planned Parenthood for Southwestern Oregon spokeswoman Sarah Mosely said that clinic only provides health services and doesn’t perform abortions.

Neighbor Charlotte Cook said the protester accosted people coming and going through the area.

“It was an accident looking for a place to happen,” she said.

Cherie Adams said he would yell obscenities at her when she walked past him, and she changed her route to work.

“He’s been out there for months,” she said. “He’s screaming at people. I had a feeling something like this would happen.”

This is so gross and disturbing because it would have been very simple to stop this from happening if something had been done when the harassment started, at the very beginning.  Harassment needs to be illegal and harassment victims deserve legal protections.

View high resolution

lutheranturtleowl:

lutheranturtleowl:

ALERT: Prominent Tumblr Catholic advocates violence and destruction in the name of the pro-life cause.

Nikosnature explains why he thinks that attacks on abortion clinics can be “not only…morally permissable, but also morally praiseworthy.”

While he claims it is “immoral” to directly attack a human being involved in abortion clinics, he advocates the physical destruction, through violent means, of the clinic itself, and if someone happens to get killed or injured, he implies that no prison time need be assigned to the perpetrator, just “compensation” to the victims’ families, as though their car had been totaled or their ox had been gored.

Worse, he actually frames violence as a moral imperative here:

one has a moral responsibility to come to the direct aid of the weaker and prevent the stronger from abusing or killing the weaker person, and if no peaceful option is available, violence used in defense of that person can be permissible. 

THIS LANGUAGE CAN INCITE VIOLENCE. This language clearly suggests that it is not only permissible to act out violently against facilities where abortions are performed (which, nota bene, can include hospitals and private doctor’s offices in addition to designated clinics) but a moral imperative.

These are dangerous words and constitute an incitement to violence which is a violation of Tumblr’s terms of service.

Unlawful Uses and Content. This one’s pretty obvious, but Tumblr is not a place for illegal behavior, including fraud, phishing, or illegally inciting violence.

Telling impressionable teen Catholics, the bulk of Nikosnature’s followers, that they have a moral obligation to take violent measures to stop abortion—those are “fighting words” ie “shouting fire in a crowded theatre.” PLEASE CONTACT TUMBLR if you are concerned about them hosting this content:

abuse@tumblr.com

Source 1

Source 2

Shamelessly reblogging my own post to make sure it keeps circulating. So far as I know he’s still standing by his opinions on this.

(Source: frauluther, via searchingforknowledge)

View high resolution

mansplainingryan:

submitted by nicky

(via rabbleprochoice)

Anonymous asked: An anti-choice person is saying that, by my reasoning that rights are bestowed upon us at birth, it's logical and acceptable to abort a fetus right before it's born. Like, literally seconds before it's born. Any ideas how to respond? Even though it never happens, they are insisting I answer.

Is this hypothetical abortion taking place while the pregnant person is in labor, or before? What stage of labor is the pregnant person in? Have they started pushing? If anti-choicers want us to get down to the second, they’re going to have to be more specific.

Let me know what they answer, and we can go from there.

Sometimes, I still have to remind myself how completely not worth it it is to engage with anti-choicers in the abortion tag.

It usually feels better to just think, “Oh, honey,” shake my head, and close the window.

Maybe I should start responding to all of those posts with a “Bless your heart” or something.

Anti-Choice “Science”

If you see any abortion studies from these sources, they are likely riddled with errors (intentional or not), rendering their findings unusable. Anti-choicers will cite said articles in attempt to prove their point, but a simple search into these sources will prove their bias is simply too great, and their methodology too poor, to be accepted into any debate.

Scientists:

• Priscilla Coleman
• David Reardon
• Bryce Calhoun
• Joel Brind
• Vincent Rue
• J.C. Willke
• Phillip G. Ney
• Jesse Cougle
• Anne Speckhard

Organizations:

• The Elliot Institute
• WECARE
• Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
• Institute for Pregnancy Loss
• The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research
• MaterCare International (MCI)
• The National Physicians Center for Family Resources

Reliable institutes, journals, and databases (credit to prolongedeyecontact):

• Guttmacher Institute
• Center for Reproductive Rights
• The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
• Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG)
• Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP)
• Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF)
• National Abortion Federation (NAF)
• World Health Organization (WHO)
• American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Contraception Journal
• Reproductive Health
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
• The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
• The Lancet
• Google Scholar
• PubMed
• Entrez

Always check the authors and the institutes and organizations with which they’re associated. It’s hard to trust a member of Physicians for Life to publish unbiased articles on reproductive health. Similarly, an author associated with a Catholic university won’t necessarily put out invalid studies on abortion, but it is something to keep in mind. Lastly, check to see what degrees the authors hold, and if it’s relevant to their area of study. David Reardon got his undergrad degree in electrical engineering, which has nothing to do with abortion. His degree in biomedical ethics came from an unaccredited university with no classroom time, yet he is still one of the most prolific authors of junk science on abortion.

It’s interesting when anti-choice bloggers only respond to ad hominem attacks instead of actual, comprehensive rebuttals. Says something about their MO.

vochoice:

Anti-Abortion Scholar: Restrictions Should Be Designed to Raise Costs for Women

This story was produced by The American Independent.

Anti-abortion restrictions should be designed to raise “the costs” of abortions in order to discourage women from obtaining them, a prominent scholar for a leading anti-abortion group told an audience of social conservative activists in Washington last weekend.

Abortion rights advocates have long suspected that the purpose of restrictive abortion laws is to impede access to abortion. Anti-abortion advocates generally refuse to concede the point, countering that laws that require women to make multiple trips to the abortion clinic, for instance, are intended to help women make informed choices. But speaking at the Values Voter Summit, an annual gathering of religious conservatives sponsored by the Family Research Council and other conservative groups, anti-abortion scholar Michael J. New veered from abortion foes’ traditional argument when he specifically advocated policies to raise “the costs” of abortions.

Read More

To no one’s surprise…