#in an anti-abortion but also anti-adoption way???

[joe-mazzello-archive]

imma be real fam.....might be worth skipping the duck movie

[tribade-veneration]

I'm actually very tired of people acting like there's nuance on the topic. If you're anti abortion you are anti woman. You want women to be traumatized. That's it.

Unwanted pregnancy and birth is highly traumatic and the body never returns to the way it was. Unwanted pregnancy is also more likely to lead to post partum mental illness like depression or psychosis and the mind may never return to how it was before too. It's not just 9 months. It's for life.

Saying that pregnancy is just 9 months then you can put the baby up for adoption and move on with your life is just like saying rape just lasts 10, 30, 60 minutes so you should just move on with your life and not let such a short time matter so much. Saying counseling should be offered for victims of unwanted pregnancy to get them through it is like saying victims of sex trafficking should be offered a counselor to help process the trauma of each client instead of help getting away from sex trafficking.

A traumatic, unwanted intrusion of your body is lifelong.

[This is absolutely a vague post about ms revived frogs but also a general statement.]

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Before the 1960s, it was really hard to get divorced in America.

Typically, the only way to do it was to convince a judge that your spouse had committed some form of wrongdoing, like adultery, abandonment, or “cruelty” (that is, abuse). This could be difficult: “Even if you could prove you had been hit, that didn’t necessarily mean it rose to the level of cruelty that justified a divorce,” said Marcia Zug, a family law professor at the University of South Carolina.

Then came a revolution: In 1969, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan of California (who was himself divorced) signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law, allowing people to end their marriages without proving they’d been wronged. The move was a recognition that “people were going to get out of marriages,” Zug said, and gave them a way to do that without resorting to subterfuge. Similar laws soon swept the country, and rates of domestic violence and spousal murder began to drop as people — especially women — gained more freedom to leave dangerous situations.

Today, however, a counter-revolution is brewing: Conservative commentators and lawmakers are calling for an end to no-fault divorce, arguing that it has harmed men and even destroyed the fabric of society. Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers, for example, introduced a bill in January to ban his state’s version of no-fault divorce. The Texas Republican Party added a call to end the practice to its 2022 platform (the plank is preserved in the 2024 version). Federal lawmakers like Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and House Speaker Mike Johnson, as well as former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, have spoken out in favor of tightening divorce laws.

If this sounds outlandish or like easily dismissed political posturing — surely Republicans don’t want to turn back the clock on marital law more than 50 years — it’s worth looking back at, say, how rhetorical attacks on abortion, birth control, and IVF have become reality.

And that will cause huge problems, especially for anyone experiencing abuse. “Any barrier to divorce is a really big challenge for survivors,” said Marium Durrani, vice president of policy at the National Domestic Violence Hotline. “What it really ends up doing is prolonging their forced entanglement with an abusive partner.”

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, divorce is just one of many areas of family law that conservative policymakers see an opportunity to rewrite. “We’ve now gotten to the point where things that weren’t on the table are on the table,” Zug said. “Fringe ideas are becoming much more mainstream.”

REPUBLICANS IN MULTIPLE STATES ARE EYEING DIVORCE RESTRICTIONS

Pushback against no-fault divorce dates back decades. In the 1990s and early 2000s, three states passed covenant marriage laws, allowing couples to opt into signing a contract allowing divorce only under circumstances like abuse or abandonment. Some backers of the laws intended them to send a larger anti-divorce message, the Maryland Daily Record reported in 2001. Speaker Johnson, then a lawyer in Louisiana, was an early adopter of covenant marriage, entering one with his wife Kelly in 1999. 

More recently, high-profile conservative commentators have taken up the anti-divorce cause. Last year, the popular right-wing podcaster Steven Crowder announced his own unwilling split. “My then-wife decided that she didn’t want to be married anymore,” he complained, “and in the state of Texas, that is completely permitted.”

That could change. As Tessa Stuart noted in Rolling Stone, the Texas Republican party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s office, and could likely make its platform — the one calling on the state legislature to “rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws” — a reality if it chose. The Louisiana and Nebraska Republican parties have also considered or adopted similar language.  

And Ben Carson, secretary of housing and urban development under President Donald Trump who has been floated as a potential VP pick, wrote in his recent book that “for the sake of families, we should enact legislation to remove or radically reduce incidences of no-fault divorce.”

ENDING NO-FAULT DIVORCE WOULD HAVE MAJOR CONSEQUENCES

Opponents of no-fault divorce argue that it is hurting families and American culture. Making divorce too easy causes “social upheaval, unfettered dishonesty, lawlessness, violence towards women, war on men, and expendability of children,” Deevers wrote last year in the American Reformer, a Christian publication. “To devalue marriage is to devalue the family is to undermine the foundation of a thriving society.”

It’s worth noting that though the no-fault laws initially led to spikes in divorce, rates then began to drop, and reached a 50-year low in 2019, CNN reports. But today, an end to no-fault divorce would cause enormous financial, logistical, and emotional strain for people who are trying to end their marriages, experts say. Proving fault requires a trial, something many divorcing couples today avoid, said Kristen Marinaccio, a New Jersey-based family law attorney. A divorce trial is time-consuming and costly, putting the partner with less money at an immediate disadvantage. It can also be “really, really traumatizing” to have to take the stand against an ex-partner, Marinaccio said.

There’s also no guarantee that judges will always decide cases fairly. In the days of fault-based divorce, courts were often unwilling to intervene in marriages even in cases of abuse, Zug said.

No-fault divorce can be easier on children, who don’t have to experience their parents facing each other in a trial, experts say. Research suggests that allowing such divorces increased women’s power in marriages and even reduced women’s suicide rates. A return to the old ways would turn back the clock on this progress, scholars say.

“We know exactly what happens when people can’t get out of very unhappy marriages,” Zug said. “There’s much higher incidences of domestic abuse and spousal murder.”

It’s unlikely that blue states would ban no-fault divorce, Marinaccio said, but if red states do, their residents would be stuck. Divorce laws generally include a residency requirement, which would make it difficult for people to cross state lines to get a divorce the way they sometimes do now to obtain an abortion. “Your state is the only access you have to divorce,” Marinaccio said.

Divorce is extremely common — more than 670,000 American couples split in 2022 alone. Any rollback to no-fault divorce would likely be politically unpopular, even in red states (some of which have higher divorce rates than the national average).

But perhaps emboldened by their victory in overturning Roe v. Wade, social conservatives have gone after other popular targets in recent months, from birth control to IVF. The drive to increase restrictions on divorce is part of the same movement, Zug said — an effort to re-entrench “conservative family values,” incentivize heterosexual marriage and childbearing, and disempower women. “They are all connected,” Zug said.

[so-i-did-this-thing]

Hey trans Florida folks - things suck, but I want to make sure y'all have more info so you can better gauge the urgency and expected risk for a new bill.

This is another long post, but please read because a lot of folks are in a huge panic at some misleading info.

You've probably seen this by now:

This is misleading. Be incredibly concerned at the path we're on because it is bad, even plan to leave the state (I am), but drag isn't punishable by the death penalty:

From the Twitter screencap: "Florida has now: 1) made drag in public illegal as a 'sex crime against children'."

Misleading. SB 1438 censors drag in front of minors w/vague, subjective language and threatens misdemeanors, fines, and license revocation for violations. This is meant to scare businesses, and even cities. We are already seeing Pride parades canceled in Florida in response:

From the Twitter screencap: "2) made sexual crimes against children punishable by death"

Too broad. Sexual battery against a child is being made into a capital felony (aka, punishable by death) in the currently proposed SB1342 .

The bill says:

"A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injures the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age commits a capital felony".

If we want a definition of "sexual battery" itself, we can jump to Florida statues at:

https://m.flsenate.gov/statutes/794.011

"Sexual battery” means oral, anal, or female genital penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or female genital penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose."

Also of note in this statute:

"Serious personal injury” means great bodily harm or pain, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement."

I am not a lawyer, but to me, this looks like less of an attack against trans people for existing (via conflation with anti-drag bills), and more a way to target those providing gender affirming care -- healthcare providers or even a child's affirming guardians.

Many states are already trying to set up "aiding and abetting" laws (from the anti-abortion playbook) to punish anyone offering any kind of gender affirming care (from general therapy to vocal coaching) to a trans kid.

Florida might be hoping someone applies the "injures the sexual organs of" component of SB1342 to gender-affirming puberty blockers. Yeah, it's a stretch, but I would not be surprised to see someone try it.

Because we are already seeing the HHS committee consider sending subpoenas to gender-affirming clinics:

"House Speaker Paul Renner said he wants the House to examine how the organizations adopted their recommendations. He questioned whether the guidelines were the result of scientific analysis or whether “the integrity of the medical profession has been compromised by a radical gender ideology that stands to cause permanent physical and mental harm to children and adolescents.”

Emphasis mine. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I would not be surprised to see someone try to hold a gender-affirming clinic accountable for "sexual battery" against a child.

