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.

30th June 2012

Post reblogged from Stuff and Things with 32 notes

I always found it interesting that…

chimisaurus:

impuretale:

chimisaurus:

impuretale:

chimisaurus:

impuretale:

chimisaurus:

If a woman chooses to not be a mother and abort her baby, then “some” will rally behind her and call it pro-choice. Her life, her body, her choice.

However, if a man chooses to not be a father and leaves, then “some” will arm themselves with torches and pitchforks and call him a bum, trash, and an all around poor excuse of a human being.

I’m not saying it’s ok to leave your baby fatherless, but I think it’s interesting that a woman has the right to avoid responsibility, while a man does not.

Not the same thing at all.

If a child has already been born, unless both parents have waived parental rights and given the child up for adoption, they both have to pay child support.

A uterus owner has the right to consent to whether or not they wish to be pregnant. The penis owner is not included in the conversation because it’s not their body that’s being used or risked.

So you can’t force a woman be a mother, but you CAN force a man be a father.

how is that not the same thing?

If the man doesn’t want her to have the baby because he is not ready to be a father, then why is he criticized for not wanting to be around later? A woman can choose to not be a mother because she is not ready, but a man can not.

Double standards at their best.

It’s not a double-standard because for the penis owner it is not an issue until a baby is born. They never have to carry it in their body, and it may have nothing to do with “wanting to be a parent” or not.

A man or woman can sign their parental rights away after a baby is born and not be expected to do anything beyond that. If neither do that, and only one parent retains custody of the child, the other — regardless of gender has to pay child support.

So a woman’s only reason for abortion is that she doesn’t want it to change her body? It has nothing to do with that fact that she is not ready to be a parent and cannot handle the responsibility of a child? It’s solely based on the fact that her body will expand and her vagina will do what nature intended it to do?

You’re really pitching that argument?

Yeah, they can both sign parental rights away, but that’s not the situation I am talking about, but why should a man who never wanted to be a father in the first place be forced to pay child support, and on top of that receive criticism from society? Where is his pro-choice team?

Whether it’s for vanity reasons or not, when a woman decides to get an abortion, she is CHOOSING not to be a parent, and there is a whole community who will rally behind her choice. However, when a man decides to not be a father, he is seen as weak, trash, not a man/etc etc etc.

And has to pay money on top of that.

They both chose not to be parents, what makes the difference?

So a woman’s only reason for abortion is that she doesn’t want it to change her body?

There are numerous reasons to get an abortion. Change may not even be the issue. The issue is that a uterus owner has the right to consent to what happens to their body.

It has nothing to do with that fact that she is not ready to be a parent and cannot handle the responsibility of a child? It’s solely based on the fact that her body will expand and her vagina will do what nature intended it to do?

Like I said, numerous reasons. It doesn’t matter what you think nature intends. We are human beings with bodily autonomy.

You’re really pitching that argument?

No, I’m not. Good job trying to twist what I’m saying though.

Yeah, they can both sign parental rights away, but that’s not the situation I am talking about, but why should a man who never wanted to be a father in the first place be forced to pay child support, and on top of that receive criticism from society? 

If he signs parental rights away, he doesn’t have to pay child support. And please provide proof that women are never criticized for choosing not to have children.

Where is his pro-choice team?

Presumably waiting to pop up whenever it is that penis owners start carrying fetuses themselves, and when there are people trying to make laws that would force men to remain pregnant against their will.

A woman has the right to shape her future because her body is at stake, but a man has no say in whether or not he wants a child because he doesn’t have to squeeze it out?

It might be her uterus, but it is both of their lives that will be affected. Whether or not he will be a father will be determined by her and he will have to stand by the consequences of her decision.

I never said there wasn’t any shaming of her actions. I am aware of pro-lifers and their agenda.

However, a woman’s right to choose is still protected by the government and there is an entire community to support her.

However, this same community will shame the man who chose to not be a father.

It is wrong to force a woman to be a mother, but ok to force a man to be a father.

That is where the double standard lies.

Person A chose to not be a parent.

Person B chose to not be a parent.

Please tell me why only the decision of one of them is justifiable. 

I bolded the original argument for you, again, so you can stop getting confused and derailing it.

Now you can provide proof there are no people who are pro-choice who support a man’s right to sign away his parental rights if he does not feel himself fit to be a parent. A man has a say in whether he wants a child when he chooses to keep his parental rights or sign them away, thereby relieving him of any responsibility.

After a child has been born, unless the parents sign away their parental rights BOTH HAVE TO SUPPORT THE CHILD. If a penis-owner retained full custody of a baby after its birth but the person who gave birth to it did not sign away her rights as a parent, she would be expected to pay child support and would be considered a deadbeat if she did not.

I’m not derailing your argument. Your argument continually disregards that people can sign away their parental rights after a baby has been born.

Before that, a man doesn’t have any say, because it’s not a question of parenthood for a pregnant person, which is why there is something called adoption. During pregnancy, it is an issue of whether the pregnant person consents to remain pregnant, for whatever reason.

Your original post, which you claim I’m derailing, makes a comparison between CIS men choosing not to be a father — which is not a problem for him until after a baby is born — and CIS women before a baby is born, with their choice to abort or not. It is a faulty comparison.

Tagged: pro choiceabortionpro lifewho's choice?only women's

30th June 2012

Post reblogged from Stuff and Things with 32 notes

I always found it interesting that…

chimisaurus:

impuretale:

chimisaurus:

impuretale:

chimisaurus:

If a woman chooses to not be a mother and abort her baby, then “some” will rally behind her and call it pro-choice. Her life, her body, her choice.

