A basic little lesson for anti-choice apologists:

"can/can't" - this refers to two potential meanings:

1) physical ability: simply perform some act or not

or

2) permissibility: whether some governing body will allow me or not

1/ If your abortion argument is, "you can't kill your unborn baby!" you're wrong, on both counts:

1) of course, it is physically possibly to get an abortion (what you dipshits call "killing a baby")

and

2) it is permissible

So, "you can't abort" is FALSE.

2/

Today's thread will be about 'preventing abortions.' A common pro-choice point is that abortion bans will not prevent abortions, only safe/legal abortions. This is absolutely true, but it rings a bit hollow without some context.

1/ One could say this about any law/restriction, and an easily common one is guns, so let's dive in:

Why are gun bans advocated for? Super simply, to stop people from being shot. Let's work with that snippet.

True, if NO guns are available, no one can be shot.

2/

ATTN anti-choicers:

Let's step back from your raging lack of actual substantive, consistent reasons for denying someone the right to an abortion for a sec.

Let's look at the manner in which you'd have to go about implementing your restrictions/bans:

1/ Be honest: you're all in the same group of the "they're coming for you, they want to take your...., they're trying to implant the 5g trackers in your..." camps. We know it. Big on privacy, aren't ya?

Ok, let's start at the end first:

2/

Good golly, forced birthers:

"Getting pregnant" != "staying pregnant"

I can't think of a single salient pro-choice point that doesn't focus on whether or not someone is going to STAY pregnant.

1/ Y'all keep going on and on about GETTING pregnant, and every statement you make about it, is not just often patently ignorant, it's irrelevant.

"I mean...you had sex, what did you think was going to happen!??!"

NO ONE is surprised that sex led to pregnancy.

2/

A thread on "the baby doesn't intend to harm you!"

Say John's partner, Kate, enjoys having John insert a particular object into a particular bodily orifice of hers (which object, which orifice, is irrelevant).

When John does this for Kate, it is consensual and pleasurable.

1/ John and Kate are together for a long period. Every single time John does this act for Kate, she consents and enjoys it. To John, doing this act is equivalent to pleasuring his partner.

But now John and Kate break up.

2/

A thread on bodily autonomy and consent - the handshake:

A) John and Bob see each other in a bar, mutually offer their hands to the other in the traditional social sense and shake hands.

B) John sees Bob, grabs his arm, pulls his hand forward, and John grabs Bob's hand.

1/ Now imagine, John has relaxed his hand, he's no longer gripping and is pulling his arm away.

Bob should also release. He has been given an active sign of the withdraw of consent.

If Bob maintains his grip and does not release, he is violating John's bodily autonomy.

2/

Forced birthers will try to draw a line where a sperm isn't a baby (and thus, can't be subject to any control, of course), but a fertilized egg absolutely is, and thus, gets to be controlled by others.

Wrong.

Words have meanings.

1/ Butter is not a cake. Milk is not a cake. Eggs are not a cake.

Butter + milks + eggs is STILL not a cake.

It needs heat. Heat makes chemical reactions. Those reactions change the properties of the ingredients.

2/

If anyone would like to point out where this comparison/example fails, let me know.

I will use cis terms just for brevity's sake, but many inclusive scenarios are just as accurate.

A woman invites a man on a date. She invites him back to her place.

1/ She initiates sex. She absolutely wants to have sex. The man wants it, too. He accepts and consents back. This is consensual sex.

There is no aggression. There are no unwanted actions. It is an intimate, caring situation. She is enjoying it.

And then change her mind.

2/