All these separate actions paint a grim picture.

Back to our Twitter screencap: "3) Began allowing death penaltymsentencing at at 8-4 vote instead of a unanimous vote"

Yes, true. This one is scary all on its own because it makes it that much easier for the DeSantis administration to target political enemies.

Everyone should be terrified of this:

Back to making child sexual battery a capital felony & SB1342:

Could we eventually see bills proposed that further broaden - via deliberately vague language or otherwise -what kind of "sex crimes" are punishable by death, thus fully targeting trans people?

For sure, we will absolutely see fascists try to get away with whatever they can and I hope we see more resistance against what is happening now to prevent the escalation towards genocide.

But this specific bill isn't targeting drag and it's important we understand the current threat landscape so we can plan accordingly.

Like. I'm still working on my own plan to flee Florida asap (I am a trans man) but I don't feel at risk of the death penalty just yet, so my "leave asap" is "sell the house in a month" instead of "grab the bugout bag and get in the car NOW".

It is very, very important to understand the threats we face so we don't make rash decisions that could have permanent consequences for already vulnerable people. We need to plan and act on plans with haste, but afford ourselves every opportunity to make decisions with as much accurate information as possible.

What's the status of SB1342?

As I type this, still with the senate, but check for updates at the link below. If passed, it would enact October 1, 2023.

In closing

Again, be careful, be safe, be informed. I am not a legal expert; I'm just a little guy, but the risk landscape has enough threats trans people need to respond to without us thinking drag is currently eligible for the death penalty.

Every trans person in the United States, not just Florida, should be watching what is going on across the country and noting how all these bills connect and escalate. And what could become blueprints at the federal level.

Keep hope, but plan for contingencies that could threaten your job, your housing, your liberty, and possibly even your life. Watch the news, watch your local bills, and do your best at figuring out when you need to break that emergency glass.

My biggest advice to be better informed is to learn where your state posts bills and look them up when they hit the news:

Get used to reading bills and noting when they would take effect

Learn how to follow a bill on its way into law - the stages are usually through various committees, then both the House and Senate can file amendments and ultimately vote in separate sessions to approve, then the governor signs it into law

Understand that a lot of reporting on bills can make it sound like it has passed into law, when it might still just be in a committee.

Not all bills pass, and when they do, not all pass as originally proposed. (This can work for or against us.)

Follow trans political commentators like Erin or Alejandra for more context

Again, it all sucks right now and I don't want to underscore the danger so many transgender Americans are already in (and lord knows I am very lucky to be able to leave Florida). But knowing what we're up against is one of the few defenses we have right now.

I have more advice for trans Floridians here.

[gwydion-aacblog]

people who is anti abortion make feel sick . use people like gwydion as reason to be anti abortion , because all deserve exist . is not people , is tool in argument . and that make sick .

can say , there is problem in people advise and force give up pregnancy because baby would have disabilities , even if this would not make extra danger to carry and raise , or if would choose accept that danger .

can say , there is problem in people like gwydion not allow have baby even when want and able , force give up , force treatment that make impossible .

but . can also say , some disabilities make life very very hard . some do not get to live for years . for months for weeks for days and sometimes , even for minutes . and those things , those can also put parent in danger .

can also say , some parents know that would not be able handle baby with this disability . money , time , energy because also disabled . would tank health to continue , " even if " give up to adopt rather than raise for self . ( adopt system . is not is not is not some perfect magic fix . )

can also say , some parents know would not want baby with this disability . and that is cruel , something want change in world , but would be more cruel to force baby in life that either hate and abuse by family , or never have one .

and can also say , do not try take rights from people to " defend " gwydion . if think abortion so wrong , just do not get one for self , very simple . body and sexuality is not exist just to use for babies , and people have right choose . 

but life messy , and sometimes things go wrong . sometimes asshole boyfriend take off condom just for self to feel better . sometimes birth control pills fail because vital medication interfere . sometimes get force to do things that not want . sometimes disability put parent and baby in too much danger to be able continue , no matter how much want . sometimes , realise parenthood not able happen right now .

should all those people suffer ? 

sincerely , if answer is yes : that is not OK , and hope see error in ways . 

want world better for people with intellectual disability . get this by first support all who live right now , not possible babies . give proper sex education for intellectual disability . give rights and freedom to exist without world control . fight ableism that say worthless if can not X-Y-Z .

[aingeal98]

so, steph in the canon text choose to carry her pregnancy to term and give her child up for adoption. this is generally understood to be bc the writer of that issue/run was pro life, but taking the text at face value, what does it say that steph chose what she chose? is it coherent with her character? could it be read as another symptom of internalized mysoginy? or is it incoherent with her character/would it be more thematically interesting to have her have an abortion?

Really really good question I've been mulling this over in my head for weeks. To answer the last question first, I honestly think the issue with the pregnancy arc is less about the choices Steph makes and more to do with how clunkily anti abortion Chuck Dixon is. Like I do think it's very possible to be fully pro choice but also unwilling to abort your own pregnancy. I fought alongside my friends to repeal the abortion ban in Ireland but at the same time I can never picture myself ever getting one, because for me the second I become aware of it it's real to me, not just a clump of cells. But I know full well that's just my own sentimentality and there's no scientific backing, like logically it IS just a clump of cells and also there's a whole patriarchal society dedicated to stopping women from having bodily autonomy, which is why I'd never try and push that belief on others or discourage them from whatever choice they feel is best. So basically I would struggle hard to ever do it, but if you want to, hell yeah abort that thang! No judgement from me or moral reasoning needed from you.

And because of this I could see Steph being the same. I could even see certain story beats playing out the same if they were allowed just a bit more nuance instead of being a conservative after school special. Steph lashing out at her mom and counsellor for suggesting an abortion, not because it's a Bad Thing to do but because it feels to her like her mom is already trying to sweep this under the rug like it never happened, and Steph herself hasn't even come to terms with it. Steph feeling isolated from her peers, again highly plausible it just needs better dialogue than what we got in the original. We could even have scenes of Steph grappling with the idea of an abortion, and wondering how much of her aversion to it is her own choice and how much is internalized misogyny. I think her arc of deciding to have the baby and give it up works best, although a well written abortion au would be super interesting to read.

So basically for me the choices Steph makes in the original run are very coherent with her character, and what actually makes it fall flat is the clunky dialogue and heavy handed anti abortion writing. If Steph was written by someone other than Chuck Dixon during that time, I could see her being pro choice while also being unwilling to abort the baby herself. And it could have been written with a lot more nuance and acknowledgement of what teen mothers go through, instead of just what Chuck Dixon thought Good Teen Moms should do and say in this filthy world of liberal values.

From what we got in canon, I'd say Steph probably grew out of the anti abortion mindset as she got older. I don't think she'd ever regret her decision, but I do see her looking back and cringing at some of the ways she acted because wow the internalized misogyny JUMPED out. And if she ever came across another sobbing teenager with a positive pregnancy test, I'd say modern adult Steph would make sure they knew all their options with zero judgement. And helping that young girl would probably dredge up a million different emotions that she would struggle to name.

So tl:dr, taking the text at face value Steph has boatloads of internalized misogyny specifically around abortion. But I don't actually think her choices are out of character, more so that the entire narrative is written less as a story and more as a moralizing conservative rant on pro life where everyone feels like a caricature. It would actually be quite simple to tweak the dialogue and clunky scenes and end up with similar character choices just... better written. Where her mom and counsellors aren't evil for suggesting abortion but Steph still feels hurt and lashes out anyway. Where her peers say the wrong things and leave her feeling alienated. Where she weighs her options and gets more narrative space to mull over all the consequences. It would be my preferred way to rewrite the arc, but there are a lot of changes that could be made and I'm open to reading about all of them.

Thank you for the ask! Sorry it took so long to respond I was chewing over the whole concept haha.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Daniel Villarreal at LGBTQ Nation:

A completed draft Texas Republican Party platform refers to homosexuality as “an abnormal lifestyle choice,” gender-affirming care as “child abuse,” and Drag Queen Story Hour as “predatory sexual behavior.” The platform has been voted on by state party delegates and will be formally adopted on Wednesday after a final vote count. The list of state party priorities calls for an end to legal same-sex marriages, same-sex parenting, all LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination laws, all transgender rights — including gender-affirming care for children and adults — a ban on LGBTQ+ content in schools and libraries, the defunding of all diversity-equity-inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and legal protections for anyone who discriminates against queer people based on “religious or moral beliefs.”

Furthermore, the Texas GOP platform calls for a complete end to all of the following: pornography, federal welfare programs, minimum wage laws, mandatory sick or family leave policies, net neutrality, removal of Confederate monuments, pro-immigrant sanctuary cities, public education of undocumented children, no-fault divorce, non-abstinence sex education, abortion, birthright citizenship, professorial tenure in colleges and universities, cannabis legalization, anti-climate change legislation, contact tracing for the tracking of communicable diseases, federal regulations ensuring safe farm food production, and U.S. participation in the United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The platform also calls for fertilized human egg cells to be legally recognized as people, the passage of a “state electoral college-style” law that would make it nearly impossible for Democrats to win statewide office, a ballot measure for Texas to secede from the United States, the invalidation of all federal laws not approved of by county sheriffs, and for Christianity to be inserted into public schools and government buildings.

