ravan: by icons r us (flamethrower - from icons r us)
( May. 4th, 2017 11:41 am)
I get so fucking sick of the religious argument against abortion.

Your fucking religion shouldn't tell someone else what to do. One religion shouldn't dictate the law of the United States. We are not a fucking theocracy.

But there's more to it than that.

We are talking about a fundamental right, to life and liberty here - the right of the woman.

The zygote/fetus is a dependent organism. Even if you believe life begins at conception, the host (woman) still has a right to abort that "life".

Here's why:

In US law, there is the concept of bodily autonomy, even for the dead:


.... Under existing law, if a person prefers not to donate any organs or tissue after she dies may be buried or cremated or otherwise laid to rest with her organs intact. This means, among other things, that even when there is an organ shortage and people who might otherwise have lived will die without a transplant from a suitable donor, the government lacks the power to take organs from a potential donor who, prior to her death, did not consent to donation. In fact, as I have discussed elsewhere, the legal presumption, in the absence of evidence one way or the other, is that people have refused to donate their organs post-mortem.

One way of thinking about this approach is to say that our bodies belong to us, both in life and in death, and we have the right not to share them with anyone else, no matter how helpful such sharing would be or how necessary to save lives. By respecting people's right to refuse to donate organs upon death, then, we are showing respect for each individual's dignity rather than viewing people instrumentally, whether alive or dead, as organ donors.

-- http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2014/01/the-rights-of-dead.html


These rights exist for the living as well. They can't hook someone up to you as a dialysis machine, or demand your kidney, blood or marrow, even if the recipient would be your parent, sibling or offspring (who would be the most likely match)!!

So why in the living fuck would a fetus have more rights?

Because pregnancy is a "natural" process, and the fetus is "where it should be"? So are worms and other parasites, but that doesn't give them a right to leech your blood and marrow. (Yes, an unwanted fetus is a parasite. In the case of rape, it is a parasite violently implanted by another person.)

Because it's your own "blood kin"? See above about parents, siblings or children. They don't have a claim on your body for life support.

So when you say "No Abortion", you are saying, essentially, that a woman does not have a right to decide what use her literal tissue will be put to. You are literally saying that a pregnant woman has fewer rights than a dead man whose son needs one of his kidneys or a bone marrow transplant.

You are essentially saying that she is a walking womb, a slave to biology and a man's sperm, having no choice but to risk her life (yes, folks, pregnancy is a risk to the woman's life, even if it seems to be going well) for the sacred fetus.

I don't care whether that's "what she was designed to do" - I don't believe in your designer, and even if I did there is still free will involved. Women are not animals, to be kept as a vessel for breeding children, cokking, cleaning and fucking. To hell with that shit.

So bodily autonomy, free will, and the right to privacy all come into play in the abortion matter.

That these "Pro (unborn) Life" people want to push their twisted beliefs about women into US law is horrifying. Most of these assholes (mostly older white men) want to restrict or ban contraceptives, too, because they interfere with "nature" (and their control over women.)

Now, of course, anything to do with pregnancy and being female is on the slate for being classified a "pre-existing condition". Women will become virtually uninsurable by the time most of them are thirty, except if they are married to rich men with jobs that cover their spouses.

They are trying to drive women back into the kitchen, stay at home slaves to their wombs and the men who own them. But that time is gone. We have had the taste of freedom, and it will live on, even in whispers, if they succeed for a time.
ravan: by icons r us (flamethrower - from icons r us)
( Jun. 30th, 2014 11:48 pm)
If I have to justify my rights to you, or "ask nicely" if I can speak, act or live, then you don't consider them rights at all, and we have nothing to discuss. If for you it's just "policy" or "debate", but for those like me it is life or death, I do not consider that you have a say in the matter.

Sure, you might claim to be "involved(a)", but if I'm "committed(b)", and you can just butt the fuck out.

Note: Think a ham and eggs breakfast. The chicken is (a)involved, the pig is (b)committed.
Politically motivated "studies" that have been biased and loaded with a religious agenda have been trotted out for years to "prove" that abortions harm mothers, bah, blah. It's one of the few non-religious arguments that is used against allowing abortions.

But it's false.

The reality is the opposite:
Abortion not seen linked with depression, and
New moms at risk for range of mental problems.

Having kids is actually more likely to cause or exacerbate depression than having an abortion.
ravan: by Ravan (Default)
( Sep. 2nd, 2008 02:42 pm)
So, Sarah Palin advocates teaching abstinence-only sex ed to teens, and apparently is what she taught her kids. It is little wonder, then, that her 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant, and will be marrying the boy and keeping the baby. Considering Mrs Palin's proud history with guns and hunting, I wonder how much choice either kid has in their life nowadays (shotgun wedding, anyone?)

They want this dominionist hypocrite to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, behind a 72 year old zombie.

I don't think so.

PS: check out some of the federal protest suppression around the RNC convention. You won't find it in the maistream news, of course.
Great. McCain's pick for a veep is a rabid anti-choice traitor to her gender. The broad disapproves of abortion even in cases of rape and incest, but is running around doing politics while she has 5 kids at home, one with special needs. She probably doesn't believe in birth control on demand, either.

Yeah, she's pro-gun. I guess that's so pregnant women who don't have any other option in her forced birth universe have a final friend for when they're carrying their father's or their rapist's "love child".

She's the political equivalent of Phyllis Schafly. It's so wrong that it hurts. She is associated with a lot of theocratic, dominionist organizations, too. Fucking wonderful. Her best features? Her features! She's a former "beauty queen"! It's the equivalent of saying "a woman in office must be just attractive window dressing and a compliant breeder." Just a pretty face wing-nut ditto-head!

Want to lose Roe v Wade? Want to move back to barefoot and pregnant or coat hangers? Want more forced and unwanted kids to populate the army or drive the prison industry to being the major employer in our nation? Consider a potential life more important than someone who is already here? Want to bring yet another (semi) stealth dominionist into power? Want the cross inserted into the US flag? Vote Republican.
ravan: by Ravan (Default)
( Jul. 16th, 2008 09:34 am)
The fundamentalist lap-dogs in the Bush administration are at it again!

See this kick ass rant by [livejournal.com profile] naamah_darling for a better explosion of rage about this shit than I can come up with today.

I have a 12 year old niece, just hitting puberty. Her parents are religious reich dittoheads. If she gets raped or what not, or wants birth control, or needs an abortion, I will do anything necessary to see that she has the choice. My niece's life and health are more important than her parents fucked up religion.
.

Profile

ravan: by Ravan (Default)
ravan

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags