Check Your Born Privilege
[Today’s guest post by Rebecca Stapleford is part of our paid blogging program. Rebecca attends the University of Georgia and majors in Greek, Latin, and Classical Culture. She is vice president of UGA Students for Life. Her passion is pro-life and disability rights activism.]
Chances are, if you’ve been exposed to the writings and ideas of the modern progressive social justice movement, you’ve encountered the concept of privilege—a common term used to describe the favorable treatment of certain groups by society as held in contrast to the discrimination faced by other groups. Common examples given of privilege are white privilege, male privilege, Christian privilege, heterosexual privilege, cisgender privilege, able-bodied privilege and class privilege.
Members of privileged groups are reminded of their favored status and encouraged to “check their privilege” by comparing their experiences to the average experiences of members of oppressed groups and recognizing the social, political, and economic inequalities that exist in the lives of the latter. Towards this end, activists write up privilege checklists that outline specific examples of privilege for a certain privileged group. Privilege checklists have been written for almost every possible group of people—except for one group.
The unborn have been left behind by progressive social justice movement. They aren’t even considered to be people. In an attempt to raise awareness of this injustice I have compiled a checklist for born privilege—the privilege experienced by individuals who are already born.
- No one tells your bereaved parents that they can always try again, that you weren’t a “real baby”, or that it was a good thing that you died because you probably were defective anyway.
- Society doesn’t believe that ending your life is the best solution to the problems and challenges that you might face in the future.
- The law doesn’t deny you personhood based on age, personal appearance, size, level of development, degree of dependency, or current temporary lack of consciousness.
- The law protects your life, even if your mother wants to end it.
- Society doesn’t try to justify killing you based on the hardships experienced by your mother. Instead, we try to help both you and your mother through your hardships.
- People who fight for your basic, most fundamental right to live are almost universally supported and encouraged. No one accuses them of being religious theocrats who just want to force their beliefs on everyone else and who want to oppress women. (Note: This privilege is obviously not experienced by death row inmates.)
- Your right to live is almost universally acknowledged and respected by everyone, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof. (Note: This privilege is obviously not experienced by death row inmates.)
- There is not a dedicated movement of people who honestly believe that only through having the right to kill you, an innocent human being, can women achieve equality with men and be liberated from the bonds of patriarchal oppression.
- No one denies that you are, in fact, a human being.
- The UN and various NGOs do not suggest that the killing of people like you is an important and acceptable way to reduce world overpopulation.
I could go on, but by now you should get the general idea. While there are many groups oppressed in our society, which still struggles to recognize the dream of “liberty and justice for all”, no group is more oppressed than the unborn. No other group has their personhood, humanity, and right to life (which is the most fundamental human right on which all other rights depend) regularly denied by society. Modern progressives need to realize that in order to truly stand up for social justice for all of humanity, it is absolutely necessary to fight for the unborn and their rights as well.
This is one of the best columns I've ever read on this blog – and I visit SPL's blog on a regular basis.
100% of agreement with everything you say.
well done there!
You know, we do.
I might quibble with the statement that "no group is more oppressed", as it seems to me to take something away from the exposure of the common thread between the unborn and other dehumanized people (I recall seeing an excellent and thorough chart showing parallel examples of dehumanization of various groups of people, including the unborn, in the book Consistently Opposing Killing). Good connection, though, and I wholeheartedly agree that concern for the under-privileged should naturally include the unborn. It is truly shameful that this concern has been so artificially divided along political lines.
Thank you, Anton, for that illustration of privilege #8.
I was anxious that, upon reading this entry, that the author would dismiss the exercise of checking one's privileges. I am glad to see that that is not the case. Very good list here! The pro-life movement would benefit from "traditional" exercises in privileged checking, as it may give insight into how to relate to groups of people whom we are trying to dictate our form of morality to.
Anton-the government already controls your body to a certain extent. You can't drink excessive amounts of alcohol and then put your body behind the wheel of a car and use your body to drive yourself somewhere. We also have mandatory vaccine laws. Unless you support legalizing drunk driving and oppose all immunization laws, you have no credibility when it comes to talking about absolute bodily integrity.
