Social Media “we have fewer rights to protect our bodies than an old man in georgia has to protect his old, junked out car.”
Social Media “we have fewer rights to protect our bodies than an old man in georgia has to protect his old, junked out car.”
Yesterday, 12:31 AM
https://www.tumblr.com/holyvomitus/792057602193473536/so-i-used-to-do-outreach-for-a-reproductive-rights
holyvomitus so I used to do outreach for a reproductive rights organization for a few years and have talked to literally hundreds of people about abortion as a result. a lot of anti-choice people really only focus on the argument that a fetus is equal to grown, born humans in terms of life and rights. and they really, really don't know how to deal with it if you accept that premise and still argue in favor of abortion.
one of the most fascinating points I've seen made was by an older fellow in a dinky little town outside Atlanta. he believed fetuses are human beings and that abortion is murder, but was still in favor of abortion rights. his reasoning? "A guy tried stealing my El Camino (a car) and I shot him, and nobody had a problem with that." he still had the car and showed me the bullet holes.
and that was actually a really good argument. there's the whole thought experiment about "can the government force you to donate a kidney?" and that is a great argument. but it doesn't address the extremists who dismiss it as "refusing to do something isn't murder."
like we do have situations where we both morally and legally justify murder, such as self-defense or against home invaders and thieves. very few conservatives in the US will argue against having the right to shoot someone for trying to steal their El Camino, a literal object, or for breaking into their home or for mugging them.
the conversation fascinated me so much because, despite doing outreach in several states over the course of a couple years, I'd never thought about how we take for granted the right to protect property, inhuman objects, for granted while women are barred from protecting their actual bodies, their physical being, from pregnancy, which causes permanent bodily changes in most cases (if you don't believe me, talk to p much any woman who has been pregnant or given birth) and actual death in some. In the time since talking to this man, I've brought it up to anti-choice people and never gotten a real response as to why we can kill over an El Camino but not over our physical and mental safety and health.
we have fewer rights to protect our bodies than an old man in georgia has to protect his old, junked out car.
Some other questions I have for pro-forced-birthers are, like, are pregnant women allowed to eat whatever they want? Should pregnant women who miscarry because they had a salad that had listeria, or from contaminated raw fish (sushi), should those women be prosecuted for manslaughter? Second degree murder? No prosecution? I'm just curious where the line is on this stuff, since they can outlaw abortion all they want, women will still not want to be pregnant.
Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐
Found this post on Tumblr that frames the frustrations around the abortion debate well.
https://www.tumblr.com/holyvomitus/792057602193473536/so-i-used-to-do-outreach-for-a-reproductive-rights
holyvomitus so I used to do outreach for a reproductive rights organization for a few years and have talked to literally hundreds of people about abortion as a result. a lot of anti-choice people really only focus on the argument that a fetus is equal to grown, born humans in terms of life and rights. and they really, really don't know how to deal with it if you accept that premise and still argue in favor of abortion.
one of the most fascinating points I've seen made was by an older fellow in a dinky little town outside Atlanta. he believed fetuses are human beings and that abortion is murder, but was still in favor of abortion rights. his reasoning? "A guy tried stealing my El Camino (a car) and I shot him, and nobody had a problem with that." he still had the car and showed me the bullet holes.
and that was actually a really good argument. there's the whole thought experiment about "can the government force you to donate a kidney?" and that is a great argument. but it doesn't address the extremists who dismiss it as "refusing to do something isn't murder."
like we do have situations where we both morally and legally justify murder, such as self-defense or against home invaders and thieves. very few conservatives in the US will argue against having the right to shoot someone for trying to steal their El Camino, a literal object, or for breaking into their home or for mugging them.
the conversation fascinated me so much because, despite doing outreach in several states over the course of a couple years, I'd never thought about how we take for granted the right to protect property, inhuman objects, for granted while women are barred from protecting their actual bodies, their physical being, from pregnancy, which causes permanent bodily changes in most cases (if you don't believe me, talk to p much any woman who has been pregnant or given birth) and actual death in some. In the time since talking to this man, I've brought it up to anti-choice people and never gotten a real response as to why we can kill over an El Camino but not over our physical and mental safety and health.
we have fewer rights to protect our bodies than an old man in georgia has to protect his old, junked out car.
Some other questions I have for pro-forced-birthers are, like, are pregnant women allowed to eat whatever they want? Should pregnant women who miscarry because they had a salad that had listeria, or from contaminated raw fish (sushi), should those women be prosecuted for manslaughter? Second degree murder? No prosecution? I'm just curious where the line is on this stuff, since they can outlaw abortion all they want, women will still not want to be pregnant.
Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐
