Earlier on twitter I saw a woman who had posted about being pro-life because abortion was murder. She said she was pro-life for other things too like anti-war and shit. I asked her what about abortion in the case where it will save a woman's life or rape or incest. She never specifically addressed the rape or incest question even though I asked it more than once. She claimed that she "Knows many wonderful people who were a product of rape" which I doubt. MANY people? I can believe one maybe even two but MANY? I am not saying that a baby from a rape SHOULD be aborted but I am saying that if a woman chooses to do that she should be able to. Ultimately it's about the choice of a woman. Yet, pro-life feminists are a complete, walking, contradiction. How can you all be for women's rights but want to strip them away of one of the most important rights they could possibly have?
Here is where she twists my words and completely takes out of context what I said. For one, there is a huge difference between a fully formed child and a fetus in a womb. For two, that is completely not what I said, and she cherry picked everything to respond to. As I said, she didn't respond specifically to the rape/incest thing. Ever. Then she goes on to cherry pick what she responds to in order to portray completely out of context how I'm arguing and what I'm saying. After that one of her stupid followers tells me I should have been an abortion even though he is pro-life and gives me a hate follow cause, I dunno, he probably wants to get laid by this really privileged bottle blond looking woman with a baby voice. Seriously I saw one of her vines she has a baby voice and she can't possibly be older than 20. Especially since she posts stuff about being a student and running some kind of student pro-life group on her twitter.
In any case, here's my personal stance on abortion and why I feel this way since people like Hannah over there like to twist my words to make them into something they completely are not.
I believe that a woman should have the ability to choose whether or not to get an abortion in any case. Though I am very against abortion as a form of birth control, I don't think it's commonly used as a form of birth control. As in I don't think there are many, many women who have had 40-50 abortions. I don't know, and I don't know if there is anyway to check statistics on that. I'm mostly against that because it's really unhealthy for the woman and it could render her infertile and has the risk of other complications. It isn't something healthy in order to prevent pregnancy or giving birth.
The problem with people like her is, they want to stop abortion but they don't actually care about the child that is being produced. There are many reasons why women get abortions and to me, all of them are valid. I attempted to ask her about a woman who couldn't afford a baby and she knew it. As right up there I said that a baby born to a woman who is in poverty runs the risk of being in poverty too. Homeless, starving, even end up in an abusive situation. She claimed that she helps all those women. Not "going to help" or "want to help" that she is actively helping those women. No, she isn't. Unless she's footing the bill for a bunch of unwanted children and I mean 100% (or at least whatever the mother can't cover) she's not doing anything. I know she's not. None of these people are.
They seems to have this weird idea that murder is wrong but not a life of poverty, abuse, suffering. That's not to say that all kids born into a poor home will be abused, but if someone can't already afford a child and has a child, how good of a life do you think it's going to be for that child? Clearly people who are below normal income have kids, and do the best they can to take care of them, because they want those children. That's fine. I'm not trying to ban poor people from having kids. However, in a situation where a mother knows she cannot be a good mother because of financial reasons, and doesn't want a kid because she knows this, in a situation where she's forced to give birth anyway because of pro-life assholes how good is that kid going to have it? The mother more than likely will become resentful, or end up having to watch her child suffer because she had no other option.
Of course you always get the pro-life people offering up adoption as an option. Which I can understand the logic behind that just fine. However, they never stop to consider the physical and psychological ramifications that a woman goes through while being pregnant. The stress it puts on the body. The changes a woman has to go through. This isn't like a week or two. This is 9 months of her life. If she doesn't want to go through constant morning sickness, back pain, stomach problems, bladder problems, headaches, swelling, sleep deprivation, heartburn, and a whole host of other physical problems, just to give her kid up for adoption why should anyone make her? That's awful. There is no reason for that either, it's basically torture. Obviously if a woman chooses to do that, awesome, I'm not against that either. Yet forcing a woman to have a child is cruel.
Then you have the problems that come after a child is born. Even mothers who keep their children have them. Not only is the body still physically changed and compromised after birth but you also have the psychological aspect. Obviously not every one suffer from postpartum depression but a lot of women do. Sometimes it's so severe it leads to suicide or even murder. Really? We are going to put a woman who doesn't want a child through that too? All to make sure the baby is safe? Why? What kind of respect do you actually have for women if you think this is the correct option? Are you really a "Feminist" all for women's choices if you want to force them into that? I think not.
The way I look at it, a fetus is just a clump of cells behind sustained by a host until it can breathe and live by itself without intense medical care/support outside of the womb. I know there is a huge argument that "life starts at conception" and I'm not trying to argue that the fetus "isn't alive". What I am trying to argue is that if that fetus NEEDS a host body to live, to sustain itself, then the host of that fetus is in control of it. That's the end of it. If babies were instantly fully formed in the womb and could be removed 5 minutes later and survive well that would be murder. However, it takes at least 7-9 months to get to that point. If a baby needs to be put on 800 machines for life support after it comes out it's not what I consider and "independent life".
Once again don't get me wrong. I'm not against taking care of premature babies or saving them. I am not saying to ignore premature or dying babies, what I am saying is that it's really arguable how much a fetus is or isn't alive if it cannot sustain life/breathe on its own. To me, life actually begins when a child can come out of a body and exist and doesn't need to be on a machine. I understand that there are birth complications a lot, and by all means, save the child. I get that there are babies born premature and need the help. Yes, save the child. But if the child is already unwanted, I can also argue that if it needs a host mother to survive then it is not an independent life. Once the baby is outside of the mother, draws a breath, moves, cries, independent of the host body it's in, that's when it becomes a life.
If there is a tapeworm feeding off of your body, and the only way it can survive is to do that, then it's not an independent life either. It it needs something else to survive, another body or whatever then YOU are in control of it. It is something that needs YOU to sustain it. You get to choose yes or no on that life. The life doesn't get a say because it needs your body and it's draining you of everything. Why take care of it, especially if it's unwanted. You never hear anyone screaming to save tapeworms but it's a similar situation until a baby reaches a certain period of time in the womb.
I, personally, would never have an abortion. I couldn't. However, I would never ever insist that others take on my point of view. If feminism is about choice and if feminism is allowing a woman to have rights governing her own body then she is allowed to choose abortion. Not to mention the fact that there is not going to be anyone there to take care of that child other than the mother and it's heinous to force someone into that position. If abortion is made illegal it's only going to harm women more. Force them into back alley abortion situations, or to starve the fetus or harm it internally to force a miscarriage which is dangerous to the mother as well. Removing the choice of abortion is so much more harmful to women than allowing them to chose such a thing.
Though I do have a lot of issues with how abortion is handled now (on the male rights side of things) I don't think any woman should ever be forced to carry a baby that is unwanted. I think that as of now it's shit that a woman can get an abortion without informing the father or even having the permission of the father, but it's a catch-22 situation, because even if the father really wants the kid and will 100% take care of it, how could anyone really physically force a woman to go through all of that physical and psychological crap to have the baby? I don't know, I don't have an answer to that. What I do know is this, if you are actually about women's rights and you actually care about women, you will stop forcing anti-abortion propaganda down their throats and let them choose. It's not YOUR body it's not YOUR choice. No one is ever going to force YOU to have an abortion, don't force that on other women.