Leftist, Feminist, Atheist, Pro-Life, Rocker Chick: abortion

Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

Not wanting kids doesn't make us any more likely to abuse them

Pro-choicers have a tendency to say that having a kid that you don't want means that you will abuse them. For some reason, this oppression against people who don't want kids goes unchallenged, even as pro-choicers claim to support our right to be childfree. But you cannot stand for our rights while saying we're more likely to abuse kids than people who want them. All that does is "other" us and make it seem like you think our natural state of being is abusive, or at least abusive toward vulnerable children, which is even worse and such a huge and patronizing slap in the face.

This doesn't make you seem like you care about someone's right to choose, it makes you seem like assholes. We are not ANY more likely to abuse someone just because we don't want them. We have empathy, a conscience, and the ability to reason. We have the same ability to treat children with respect, kindness, compassion, and love as anyone who wants kids. Just like if someone were to drop a random 5 year old off at the house of someone who wanted kids and there was no one there to take care of them, they would treat them with respect and kindness they deserve even though that particular child was unwanted, the same goes for people who don't want kids having to take care of one from birth.

How fucking dare you. How dare you act like the simple concept of not wanting kids makes us abusive. How dare you act like abuse is about not wanting kids when so many people who were planned and wanted were abused, and so many people who were unwanted were shown love and respect. Abuse has nothing to do with wantedness and everything to do with the parents being raised to believe that things like spanking and tough love and screaming aren't abuse and are actually good for the kid. Most abusive parents don't think of themselves as abusers at all, they think they were good parents. How dare you look down upon someone who just gave birth without wanting to and act like they will then abuse the child.

To go through all the complicated feelings that come along with having a child without wanting to is a vulnerable process, and those dealing with it deserve a hell of a lot better than so called "pro-choicers" claiming that they will hurt these vulnerable beings because of it. To support people's right to be childfree by choice is to cut out this narrative and understand that someone isn't lacking compassion just because they don't want someone else.

Monday, January 23, 2023

Why Gun Abolishment is needed for the Consistent Life Ethic and for Leftist Values

There's a bit of hypocrisy with the CLE and Leftist spaces not talking that much about gun abolition despite support of guns fundamentally clashing with all of the other values. Though there is a rising number of people who are because they are fed up with the amount of mass shootings in the US. But here are some of the reasons gun abolition fits in well with leftistism and the consistent life ethic.

Guns are the ultimate way to value property over people. When people say they would shoot someone who was trying to take their gun, they are showing that an object means more to them than someone else's life. They are putting the right to life below the right to own property. They are an example of someone who shouldn't own a gun because they think it's ok to kill someone so easily.

Thousands of accidental shootings happen in the US each year from guns. This is something that will never be able to go away based on giving people mental health because they were unintentional. It also means that gun control won't work in this area because someone could pass all the checks and still accidentally shoot someone. This happens in many different ways too...adults accidentally shooting kids, kids accidentally shooting adults, guns malfunctioning, cats and dogs accidentally stepping on guns and setting them off etc. Those lives shouldn't be cast aside as necessary casualties because people don't want to give up their guns.

The Gun Industrial Complex makes a lot of money off of the sales of guns, accessories, hunting licenses etc. There are many different companies who have their hands in the pot when it comes to guns. The NRA is the head of the gun lobby and makes sure that guns remain legal because it's a multi billion dollar industry, bringing in tens of billions of dollars per year.

There are a million different ways to defend yourself and the idea that we have no other choice but to use guns to defend ourselves is manipulative and comes from the gun industry saying that because they just want to make money, just like how the abortion industry manipulates people into thinking they need abortion in order to have freedom. It's a capitalistic effort. People defend themselves in many different ways and with many different things on a constant basis and yet the gun lobby makes sure that the concept of self-defense is tied to guns so that people feel like they *need* guns...like they have no other choice but to buy guns or else they'll die. As we have seen with other subjects, industries make people feel like they have no other choice but to do something because it's the easiest way to make sure they do it and help pump billions into the industry.

This has resulted in there being over a hundred million more guns than people in the US. "More guns" can never be the answer when there is an excess of guns already. We have too many guns to even use. Because of the capitalist effort of the Gun Industrial Complex convincing more and more people to support guns so that the industry turns a profit, even when it goes against their other values, guns now outnumber the number of people that can use them. We need to go after the manufacturers who are preying on the vulnerable to get them to support guns so that they can turn a profit with their blood money.

Due to the capitalistic efforts of the gun lobby and industry, gun culture here in the USA is extreme and that's why so many people support guns here. They wouldn't had they been raised somewhere else, which we have seen by the rest of the world being extremely confused and scared by our gun culture. People are afraid to travel here because of the huge amount of gun support. Gun culture is a systemically oppressive power structure. It's an extreme form of toxic masculinity. It's treated as normal and kids are raised to believe that buying a gun is no big deal. Parents teach their kids how to shoot at young ages so that they think that's just what people do.

