It's a fiction, not a moral treatise.

29 years old | Editor and English Instructor

Cisgendered woman | White | Bisexual (with shades of demisexual)

Pro Choice | Pagan | Feminist

I know I have a few people that follow me because of my political discussions, but you should know I also blog and reblog things for fun. I'm into fandom; it's part of my life. Don't be surprised if you see stuff about Disney, or kittens, or even my own artwork. Sometimes, I need to not be so serious.

22nd January 2013

Post reblogged from STFU, Conservatives with 2,971 notes

For #RoeAt40, all of my favorite pro-choice resources

stfuconservatives:

As my long-time readers know, abortion is an issue I’m very passionate about. So passionate that I have a bookmarks folder simply labeled “Abortion” that has about 75 links in it. For your edification, some of my favorite response to pro-life ignorance:

“Banning abortions would decrease abortions.”

Nope - abortion rates are the same in places where they’re illegal. But women and other pregnant people have to get dangerous illegal abortions, which are often unsanitary and not performed by medical professionals. Or worse, they do it themselves.

“Funding Planned Parenthood funds abortions, even though the Hyde Amendment prohibits it.”

Actually! Federal funds for family planning prevent 800,000 abortions per year.

“Abortions cause breast cancer.”

No. Really, no.

“Most women regret their abortions.”

Also no. Here are some stories of women who don’t regret their abortions.

Yes, some people do regret their abortions. Some people regret not having one too. Some people regret having kids, and some people regret not having kids. Some people regret their hair cuts. “You might regret doing it” is not  a valid reason to make something illegal.

“Abortion causes mental illness.”

The American Psychological Association put together a special task force to investigate if there is a link between getting an abortion and mental illness, and found no evidence to suggest that there is.

“Before Roe v. Wade, there weren’t abortions.”

Ahahaha, no. Read this incredibly Mother Jones story about “The Way It Was” in America before legal abortion. Abortion has always existed and will always exist. The key is keeping it safe and legal and trying to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through sex ed and accessible family planning.

“Just tough it out with the pregnancy for 9 months and give your child up for adoption.”

First of all, pregnancy is not some “inconvenience” you “tough out.” A year ago, I asked my readers to submit stories from their own pregnancies with the tag #9months (whether they terminated the pregnancy or not). Read their stories here. Pregnancy is expensive, painful, and all-consuming. Every single aspect of your life is affected by it. It’s not like getting a root canal.

Second, giving your child up for adoption is actually a mental health risk, unlike abortion.

Third, there are hundreds of thousands of children in the foster care system right now who are waiting to be adopted. Unless you’re planning on giving up your white, perfectly healthy baby right after you give birth, your child will probably languish in the system for the majority of their lives.

“But I saw this Silent Scream video…”

No.

—-

If you’ve never read “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion,” please do. It’s very eye-opening about how pro-lifers justify their own abortions (yes, they get them). If you’re someone who is still conflicted about being pro-life or pro-choice, I highly recommend “How I Lost Faith in the Pro-Life Movement” for some eye-opening insight on the reality of the pro-life faction.

So at the end of the day, choice is important because 1) banning abortions doesn’t prevent them from happening, 2) women (and people with uteruses who don’t identify as women) have the right to have sex without giving up their body for nine months thereafter, 3) the only things that prevent abortion are thorough sex education and access to birth control.

If you have any specific questions about abortion, I will be answering them all day today.

Tagged: roeat40pro choicepro lifeabortion

20th January 2013

Post reblogged from Liberty =/= License with 102 notes

femmeprolifefatale:

impuretale:

1. On what basis? On the basis that you can’t occupy a person’s uterus and claim you have equal rights with them if your ability to stay there relies on their consent to keep you there.

2. That’s “Life, liberty, property,” thank you. And if you studied human rights at all you would KNOW that. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It’s a letter to the crown stating “I want my pink shirt back.” They said “pursuit of happiness” because it sounded pretty, and they weren’t talking about the unborn. Science has nothing to say about human rights. Philosophy does. And the current consensus on human rights, as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is that you are BORN with rights. Not conceived.

3. When they’re born.

4. When it’s human. You’re not carrying a goat fetus for the first two weeks, you know. It was human when it was a separate egg and sperm too.

5. You don’t have to like the consequences of an action, but if you’re informed of the possible consequences, by continuing to take that course of action, you’re accepting the possibility that you may bear the brunt of those consequences.

