"A woman's choice starts before she spreads her legs..."

[Justvisiting]

The problem is that "she should have kept her legs closed" pushes responsibility away from the speaker and entirely onto the woman carrying the embryo/fetus/blastocyst making its way down the fallopian tube. It means that the speaker feels no responsibility, desire, or moral obligation whatsoever to extend help in promoting the supposedly sacred "life" a woman has inside her, and that the speaker believes all financial, emotional, and physical burdens are on that woman and that woman alone. It does not imply that the e/f/bmiwdtft has any worth as a human being or any worth at all--it is not worth protecting or supporting by the speaker or anyone else in society. "She should have kept her legs closed" doesn't say, "That's a sacred life you have in there," it says, "F this, I didn't make this happen, you did, so I have no obligation to help."

That's a really good point.

[valsa]

But I do think trying to understand both sides might help us not think of the other women (whatever their stance) as the enemy.

Except anyone who seeks to put women and children's lives in danger and strip human beings of their bodily autonomy is my enemy.

[Justvisiting]

@kb2 Is there any non-offensive way for a pro-lifer to say this? I tend to think (not in this woman's case) that the more sane version of: a woman's time to choose is before she has sex - is aimed at the pro-choice argument of: it's my body, my choice. So if they were trying to say - yes, it's your body, so choose contraception, or something like that, is that just on principle offensive?

[fundiefan]

I haven't read all the replies because frankly, this entire subject makes my blood pressure rise. But, I am so fucking tired of this 'argument'. It's like the invasive ultrasound BS where a woman supposedly consented to being penetrated when she consented to sex.

No. Just, no. A woman (and the man she has sex with) consents to sex with THAT ONE PERSON. Period. Having sex with one person, or with someone chosen, does not mean consenting to sex with every man (or piece of equipment) on the planet.

With that 'argument' every female who has sex once has consented to be penetrated by everyone and everything in existence at someone elses whim. And that is beyond absurd.

I am disgusted by anyone who uses that 'argument'. I'm also disgusted by men who are left out of this shame equation. Who the hell do these fools think women have sex with?

[Minerva]

I agree 100% I don't think anything will compel either side to think about the issue differently, because both are at fundamentally different starting points. Seeing an abortion won't change a pro-choicers mind, because to her the fetus is not an equal life. And hearing about women's rights won't change a pro-lifers mind, because to her the equal life of a human baby trumps a woman's opportunity. And until there can be something objective and conclusive regarding the definition of human life, I think women just keep demonizing each other.

Actually, when I said that I was talking about the lack of equivalence between a 1st trimester fetus and one in the 3rd trimester. I also think the "seeing an abortion question" is a more complicated than that. Whilst I don't think it would change anyone's mind if they weren't right on the fence (about their own procedure or about their position on abortion), not everyone who is pro-choice and/or going to have an abortion would be indifferent to it. Some people are pro-choice even though they think fetuses are people, possibly because of bodily autonomy or because of back alley abortions. Some people have abortions even though they think their fetus is a person (and some of them are ok with it).

I sort of agree with you on the starting point thing, but I think you have to look at their whole belief system (which I realize doesn't apply to every "pro-life" person, but DOES apply to the most vocal ones that are campaigning to make abortion illegal). There's a saving babies aspect to it, but then it mixes with the right-wing "it's your own damn fault if you're not self-sufficient" attitude, there's a good dose of "non-procreative sex is evil" that their religion teaches them, along with the patriarchy that their church is clinging to even more stubbornly than the rest of society. When you combine those things, you get the hypocritical, misogynistic stance of your typical anti. And while I realize that most of them are just parroting what they're told without analysing it too deeply, if they really thought fetuses were that special, they would drop their anti-contraceptive*, anti-welfare, slut-shaming stance in a jiffy.

*And I know they think hormonal birth control is an abortifacient, but I've seen anti-choice Christians stomping on condoms as if they contained Satan himself.

ETA: And by lack of equivalence, I mean in terms of appearance. I know she thinks 1st trimester fetuses are the same as 3rd trimester ones.

[Cannelle]

With that 'argument' every female who has sex once has consented to be penetrated by everyone and everything in existence at someone elses whim. And that is beyond absurd.

Not to mention, any man who has ever had a rectal exam (or hell, even had his temperature taken rectally) should just lube up and wait for penetration from the nearest wayward dick, because hell, he already consented to penetration, right? I mean, it goes both ways, of course.

My husband is from Belgium. My French is decent, but I'm seriously considering starting to learn Flemish, just in case. I don't want to move, but if this turns into a full blown The Handmaid's Tale...

[Minerva]

No. Just, no. A woman (and the man she has sex with) consents to sex with THAT ONE PERSON. Period.

This! Same goes for the people who say that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. And so what if it was? Why on earth can't I withdraw my consent?

[valsa]

This! Same goes for the people who say that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. And so what if it was? Why on earth can't I withdraw my consent?

Exactly.

If consent to sex is consent to pregnancy then consent to eating is consent to getting fat. Guess that means we'll have to outlaw dieting, exercise, and lipo.

[fundiefan]

Exactly.

If consent to sex is consent to pregnancy then consent to eating is consent to getting fat. Guess that means we'll have to outlaw dieting, exercise, and lipo.

For 17 years I consented to sex with my ex husband. Now, if there were to be sex with him, it would be forced and not by my choosing. (No, that is not likely, it's just an example). My consent to sex with him was rescinded with the divorce filing. Actually, it was rescinded many months before that when realization set it but not yet acted on legally. What these assholes are saying is that if a woman is not a virgin, she can't ever be raped. It goes so far beyond their slut shaming it's not even in the realm of reality or even uneducated.

As for a penis penetrating, yes, that too. Once a penis penetrates a vagina, the man is consenting to have that penis put inside anything at any time. A vice grip. A scissors. A...whatever. If it's all or nothing to these asshats, it is ALL.

[Mama Mia]

You didn't have a blanket consent to sex while you were married either. You can be raped by your spouse.

[fundiefan]

You didn't have a blanket consent to sex while you were married either. You can be raped by your spouse.

True. I was generalizing for point making sake. Women are raped by spouses far too often.

I live in Wisconsin and we are the home of asshat politicians, for now at least. Politicians who want to make single (female) parenthood a crime and divorce (for women, even if abused) impossible (therefore, a crime since they'd be single {female} parents).

No mention of men who are single parents for any reason (like, if a man beats his wife to death and he is now a single parent) or if a spouse dies or any life circumstance. It's all about women being sex maniacs who get what they deserve.

Fuck them all.

[Guest Anonymous]

From their view: Sex isn't essential. And everyone knows sex can result in pregnancy. So if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex. In their mind, abortion looks like a woman choosing sex but not accepting the "consequences"

Which is treating sex as something bad and a baby as a punishment, which is exactly what you were trying to argue that anti-choicers don't do.

I'm actually not quite sure where I stand. A few years ago, I would have said "anti-choice" without any hesitation. Which is why I feel somewhat comfortable talking about the thought process behind that.

I'm not so dogmatic on most things these days. I studied Sociology in university, which touches on a lot of the relevant public health/human rights issues and made me think that family planning, women's health, and everything connected is a lot more complex and less clearcut "right" or "wrong".

I also feel that religion should be kept out of the public sphere, so, even if I might eventually end up in the pro-life camp for religious reasons, I'm not sure where the lines of religion/moral lawmaking ends and basic human rights begin. I have three kids myself, and, while I can't imagine abortion at any stage in pregnancy, I'm not stupid enough to presume that my life is the standard for everyone else. Who knows what choices we would make in different circumstances? My mom had two abortions, and I've spoken with her a lot about that experience, and I think it speaks for both sides of the argument: women making the best choices they can for their children and the cost of that choice.

So all that to say: I'm pretty much not sure and I usually dodge these kind of debates for that reason. But I do think trying to understand both sides might help us not think of the other women (whatever their stance) as the enemy.

Pro-choicers allow women to do that, anti-choicers don't. And unless you have a mouse in your pocket, I would lighten up on the "us." I understand the antis. I simply do not agree with them. You said that you haven't been here long, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt for a minute and talk to you like you're not a troll. Those of us who have been here for a while have had this conversation a hundred times already. We have examined the issue from every angle. Some of us have switched sides. Nothing you are saying is uncharted ground. We have heard it all before and I for one get a little tired of having a 35 page thread where I'm expected to defend my right to bodily autonomy every two weeks. So if some people are impatient with your wide-eyed approach to the topic, that's why.

**Edited because I riffled.

[wtfrenchtoast]

@kb2 Is there any non-offensive way for a pro-lifer to say this? I tend to think (not in this woman's case) that the more sane version of: a woman's time to choose is before she has sex - is aimed at the pro-choice argument of: it's my body, my choice. So if they were trying to say - yes, it's your body, so choose contraception, or something like that, is that just on principle offensive?

This wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway. The ONLY way I find the pro-life position non-offensive is if a woman is pro-life for herself and herself ONLY. If you think abortion is wrong and decide to never have one yourself, I don't care. But when you start to try and legislate that choice for me and every other woman, then no, that's not okay. And it never will be. I'm not stupid, if I have sex I know there's a possibility of getting pregnant, even if I use contraception. I also know that it is my CHOICE to have an abortion if that happens. And saying "Yes, it's your body, choose contraception" is offensive, because it's still telling me what to do. How about I choose to do whatever the fuck I want with MY body and everyone else stays out of it?

[fundiefan]

Which is treating sex as something bad and a baby as a punishment, which is exactly what you were trying to argue that anti-choicers don't do.

I think that is a completely fucked up point. Not by you, but by...people who think sex is something sacred or special. Human beings are born to have sex. They go through phases in life and they become sexual. Yes, society says a 13 year old isn't ready but her body says otherwise. Within reason, we have to keep kids from having sex. But, overall, as human beings, we are just like every other animal ever to exist. We are made to have sex. We are made to want sex. It feels good for a reason. If it didn't feel good and if it weren't natural and normal and healthy, our bodies wouldn't 'want' it. We wouldn't reach puberty. No wet dreams, no 'tingling', no chemical reactions in our bodies.

Sex is not ugly or evil or bad or wrong or anything else. It is normal and natural and healthy. And, it IS essential. Yes, it is essential to keeping the human race going...which is why we are made to desire it and enjoy it. It is not something society created, like going to work and paying bills and going to school. It is an innate part of being a human being.

Yeah, there are people who don't want to have sex. There are others who suppress their humanity by choice and others who simply don't have it. That is 'unnatural'. Not in choosing not to have sex, but in being celibate (Priests/Nuns) and others who truly have no sex drive. There is nothing 'wrong' with having no natural drive, it just is, like anything else that goes 'different' in being a human. But, suppressing it...that's wrong.

No, we don't need to go out and have sex with each other in the streets. But, it is normal and human and natural and NOT SHAMEFUL. For men or women. It IS essential.

Deny sex to a married couple who can't reproduce? Or, anyone who doesn't marry and choose or can't have the picket fence and offspring? To a woman who has diabetes and reproduction would mean her death? One of my oldest friends had a heart/lung transplant 15 years ago...she and her husband should never be human and have sex because pregnancy would kill her? She got married at 35 and had a sex drive many years before that...she never should have been a human being until another 'right' human came along?

There is no valid reason to deny humanity to people who are not perfect. None. Again, I say Fuck You. Sex is human, normal, healthy and natural, whatever may come with it.

Sex is essential. Period. For reasons that far surpass reproduction.