[...] “Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice,” it continues. “No one should be granted special legal status based on their LGBTQ+ identification…. We are opposed to same-sex parenting, intentionally subjecting a child to the loss of their biological father or mother, and other non-traditional definitions of family.” “We oppose all efforts to validate transgender identity,” it adds. “There shall be no attempt to engage in so-called ‘gender affirming’ medical or mental health intervention for persons between the ages of 18 and 26,” including the use of names and pronouns associated with trans people’s genders. The platform would require health insurance companies covering gender-affirming care to also fully fund de-transitional procedures. The platform says that any professionals who aid a minor’s gender transition in any way should face professional, civil, and criminal penalties, as well as lawsuits from anyone affected by their behavior. Furthermore, it calls for all gender-segregated facilities in prisons, schools, and government buildings to only be accessible to people based on their biological sex assigned at birth.

[...] It also calls for laws prohibiting the exposure of minors to “social transitioning” (that is, exploration of a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth), “predatory sexual behaviors” like Drag Queen Story Hour, and “the desensitization of children to sexual topics.”

The Texas GOP's platform reaffirms and expands its war on LGBTQ+ Texans, such as including anti-LGBTQ+, anti-trans, and anti-drag planks like baselessly calling Drag Queen Story Hours "predatory sexual behaviors" and gender-affirming care "child abuse".

This is in addition to calling homosexuality "an abnormal lifestyle choice" (a bigoted dogwhistle term used against recognizing LGBTQ+ identity) and opposing trans identity.

[meret118]

Last Thursday, he demanded that Republicans insert into must-pass budget legislation that’ll be considered in the next two or three weeks a provision that would demand that every state require absolute proof of citizenship to register to vote. Right now, this is largely confined to red states. “I would shut down the government in a heartbeat if they don’t get it and if they don’t get it in the bill,” Trump told Monica Crowley on her podcast.It’s already a felony in every state for noncitizens to cast a ballot. The simple reality is that there’s never been a noncitizen “voter fraud” problem in America—or any other advanced democracy—so there’s no need for a “solution.”

What Republicans know, however, is that the lower a person is on the economic ladder, the less likely they are to have kept or have easy access to the kinds of documentation of birth and citizenship necessary to meet the GOP’s anti–voter fraud registration requirements.

And the poorer a person is, the more likely they are to vote Democratic.

Republicans also know that millions of women are seriously pissed off about the Dobbs decision, particularly in the 20 Republican-controlled states with bans on abortion. This demand for proof of citizenship to prevent “voter fraud” is the main way the GOP is now expanding its suppression efforts to women. The National Organization for Women notes: “Voter ID laws have a disproportionately negative effect on women.… Roughly 90 percent of women who marry adopt their husband’s last name. That means that roughly 90 percent of married female voters have a different name on their ID than the one on their birth certificate. An estimated 34 percent of women could be turned away from the polls unless they have precisely the right documents.”

Many women won’t have them, won’t be able to track them down, or can’t afford to replace them, so millions will just shrug and go back to their lives, figuring that “just one less vote” won’t make that much difference.

Claiming widespread noncitizen “voter fraud” is the GOP’s primary go-to strategy to prevent people from voting or even registering to vote, and every day it seems they come up with new ways to exploit it. As Crystal Hill pointed out Wednesday at Democracy Docket, “Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) sued one of the state’s most populous counties to block its plan to mail out over 200,000 voter registration forms to residents, claiming the move will ‘facilitate [voter] fraud.’”

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Pro-Life Rescue & Direct Action: The Importance of Invading Abortion Clinics

Non-Violent Direct Action is Proven Effective

From Ghandi’s Indian Independence Movement to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Civil Rights Movement, to Serbia’s student-led resistance Otpor! and more, two things are consistently linked with the success of movements: a commitment to non-violence and the necessity of risking arrest. That’s because only when people are willing to take risks and make sacrifices, can the institutional power of an oppressor be challenged and delegitimized. Seeing other people getting directly involved in a movement motivates participation. There is a science to non-violent struggle and social revolution that has been documented by political researchers such as Gene Sharpe. From privileged people interposing their bodies between Black protesters and the police who brutalize them during the Black Lives Matter movement, to tenant networks mobilizing to blockade around the homes of vulnerable neighbors at risk of eviction by their landlords, leftists have proven these tactics save lives and advance change. If we want to see success in the anti-abortion movement, then we must follow proven social science.