Let's change your words around a bit to see how well it works.
"I do deny the personhood of women I rape because to me that's preferable to pretending that a man has no rights over what happens inside his own body".
See how silly that is? There is no right to absolute bodily autonomy, ESPECIALLY when it comes to how that "body" interacts with other "bodies" (or, as they are typically called, people).
Excellent post. Well thought out, well put.
From my experience, it only serves to make them spin their heads around and vomit split pea soup.
Well if a man and woman are copulating, can you say she can take a knife and reach in there and cut off his penis because it is happening inside her own body? The point is that there is another body there that she shouldn't be allowed to harm. it doesn't matter if it happens to be inside of her, it isn't her and noting is going to change that.
The reason the unborn have been "left behind" is because many people have been convinced that the unborn is not a human being at all, often saying that the "clump of cells" developing in a woman's uterus is no more human that a piece of dead skin or a strand of hair. What they forget is neither of the aforementioned things actually develops into a baby.
Definitely a good example of privilege #8.
Worst.
Analogy.
Ever.
According to pro-lifers, women should only have the freedom to breed.
It does develop into a baby, but an embryo/fetus is not a baby.
Why is that?
This is not true at all. You are creating a strawman. Please do not insult our intelligence.
Baby is a term of endearment for a young human. A fetus or embryo is not an infant, but it fits the description of young human.
A baby is a new or recently born human.
A fetus or embryo is developing into a baby.
Well that's clearly a ridiculous statement.
The thing is, it doesn't matter what you call it. A fetus is a human. An embryo is a human. You are the same human organism that you were after fertilization. A human's "ontogeny" begins at fertilization.
I don't consider an embryo/fetus to be a human so it doesn't matter what you consider it to be.
If I end up pregnant I have the legal right to not have my uterus used against my will for the embryo/fetus to develop.
Oh! It's not human? So then is it a dog? Did two human gametes join to form an elephant embryo? How does a non-human turn into a human?
No it is a developing embryo/fetus which develops into a human.
I don't think you know your biology too well.
“Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed." -(O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29
“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human begins begin at conception."- Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D.
“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500
"It is an established fact that life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception…"- r. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and physician at the Mayo Clinic
A human begins to form and develop but an embryo/fetus is not a fully developed human until it can survive without the use of a woman's body and life.
You're not a fully developed human until you're 25. Don't you remember puberty?
Hey well since I am over 25 I guess I am ok then….
But by fully developed human I mean it doesn't require the woman's uterus to live.
So, needing someone else to survive means we can kill them. Hm. Let's ask some conjoined twins.
Difference is they aren't inside each other's body… They aren't making each other suffer all day every day.
There are conjoined twins that are attached by the brain… Why is the uterus a magical organ?
I doubt conjoined twins at the brain have a very decent quality of life…
The uterus is inside a woman's body and the fetus/embryo that develops in there can destroy the woman's life.
It could harm the mother's body potentially, but possibly having a health problem doesn't give you a reason to kill another person.
Also, let me find something. Watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9954BajOh4
A woman should not have to risk her health, life, and happiness to bring a pregnancy to term.
A woman should not have to kill a human to attain happiness and health though. Pro-lifers do so much to try to provide resources to women so that they can keep going with their life.
An unwanted pregnancy can and does take away a woman's health and happiness though.
There is nothing that can be done to make pregnancy not be a miserable experience for some women.
Being unhappy does not give you a right to kill.Being miserable does not give you a right to kill.
A woman should give up everything? I'm not pregnant, but it seems like pregnancy is less stressful than parenting. Nobody wants a woman to suffer, but we also don't want another human being to be ripped at the limbs, spinal cord slashed, sucked through a vacuum, poisoned with a saline solution that burns the skin and in the throat.
I think pregnancy and parenting both sound pretty miserable to me. Just with pregnancy there is no escaping the suffering with parenting the parent can give the kid away if they really are that unhappy.
"no escaping the suffering?" It's called waiting. Pregnancy isn't permanent.
But when the suffering is as bad as pregnancy would be it would feel permanent.
Do you think about what you write before you write it? Because this seems to be your tactic so far:
You: Claim A
Rachel: No, Claim A is false. Here's why.
You: Oh yeah well Claim B!
Rinse and repeat.
The term is pro-lifers, not anti-choicers It's hard to take your views seriously when you can't even get the basic terminology right.
This is EXACTLY why we have this "left behind" problem.
By that logic, it's ok to kill premature babies outside the womb.
Let's not forget ad nauseum repetition of previous "points" on someone45's part.
Do you know the difference between haploid and diploid cells? At fertilization the gametes fuze to form a genetically distinct human being.
Of course a developing human is still a human. As a pro-choicer, you are simply wasting your time arguing that point. But your second point is still valid.
I encourage everyone to read a wonderful book that I'm reading now: "The Abortion Myth". The author discusses how the argument over "rights" is not the only type of moral argument to have. Being pro-choice means a woman gets to choice if & when she decides to become a mother. She can do this by avoiding pregnancy, either by abstinence or contraception or if that fails, terminating a pregnancy. The women who have had abortion in the book talk not of convenience, but of responsibility. They felt it was more irresponsible to give a child away & have nothing to do with it than to have an abortion. They didn't want to bring a child into the world where not only could they not care for it, but they couldn't control who would. That it would be better for the fetus to suffer for an instant, if at all, rather than suffer for a lifetime.
Many women who have abortions as you may know, are already mothers & they are doing what they think is bast for their born children. If for instance, they are living hand to mouth should she risk losing all her children by bringing another into the world?
Killing a human being is not in their best interest.
And once you conceive, you are already a mother, you've created offspring. Killing your child doesn't negate that.
Most appropriate avatar ever!
I can see you thought hard on this difficult & emotional issue. Thanks for the input.
Pro-life is automatically an absurdly emotionally masturbatory self-title b/c it implies that everyone who doesn't agree with you is pro-death/killing all the time in every case, which is of course nonsense. And you get to feel all warm & fuzz about all the babies you somehow give yourself credit for "saving", even if they die of neglect in poverty or are born with a severe disability that give them only hours to live.
Pro-choice actually supports a woman's right to choose motherhood or not, and the right to choose abortion that is safe & legal rather than die in desperation at the hands of a quack.
Yeah, the man is capable of withdrawing his penis & putting into someone or something else. He doesn't need his penis to be in that specific woman & she doesn't have to provide him with life support.
As for a woman not being allowed to harm the person in her body:What if she gets the DTs & can't go through the withdrawal while pregnant & drinks every night throughout the pregnancy? It's long been known that alcohol is a powerful neurological teratogen, look up fetal alcohol syndrome. The mother is indeed harming her child while it's in her body. But what is the solution Do you think she should be strapped to a hospital bed forced to detox until she gives birth? Do you arrest her for child endangerment? It's not meant to e an easily answered question, I'm not sure how to answer that myself. But I can say once the government has a hold on what goes on in a woman's reproductive system, all options are on the table to "protect" the fetus. Women & their doctors will be arrested for abortion & women who miscarry will be treated as murder suspects. Just look at what's going on in El Salvado..
Hear hear, Rachel B. Pro-life has co-opted the language of victimization, which they apply to a fetus for no better reason than they can feel virtuous about hating on women who have sex for pleasure.
How much fairness and sanity do you expect from a hate group?
That small video misconstrues the bodily autonomy argument. Those girls would likely both die if they chose separation. I mean really, is it really that likely that one of them would say "hey, let's separate cuz I'd rather die that be stuck to you"? No.
And every set of conjoined twins is unique in where they are attached & what organs, limbs & skeletal structures are shared. Some twins
Well, the risk of dying doesn't change the fact that they're totally dependent on each other. The fetus, like each twin, has its own set of organs, skeletal structure, DNA, etc. The fetus is an individual human despite its reliance on the woman.
Why is the attachment to the uterus such a magical organ?
If you object, I have yet to hear why. Your comment is the equivalent of rolling your eyes. k?
You missed the point. Pro-choicers often say that if you are dependent on another body to live, then you are not a person (you have to be physically independent to be a person). So by extension, these girls are "not people". Either PCers agree or they have to explain why bodily dependency "doesn't count" in this case.
Not at all since it is no longer requiring the pregnant woman to suffer everyday for it.
You are against women making a choice over whether or not they have a kid. You are only pro-life when it comes to the fetus. You are not pro-life when it comes to the woman.
You don't care about her life at all.
No actually I still believe everything I say. I know pregnancy isn't permanent, but the amount of suffering that a pregnant woman would have to endure would make it feel that way to her. There is no way she could escape the nine months of suffering.
This was really interesting and I think really shows how the unborn (but alive) are discriminated against. The last paragraph really hits me today as I was doing some light research into the 2016 Presidential election and exploring some of the lesser known political parties.
It always gets to me how some groups, such as political parties, claim they want social justice and human rights for all, yet also state they are pro choice, or for "reproductive freedom" (1), and we all know what that actually means. Freedom to abort for ANY reason, including inconvenience, freedom from responsibility for consensual actions.Even Freedom of Speech has exceptions, you can't make bomb threats legally or slander someone. I think a human being's whose death would result from one's "reproductive freedom' is a pretty good exception to it. (If I worded that sensibly).
1- Read that while checking out the new Justice Party's website. http://www.justicepartyusa.org/platform Ironic name since they don't seem to want justice for every human being. Bummed me out because otherwise it looked promising though I don't understand everything as I am not that politically or economically adept . Also Ironically, the "reproductive freedom' term is way at the bottom of the Social Justice part.
Hm, baby could possibly be subjective (though it's funny how many people say things like "the baby is kicking!" if that is indeed not a baby) but the term "child" is pretty clear. So, fine we can say 'child' instead of baby.
: a young person
: a son or daughter
: an adult who acts like a child : a childlike or childish person
plural chil·dren
Full Definition of CHILD
1
a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant
2
a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age .http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
feel free to argue 2a says "especially BETWEEN infancy and youth" however 'especially' does not mean only. and 1a is pretty clear.
Agreed LN. Not to mention the inconsistency:
someone45
6 days ago
I don't consider an embryo/fetus tobe a human so it doesn't matter what you consider it to be.
someone45
6 days ago
No it is a developing embryo/fetus which develops into a human.
And then when Rachel quotes the Mayo Clinic they change their tune:
someone45
A human begins to form and
develop but an embryo/fetus is not a fully developed human until it can
survive without the use of a woman's body and life.
End Quotes (I had some trouble copying and pasting but anyone can look up at see all the actual posts)
Hm..so first embryo's aren't of the homo sapien aka 'human' species..(makes you wonder what species they ARE to 'turn into' humans.) Then when faced with facts they ARE of the human species, just not fully developed yet (which none of us here would dispute I think).
I really just wish instead of saying contradicting things and consensual things like human's aren't humans, a pro choice person would just admit they don't believe all human beings have value and deserve equal rights. I can respect (though not agree with) someone who says that over hiding behind other things.
.
someone, maybe you are not aware of this, but a women's body (in the most usual circumstances, there are always outliers as no on is exactly the same) is made to handle pregnancy. Otherwise, they/we (I'm assuming your female from your posts but sorry if I am mistaken) wouldn't be the one's to give birth. I just mean in the physical sense, if a women absolutely does not want children she is free to undergo permanent birth control.
Frankly, a women's discomfort due to pregnancy is not a strong enough reason to end the developing human's life. Perhaps you can give some specific examples on situations where the discomfort is so sever it is deadly to the women? Or could become so? My grandmother threw up constantly with her pregnancies but she still had another child after my aunt, and tried for a boy a few times also since she had girls. I ave not yet got the pleasure of starting my family yet, but I am aware pregant women have issues such as back pain , feet , swelling, nausea, etc. However I have never heard of this being so unbearable one felt the only action was to abort. Again, some examples would be great.
The Pro Life name is not meant to say anything about the Pro Choice thinking, other than there is a difference. Pro-Life merely means we are for Life as the only solution, we do not want anyone's life to have to be lost. If the Pro Choice moment is insecure about their name then they can freely re label themselves.
It is possible there are radicals in the Pro Life movement who are trying to say the name means more or that Pro Choice means ONLY ending lives, but that is not all of us. There are radicals in every group of people as everyone is an individual.
If you cannot afford more children you have the option of permanent birth control. Why do I never hear a pro choicer tout that 'choice?' I will say it's sad women feel it's irresponsible to give up their children, and I know there is sometimes a stigma about it. I would like to see that stigma go away. It's sad too that the women in this book probably did not know all their adoption choices, like how there are ones where you get to pick the family, there are ones where you can even still visit your child and be a part of their life if you choose (there's another choice right there for you).
I can give someone credit for wanting to end their child's suffering, but the problem is , how do you know for sure they will suffer? My adopted friend wasn't suffering last time I checked -he was having girl problems but that's about it. I think it's a bit unfair to assume someone is better off dead when none of us can predict the future.
And I also think it's unfair that pro choicers (not saying you specifically) demand that pro lifers are the only ones who should help alleviate suffer, when poverty, hunger, illness, etc are issues that can affect anyone and should be everyone's responsibility.
*shakes head* Ok see no one is saying we don't care about women, otherwise we wouldn't have pregnancy crises center, adoption information, counseling (usually part of the crises pregnancy center services) for those who have gone through abortions (possibly even botched ones). I guess wanting them to have paid maternity leave isn't' supportive either?
If you look around, ask around you will find many pro life people want the women to feel she CAN continue her pregnancy because she has the support she needs, be it emotionally or financial.
In that sense, we ARE pro life towards women. However, a pregnant women has already survived being inside their mother's womb, her life is not in danger of abortion. That is WHY there has to be a pro life movement, because while the pro choice movement does focus on the mother/pregnant women primarily, they do NOT focus on the fetus/new human being and their rights. Correct me if I"m wrong, but I have yet to see one pro choice person say the draw lines anywhere, such as not aborting out of convenience, only rape (which would at least give them sooome credibility, as I do understand the rape situation even though I don't agree to abortion in that case). Pro choicers claim they want the women to have the chose to abort OR have her/their (it takes two) child, yet I never see any of them suggesting ways to make it easier for a women to exercise motherhood. It's always abort the fetus, the fetus isn't a baby, the fetus isnt' human etc.
How can Pro choice people claim they are for choice if the majority of the movement I see only focus on the women's 'right' to end her child's life? (and child IS a dictionary correct term for a young human or unborn. Please take it to mean in this sentence and any others I write as a human in the womb in any stage of life, )
Insomnia to where the woman only sleeps maybe 2-3 hours a night every night. Lack of sleep can cause all kinds of other health problems and lack of sleep can cause the woman to be a danger to others because she can't function.
The crisis pregnancy centers are really for the woman. They are to convince her to carry the unwanted pregnancy to term. They may do things to help her but the end result that you guys want is for her to continue with the unwanted pregnancy.
If a woman doesn't want a child nothing would make motherhood easier. Nothing would make her decide that pregnancy and motherhood was something she suddenly wanted.
Why do you keep insisting that we hate on women for sexual pleasure?
DEAR LORD I HAVE A VIBRATOR COLLECTION. My partner and I use a strapon. I'm a peer sex educator!
Safe and legal? Do you remember that one time the American Academy of Pediatrics tried to make female genital mutilation legal because people would do it anyways in dangerous ways?
Rachel, I'll bet your sense of moral superiority excites you more than any battery-powered device ever could.
It concerns me that you can't admittedly evidence in front of you- that we're not sex hating misogynistic sadists who conspire about how to ruin women's lives.
