#... ABORTION

[dontcryurprfect]

The life of a person should never be dependent on religion; especially one that is not your own.

Make them perform abortions. It's about healing and living a good life in the most healthy and happiest of mindsets. Not about someone else's Gods or beliefs.

This is a person's LIFE for crying out loud.

It is about what they need, not what you want.

The moment God needs healing and the only way is through avoiding abortion, then we can talk.

[largishcat]

this Thanksgiving consider donating to Indigenous Women Rising a native run org that helps native/indigenous women in the US access abortion and reproductive care

[sharklovingaquarist]

Saw a video of a woman saying she told her daughter to yell "mom" when she needed help because it "illicits instinct in people even if they aren't moms bc moms are the ultimate protectors". It really just showed me how men are "protectors and providers" until it's time to protect and provide, then it's a woman's job bc uhhhhh instinct.

[girlfishes]

I think part of the reason that calling natal women “uterus owners” when talking about reproductive rights feel so icky is that many men feel like they own a uterus. Many husbands feel like they own the uteruses of their wives. So when pro-choice activists say “uterus owners deserve to have control over what they use it for”, men think “I do have uterus. My wife/girlfriend/daughter’s uterus belongs to me, not her. So I get to decide.”

And talking about body parts in terms of ownership is weird anyway. I don’t “own” my arm, brain, hair, uterus. They are me. I am them. I am not a uterus owner. No one owns my uterus. It’s me. I don’t “own” me. I am me.

[ultrameganicolaokay]

i love vaccines, autism, abortions, homosexuals, sex changes and crime

(Depends on the type of criming we're talking about, but 100% to everything else.)

pin by @homoidiotic

[nonenosome2]

A third Texas woman has died under the state abortion ban | The Texas Tribune

Yet another case of doctors placing politics above patients lives.

God damn. Some doctors just really want to kill babies so bad they will let women die because "well gosh darn golly gee. We were totally afraid to do this procedure, even though it is legally allowed, because we just had no idea we were allowed to do it. So please let us kill babies so we can be sure we are allowed to do these procedures we are already allowed to do."

[ryukisgod]

Renesmee jump scare

[dank-pro-life-memes]

"Your Body My Choice" is the anthem of abortion 🗣

Art by Flower.fetus on instagram

[dankwave6546]

[short-wooloo]

Considering the rise of forced-birth, anti divorce extremists in this country, people really need to appreciate the no marriage no bio kids norms/values of the Jedi

[sharklovingaquarist]

My experiences with animal sciences and how practices within them signal issues with women's health. Another long one, sorry ya'll

So someone reblogged my post about the OBGYN field saying that animals in America are treated better than women. What a coincidence that I ran into this issue today! So I was in veterinary science for four years in high school. I had a vet assistant certification and was in the FFA (Future Farmers of America). And when I tell you this inference is not too far off, I mean it. I wouldn't say they're treated better, but the general attitude towards the female body is very much more visible, they dont try to hide it with animals. You can also see connections in many practices. When I got into it, there was also a slight uncomfortable tinge when our class came to reproduction and reproductive techniques that always targeted the female body. Well, first when we looked at endocrine systems, the male was always described as existing for himself. Testosterone was for muscles and strength. But with female, her endocrine was always surrounded with sex and offspring. Estrogen was for going into heat and "being impregnated". Progesterone was to "support a fetus" not help her survive a pregnancy. This really does connect back to the female body being seen as the reproductive tool of the male body. The sole focus in fertility. We still don't even know much about the female endocrine seperate from the focus on offspring. And that goes onto practices. Vaginal speculums, inducing estrus, artificial "insemination", much more. I dont wanna say too much, but my school bred animals. Once they talked about how they induced one of the animals into an estrus by implanting a hormonal device in the cervix. Something about it rubbed me the wrong way, because they never do that to male bodies to increase sperm quality. At most they collected sperm from a male animal, but usually willingly.

So what happened today? I shop on chewy for my pets, and I saw estradiol for animals. I was confused at first and wondered why someone would need that, but I remembered how animals are induced. So I clicked hoping it wasn't the case. Nope that's the case. However when you read further you see there's actually some benefits to estradiol for some individuals. So let's analyze this.

The first thing you see in description is: "Estradiol is used to induce estrus, a state of sexual receptivity during which the female will accept the male and is capable of conceiving."

So let's address how using estrogen for this purpose is just really weird. Excess estrogen can cause a lot of health issues, most notably (to me at least) CANCER. Animals go into estrus on their own. Also let's talk about "will accept the male". So sexual selection doesn't exist anymore? That's the thing with this crowd. They see female hormones as something robotic. They think estrus makes females bend over to any male they find. And again, why is there almost never something for males to decrease chances of sperm deformity?