By stating this, you are establishing that: 1) people should be punished with pregnancy for having sex. Don’t use the word “consequence” unless you mean it. 2) You apparently also think that a person should be entitled to no medical care if they get in a car wreck or catch an STD that they don’t want. “Bearing the brunt” of those consequences involves looking at your options and taking the course of action that is best for you. That includes getting an abortion if you do not wish to or have the means to carry out a pregnancy.

Consent to sex is not, and will never ever EVER be, an explicit consent to be pregnant and give birth to a child.

Look up “affirmative consent” laws.

Where to begin.

  1. Why not? That doesn’t make sense: in order to assume that the fetus is occupying the woman’s body without her consent, you’d have to also assume the fetus had as much hand in being put in her body as the man and woman who conceived the fetus did.
  2. Property-owning is a privilege under “pursuit of happiness”. “Happiness” isn’t just “joy” - “happiness”, as defined by time of the American forefathers, was, essentially, security and peace. Property-owning goes along with that.
    Science has a great deal to say about human rights, actually. Science and philosophy are both the pursuit of fact and truth. How can we establish a government and legal system for humanity if we do not know what human beings even are to begin with? The original arguments for legalization of abortion were “based in science”. However, now we know that human life begins at conception - also because of science proving things about human nature that philosophy had already agreed was truth ages ago.
  3. Why?
  4. If a fetus was the same thing as an egg and sperm separately, the separate egg and sperm would be able to develop into human beings separate from one another. False analogy.
  5. “Punished with pregnancy”? The key word is possibility. This is not an absolute. You’re arguing from final consequences: that because sex can beget pregnancy, and abortion terminates pregnancy, because I do not support abortion I must obviously be encouraging that everyone who has sex must become pregnant. And your 2) is literally an assumption. A course of option that is best for you should never involve hurting another human being because it’s “best for you”.
    Fallacious.

    And you’re right - it’s not. That’s why there are NFP centers. That’s why birth control was developed.  That’s why the ”let’s have a baby!” talk between couples considering children is had at all. Sex isn’t consent to pregnancy. But people who have sex understand the possibility is always there, even if they’re as careful as possible. Those concepts are not mutually exclusive, like the pro-choice platform wants you to believe.

1. in order to assume that the fetus is occupying the woman’s body without her consent, you’d have to also assume the fetus had as much hand in being put in her body as the man and woman who conceived the fetus did.

No, you can assume that the fetus is occupying the pregnant person’s body without their consent the second they say they don’t want to carry out the pregnancy. When someone says “no” it means they have revoked their consent. This is not hard.

2. as defined by time of the American forefathers, was, essentially, security and peace.

Point completely missed. Moving on.

3. Why? Because then they’re no longer renting space in someone else’s body.

4. It wasn’t an analogy. Human sperm is human. Human eggs are human. A human fetus is human. Your question was stupid and irrelevant.

5. The key word is possibility. This is not an absolute. You’re arguing from final consequences: that because sex can beget pregnancy, and abortion terminates pregnancy, because I do not support abortion I must obviously be encouraging that everyone who has sex must become pregnant. And your 2) is literally an assumption. A course of option that is best for you should never involve hurting another human being because it’s “best for you”.
Fallacious.

You shouldn’t use words you obviously don’t know the meaning of. There is a possibility of getting pregnant when you have sex, in many cases. That does not mean that when you have sex you are consenting to be pregnant. End of story. It means you accept it may happen, and when it does you may choose to do something about it. I am not arguing anything about your view save that you call pregnancy a “consequence” that must be “faced.”

My 2) is fact. When something happens to you, you decide what your best course of action is. Sometimes NOT BEING PREGNANT is the best course of action who find themselves in that situation. Don’t quibble about “hurting another human being” when fewer pregnancies end after 26 weeks, when “hurting” is possible, than pregnancies resulting from rape occur.

And you’re right - it’s not. That’s why there are NFP centers. That’s why birth control was developed.  That’s why the ”let’s have a baby!” talk between couples considering children is had at all. Sex isn’t consent to pregnancy. But people who have sex understand the possibility is always there, even if they’re as careful as possible. Those concepts are not mutually exclusive, like the pro-choice platform wants you to believe.

So are you just assuming that birth control never fails? Or that sometimes people get pregnant without meaning to get pregnant? If you agree that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy then why are you talking about people bearing the brunt of the consequences of having sex? Sometimes, even when you’re careful, pregnancy happens.

Tagged: impuretalepro lifepro choiceabortion

9th January 2013

Post reblogged from In the Shoes of A.J. with 62 notes

I am pro choice

intheshoesofaj:

impuretale:

intheshoesofaj:

I am completely for the idea of it being God’s choice to implant that little person inside you.

The logic here fails when you realize that if God lets eggs fertilize and implant then he lets people get abortions too.