Guns cause a lot of trauma for groups that are most affected by them, such as women and POC and LGBTQIA+ folks. Women and female bodied people are many times more likely to die in domestic violence situations with a gun in the house. POC are more likely to die by the police shooting them than white people are. The answer to the police or the government having guns is not to make it easier for them to have guns, it's to call for disarmament and abolishment.

But instead of calling to disarm the police, people call to support more guns. When we are told that we have to use that which oppresses us, we are being oppressed further. It's like telling us that to fight rape, we have to become rapists ourselves. That harms us as well. When you, your friends or family members, or your minority group has been affected by gun violence, it is traumatizing to see people support guns. I love orgs like Gays Against Guns because they help show that minority groups, which are disproportionately victims of gun violence, need to stand up against guns, not support them. The systems that oppress us want us to support guns so that we will continue to be oppressed. It allows easier access for our oppressors to get their hands on guns.

The second amendment needs to be repealed because it is an unjust law. Just because a law exist doesn't mean it should continue to exist. We know this because Roe v Wade is an unjust law that was repealed for being unjust. There's no good reason to own a gun. Hunting animals is wrong, and there are a million different ways to defend yourself outside of guns. There are even various other objects to use for target practice. They're not needed even if the Gun Industrial Complex tries to manipulate us into believing they are.

The idea that banning guns won't stop people from getting guns is no different from the idea that banning abortions won't stop people from getting abortions. We already know that that's a bad argument so we shouldn't be using it with other subjects. Though banning isn't the end all be all. We need a cultural shift. We need each individual being able to have the strength to pull themselves out of the clutches of the lies that the gun lobby has spread and taking a stand against it.

When people bring up cars, they don't seem to realize that if the sole purpose of cars was to hurt and kill then yes everyone would support them being banned. And if you can use any household object to kill someone then you can use those same household objects to defend yourself and you don't need a gun. And if people kill people, and the problem is people, then why would you want the problem to have guns? The arguments those who support guns use are hypocritical in terms of how they view other subjects and just bad arguments overall.

It's hypocritical to support guns while being against the death penalty or assisted suicide. If you think a murderer shouldn't be killed for being a murderer (and I agree) then it makes no sense to say that someone robbing you should be shot to death. If you think people shouldn't be killed in war (and I agree) then it makes no sense to say someone breaking into your home while they think you are away should be shot to death. Guns are also the ultimate way to provide suicide assistance because it's one of the more lethal ways to do it and a hell of a lot more people would kill themselves if they had access to guns. It makes no sense to say you are against euthanasia/assisted suicide, or say phrases like "suicide prevention, not suicide assistance" and then turn around and support putting guns into the hands of people who will later use them to kill themselves.

There's nothing about supporting guns that fits in with a culture of life, equity, and social justice. Guns are violence just like abortion, war, the death penalty, animal agriculture, and police brutality. The arguments used to support guns are very similar, if not exactly the same, to the arguments to support of any other form of violence. Guns inherently go against the right to life. For further reading, please check out The Socialist Case for Gun Control by Nivedita Majumdar and What Gun Control Advocates Can Learn From Abolitionists: Slave ownership was once as entrenched in American life as gun ownership. by Manisha Sinha and Rebecca Onion.

Friday, July 8, 2022

Could videos of abortions happening change people's outlook?

Since Roe has been overturned, I've had more moments of wondering how on earth so many people have successfully been manipulated into believing that state sanctioned child genocide and the mass exploitation of women and pregnant people is not that at all but rather "healthcare" "bodily autonomy" "reproductive rights" or "scraping cells out of our bodies." I'm aware of the history of how powerful the abortion industry is and how they have come up with these phrases to control the public, but still, it seems like more people would have realized they were being lied to by this point.

I've often been in the middle of the "graphic images" debate because on the one hand, I don't want anyone who has miscarried or aborted to feel triggered, and a lot of people seem defensive and enraged when looking at them which makes it seem like they don't do much, but on the other hand, I think everyone should know what it is they are fighting for or against because otherwise you don't have informed consent. Abortion pictures often cause people to say "they're just dolls!" because they have been manipulated by the abortion industry into believing that, but what about videos of abortions happening? It's much harder to claim they are "just dolls" when you're staring at a doctor's eye view of a woman's cervix being opened a little bit with arms and legs being ripped out as the child bleeds to death and the rest of their body is pulled out. Even Live Action's videos of the former abortion Dr. Anthony Levatino describing how abortions happen has changed minds. You can watch the full thing here.

There's an animal rights activist group called Anonymous for the Voiceless which has what they call "Cube of Truth"s where people stand back to back in a cube and hold tablets or ipads with slaughterhouse footage so that people can see the reality of what it is they are eating. Those in the cube who aren't holding devices are holding signs that say "truth". They have people next to the cube who do outreach and tell people what they are seeing or ask what they think about it to get into a discussion about the subject. I've often thought this might be a good idea for abortion too, because just like if slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian or vegan, if wombs had glass walls, everyone would be pro-life. People support abortion because they know not what it is. So I want to compile videos of abortions happening here. So far I've only found these three, but if you know of any more, please comment. And of course, viewer discretion is advised, so trigger warning for graphic video of abortions happening...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdDfQeEI24o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53S5zO1RgTY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X8_WEFq15Q

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Unconventional Pro-Life Groups

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

If the unborn is a human...