I see what you mean, and yes I would consider that an atypical case where a women needs to work with her doctor to devise the best health plane for her. I would say if these health problems are caught in time, it still may be in her best interest then to undergo sterilization (but I am not a doctor and again she needs to discuss her options with her doctor) to avoid further health problems that may be caused by carrying a pregnancy (the strain most people can handle could indeed be difficult for someone in special circumstances). I would hope though that in the event conception and pregnancy actually occurs, effort would be made to try and safe a child and not just jump to abortion.
I say sterilization but if her partner getting a vasectomy is safer and feasible by all means do that. Whatever is best for one's lifestyle and health situations.
In most cases, the woman does have a choice. In such cases, she needs to think before she engages in a procreative act-both partners do. The possibility of unplanned pregnancy should be thought about, and complete knowledge of your birth control method should be knows as well (how to use, effectiveness rate, etc). You should look at your financial situation, take some time when you are free to gather knowledge about where you can go for help with an unplanned pregnancy (such as your local DHS)
No one is perfect, and I'm not saying you should do all these things in one day. But before you have sex with anyone you should think about possibly emotional consequences and unplanned pregnancy. There are very few reasons I think where a Pro Life solution cannot be found. Rare cases where the new child cannot be saved are a possibility, but the intent should be to not lose anyone's life, mother or child. Intent is important and speaks to our character as individuals and since we are talking about abortion laws: a society.
Oh, if one does want a child though there is also surrogacy. I don't know anything about fees (I know the person/couple usually has to pay for prenatal care which makes sense) but it IS an option in that it exists. I also would of course advocate adoption. But I understand many people really want their own biological children. I myself kind of want to do both.
lulls way to put your personal life out there for the sake of the innocent Rachel! I give you brownie points. ^_^
Thanks. This is an excellent post which I am going to share with others.
No problemo!
That actually is fantastic!
Just use the terms anti abortion and pro abortion.
Shut the fuck up about privilege. Everyone has and lacks certain privileges. This is just more of the same identity obsessive nonsense that allows postmodern people to ignore more relevant and pressing issues.
You also could just have avoided getting pregnant since all manner of birth control are available to you thanks to the "patriarchy".
No, you only require your parents and/or the state's coerced redistribution of wealth to subsidize your existence.
So the only thing that matters is what a woman wants.
So are you interested in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? I can't quite pin down what sort of fascist you are.
I think we should put women like you back into cages.
To be fair a woman's unhappiness has been used for centuries to excuse her murdering children, husbands, and neighbors. You can thank your protestant court system for that,
Yes but what you anti-choicers fail to understand is that birth control, even when used perfectly still fails.
I don't require anything from my parents. I pay all my own bills and the only thing I ever required from the state was student loans and financial aid because I wasn't "lucky" enough to come from a rich family where every thing is just handed to me.
Now I know people like you probably think I shouldn't be allowed to go to college since I needed help paying for it. However I have already paid back one of my loans and am working toward the other. So stop assuming I take any of "your hard earned money".
She is the only person (besides the man who got her pregnant) involved in the decision. So the main thing that matters is what she wants since she is the one suffering and it is HER body.
I think people like you think all women belong in cages. I think people like you are afraid of any woman taking a stand for her body and her life.
Actually, there are some very positive health benefits to carrying a baby to term, and some serious health concerns after an abortion. Ex: some autoimmune conditions are greatly improved. An abortion can put you at greater risk of breast cancer because of the free radicals in the body with no place to go.
Yes, women experience some 'misery' during pregnancy. It lasts 36-40 weeks on average and then it's over. Millions of women have survived multiple pregnancies and are surviving just fine. That cannot be said for millions of women who were aborted so her mother didn't have to "be miserable" in her life. The irony is, many of these mothers are now still suffering psychologically and will for many years because of the choice that they made. No one is better off because of abortion. No one.
There are no benefits in carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Besides the obvious (throwing up all day, insomnia, constipation) there is depression, job loss, eclampsia, amd gestational diabetes.
Then there is the risk of complications in child birth. I think I'll pass on any close to a third or fourth degree tear near my lady parts…
An abortion does not increase risk of breast cancer. I wish I had saved the study I found that proved that to me nothing but an anti-choice lie.
These women who had multiple pregnancies probably wanted kids. They got something out of it for all of their suffering. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy gets nothing at all but suffering out of it.
Not everyone regrets an abortion. Many women have them and never think about it again. Some women know it was the right choice and the only choice for their life.
The idea of Pro-Choice is a novel one… would it not be a wonderous thing if Pro-Choice supporters also behaved in a Pro-Responsibility fashion and made their choice NOT to procreate BEFORE engaging in the act of procreation.
I believe in responsibility. I think every woman and man should always use protection any time they have sex if they don't want kids. I just don't think they should be punished if it fails.
Your uterus used against your will?? It was your will to have unprotected sex and become pregnant. That makes you and your uterus responsible for that decision and thus responsible to carry the baby to full term and give birth. Wow…..
So you are one of the ones who believe in the magical 100% effective birth control. I REALLY wish they had better sex ed programs….
My uterus- My choice what happens to it. I have no responsibility to give up my life for the unwanted pregnancy.
While I find the "check your privilege" sjw crowd to be the worst of the scum of society, I applaud this article's ability to turn their own weapon on their heads to show their hypocrisy.
Actually it is the woman who is making the baby suffer, not the other way around. The fetus isn't responsible for being created, it is merely doing exactly what it was suppose to do under the circumstances of it's creation. The parents are the ones at fault and they are the ones who deny the child it's right to do exactly what it was doing. The woman is the one making it suffer and denying it's right to person hood. You really need to check your privilege like the article said. You act like the woman is the victim when it is literally the other way around.
There is no baby. It is an embryo/zygote and it has no ability to think or feel pain. It is not suffering.
It does not gain the right to person hood until it can survive outside the body of the actual person. I just do not understand why anti-choicers view women as so inferior.
But in 95% of cases, she CHOSE to engage in that behavior. There are other avenues to not raising a child, like adoption. The child gets a shot at having a future, and the mother isn't responsible. Win/win.
Then she shouldn't have sex in the first place. Sex causing pregnancy is common knowledge, so there is no excuse to be ignorant of the risks of pregnancy.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and women have the right to enjoy a healthy sex life with their boyfriend or husband without the fear of the punishment of pregnancy.
Adoption is not win/win. If the woman does not want to be pregnant it is a lose/lose for her. She has her life destroyed and gets nothing out of it but depression, misery, and a huge medical bill.
You don't just "end up pregnant." I think they forget to tell people in sex ed class that sexual intercourse causes babies.
An abortion isn't very good for your health either.
Yes, it is, as sex exists for reproduction, and thus an inherent risk that is taken by choosing to engage in sex.
You want to reduce the risk? Use condoms, birth control, sterilization, contraceptive sponges, or a combination thereof.
Further, people like you are the problem, that view pregnancy and children as a punishment. I know many people that have had unexpected pregnancies, both in and out of wedlock, and they looked at it in a much more positive way, by showing compassion to the new life, rather than contempt, because they accepted the responsibility of their actions. It's a little something called being an adult. One of them is even a rape victim, btw. She concluded that it wasn't right to punish her daughter for the sins of her father.
If you don't want kids, either take precautions or just don't have sex. Very simple, really. Better to prevent a life than destroy it.
And yes, the unborn ARE alive, just consult a biology text book of your choice, as all of them indicate that the unborn count as alive. They may not be sentient, but they are alive.
Sex might exist for some people for reproduction but to the people who want a child free life that is not its purpose.
I also always use protection. I am not sure why all anti-choicers assume that pro-choice people never use it…
Unwanted pregnancy and unwanted kids WOULD be a punishment. It would destroy my life and any chance I had at happiness.
As for the rape victim you mentioned. Good for her. She had a choice and she made the one that was right for her. I would hope every rape victim would have the same right. Even if that means an abortion.
It is better then an unwanted pregnancy and unwanted birth.
I think they also forgot to tell some people that BC isn't 100%.