[wtfrenchtoast]

Which is treating sex as something bad and a baby as a punishment, which is exactly what you were trying to argue that anti-choicers don't do.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I couldn't agree more.

[kb2]

@justvisiting: The idea that unintended pregnancy only happens when frivolous, irresponsible sex is had is problematic.

People should use contraception when they want to have sex and they don't want to get pregnant, and if they don't have contraception and they don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. For the most part though, people already know this. There isn't really a great need to inform the public.* PSAs to inform adults where babies come from are condescending.

You can't minimize the effort it takes to make 100% perfect sexual decisions. People have found not having sex much harder than keeping their legs closed--and some people say they know from experience that humans can actually get pregnant without ever separating their knees. Finger-wagging over it solves nothing, because we have been finger-wagging over it for millennia and people have been getting unintendedly pregnant this whole time. If people know what to do and they're not doing it, that means that the problem isn't that they need to be informed of what to do but how to do it. So if someone wanted to advise people, they would need to do more than simply say, "Don't do that," they would need to explain ways to make the best decisions. For instance:

-How to have a relationship in which you feel completely comfortable talking to your partner about sex and contraception.

-How to obtain contraception.

-Types of contraception and how effective they are.

-Talking about why people make decisions that involve not wanting pregnancy + no contraception + sex. Was it not available? Were people afraid that somehow using contraception would mean that they were "those people"--somehow sluttier or less worthy if they planned for sex, but more worthy if sex was an accident that just happened (like many teenagers who sign abstinence pledges who go on to have sex without protection)? Were they embarrassed to seek out contraception for another reason? Was there coercion by one of the partners? Did the couple kind-of want to have a baby at the time of sex in the heat of the moment, but change their mind later?

-And then after having these discussions, an effort should be made to remedy those situations. The stigma of contraception=slutty should be addressed. Contraception should be readily available. Maybe even to teenagers without having to tell their parents. Etc.

Then there's the problem that people can make 100% perfect sexual decisions, and an unintended pregnancy can still happen. Contraception can fail. Women can be raped or coerced. Health can deteriorate unexpectedly. So can finances, or emotional support. A planned, wanted pregnancy can become something else. So messages that imply that only bad choices lead to unintended pregnancy are, well, simply wrong. Encouraging good situations can only decrease the number of unintended pregnancies, never drop it to zero, and for the sake of accuracy and compassion that should be remembered.

*Although this should probably be covered in sex ed at some point.

[fundiefan]

And, because I this 'issue' consumes me....my ex husband had a vasectomy before I even met him. There was never going to be reproduction. So, should we never have had sex? It was his choice to sterilize himself; his and his first ex-wife's choice. I wasn't there; I was not part of that decision. It was made and fact by the time we even met. So, what rules should we have played by? No sex, since reproduction was impossible? Or, was it all fine and dandy since he, as the man, was shooting blanks and made the choice? Well then, we never should have gotten married (Well, in fact, we probably never should have, but it had nothing to do with sex).

edited because I reconsidered telling too much.

[Minerva]

@kb2 Is there any non-offensive way for a pro-lifer to say this? I tend to think (not in this woman's case) that the more sane version of: a woman's time to choose is before she has sex - is aimed at the pro-choice argument of: it's my body, my choice. So if they were trying to say - yes, it's your body, so choose contraception, or something like that, is that just on principle offensive?

Also not directed at me, but I find three main problems with that:

First off, I think it misunderstands "my body, my choice," which I think means "I own my body, and therefore no one can use it without my consent, even if they will die without its use" and not "I can do whatever I want with my body because it's mine." Basically, it refers to all the organ donation analogies, and the reply that you're suggesting seems to ignore that and just be saying "no you can't use your body in that way, but here is a way in which you can use your body".