If the unborn is not a human, no justification for abortion is necessary (all abortions would be no different than using a condom and there would be no reason for abortion to be a "tough, gut-wrenching choice that no one wants to make" as a lot of pro-choicers describe it).

However, if the unborn is a human, no justification for abortion is adequate (not the fact that we're poor, not the fact that we're single, not the fact that we have career goals, not the fact that we don't want to be mothers etc. Being labelled as "unwanted" by someone else could never possibly be a reason to kill someone, lest we want to create the world's most totalitarian society.)

Science does indeed tell us that the unborn are distinct living human beings and not just clumps of human cells.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Pro-Choice Violence.

This is no where near all the stories but I wanted to at least show what I have collected so far.

http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/category/pro-choice-violence/
http://www.gargaro.com/otherside.html
http://www.rightgrrl.com/2001/belltolls.shtml
http://www.prochoiceviolence.com/
http://www.hli.org/resources/pro-abortion-violence-setting-the-record-straight/
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2017/02/disgusting-so-called-people.html
http://www.mrc.org/eye-culture/media-repeatedly-ignores-violent-attacks-against-pro-lifers
--Jim Poullion murdered by Harlan James Drake:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jim-pouillon-anti-abortion-activist-murdered-in-front-of-school/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/11/michigan.shooting/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jim_Pouillon
--Anne Gordon murdered by Eric Paul Henry
http://archive.lifenews.com/state3171.html

https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/abortion-advocate-throws-molotov-cocktail-at-pro-lifers-outside-planned-parenthood/

Derrick Doss waving a gun:
https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/2-gun-incidents-outside-abortion-clinics-only-one-arrest/
http://www.guns.com/2015/07/10/man-arrested-after-pulling-gun-on-protesters-at-abortion-clinic-video/

http://www.theinterim.com/events/lifechain/assailant-found-guilty-in-toronto-lifechain-attack/
http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/pro-lifer-assaulted-in-michigan/
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2001-02-05/article/3313
http://www.hli.org/2011/09/hli-condemns-attacks-on-french-pro-lifers/
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/27/pro-choice-man-pleads-guilty-in-case-of-swerving-car-at-pro-lifer/
https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/theft-battery-vandalism-charges-filed-against-pro-choice-professor/

http://www.independent.com/news/2014/mar/21/ucsb-professor-charged-theft-and-battery-after-con/
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/16673/
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/12/feminist-studies-professor-leads-angry-mob-to-assault-pro-lifers/

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/abortion-extremist-faces-4-year-jail-term-article-1.1076120
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pro-abortion-extremist-pleads-guilty-making-death-threats-against-pro-life-activists

https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/man-threatens-to-shoot-abortion-protesters-becomes-physical-as-wife-exits-clinic/
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/man-arrested-punching-87-year-old-woman-back-while-she-protested-abortion
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/01/31/police-had-to-form-human-shield-around-pro-lifers-to-protect-them-from-abortion-activists/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhH4Vwy5agc (Pat McKinley on the LAPD's Torture of Pro-Life Protesters with Nunchucks)
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/27/abortion-activist-laura-levites-says-pro-life-teen-should-be-murdered/
http://studentsforlife.org/purdue-staff-member-calls-for-rape-of-pro-life-students/
http://studentsforlife.org/purdue-professor-calls-pro-life-students-vile-racist-idiots/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/video-liberal-arrested-shoving-bloody-maxi-pad-pro-lifers-mouth/
https://www.facebook.com/babeswhodgaf/videos/1516907568321532/?comment_id=1331182580291887
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/attack-on-pro-life-activist-at-an-abortion-facility-results-in-capture-of-child-rapist/
http://www.denverpost.com/2014/03/06/man-on-trial-in-denver-for-sex-assault-killed-himself/
https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-i-called-the-police-at-the-abortion-facility-last-month/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/22426/pro-abortion-topless-feminists-attack-catholic-amanda-prestigiacomo#exit-modal
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/11/09/professor-wants-to-beat-the-s-out-of-pro-life-students-protesting-planned-parenthood/
http://liveactionnews.org/five-disturbing-pro-choice-insults-extensive-hate-mail-collection/
https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/38680/
http://www.wdam.com/Global/story.asp?S=12743818
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ms-supreme-court/1529928.html
https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/2008-former-planned-parenthood-doc-got-6-years-for-possession-of-child-porn-keep-funding-them/
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Olympia-gynecologist-given-6-1-2-years-in-prison-1271939.php#ixzz1RGJFxO1K
http://unacceptablyprolife.blogspot.com/2013/09/man-kills-girlfriend-for-being-pregnant.html
http://poway.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/poway-man-convicted-of-seconddegree-murder-in-pregnant-girlfriends-death
http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/girfriend-executed-refuse-to-have-an-abortion.cfm
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9214252/Jail-for-punching-pregnant-partner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2480154/Cheating-boyfriend-jailed-trying-abort-unborn-child-giving-pregnant-partner-miscarriage-inducing-drugs.html
http://www.keloland.com/newsdetail.cfm/sd-man-sentenced-for-attempted-fetal-homicide/?id=155601
http://www.wbtv.com/story/24101762/father-of-unborn-child-accused-of-shooting-woman-several-times
http://newcity.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/new-city-man-convicted-on-seven-counts-in-domestic-abuse-case
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525374/Craig-Thomas-hit-girlfriend-stomach-pipe-beat-baby-her.html
http://www.allourlives.org/more-data-on-abortion-and-intimate-partner-violence/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/malorie-bantala-kevin-wilson-found-7023040
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/21/sexually-abusive-boyfriend-forced-her-to-get-seven-abortions/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-man-fed-pregnant-woman-drug-laced-pancake-killed-fetus/
http://mobile.news.com.au/world-news/man-gave-girlfriend-abortion-pill/story-fndir2ev-1226644902205
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/john-andrew-welden-pleads-guilty-in-tampa-abortion-pill-case/2140798
http://liveactionnews.org/man-who-slipped-girlfriend-abortion-drug-receives-maximum-sentence/
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/gwentnews/10688133.Newport_man_made_secret_bid_to_abort_baby/
http://www.thenews-messenger.com/article/20140505/NEWS01/305050027
http://lifedynamics.com/abortionist-convicted-sexually-abusing-patients-will-remain-behind-bars-lost-appeal/
https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/planned-parenthood-employee-court-case-on-charge-of-sexual-battery-set-for-december/
http://abortiondocs.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Thornton-Tony-Indecent-Exposure-Police-Report.pdf
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/caught-on-video-abortionist-attacks-girlfriend-during-forced-abortion-attempt/
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/09/03/abortion-clinic-closes-in-michigan-woman-was-forced-to-have-abortion-there/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/mother-escapes-abortion-by-jumping-out-abortion-facility-window
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/09/high-court-orders-abortion_n_5473628.html
http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/13734/brochoice-how-hb2-hurts-texas-men-who-like-women
http://www.returnofkings.com/16089/how-to-convince-a-girl-to-get-an-abortion
http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/kill-unborn-child.cfm#.UhtV3CxY4sU.facebook
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/09/05/336-million-abortions-have-taken-place-in-china-under-the-one-child-policy/
http://www.pop.org/content/us-state-department-acknowledges-china%E2%80%99s-sex-trade-fueled-one-child-policy
http://www.pritzkerlaw.com/wrongful-death-attorney/death-of-unborn-baby-accident.html
http://whyiamprolife.org/?p=1017
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1921865-updates-and-details-of-arian-fosters-reported-lawsuit

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Why Abortion is Patriarchal Oppression

Cis men often pressure, force, or coerce women and pregnant people into abortions. They threaten us into it or otherwise try and manipulate us. Men (not all but too many to not talk about) use abortion as a way to use women as reusable and disposable sex objects so that they can have sex with them all they want without having to take care of their responsibilities. There are even movements called "bro-choice" and “men for choice” that ironically point this out, with "bros" talking about how abortion is good for them specifically because of that reasoning....and somehow the “no uterus no opinion” idea conveniently doesn’t apply to “pro-choice” men. It treats our bodies as garbage disposals; as in, what you put into us can just be chopped up into little bits and the bloody mess taken out so that you can use us over and over again. Abortion is a deadbeat dad's favorite thing.

Rapists use it to continue to rape and control their victims, as it gets rid of the “evidence” (not only DNA evidence to prove he was the rapist on trial, but suddenly having a child is evidence that she is being raped to everyone around her as well) and thus they can get away with raping her for longer, and pressuring her to abort is another way to control her too. This happens with standard rape and statutory rape as well, and some abortion clinics have even lied about the age of statutory rape victims or didn’t contact social services when she comes in with an older man, so that they can give underage girls abortions. Alice Paul, the feminist who created the Equal Rights Amendment act (ERA) has stated, “Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.” There are so many ways in which that rings true.

Men also have killed many women and pregnant people for not aborting, or otherwise harmed them by throwing them down stairs etc. to try and cause a miscarriage, or slipped them the abortion pill without them knowing it. Without men and the patriarchy, abortion wouldn't exist. Not only that but it was the men of NARAL who sold abortion to feminists and the world in the late 1960s by making up lies. One of those men, the abortion doctor Bernard Nathanson, flat-out admitted that they lied. And it was men who were the ones to vote on Roe V Wade and men have always been the abortion doctors, and prey on women by telling them that their children are not children but clumps of cells etc., so that they can get their abortion dollars. Some of them have admitted they make lots of money from abortion.

Also, male bosses make women feel like they can't be mothers while working and that abortion is what they should choose, which is just another way to coerce. Same with being single or poor or going to school or what have you. Women get abortions because of the mother shaming society we live in making them feel like they have no other choice. If men could get pregnant, abortion wouldn't exist, because people don't tell men that they can't be career men and fathers at the same time yet women get constantly told that we can't be career women and mothers at the same time so abortion is necessary for our success. This is one of those tactics that those men from NARAL used to get support for abortion. It's just sad that it worked.

The abortion-and-pro-choice-industry tells us that the wombless male body is normative and that in order to have equal rights to men and compete in a male-dominated world, we need have abortion so that we aren't "bothered" and "bothering them" with the concept of having children. Instead of raising women to the equal rights level of men as we are, we are taught to get rid of what makes us uniquely female because it is a "burden", and that we should lower ourselves to what we deem as the worst kind of men--deadbeat dads. Instead, we should be empowering pregnant and parenting women, and telling them we CAN do it. You CAN be pregnant or a mother while going to school, you CAN be pregnant or a mother while working, you CAN be pregnant or a mother while a teenager, you CAN be pregnant or a mother while single, and you CAN be pregnant or a mother while poor. Rosie the riveter is a great example of the "yes we can" concept yet somehow when it comes to pregnancy we have turned it into "No you can't, have an abortion." Having kids does not mean you have to give up a life worth living, yet that is what the abortion industry wants us to believe, but it goes against everything feminism stands for.

There are many women who regret their abortions, and have depression from it, PTSD from it, suicidal tendencies from it, or have actually killed themselves from it. You can find their videos on youtube or their stories in writing, just by looking up "I regret my abortion" or "abortion regret" on google or youtube. Because women are basically told in various ways that we have no other choice to abort yet people turn around and say it is somehow “our choice” when debating abortion, we are the ones who end up as the scapegoats and thus have to deal with all the heaviest feelings from it. We are told we can’t regret it because it was “our choice” despite the fact that we choose it because we are told we have no choice. The men who pressure us into it get out without having to deal with it because it reinforces old-fashioned stereotypes that anything having to do with babies is “women’s work.”

There are so many women who feel this way that there are endless amounts of organizations around to help women with post-abortive regret, which wouldn't be able to be around if women never regretted it, yet these women constantly get ignored so that the abortion industry can act like women rarely regret it to keep women supporting pro-choice politicians and coming into the abortion clinics and giving them their hundreds of dollars for each abortion. Women's voices of regret are being swept under the rug like crazy. That is what misogyny looks like. Although not all men do the things I am describing in this article, and in fact abortion can hurt men and make them regret lost fatherhood just like many women regret their abortions as well, it still happens far too much.

Also, it truly shows we are oppressed when people act like somehow we need to have a right to treat our children the way we have been treated by men, by oppressing them and treating them as our property to be disposed of as we see fit, and instead of giving us actual help for our situations. Offering abortion is an easy way for people to blow off our problems and act like they helped us. An abortion doesn't make a poor woman not poor or a raped woman un-raped or an abused woman not abused etc., it just throws women right back into these situations after she leaves the clinic. All it gives her is a dead child on top of the problems she has, it doesn't help the problem at all. It doesn't solve the root problem.

On top of all of that, sex selective abortion kills females in the womb just for being females because people want sons. This happens in various countries including our own but in the ones where it is most prevalent, there is a gap between the amount of men and women, as a decent chunk of women were killed in the womb. This has led to young women being kidnapped, raped, trafficked, and forced into marriages because the men of the population have a lack of women to choose from in terms of coupling. Pro-lifers believe in women's rights, we just go one step further and say that ALL women should have rights, not just the born ones, for we truly don't have rights if they don't start when we first exist. Women deserve better than all of this. We deserve better than being given a bad choice that no one really wants and we basically just choose because we are told we need to choose it. No woman walks into an abortion clinic happy to do it. This is something that both pro-choicers and pro-lifers agree on. We just need to understand that that horrible choice that no one likes or really wants shouldn't be held up as an example of wonderful women's rights. It's something that comes from our oppression and is something we should always be fighting to end, because it hurts us too.

All of these things are why when I was 14 and found out what abortion was, I was pro-life *on the specific basis* that I am a leftist feminist. I started off by having many feminist reasons to be against abortion before I could even know the politicizing strategies of each side. And when I started to hear the stereotypes that abortion was supported by feminists and opposed by those who aren't, I automatically assumed people were joking, because that would never make any sense. Abortion is pure violence, on our children and us. It would never fit in with feminism. It is just more evidence that we are oppressed.