Ok let's go down to uses: "Estradiol can be used to enhance estrus behavior and receptivity in ovariectomized mares and aid mares with estrogen-responsive urinary incontinence."

So they're saying you use this product to increase estrus symptoms in mares who have had their ovaries removed. Why? Fuck if I know. Could be behavioral, I doubt surrogacy due to a lack of ovaries (most responsible for hormone synthesis). So Imma go to the next part. When you get to the bottom you see that it helps urinary issues. So now we are FINALLY at the part where it actually benefits a female body and not just making a female into a breeding machine. So it does have a benefit, it can help female animals with incontinence! It's just that they are valued as production rather than a living being

Finally we get to precautions: "Estradiol is contraindicated during pregnancy as it can cause fetal malformations of the genitourinary system and induce bone marrow depression in the fetus. Estradiol cypionate should not be used to treat estrogen-responsive incontinence in small animals."

So I was actually kinda surprised they explained why (AND TESTED) why a hormone/medication shouldn't be used during pregnancy! Usually, with animals, they actually admit they never tested it with pregnant animals, of which I suspect to be the same with humans. They'd rather just say "yeah uh don't take it" instead of actually paying attention to female bodies, because again you are just a vessel. Also the fact that they never test how medications effect male reproduction, thats something that carries onto humans aswell. They would never limit a man even if he causes issues to another human. Anyways, my reasoning as to why they actually knew this time comes down to them paying close attention to female hormones... but only when it comes into play with a fetus. Trust, they know ALLLLLLL about the female body- WHEN ITS ABOUT A FETUS THOUGH! And again we see the death and malformation of a fetus as a negative for the fetus and not the female. They don't mention how this situation could ALSO effect the female animal. I would assume natural abortion would take place, which is dangerous. The thing is they'll study the effects on a fetus not a living breathing female. And throughout my experience with animals, I've learned that a reproductive adult will always be more valued by nature than a fetus. The health of your parent animal dictates success the most. However you always hear about how to stay pregnant or support fetal growth, the best thing to focus on is FEMALE HEALTH. We aren't vessels. However humans seem to have that twisted. I'll get into that on another post with prenatal vitamins.

So take what you want from this and run, if you've even gotten this far. I know it was long. Im still in science, just non-mammalian. I am by no means a professional but I feel the need to put my feelings out there. To all the feminists in medical or any other biological sciences, I wish you luck. Shit is so tiring.

[virgoanmaenad]

I genuinely believe that pro lifers forget that women are people too and not just bearers of children.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jessica Valenti at Abortion, Every Day:

Most of the time, I enjoy making political predictions. This one, however, makes my stomach turn: Conservatives want to do away with ‘exceptions’ for women’s lives. In fact, they’ve been laying the groundwork to eradicate the exception since Roe was overturned—though I didn’t fully piece together the move until recently, when I saw a leading anti-abortion activist refer to life-saving abortions as ‘elective.’

The short version is that they’ve been strategically redefining ‘abortion’ across law, culture and medicine, while pushing the false claim that abortion is never necessary to save a person’s life. The end game is legislation that bans abortion in all cases, mandating that doctors only end life-threatening pregnancies using c-sections or induced vaginal birth, no matter the risk to the pregnant person.  I’ll explain in detail, but please know that like most anti-abortion strategies, this one is being rolled out quietly and incrementally. In the same way that Republicans won’t pass an outright ban on contraception—instead chipping away at access until birth control is impossible to get—the plan is to methodically eradicate the exception right under our noses.  Because the idea of eliminating life-saving abortions is so radical—who would suggest such a thing?—there’s a real risk that Americans won’t notice until it’s too late. The unthinkable-ness of their extremism is protecting them. 

Redefining ‘abortion’

Abortion is a medical intervention to end a pregnancy, for any reason. But since Roe was overturned, conservatives have been trying to redefine abortion as an intention. For instance, they claim that treatment for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies aren’t really abortions—even if the medication or procedure is identical—because these pregnancies are presumably wanted. In addition to dividing women into those who ‘deserve’ care and those who don’t, the goal is to divorce abortion from healthcare. Even though this definition has no basis in medicine or reality, Republicans have embedded it in state laws and policies anyway—often after being lobbied by anti-abortion groups.

Replacing ‘abortion’

Republicans aren’t just redefining abortion, they’re replacing it with the made-up medical term ‘maternal fetal separation.’ [...]