Secondly, it ignores the realities surrounding birth control and its availability. More than half of women having abortions chose birth control and happened to be in the 1% for whom it failed. Another good chunk didn't use any because they thought they were post-menopausal. Then there's the phenomenon of birth control sabotage. Then there's all the teens and poor women who simply don't have access to it. Admittedly, your "choose contraception" line could include a disclaimer for these things (e.g. "...and accept the chance of becoming a parent," or "I think your choices will have to be limited to..."), but it still wouldn't escape my third criticism...

The main reason that argument won't fly with pro-choicers is that it still constitutes putting limits on women's reproductive freedom. Obvious, I know, but that's why it will probably never be received without offense.

[desertvixen]

This wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway. The ONLY way I find the pro-life position non-offensive is if a woman is pro-life for herself and herself ONLY. If you think abortion is wrong and decide to never have one yourself, I don't care. But when you start to try and legislate that choice for me and every other woman, then no, that's not okay. And it never will be. I'm not stupid, if I have sex I know there's a possibility of getting pregnant, even if I use contraception. I also know that it is my CHOICE to have an abortion if that happens. And saying "Yes, it's your body, choose contraception" is offensive, because it's still telling me what to do. How about I choose to do whatever the fuck I want with MY body and everyone else stays out of it?

I mostly agree with this - the choice that I would make for myself, a choice which would depend on circumstances, is not the choice I would force on everyone else.

I don't want others forcing their choice on me, or contracting our choices so far down that there are no choices.

[muffynbear]

Aaannnd the slut shaming continues:

Dianne Maloy Wright :You two are disgusting thinking its ok to kill a child/fetus. We're talking about the USA, not a third world country. Women in those countries would be wise to not have sex since they can't feed their children. With your logic its ok to screw and screw the consequences too. That's immature, childish, and selfish. The ones aborting are not all poor hopeless individuals like you try to make it sound. Just as many are perfectly capable of raising a child financially but choose to kill for selfish reasons. The children in foster care are rarely infants. Truth is there are millions out there who have no business having children at all. So does that mean they should abort their children because they can't feed them? No, it means they should use birth control, get their tubes tied, or not have sexual intercourse.

If you're going to condone culling for the purpose of saving the planet there are millions of worthless adults you could cull instead of babies.

Pregnancy is a result of having sex and if you can't do it responsibly you have no business doing it. Like drinking and driving. Just because you think you can do it and not hurt anyone doesn't make it so. People die every day from drunks. It's immoral to kill babies....period.

Nobody is cheering. I'm saying that a life for a life is fair. Twist it however you want that is what it is if they die trying to abort.

2 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1.

Krs'tina M. Soller: Thank you! Sure some women see no other choice but what about the selfish women who got knocked up because they were acting stupid or because their self absorbed barbies who don't want to mess up their figures and choose to kill their child! Selfish women are who we're targeting here not all women!!! No wonder their trying to take rights away from us or power or have control over our bodies because its obvious some of us have no idea what the hell we're doing

My response?

To the "ladies" who are slut-shaming. God has laid it on my heart to make a donation to Planned Parenthood in your names. God bless!

:twisted:

[valsa]

My response?

:twisted:

Awesome. Do they have an option to earmark donations to pay specifically for abortion? That's what I'd do.

[kb2]

Aaannnd the slut shaming continues:

WTF, that is awful.

[muffynbear]

I think this sums it up quite nicely:

[Rosa]

Awesome. Do they have an option to earmark donations to pay specifically for abortion? That's what I'd do.

I don't know if PP has that option, but there is always your friendly local abortion fund! They offer funds to women who can't afford their abortions, and they always run out of money before they run out of need. Here is a list by state:

http://members.nnaf.org/xina/xioutput.c ... _template=

and probably there will be a 4th annual bowlathon to raise money for abortion access in February of this year. Here's the 2012 site:

http://www.fundabortionnow.org/news/BOWLATHON-2012

[Minerva]

My response?

:twisted:

Aha yes!

Part of me is curious how they will react to that, and part of me just doesn't want to know as it will probably be quite ugly.