For more information on Pro-Life feminism, google or facebook search (or enter in the websites of) out the organizations
Feminists for Life : http://www.feministsforlife.org/
Feminists for Nonviolent Choices : http://www.ffnvc.org/
New Wave Feminists: https://www.newwavefeminists.com/
Feminists Choosing Life of New York Action: https://www.fclnyact.org/
and Pro-Life Feminists: https://prolifefeminists.wordpress.com/
These are the organizations that have helped me realize that I am not alone and that Pro-Life feminism has existed since feminism began, as it started off Pro-Life to begin with. All the early feminists, such as Susan B Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Victoria Woodhull, Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, Mary Wollstonecraft etc. etc. and even Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) were pro-life. It was the men from NARAL who made up lies that turned some of the feminists pro-choice. Let's not let men get the better of us, and return to understanding that the violence of abortion is not fit for feminism and a world where we champion peace and equal rights. It is the destruction of everything we stand for. It is the destruction of us.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Parallels of Veganism and Pro-lifeism

When talking about the comparisons of the issues of abortion and animal farming + exploitation, it seems that there are two similar sides that we can look at. The similarities between vegan arguments and pro-life arguments, and the similarities between animal exploitation arguments and pro-choice arguments. Similarities between veganism and pro-lifeism: *Both are centered around the idea of respecting life, especially that of the particularly innocent, vulnerable, voiceless, helpless, defenseless etc. *Right to life is present in both. With pro-lifeism, of course the unborn child is being killed so a focus is put on the fact that they have a right to not be killed and to continue their lives, and with veganism, animals get killed and thus a focus is put on them having a right to not be killed and to continue their lives. *Right to not be harmed and bodily autonomy, as well as the right to not be seen as property to be disposed of as one sees fit, is present in both. In an abortion, the child is dismembered with medical tools or sucked apart or poisoned etc. This harms them and takes away their bodily rights as their bodies are being harmed and destroyed. They are considered their parents’ property and they are at the will of their parents. With animal farming/consuming/exploiting, there are many different ways in which the bodies of animals are harmed and they are treated as objects and their bodily rights are taken away as well, whether that be abuse like being beaten over the head in some factory farms, or the stress of being artificially inseminated and having to give birth and being constantly milked, or going through training in circuses etc. They are literally considered the property of farmers and are at the will of those who farm them, train them, or are otherwise considered their owners. *Both point out that if one can't stand to look at gruesome pictures that are the end result of what they are supporting (abortion pictures/slaugtherhouse pictures), then they don't want to be supporting it in the first place. The idea is that if one finds it offensive then you are saying that something you support is offensive...so why are you supporting it? *Both see the genocide that is happening right before our eyes, and understand that it is prejudice and oppression. Both have trouble understanding why after learning our lesson with the past genocides, we still continue with this one. Some on each side make comparisons to the holocaust and slavery/racism as well as sexism. *Both mention that abortion or animal consuming/using aren't necessary, and talk about the other options that one has. For why should we go out of our way to cause all this death and destruction when we don't have to? For abortion, there is adoption (of which you can have open, closed, or semi-open, and they are free to adopt out), safe-haven/safe-surrender/baby-moses laws which let you leave the child at any police station, hospital, or fire department, no questions asked, kinshipcare or guardianshipcare, where you give the child to a family member or close friend to be raised, and this can be long-term or short-term, or a ton of options for help if the woman does think she can be a parent with the right help. That goes into various avenues such as financial, daycare, baby drives, housing, rights for pregnant women at school or in the workplace and things to make it easier like desks that fit the stomachs of pregnant women or set ups for her to work or learn from home etc. There's also talk of artificial wombs. With veganism, there's literally a vegan version of everything. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of edible plants that we have discovered so far and literally a vegan version of everything. If it's possible to make it non-vegan, it's possible to make it vegan. There are tons of vegan options at every store and you can veganize fast food meals as well. Those who are poor can be vegan, as many of us are. There are vegan leathers and soaps and this and that and the other. *Right to rescue is present in both. In the 80s and 90s, the pro-life rescue movement was underway with pro-lifers occupying preborn slaughterhouses to save the women and children inside. There has been a modern resurgence of this lately, led by secular progressive pro-life activists such as in PAAU. Animal rights activists also rescue animals from factory farms and other such things, such as with the recent Smithfield Trial which was a victory for members of DXE who saved a few pigs from slaughter. *Right to continue living so as to continue to use the other rights and choices they would have is present in both. Pro-lifers often talk about how the most important right is the right to life, as all other rights would be meaningless without it as you wouldn't be alive to get to use them. Vegans often point out that animals are here for their own reasons, just like us, to have their own lives and do their own things. They aren't here to be objects for the use of humans. That brings me to a related issue on the reverse... Similarities between non-veganism and pro-choiceism: *Both use a "choice" argument, and forget the victim at hand and their choices, and act like the perpetrator needs to have a choice to harm the victim. With animal using and consuming, they think it has to be the ones partaking in the using or consuming that need to have a choice to do so. Often you'll l hear something like, "It's my choice to eat meat. You can't infringe on other people's choices. If you don't eat meat, that's your own choice, but you can't tell me what to do." With abortion it's the same thing, with the mother getting to choose to take her unborn child to a facility to be dismembered and killed. "It's my choice to get an abortion. You can't infringe on other people's choices. If you wouldn't get an abortion, that's your own choice, but you can't tell me what to do." *Similarly, both use the bodies of those committing the act instead of the bodies of the victims to act like somehow disregarding one's bodily autonomy is the bodily right of another. For abortion, "It's my body, my choice." and sometimes "If it's in my body I can kill it." For animal consuming/wearing, "It's my body, my choice. I get to choose what goes in/on my body." Both actions require harming and killing someone else's body, but only the bodies of the ones doing said harming will ever be paid attention to for these sides. Forgetting the victim and acting like it's the other side that is in the wrong because they are infringing on the rights of those taking away the rights of others is an old way to pass off discrimination. *Both exploit women, those who are pregnant, and the female reproductive system, break up the mother and baby bond, and kill children. The abortion industry and pro-choice movement tell pregnant people that they cannot be mothers in whatever hard situations they are in so they have no other choice but to abort, or that their children are not children but just clumps of cells. This is exploitative and coercive. Abortion pits mother against child, breaking up the mother-baby bond and kills the pregnant person's baby for a profit. Many post-abortive people grieve their dead children afterward and develop PTSD or depression. The dairy, pork, veal, and eggs industries exploit female farm animals by forcing them to get pregnant so that they can produce milk or more animals to farm, stealing their babies so that the milk can go to humans or to kill the babies who are of no use to the egg industry or can become veal, and send the female children back into the same systems their mothers are in. This not only exploits the mothers and kills the children but also breaks up the mother and baby bond. Mothers are known to grieve their children who were taken from them. *Both use overpopulation as an excuse to kill the victims. With abortion, they say that humans are overpopulated and thus we shouldn't have anymore, as well as that since they think the earth is overpopulated, they'll have a horrible life so we might as well not allow them to exist so as to spare them a life in the overpopulated world. With animal consuming/using, they say that animals are overpopulated so we need to kill them so that their overpopulation doesn't get in the way. *Both use things such as pain, sentience, intelligence, size, looks, and ability to contribute to society as a way to belittle the victims and excuse killing and harming. They say that those who have yet to be born can't feel pain, aren't conscious, aren't intelligent, are so small, and that that therefore makes them lesser than us and so we can kill them. They say that those of other species can't feel pain (the classic "fish don't feel pain" myth for example), aren't conscious, aren't intelligent, animals like insects are so small, and that that therefore makes them lesser than us and so we can kill them. Both of these not only are incorrect *at the very least* for some of those who have yet to be born and some animals, but also forget that there are many born humans, such as infants and other children and those along the wide spectrum of disabilities and diseases who also fall in those categories, yet they understand then that those things don't matter at all. How can you argue that if one isn't intelligent, they can be killed, if you understand that a born human who is mentally challenged needs even more protection than the average person? It's a might makes right attitude as well. "I'm bigger than you/smarter than you etc., so since I can kill you because you have less abilities than me, I should be allowed to have that choice." Discriminating against a group based off of their abilities, or Ableism, is another classic way to pass off discrimination, and is closely tied to eugenics. It has been said that you have to look at someone's differences and act like that makes you better, in order to get people to successfully oppress a group. For the unborn it's dehumanizing, for other animals it's speciesism. *Both use the arguments that these things have been happening for so long/are natural, and that people will still do them even if it's outlawed. Abortion is ancient so women will still find a way to do it they say. Animal eating is ancient and what we need to be doing they say. God put animals on earth for us to use they say. God aborts babies all the time they say. *Both try to brush off the act by talking about the fact that it is legal, as if somehow something being legal therefore makes it ok, or that somehow you shouldn’t advocate for the other side as if things can’t change from legal to illegal. *Both try to find ways to defend at least some abortion or animal killing/harming. With abortion they say "well it's ok if it's below a certain amount of weeks/well it's ok if she was raped/well it's ok if the child has a disability etc." With animal killing they usually go for the ones labeled "humane" "organic" "grass fed" “cage free" “free rage" without realizing the problems with these, or they point to specific animals. Or they'll just say "I wouldn't eat a dog but a pig is different." *Ultimately, both look at the differences we have from these groups rather than our similarities and use that as a way to exert power and control over them and "other" them to the point of death, dismemberment, and exploitation.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood founder) was pro-life

Likewise, so was Marie Stopes (the namesake of the UK version of Planned Parenthood) which I will talk about after Margaret)