Rescue is Necessary to Dismantle Big Abortion

Because we will never outspend the abortion industrial complex, the only way we can win is with people power. Abortion rescue disrupts the progress of abortion violence and applies pressure to those complicit. It viscerally agitates the public to reckon with abortion's violence. It reduces violence on the fringes of the pro-life movement by providing a non-violent outlet of expression for frustrated individuals. Non-violent abortion rescue interrupts injustice against prenatal people without unjust action and disarms the abortion providers without harming them. Parents seeking abortion as a solution to an unwanted or crisis pregnancy have bought into the lies of Big Abortion, and rescue unsettles that narrative. Rescuers hope to save not only the child, but also their mothers, families, and communities. Rescue is intervention intended to free even the abortion workers from the cycle of abortion violence. During the era of the late 80’s and early 90’s, it’s estimated that 60% of mothers with appointments for abortions on the day of a rescue never rescheduled.

Rescues Challenge Unjust Laws

We can’t let the reality that the law is on the side of the oppressors dictate what we ought to do. Our goal is to change that reality, not to live with it! Opposition to rescue implicitly affirms that the choice to kill is permissible. We have no ethical obligation to follow unjust laws; in fact, we may challenge unjust laws with civil disobedience. We must use our bodies as shields to stop the main aggressors of abortion from hurting the babies because law enforcement upholds the violent status quo of the state. When a rescuer is sentenced to jail, it is an opportunity for non-rescuers to hold the entire legal system accountable each day for the murder it protects until it is as safe and legal to protect children as it is now safe and legal to kill them.

Rescuers Save Lives in Prisons

If you are pregnant and incarcerated, you are the forgotten of the forgotten. Pregnant prisoners are either pressured into abortion, mistreated into a miscarriage, or forced to suffer a dehumanizing birthing experience, and predatory adoption agencies lie in wait to take and profit from their babies. Pro-Life activists imprisoned for rescue are presented the unique opportunity to advocate for better conditions for pregnant prisoners, to defend the lives of their unborn children, to organize support for their families from the outside world, and to serve grieving post-abortive women behind bars. Even incarcerated women deserve better than abortion. Thus abortion rescuers continue to rescue even while in prison.

Rescues Affirm the Equality of the Preborn

By taking the risk to rescue, you practice solidarity with the preborn and parents who believe abortion is their only option. You have the power as a privileged born person to put your body between the powerless and their oppressors, between an abortion provider and a helpless child. How do we show the world that fetuses are the same as us when we are nothing like them? The answer is simple: we make ourselves more like them. When rescuers stand in solidarity with the preborn, they become as vulnerable as the preborn are. If we say that a woman needs to sacrifice her lifestyle, relationship, body, and future for her unborn child, then we are hypocrites if we’re not willing to do the same. When we rescue, we are willing to sacrifice the same to prison for her child, ergo rescue is solidarity with moms too. Some people will never affirm the humanity of the preborn. It’s our job to do so by being physically intolerant of abortion through rescue.

Rescue is a Direct Act of Love

The preborn deserve to have someone show up for them. An attempt to rescue a preborn child may be the only act of love they ever receive before they are murdered. They have no one else as they are taken legally to their deaths. The success of a rescue is not determined by how many babies were saved that day; it's determined by how many babies were loved. If you were facing death, wouldn’t you want someone who loves you to stand physically with you to the last possible second as well? Your presence in their moment of suffering matters. The preborn deserve to have someone witness them as full people at least once in their life.

If Abortion is Murder, then Act Like It

Do your actions reflect the reality that the preborn are people equal to ourselves? Rescue fully expresses what it means to understand that the preborn have the same humanity as us. Our sacrifice forces others to see the humanity of the preborn, because if they aren’t people, why would we risk jail and potentially worse for them? If the preborn have the right to life, then we have a responsibility to make sure their right is respected. Rescue offers a final tangible act of love to a child as they are being taken away to be exterminated. If you KNOW the preborn are people and abortion is murder, then ACT LIKE IT!

How to Support Rescue

Not every pro-life person can be an abortion rescuer. Factors like finances, family, disability, and racialized police brutality prevent many folks who support rescue from feeling confident in participating. Luckily, there are many ways the pro-life community as a whole can participate in rescue without being a rescuer!

Sponsor a rescuer financially. If you can't rescue, donate to a rescuer who will do it for you! As rescuer Herb Geraghty said, "let us be your hands and feet". Offer monetary and emotional support to the families of rescuers.

Do jail support. Demonstrate in front of police stations, courts, jails, and prisons that are holding rescuers. Write to the rescuers frequently. If you are on a legal team, offer your local rescuers pro-bono defense.

Share rescue stories on your social media in a positive light. Comment on news stories that frame rescue badly. Make videos about rescue and why you support it.

Do culture jamming around clinics frequented by rescuers. Make posters and wheatpaste them to sidewalks, sharpie pro-life messages to the backs of signs, put rescue stickers on the alley walls around the clinic.

Help organize the rescues. Do research about the clinics for the rescuers. Keep the rescuers updated about police scanners while they perform a rescue. Coordinate supplies, donations, first-aid, and legal defense. Be there with food before and after rescue.

Learn More

Quotes About Abortion Rescues Rescue and Police Violence The Rescue Movement (Documentary) The Brutal Truth Dragonslayers Defenders of the Unborn Wrath of Angels Shattering the Darkness All the Rescues Essential Roles in Social Movements Types of Abortion Rescue Historic Abortion Rescues Media Bias Against Abortion Rescue Joan Andrews

[patrochillesvibes]

O and I have an other question how do you think Achilles will react once he finds out about the fact that Patroclus had slept Deidameia. Because I do believe Patroclus haven’t to Achilles about it .

<3 <3 <3

Ah, the single plot point in TSoA I disagree with.

🎵How do you solve a problem like Pyrrhus🎶

So if we’re all gonna suck Homer’s dick, then let’s all get on the same page that Deidamia isn’t in the Iliad. Or the Odyssey. You also gotta be careful with any source material mentioning Deidamia as most of this content was part of a smear campaign by the Italians coughDantecough.

Pyrrhus is such a random character if you think about it. Achilles was not married, otherwise Agamemnon wouldn’t keep trying to get him to marry his seemingly endless supply of daughters. Pyrrhus isn’t labeled as a bastard, but what else could he be? Achilles would’ve had to have knocked up some chick.

And isn’t it strange that Achilles would do this? I don’t want to say it’s not in character, but it seems strange compared to his prophecy-focused life. (Also, Patroclus and Achilles don’t have little bastards running around the camp, so do we really believe they’re fucking the slaves? If they’re fucking the slaves, where are the babies? Birth control and abortions were not that good in 1250 BCE. But I’m getting super off topic now.)

This is why I personally believe Achilles found a random baby, adopted it, and had Mother feed him ambrosia.

I’m very passionate about ^this headcanon of mine.

Now back to TSoA…

First off, remember that Patroclus is a LIAR. He is not just full of bologna, he’s made out of bologna. He wants us to believe he’s a feminist? Anti-war? A doctor? Achilles is perfect? Patroclus PLEASE!

But you have to respect the lies because TSoA is essentially an autobiography and lying is like the first law of autobiography writing.

I’d also like to point out the clever literary trick at the end of TSoA. The book ends with Patroclus and Thetis chatting about Achilles. She says “Speak, then” to get Patroclus to share his memories. Thus, the book is not so much an account of his life, but essentially all the memories he had to share with her. He wants to show her how glorious her son was, the side she never got to see, the human nature she shunned, Achilles’ mortality. So of course he’s going to highlight the good, even enhance it as well as downplay or even lie about the bad.

But back to your question…

What happened at Skyros? Patroclus wants us to believe a lot of non-con was going on. I low-key have a very messed up theory about what actually happened and why it happened, but I don’t want to get into it rn a blogger on here might be unhappy bcs of a related ask I coincidentally just sent them. So for simplicity's sake, let’s assume that the non-con did indeed happen. I think he told Achilles a half-truth. Something to the effect of mentioning having comforted Deidamia and given her an official farewell (of the husbandly kind) on his behalf. He used a lot of double-meaning words to allow Achilles to interpret as he pleased.

And how did he interpret what Patroclus told him? First he was relieved that he would not have to deal with her again. Then he was his usual dumb blonde self (Patroclus calls this 'trusting', Pat pls) and took the words at face value. And I wouldn't blame him for it. When traumatic things happen to you, you do what you can to cope.

And please don’t take this as victim blaming or non-con denial, but the last lines of Chapter 13 never sat quite right with me.

