'Not your body, not your choice' O RLY?

[JaChelle Sugar]

A fundy fb friend posted one of those anti-choice images of a fetus inside a woman with arrows pointing to the fetus' and woman's bodies respectively, with captions 'your body', 'your baby's body' and ending with 'not your body, not your choice'. That old chestnut. And it got me thinking of that tired argument. It makes no sense. The fetus's body is (to them) not part of the woman's body. And they use this argument to justify...forcing many things on the woman's body! :doh: 'Its not your body so you have no say in what happens to/inside/with your body for not just the next nine months, but possibly the rest of your life.'

And fundies call us pro-choicers logic-impaired. :angry-banghead:

[Violet]

The fetus is part of a woman's body until it's born and takes its first breath. It is a parasite. (Not being sarcastic like House was - it's true!) No woman should have her body held hostage because of a parasite she does not want or could kill her. It is absolutely 100% her choice, regardless of whether that is the choice others would make.

[argypargy]

I fucking hate this rhetoric. For the millionth time pro-lifers...it's called the right to bodily autonomy. No person has to give part of themselves for the sake of another person. My favorite example: If my son needed a bone marrow transplant and I was the only match in the entire world, my right to bodily autonomy means that I do NOT have to donate to him. Even if he was going to die.*

It's the same with abortion. That fetus cannot survive without the mother giving something of herself. To force a mother to keep giving part of herself to keep another being alive violates her right to bodily autonomy.

*This situation is hypothetical and I would, most certainly, donate bone marrow to my child to save his life.

[Carla Bruni]

I fucking hate this rhetoric. For the millionth time pro-lifers...it's called the right to bodily autonomy. No person has to give part of themselves for the sake of another person. My favorite example: If my son needed a bone marrow transplant and I was the only match in the entire world, my right to bodily autonomy means that I do NOT have to donate to him. Even if he was going to die.*

It's the same with abortion. That fetus cannot survive without the mother giving something of herself. To force a mother to keep giving part of herself to keep another being alive violates her right to bodily autonomy.

*This situation is hypothetical and I would, most certainly, donate bone marrow to my child to save his life.

Exactly. It's the same argument as was made in My Sister's Keeper. I wonder how many of those people would force a child to continue undergoing exceptionally painful and grueling medical procedures to save their sibling; I don't have kids, but I know that if I did, I could never do that.

[Antigone]

Exactly. It's the same argument as was made in My Sister's Keeper. I wonder how many of those people would force a child to continue undergoing exceptionally painful and grueling medical procedures to save their sibling; I don't have kids, but I know that if I did, I could never do that.

My sister's Keeper is a very thought-provoking book. Before I had a child, I didn't give it a lot of deep thought, but now that I have a child.. I'd do anything to save her life, but to have a "donor" child? no, not that. It's just plain wrong to have a kid "just for spare parts". But that's just MY opinion, and there is no right answer, since no two situations are alike.

[FakePigtails]

I fucking hate this rhetoric. For the millionth time pro-lifers...it's called the right to bodily autonomy. No person has to give part of themselves for the sake of another person. My favorite example: If my son needed a bone marrow transplant and I was the only match in the entire world, my right to bodily autonomy means that I do NOT have to donate to him. Even if he was going to die.*

It's the same with abortion. That fetus cannot survive without the mother giving something of herself. To force a mother to keep giving part of herself to keep another being alive violates her right to bodily autonomy.

*This situation is hypothetical and I would, most certainly, donate bone marrow to my child to save his life.

Yep. I always want to point out to the pro-lifers that it doesn't matter if someone's a perfect living organ donor or bone marrow match, you can't force them to go through the procedures (and bone marrow gotten much simpler as in some cases it can be taken from the donor's blood instead of bone). It doesn't matter if your or your child's life depends 100% on that donor, you simply can't force it. And bone marrow and organ donations can be much less involved than a pregnancy!

[Claddagh]

A fundy fb friend posted one of those anti-choice images of a fetus inside a woman with arrows pointing to the fetus' and woman's bodies respectively, with captions 'your body', 'your baby's body' and ending with 'not your body, not your choice'. That old chestnut. And it got me thinking of that tired argument. It makes no sense. The fetus's body is (to them) not part of the woman's body. And they use this argument to justify...forcing many things on the woman's body! :doh: 'Its not your body so you have no say in what happens to/inside/with your body for not just the next nine months, but possibly the rest of your life.'

And fundies call us pro-choicers logic-impaired. :angry-banghead:

I've noticed with these fundies and anti-choicers is even if the baby or mother will die it's a case of "too bad."

It's not about the life of the baby, or even the mother, it's about controlling women. It's about forcing women to obey someone else's rules.

If these people were truly "pro-life" they'd be doing a hell of a lot more than "think of the babies!"

[alchemy]

I see this one cycle through my fundie friend's feeds every few months, along with the one with the "You know you live in America when it's illegal to kill unhatched bald eagles, but it's legal to kill unborn babies." They get an eye-roll and scroll past because I can't be bothered to get in another battle with people who certainly won't get it, now or ever.