So I heard about this from one of the people who posted on my Riot Grrrls For Life Pro-Life facebook page when I first started it. She mentioned that Margaret Sanger was pro-life and she really liked her, and so at first I was shocked, as I had assumed that she was the queen of abortion, as that's what everyone, pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike, make it seem like, and what with her being the founder of the main voice for pro-choice, I guess I assumed it like everyone else does. So I start to look it up, not knowing what to expect, and it turns out, she was right. She hated abortion for several reasons and has a lot of good pro-life quotes. I found this link talking about how that one infanticide quote was totally taken out of context, and what she really said about abortion and infanticide, and how she often linked abortion, infanticide, and child abandonment together, calling them all "horrors" and the like, and other things like that, and this link that said the same stuff and gave more quotes. You can actually go to her book Woman and the New Race from there as it links it, or hey I'll just give it to you here, and it is written all over how much she hates abortion and infanticide and other things like that. Also, you can look at her wikipedia page. Some pro-choicers will try to brush it off like it doesn't matter or she was only against abortion because of how dangerous it is to pregnant women, but she clearly has said at least a few times that it was because it was the taking of a life, so I'm sure it was for both reasons.

In fact, Planned Parenthood pamphlets used to advocate against abortion, saying "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that if you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life." I guess the phrase "every child a wanted child" was first only meant in reference to birth control as well, since it says that on there too. Here are links I found for that.

I'm not saying she was a good person, and I'm not saying she wasn't racist or for eugenics (though honestly I don't know), but I am saying that everything like that she was for, was only with wanting to prevent them before conception so that no one was killing any human beings. She worked to secure birth control in part to get rid of abortions and infanticide. She knew that it was the taking of a life, so she wanted to take care of the situation before that happened. She seems like one of those people who is both good and bad. Some things about them you love, and others you hate. It did at least give me more respect for her, because in researching this, I found that I liked a lot of what she wrote.

They added abortion to Planned Parenthood after her death, and I'm sure that's why everyone assumes it, and no one corrects people. I'm sure if more people knew their founder worked to get rid of abortion, less people would support PP, or there would be some sort of outrage, and so they probably keep it under wraps. Also, the more conservative and religious pro-lifers really like to paint her as the queen of abortion and infanticide, and I have even posted that she was pro-life on a few pro-life pages, and they argued with me and tried to act like it wasn't true, and one even blocked me, even though I didn't do anything other than simply state that and post those links. So, funny enough the pro-life side is also fueling this false info, when really they could be using the fact that she was pro-life to say it's disrespectful that Planned Parenthood have abortion services. Or like that first link from the livelydust blog states, "And anyway, why would pro-lifers want to base a campaign against abortion on misinformation? Why not just sweetly point out that Planned Parenthood's founder called abortion a horror and devoted her life to making it unnecessary?"

We really should be doing that. Why bother to keep pushing a lie just because it makes someone look like they support abortion, when the people who support her already do, when you could be telling the truth and saying that even the woman pro-choicers love and celebrate as the leader of women owning their bodies and reproductive rights, was against this?

Here are some of her quotes:

"Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious. I bring up the subject here only because some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not. Abortion destroys the already fertilized ovum or the embryo; contraception, as I have carefully explained, prevents the fertilizing of the ovum by keeping the male cells away. Thus it prevents the beginning of life."
- In her paper "Birth Control Advances: A Reply to the Pope"

"To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not begun."
- In her autobiography

"Human society must protect its children–yes, but prenatal care is most essential! The child-to-be, as yet not called into being, has rights no less imperative."
- In her paper "The Children's Era"

"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."
- In her paper "Birth Control or Abortion?"

""It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide"
- In her book "Woman and the New Race" page 25

"[It is] the most barbaric method [of family planning], the killing of babies — infanticide — abortion."
- In her paper "My Fight for Birth Control

"Usually this desire [for family limitation] has been laid to economic pressure... It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion."
- In her book "Woman and the New Race"

"When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become the foundation of a new race. There will be no killing of babies in the womb by abortion, nor through neglect in foundling homes, nor will there be infanticide."
- In her book "Woman and the New Race" page 232

It makes sense that Margaret Sanger was pro-life as all the feminists of the time were.

Marie Stopes was likewise one of these pro-life feminists who worked to further birth control yet had the biggest abortion facility named after her after her death. From her wikipedia,
"Stopes was strongly against the termination of a pregnancy once it had started: her clinics did not offer abortions during her life. She saw birth control as the only way families should limit their size.

The nurses at her clinic had to sign a declaration in which they swore not to "impart any information or lend any assistance whatsoever to any person calculated to lead to the destruction in uteroof the products of conception."^[50]

When she learned that one of Avro Manhattan's woman friends had had an abortion, Stopes accused him of "murdering" the unborn child.^[51]

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/22/there-is-no-doubt-the-early-feminists-were-pro-life-on-abortion/
"‘I was glad you gave space to the fact that the Queensland Medical Association is planning an extensive educational campaign against the evil of abortion.’ – Marie Stopes. (When Stopes found out that her contemporary Avro Manhattan had pressured one of his lovers into having an abortion, she called him a murderer to his face. And when William Carpenter named his abortion shop after her, she took legal action against him. But today, the largest abortion business in the UK bears her name since it was founded in 1976, eighteen years after her death.)"