My logic by no means fails Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden tree) tells us that you are absolutely right God does allow choice and allows abortions but don’t confuse what he allows with what he sees as right. He spared Adam and Eve in the Old Testament just like he is sparing all of us. John 3:16. Be Blessed

So he allows choice. Why won’t you?

Also: Don’t presume to know what God thinks is right. You are human. You are limited, and you can’t comprehend the level of understanding and love that God has that you do not.

What a pregnant person chooses to do is between themselves and whoever they choose to share it with. Respect choice. Don’t try to coerce it.

Tagged: pro lifepro choiceabortion

9th January 2013

Post reblogged from In the Shoes of A.J. with 62 notes

I am pro choice

intheshoesofaj:

I am completely for the idea of it being God’s choice to implant that little person inside you.

The logic here fails when you realize that if God lets eggs fertilize and implant then he lets people get abortions too.

Tagged: abortionlifepro choicepro liferoe v wadeGodlive

6th January 2013

Photo reblogged from kisses of gold with 44 notes

shihanasaurus:

There are people, who are like soothsayers, fortune tellers. It’s said they can look you straight in the eye, and tell. They see behind you, a line of unborn babies, that will follow you, follow you for an eternity.

This fortune teller says you’re full of crap.

shihanasaurus:

There are people, who are like soothsayers, fortune tellers. It’s said they can look you straight in the eye, and tell. They see behind you, a line of unborn babies, that will follow you, follow you for an eternity.

This fortune teller says you’re full of crap.

Tagged: abortionpro lifepro choicedeadbabies

6th January 2013

Photo reblogged from STFU, PRO-LIFERS! with 257 notes

stfuprolife:

Messages from “Pro-Lifers”
Anon 1: Isn’t it funny that all anti-choicers have also been born?  And isn’t it interesting that things that aren’t born don’t have opinions?  Isn’t it great how your one sentence can reveal so many logical fallacies?
Anon 2: Because letting people believe that they have a right to reproductive and sexual healthcare is negative!  Fighting against forced pregnancy and birthing is negative!  Oh, my.  Bless my wicked soul.
Anon 2: “Don’t want a child, don’t have sex!”  I went over this so many times already.  Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy or childbirth.  And pregnancy and parenthood shouldn’t be a punishment to people for having sex.  It should be something people have to be ready for and want to go through with.  Plus, I don’t have sex to have children.  I do it for the good times.
TheBookofJennifer: You must be referring to my statement on my blog! “Are you tired of Anti-Choicers spouting unnecessarily guilt tripping, inaccurate information? Oh, hey! Me, too.”
“Unnecessarily guilt tripping” as in emotionally manipulative statements not founded on rationality.  ”Murdering an innocent child” would be an example of that and of “inaccurate information.” (But to clear up any future confusion, I’ll change it.  Thank you!)
Say aloud: “I support using someone’s body against their will.”
If you don’t agree with that statement, then you should rethink your position.  If you do, then continue being “pro-life.”
-Hannah

So, thebookofjennifer, let’s take your presumption, that if a person feels guilt-tripped by someone, then that must mean that they are actually in the wrong, and let’s apply that to all cases:
-When a person is guilt-tripped by their SO into having sex, it just means they feel guilty because they’ve obviously been withholding something that their SO is entitled to.
-When a person is guilt-tripped into throwing up to get thinner, then that guilt is their conscience speaking out to let them know that if they weren’t so fat in the first place they wouldn’t have to hurt themselves to make other people happy now.
-When a person is guilt-tripped into returning to an abusive partner/family member/etc, it’s just their conscience telling them that really, they can’t have it so bad as other people. Why are they complaining? If they had just been doing what they were supposed to be doing, they wouldn’t feel so abused in the first place.
DO YOU SEE, YET, HOW YOUR LOGIC IS MANIPULATIVE BATSHIT?

stfuprolife:

Messages from “Pro-Lifers”

Anon 1: Isn’t it funny that all anti-choicers have also been born?  And isn’t it interesting that things that aren’t born don’t have opinions?  Isn’t it great how your one sentence can reveal so many logical fallacies?

Anon 2: Because letting people believe that they have a right to reproductive and sexual healthcare is negative!  Fighting against forced pregnancy and birthing is negative!  Oh, my.  Bless my wicked soul.

Anon 2: “Don’t want a child, don’t have sex!”  I went over this so many times already.  Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy or childbirth.  And pregnancy and parenthood shouldn’t be a punishment to people for having sex.  It should be something people have to be ready for and want to go through with.  Plus, I don’t have sex to have children.  I do it for the good times.