Claiming abortion is never medically necessary

The effort to redefine and replace “abortion” in legislation has always been about laying the groundwork for one central—and false—argument: that abortion is never medically necessary. After all, if abortion is just the intentional ending of a pregnancy, and if women with life-threatening pregnancies can just be treated with ‘maternal fetal separations,’ then all abortions can be labeled elective. That’s the goal.

Sometimes, they say this outright. This summer, for example, I reported on a paper published by anti-abortion activists Ingrid Skop and James Studnicki. They argued that “there is no disease, illness or condition for which an induced abortion has been determined to be a standard of care” and claimed there is “no justification” for health- or life-saving abortions. Instead, they suggested women can simply be given ‘separation’ procedures—in other words, c-sections. Just a few weeks ago, well-known anti-abortion activist Dr. John Bruchalski echoed that sentiment, calling life-saving abortions ‘elective.’ He said, “There are no advantages for a mother to end her pregnancy by an elective abortion, even in the most life-threatening circumstances.’” Again, the idea is that a standard abortion procedure isn’t necessary because women can be induced or forced into surgery.

This isn’t a fringe belief of random activists. Some of the country’s most prominent anti-abortion groups are on board. When the first post-Dobbs deaths were reported, for example, I noticed that major anti-abortion leaders responded by saying abortion bans allowed for life-saving care—but wouldn’t say the law allowed for life-saving abortions. Instead, they said bans allow doctors to “treat” patients or “intervene” to save lives, carefully sidestepping the word ‘abortion.’

That’s deliberate—and not just because they don’t believe abortion is medically necessary. The nation’s leading anti-abortion organizations will never say doctors can legally provide life-saving abortions because their ultimate goal is to eliminate that exception entirely. If you’re skeptical, consider this: It wasn’t so long ago that Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA-PLA) lobbied against an exception for women’s lives in Tennessee. When the state first passed its trigger ban, there was no exception for life-threatening pregnancies—just an affirmative defense mandate. That meant doctors had to break the law to provide a life-saving abortion and then defend it after the fact.

[...]

How they’ll do it

You won’t see states passing laws explicitly banning life-saving abortions anytime soon. Republicans are too strategic for that. Instead, they’ll use the same incremental approach they’ve employed elsewhere—chipping away bit by bit. Most egregiously, I feel certain they’ll exploit women’s suffering and deaths to do it. In fact, that tactic has already started: You might remember how anti-abortion legislators first started codifying their false definition of abortion after stories emerged of women being denied care. They claimed they were simply “clarifying” bans to address any confusion and ensure doctors knew they could treat women with ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, or life-threatening conditions. Republicans framed these legislative tweaks as protections for women.

But let’s be clear: these people have no interest in protecting women. Their “clarifications” are a cover for the real end goal. In the coming months, I expect we’ll see even more language about ‘maternal-fetal separation’ and legislative changes framed as efforts to ‘clarify’ abortion bans—especially as more stories of women dying come to light. I suspect they might even use a specific woman’s death as justification for tweaking a state ban. At the same time, anti-abortion organizations will continue to normalize treating life-threatening pregnancies with c-sections and vaginal labor rather than traditional abortion procedures. Groups like the Charlotte Lozier Institute already explicitly recommend that emergency abortions “be done by labor induction or c-section,” falsely calling it “medically standard.” (It most certainly is not.)1

Meanwhile, Republican leaders in anti-abortion states will offer “guidance” to doctors about how to legally treat women with life-threatening pregnancies, stressing ‘separation’ procedures. All of these same groups and legislators will also spread propaganda claiming that abortion procedures like D&Cs or abortion medications are far more dangerous than c-sections or vaginal labor. Eventually, we’ll see a test case: a state where legislators pass a total abortion ban without exceptions. Because, they’ll say, abortion isn’t medically necessary anyway. As I noted earlier, when that case reaches the courts, conservative legal groups will point to years of legislation from multiple states as evidence that it’s “widely accepted” that abortion is simply an intention. And while it’s true that this strategy is a slow and quiet one, it’s important to know that it’s already unfolding. Reports show that doctors are increasingly performing c-sections on women—even when it’s too early for a fetus to survive—out of fear of breaking the law.

The conservative anti-abortion movement’s end goal is to eventually end abortion ban exceptions and deceitfully redefine the meaning of abortions.

[jollywell]

I read something recently (it might have been Blood by Dr. Jen Gunter) that said historical about half (if not more) of the men in society didn't pass on their genetics, but almost all women did... so maybe not exactly one bull, but it sure wasn't the whole herd 🤭

YOU ONLY KEEP ONE BULL 

(Originally published in Comics For Choice)

[animentality]