[AVENues]

Not my body, then, who's fucking body is it, may I ask? As to bald eagles: the seven billion humanoids have almost wiped them off the earth just like recently they have wiped off the african black rhino and one wild cat species in taiwan. I say, who the fuck cares?

To be frank, there aren't enough abortions in this world. There should be much much more than what we just have these days.

[dairyfreelife]

I am going to play devil's advocate (I'm fully pro-choice) with an argument I hear a lot from the pro-choice crowd.

If you willingly engage in an activity that you know can result in pregnancy, then you are responsible for the consequences of that action. (not including rape obviously)

I know my response to this, but I'd like to see it hashed out here. ;)

[AVENues]

My response IS, of course I am responsible for it. That is why, if it is not desired, I'll end the pregnancy in a blink of the eye. There.

[Irishy]

I am going to play devil's advocate (I'm fully pro-choice) with an argument I hear a lot from the pro-choice crowd.

If you willingly engage in an activity that you know can result in pregnancy, then you are responsible for the consequences of that action. (not including rape obviously)

I know my response to this, but I'd like to see it hashed out here. ;)

Like having your cake AND eating it? I know what you mean. Kinda like, you married the asshole, you made your bed... I've encountered this argument a lot with my dad who's fiercely anti abortion (in his head, he's not an activist).

[RandomTrivia]

I see this one cycle through my fundie friend's feeds every few months, along with the one with the "You know you live in America when it's illegal to kill unhatched bald eagles, but it's legal to kill unborn babies." They get an eye-roll and scroll past because I can't be bothered to get in another battle with people who certainly won't get it, now or ever.

I get the Bald Eagle meme on Facebook periodically, too. Is there a good reply to it that doesn't take half a page?

[AuntCloud]

Yes. A bald eagle chick will be raised by his bald eagle parents. It won't rely on a human parent to provide a nurturing environment. It doesn't require 18 years (at the very least) of care and numerous resources. And mama bald eagle won't fall into severe depression and her other chicks are not in danger of life of neglect and poverty if an unwanted chick hatches.

Ps unwanted, neglected chicks are left to die. Runts of the litters are ignored. Hamsters eat their babies.

Ps 2: raising humans requires an unprecedented amount of energy that comes at the expense of the entire family. Humans have the right to refuse this.

[Anxious Girl]

So if the woman goes through a forced pregnancy and doesn't have the proper resources and support for adoption, how do you think the child will feel with a mother who doesn't love him/her or doesn't love them out of want; but out of fored will because she was forced to have the child? Will the mother be forced to fend for herself and her child? Do you think the child will be grateful that it wasn't the mother's choice to have them? Fundies don't seem to think of the after-effects of a forced birth and pregnancy.

[argypargy]

My response IS, of course I am responsible for it. That is why, if it is not desired, I'll end the pregnancy in a blink of the eye. There.

Exactly. Having a safe, effective medical procedure to end an unwanted pregnancy would be taking responsibility.

[argypargy]

So if the woman goes through a forced pregnancy and doesn't have the proper resources and support for adoption, how do you think the child will feel with a mother who doesn't love him/her or doesn't love them out of want; but out of fored will because she was forced to have the child? Will the mother be forced to fend for herself and her child? Do you think the child will be grateful that it wasn't the mother's choice to have them? Fundies don't seem to think of the after-effects of a forced birth and pregnancy.

They don't seem to understand that the problem doesn't lie in abortion itself (their thought: make it illegal and voila!, no more unwanted pregnancies or abortions). The solution to the problem starts with education and programs. Education about sex and birth control options. Programs that may sway a mother into keeping her child if it is unwanted because of financial hardship. That's how you decrease the amount of abortions. If you make it illegal, there are just going to be more Dr. Gosnells popping up providing illegal and extremely unsafe abortions. More women and children are going to die.

[longskirtlotsakids]

Fine. If its not my body, then they should have no problem with me taking the fetus out, albeit in one peice, and handing it over.

[Effie]

Fine. If its not my body, then they should have no problem with me taking the fetus out, albeit in one peice, and handing it over.

Exactly! I mean, really? Wtf... those people.

Their kind of reasoning goes like this:

Taking a life is wrong. It doesn’t matter how scared the woman who is growing a person is, or how poor, or how anything, she simply can’t be given the right to decide if another innocent person deserves to live or die–no one should have that right. Because just as in this case, the slope gets very slippery and your life or mine could end up being weighed in the schizophrenic balance, according to circumstance instead of value, by someone else some day.

I believe forced organ donation could be applied here. :roll:

[micatite]

Fine. If its not my body, then they should have no problem with me taking the fetus out, albeit in one peice, and handing it over.

Eviction, so to speak.

[alchemy]

I get the Bald Eagle meme on Facebook periodically, too. Is there a good reply to it that doesn't take half a page?

My short, short answer is "last I looked humans aren't on the brink of extinction. When they are we can talk about protecting that species the way we do the eagles."