If you actually wanted to make abortion rare, you’d make birth control readily available and universally free.
If you were more about controlling behavior of women, and didn’t actually care about the welfare of children one bit, you wouldn’t do that.
Just a Friday thought.
If you were more about controlling behavior of women, and didn’t actually care about the welfare of children one bit, you wouldn’t do that.
Just a Friday thought.
If you really wanted to limit abortions, you’d fight for universal healthcare, special needs care, maternal/paternal leave, investment in schools, and food/nutrition for at-need families.
If you didn’t give a shit about abortion but wanted to control women’s behavior, you’d say
If you didn’t give a shit about abortion but wanted to control women’s behavior, you’d say
Opponents of so-called “pro life” activists want to implement policies that would make it MUCH less likely women would ever get pregnant if they didn’t want, a society that doesn’t treat people as burdens, that takes care of mothers and children.
“Pro-lifers” block them.
“Pro-lifers” block them.
If they wanted, “pro-lifers” could work with their opponents instead of fighting them, and make a world with almost no abortion.
If they wanted.
If they wanted.
The reason that many abortions exist is because people want to control fundamental biological urges, so that they can control women, so they can treat women like property.
And the way you can tell is, they don’t ever actually tried to stop abortion. They just try to punish it.
And the way you can tell is, they don’t ever actually tried to stop abortion. They just try to punish it.
And this is the other way you can tell. They’re not trying to control themselves. They’re trying to control women.
Men can do as they please if they can keep it a secret, and they can be forgiven even if they can’t.
Men can do as they please if they can keep it a secret, and they can be forgiven even if they can’t.
If abortion didn’t exist, pro lifers would have to invent it.
Just today, this.
Remember: they don’t care about stopping abortions. They just want control of women’s bodies.
Remember: they don’t care about stopping abortions. They just want control of women’s bodies.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking a pro life activist pressuring his mistress into getting an abortion is hypocritical.
It’s totally consistent with their beliefs, which has nothing to do with preventing abortions.
That’s why it keeps happening.
It’s totally consistent with their beliefs, which has nothing to do with preventing abortions.
That’s why it keeps happening.
If what you actually care about is preventing abortion, you’d be willing to spend money to prevent unwanted pregnancies, even if it facilitated sexual activity you deem immoral.
But if what you really care about is controlling women’s sexuality, you’d say
But if what you really care about is controlling women’s sexuality, you’d say
“Abortion is the murder of a baby, but I’m not willing to spend a dime on condoms to prevent the murder of a baby” is not a position that makes it sound like you really think abortion is the murder of the baby, or that you care about babies.
If it's about sexual choices, then it's still about controlling women's bodies.
It's not about preventing abortions. They'll tell you so themselves.
It's not about preventing abortions. They'll tell you so themselves.
Contraception will reduce abortions. If you think abortion is murder, you would be willing to pay for contraception to limit murder.
If you don't, you won't.
If you don't, you won't.
So, you think 1) abortion is murder, 2) the most important question is, who should pay to make murder less likely, and 3) the answer is NOT ME
So I don't think you actually think point 1 is true.
So I don't think you actually think point 1 is true.
Set aside the laughably simplistic understanding of fund allocations and ignorant reductionist thinking around why women might need contraception.
Notice how this is not about abortion, it's about controlling behavior.
Notice how this is not about abortion, it's about controlling behavior.
The slightest interrogation around solving for "how to have less abortions" will IMMEDIATELY get you to behavior and the desire to control human sexuality to a specifically proscribed boundary.
Every time.
Pro. Lifers. Do. Not. Want. To. Reduce. Abortions.
Every time.
Pro. Lifers. Do. Not. Want. To. Reduce. Abortions.
I'm trying to think of another movement that believes: a) a literal holocaust is happening, and also b) the most important thing is, they shouldn't have to pay one PENNY to prevent that holocaust from happening.
They don't believe it themselves.
Don't accept their framing.
They don't believe it themselves.
Don't accept their framing.
Lol oh no please no, whatever you do, don't throw me into that briar patch.
"Well if we did THAT then then then well then we might as well make sure everybody is FED, do you want to live in THAT kind of politically stable and humane hellscape?"
Our central political/social/moral question right now is, "do we care about ALL people, or just SOME people?"
Those who answer "just SOME people" will let you know very quickly, without even knowing they're saying it.
The idea of caring for all is, to them, self-evidently bad.
Those who answer "just SOME people" will let you know very quickly, without even knowing they're saying it.
The idea of caring for all is, to them, self-evidently bad.
This is just how the question of abortion plays into that central question.
The question is, "does EVERYBODY control their own bodies, or do only SOME people control their own bodies?"
The question is, "does EVERYBODY control their own bodies, or do only SOME people control their own bodies?"