However, if a man chooses to not be a father and leaves, then “some” will arm themselves with torches and pitchforks and call him a bum, trash, and an all around poor excuse of a human being.

I’m not saying it’s ok to leave your baby fatherless, but I think it’s interesting that a woman has the right to avoid responsibility, while a man does not.

Not the same thing at all.

If a child has already been born, unless both parents have waived parental rights and given the child up for adoption, they both have to pay child support.

A uterus owner has the right to consent to whether or not they wish to be pregnant. The penis owner is not included in the conversation because it’s not their body that’s being used or risked.

So you can’t force a woman be a mother, but you CAN force a man be a father.

how is that not the same thing?

If the man doesn’t want her to have the baby because he is not ready to be a father, then why is he criticized for not wanting to be around later? A woman can choose to not be a mother because she is not ready, but a man can not.

Double standards at their best.

It’s not a double-standard because for the penis owner it is not an issue until a baby is born. They never have to carry it in their body, and it may have nothing to do with “wanting to be a parent” or not.

A man or woman can sign their parental rights away after a baby is born and not be expected to do anything beyond that. If neither do that, and only one parent retains custody of the child, the other — regardless of gender has to pay child support.

So a woman’s only reason for abortion is that she doesn’t want it to change her body? It has nothing to do with that fact that she is not ready to be a parent and cannot handle the responsibility of a child? It’s solely based on the fact that her body will expand and her vagina will do what nature intended it to do?

You’re really pitching that argument?

Yeah, they can both sign parental rights away, but that’s not the situation I am talking about, but why should a man who never wanted to be a father in the first place be forced to pay child support, and on top of that receive criticism from society? Where is his pro-choice team?

Whether it’s for vanity reasons or not, when a woman decides to get an abortion, she is CHOOSING not to be a parent, and there is a whole community who will rally behind her choice. However, when a man decides to not be a father, he is seen as weak, trash, not a man/etc etc etc.

And has to pay money on top of that.

They both chose not to be parents, what makes the difference?

So a woman’s only reason for abortion is that she doesn’t want it to change her body?

There are numerous reasons to get an abortion. Change may not even be the issue. The issue is that a uterus owner has the right to consent to what happens to their body.

It has nothing to do with that fact that she is not ready to be a parent and cannot handle the responsibility of a child? It’s solely based on the fact that her body will expand and her vagina will do what nature intended it to do?

Like I said, numerous reasons. It doesn’t matter what you think nature intends. We are human beings with bodily autonomy.

You’re really pitching that argument?

No, I’m not. Good job trying to twist what I’m saying though.

Yeah, they can both sign parental rights away, but that’s not the situation I am talking about, but why should a man who never wanted to be a father in the first place be forced to pay child support, and on top of that receive criticism from society? 

If he signs parental rights away, he doesn’t have to pay child support. And please provide proof that women are never criticized for choosing not to have children.

Where is his pro-choice team?

Presumably waiting to pop up whenever it is that penis owners start carrying fetuses themselves, and when there are people trying to make laws that would force men to remain pregnant against their will.

Tagged: pro choiceabortionpro lifewho's choice?only women's

30th June 2012

Post reblogged from Stuff and Things with 32 notes

I always found it interesting that…

chimisaurus:

impuretale:

chimisaurus:

If a woman chooses to not be a mother and abort her baby, then “some” will rally behind her and call it pro-choice. Her life, her body, her choice.

However, if a man chooses to not be a father and leaves, then “some” will arm themselves with torches and pitchforks and call him a bum, trash, and an all around poor excuse of a human being.

I’m not saying it’s ok to leave your baby fatherless, but I think it’s interesting that a woman has the right to avoid responsibility, while a man does not.

Not the same thing at all.

If a child has already been born, unless both parents have waived parental rights and given the child up for adoption, they both have to pay child support.

A uterus owner has the right to consent to whether or not they wish to be pregnant. The penis owner is not included in the conversation because it’s not their body that’s being used or risked.

So you can’t force a woman be a mother, but you CAN force a man be a father.

how is that not the same thing?

If the man doesn’t want her to have the baby because he is not ready to be a father, then why is he criticized for not wanting to be around later? A woman can choose to not be a mother because she is not ready, but a man can not.

Double standards at their best.

It’s not a double-standard because for the penis owner it is not an issue until a baby is born. They never have to carry it in their body, and it may have nothing to do with “wanting to be a parent” or not.

A man or woman can sign their parental rights away after a baby is born and not be expected to do anything beyond that. If neither do that, and only one parent retains custody of the child, the other — regardless of gender has to pay child support.

Tagged: pro choiceabortionpro lifewho's choice?only women's

30th June 2012

Post reblogged from Stuff and Things with 32 notes

I always found it interesting that…

chimisaurus:

If a woman chooses to not be a mother and abort her baby, then “some” will rally behind her and call it pro-choice. Her life, her body, her choice.

However, if a man chooses to not be a father and leaves, then “some” will arm themselves with torches and pitchforks and call him a bum, trash, and an all around poor excuse of a human being.

I’m not saying it’s ok to leave your baby fatherless, but I think it’s interesting that a woman has the right to avoid responsibility, while a man does not.

Not the same thing at all.

If a child has already been born, unless both parents have waived parental rights and given the child up for adoption, they both have to pay child support.

A uterus owner has the right to consent to whether or not they wish to be pregnant. The penis owner is not included in the conversation because it’s not their body that’s being used or risked.

Tagged: pro choiceabortionpro lifewho's choice?only women's