Found on Facebook: What pro-choice really means.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

[progressoid]

1. I've had this discussion with anti-choicers.

Their argument is that the woman made a choice when she decided to have sex. End of story.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Nope, that is just WRONG. And it's stupid too. Ugh. n/t

[dchill]

4. Many of these women did NOT choose to become pregnant.

That choice was made by some male, who decided to, at the very least, to ejaculate inside her.

[progressoid]

5. Agreed.

But to these people, that doesn't seem to matter.

[dchill]

6. Of course not.

[Skittles]

10. that is very telling

they are smug when they feel they can blame the woman

[Freddie]

16. Consent to sex is NOT consent to childbearing

Usually they have no answer to that

[progressoid]

20. These are fundamentalists.

As far as they are concerned as soon as you consent to have sex, you've decided to become a parent.

Of course, these are the same people that defend the p**** grabber so critical thinking isn't their forte.

[Caliman73]

3. An EXCELLENT argument. One problem though...

It assumes that right wingers are arguing in good faith.

That is a fatal flaw of Liberalism. Liberalism and leftism are likely the most rational ideologies, but liberalism suffers from the belief that a good faith argument can be had with right wingers.

[KPN]

7. Spot on. Exactly.

Last edited Sun Sep 5, 2021, 01:28 AM - Edit history (1)

[RANDYWILDMAN]

8. True

cause if the Right wingers cared about the babies at all, they would support universal health care, education, child care and affordable housing.

[nvme]

11. How many times have we fallen for that

The right wing shitbags not acted in good faith for as long as I can remember.

[Major Nikon]

14. Faith is the only thing they are arguing with

They are convinced the holy poltergeist sprinkles magic fairy dust the moment after conception and suddenly human protoplasm is endowed with an immortal soul. As such they will never be satisfied with 6 weeks or any other arbitrary point past the point of conception. Next they will go after IUDs and plan B pills any any other contraception methods they think work post conception.

Logic and reason do not work on these people as their “faith” demands suspension of such things in order to work. Bear in mind also, none of this is really about human development at any stage. Their real motivation is to go after fornication in an attempt to manipulate sexuality and force women especially into their idea of servitude.

The problem with liberalism, or at least how it is presently implemented, is somehow “faith” is always placed into a protective shield with the misplaced idea that tolerance demands it. As such we can’t attack faith itself which is the root cause of all of this nonsense. Until we do so we will always be chasing symptoms rather than the cause and they will use our own idea of tolerance against us over and over.

[bringthePaine]

9. brilliant response that withstands any level of serious scrutiny

[leftstreet]

12. DURec

Excellent find

[LittleGirl]

13. The gist is that your dead body is more sacred than your uterus. eom

[chwaliszewski]

15. Abso-freaking-lutely!

[Freddie]

17. I'm currently in FB jail

Because someone got offended when I asked a man “how often have you been pregnant” (although I was so angry at that point I may have called him something else to go along with it).
I can tell right away that you might as well talk to your dog about the stock market. To them we are NOTHING. Not humans, just vessels. Our minds and ideas have no value whatsoever. 4 cells in my uterus should completely obliterate all my rights.

[MichaelSoE]

18. hear hear

Absolutely brilliant

[BeckyDem]

19. This is excellent. The weight of the ruling on body autonomy in '65 was critical.

Thank you for posting.

[crickets]

21. Fantastic summation of how women should be allowed to control their own bodies.

Women are still fighting to be seen fully and equally as people, with absolute rights over their persons.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/to-have-and-to-hold

This spring marks the fiftieth anniversary of the case that went forward instead: Griswold v. Connecticut. (“We became the footnote to the footnote,” Trubek told me.) In Griswold, decided in June, 1965, the Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that Connecticut’s ban on contraception was unconstitutional, not on the ground of a woman’s right to determine the timing and the number of her pregnancies but on the ground of a married couple’s right to privacy. “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights,” Justice William O. Douglas wrote in the majority opinion. “Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.” [snip]

Banning contraception at a time when the overwhelming majority of Americans used it was, of course, ridiculous. (Justice Potter Stewart, who dissented in Griswold, called the Connecticut statute “an uncommonly silly law.”) The law was little enforced. Condoms were openly sold in drugstores, and people of means could get other forms of contraception out of state. (Estelle Griswold once asked whether the police intended to “put a gynecological table at the Greenwich toll station” and examine every woman who crossed the state line.) The ban was a real hardship, though, for the poor, and especially for poor women in relationships with men who refused to use condoms. And if the law was ridiculous it was also intransigent. For decades, Planned Parenthood had tried to get it overturned in the Connecticut legislature, to no avail. So the question was: What legal argument could be used to challenge its constitutionality?

The Constitution never mentions sex, marriage, or reproduction. This is because the political order that the Constitution established was a fraternity of free men who, believing themselves to have been created equal, consented to be governed. Women did not and could not give their consent: they were neither free nor equal. Rule over women lay entirely outside a Lockean social contract in a relationship not of liberty and equality but of confinement and subjugation. As Mary Astell wondered, in 1706, “If all Men are born free, how is it that all Women are born Slaves?” [snip]

There is a lesson in the past fifty years of litigation. When the fight for equal rights for women narrowed to a fight for reproductive rights, defended on the ground of privacy, it weakened. But when the fight for gay rights became a fight for same-sex marriage, asserted on the ground of equality, it got stronger and stronger.

[Blue Owl]

22. K&R