TheBookofJennifer: You must be referring to my statement on my blog! “Are you tired of Anti-Choicers spouting unnecessarily guilt tripping, inaccurate information? Oh, hey! Me, too.”

“Unnecessarily guilt tripping” as in emotionally manipulative statements not founded on rationality.  ”Murdering an innocent child” would be an example of that and of “inaccurate information.” (But to clear up any future confusion, I’ll change it.  Thank you!)

Say aloud: “I support using someone’s body against their will.”

If you don’t agree with that statement, then you should rethink your position.  If you do, then continue being “pro-life.”

-Hannah

So, thebookofjennifer, let’s take your presumption, that if a person feels guilt-tripped by someone, then that must mean that they are actually in the wrong, and let’s apply that to all cases:

-When a person is guilt-tripped by their SO into having sex, it just means they feel guilty because they’ve obviously been withholding something that their SO is entitled to.

-When a person is guilt-tripped into throwing up to get thinner, then that guilt is their conscience speaking out to let them know that if they weren’t so fat in the first place they wouldn’t have to hurt themselves to make other people happy now.

-When a person is guilt-tripped into returning to an abusive partner/family member/etc, it’s just their conscience telling them that really, they can’t have it so bad as other people. Why are they complaining? If they had just been doing what they were supposed to be doing, they wouldn’t feel so abused in the first place.

DO YOU SEE, YET, HOW YOUR LOGIC IS MANIPULATIVE BATSHIT?

Tagged: prolifepro lifeprochoicepro choicethebookofjenniferanonymousabortion

4th January 2013

Post reblogged from Lady Contrarian with 115 notes

So if it’s being wanted or not that determines whether you’re a baby/child or a clump of cells….

the-lone-conservative:

Why don’t we just kill orphans who haven’t been adopted and are therefore obviously unwanted. They’re just a clump of cells, right?

Except that it’s not that which determines whether you’re a baby/child or a clump of cells. It’s being a baby/child, meaning BORN, or a clump of cells, which is very very early in the pregnancy.

Orphans are born, and your logic is not earth logic.

Tagged: pro lifepro deathpro choiceanti choiceabortionconserativeliberal logic

2nd January 2013

Quote reblogged from jesus with 42 notes

how would the supporters of *pro choice feel, if they would have been aborted? lol

(via bartholmmmmew)

Fine, if I were capable of feeling anything in the womb (protip: you can’t, you’re not even you yet). Why? Because I love my mother and wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I came to know she was forced to carry the pregnancy against her will.

Tagged: prolifepro choiceabortionkillsjesus

29th December 2012

Post reblogged from For the Sake of Complexity with 97 notes

Pro-choice

osuphantom:

“The woman should do what she wants to be happy.” 

Including murder because they were to stupid to realize or accept the consequences of sexual activity. 

Pro-choice is the epitome of selfishness. 

Thanks for establishing that you think people should be punished with pregnancy for having sex.

Grow up.

Tagged: pro lifeabortionpro choice

24th December 2012

Link reblogged from Firebender Atheist with 111 notes

New Medical Guidelines Say Birth Control Should Be Available Over The Counter →

vochoice:

Women shouldn’t have to go to a doctor for a birth control pill prescription  the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists announced on Tuesday. Instead, it believes that oral contraceptive should be available to women over the counter.

In a written opinion, the OB/GYN society made the argument that the benefit of easy access to birth control — a decrease in unplanned pregnancies — outweigh the risks of not having a doctor inform a woman of potential side effects. The most common side effect of birth control pills is a higher likelihood of blood clots or deep-vein thrombosis, but the risk of such effects are rated “extremely low.”

On the other hand, easier access to birth control, particularly a low-cost or cost-free pill, leads to a far lower number of abortions.

Many women attest to not taking the pill regularly because of the logistical and planning issues, as well as cost, associated with going to a doctor for a prescription. Still, oral contraceptives are among the most popular forms of birth control, particularly for “whites, women in their teens and 20’s, cohabiting women, childless women and college graduates.”

Interestingly, the U.S. and western Europe are among the only places that require a prescription for birth control pills. In much of the world, it’s easy for a woman to get pills with just a screening required. The United States, however, uses an antiquated system of tying contraception to annual well-woman checkups, so that a doctor can withhold birth control as a means of forcing a woman to come in for a checkup.

I hope that the pill becomes available over the counter. This would make such a huge difference in my life. I need it for medical reasons but flat out cannot afford to go to a doctor.

Tagged: excelletwoo!birth controlcontraceptionabortionprolifeprochoicepro lifepro choice

Source: vochoice