Sorry to keep harping on the lying. Part of me thinks the scene with Deidamia was either a hallucination-false memory sequence to reinforce that patrochilles is 2-bodies-1-soul -what happens to Achilles happens to Pat; and part of me thinks this was Pat’s sly way of showing Thetis how she hurt Achilles by enabling the non-con. Sadly, we'll never know the truth, so it's up to you what you want to believe.

I hope this rambling rant answered your question. Thank you for the ask! I LOVE LOVE LOVE The Song of Achilles and am capable of ranting and raving about it for hours at a time 😘

[butchbarbieagainstterfs]

I just saw a TERF post that read as follows:

I don't think y'all want to hear this, but the right is gaining a lot of ground in the US and I believe it's found a way to replicate the success it's had in radicalizing men by taking a different approach with women: pretending to be the only ones willing to listen to women's concerns over trans issues and then slowly introducing anti-abortion, anti-gay, and other conservative rhetoric. I just got an ad on youtube from a rightwing legal organization that framed the issues around trans athletes and female sports as an attack on personal freedoms and said it was on par with gay couples adopting. this organization was instrumental in overturning roe v wade, and it is not stopping any time soon.

make no mistake: these people are not radical feminists. and they don't pretend to be. but I need y'all to start paying attention to the feminists who call out rightwing rhetoric in trans discourse and stop dismissing us as "divisive" and "too focused on ideological purity to get shit done." if someone questions why pediatric transition is being framed as a matter of "parental rights" (which this legal organization is also heavily pushing for) instead of, say, framing it as a matter of patient/ children rights, take a moment to understand why that may be problematic down the line. do we want a parent to have the right to put their gay kid through conversion therapy? do we want a parent to have the right to stop their daughter from having an abortion? I don't care for ideological purity, I care about not empowering an already powerful group of people that is directly attacking women.

The lack of self awareness is astounding.

It's almost like anti-trans rhetoric is a gateway that leads people down the alt-right pipeline. And TERFs, wittingly or not, are crucial to how this pipeline functions.

Radfems are just reactionaries with a progressive facade. And it seems that many of them, like the OP of this post, are in denial of that fact.

If the bad guys are on your side about a marginalised group of people…you’re the bad guys too.

[redshoes-blues]

Alright, now that I’ve watched the new Doctor Who episodes, here are my thoughts (below the cut because it turns out I had a lot to say!):

First, Space Babies:

— I thought it was…okay? It was a serviceable first episode, though I do wonder what the thought process was behind starting an intro season with such a weird concept. Throwing new viewers into the deep end?

— Lots of exposition, and I feel it could’ve been done a bit more naturally, but it isn’t a big deal. I’m watching the show with my brother who is twelve and new to DW (he’s only seen Nine’s season), so that infodump was helpful for him and new viewers even if it could’ve been handled a bit better.

— THE RANI MENTION!! Obviously exciting, but I may be even more intrigued by the lack of mention of the Master. Clearly lots of hard feelings there.

— The butterfly thing. Okay. What was happening when Ruby transformed into that green creature? I have many questions. Maybe it was just an example of a butterfly effect, but why is she that creature? Because it was a Changling she was swapped with? Sometimes things fly over my head so who knows.

— Major uncanny valley with the babies, which kind of made me wish they went a bit more in a horror direction with them, but ah well.

— WAS THAT CORUSCANT?! Maybe not *literal* Coruscant, but it has to be a reference, right? I mean, they referenced Star Trek too!

— I immediately adore Fifteen and Ruby’s dynamic. They have wonderful best friends energy and Ncuti has already proven himself as an amazing Doctor.

— Very intrigued by both the snow (clearly a recurring thing) and the DNA scan the Doctor is doing at the end of the episode.

— In terms of the snow, I wasn’t expecting to get emotional so early on in this series, but that and the scene where the Doctor is talking to the baby about his past made me well up. Beautiful writing there in an otherwise pretty silly episode.

— The little call-out of how hypocritical anti-abortion people are. Love to see it.

— Also the babies never being hugged before?! I’m sorry but that’s so devastating oh my god.

— Clearly a major theme of the series is going to be adoption, where the Doctor and Ruby came from, as well as their found families. I’m a huge sucker for found family, so I’m quite excited to see this inevitably come up again throughout the season.

— I love RTD for refusing to ignore that the Timeless Child is a thing that happened, and not only for that, but also for actively working to make it a serviceable aspect of the Doctor’s character now. It wouldn’t have been my choice for a plot, but it’s here, and I’m glad it isn’t being retconned. And I love how it parallels Ruby’s story. Also: the line about the baby Doctor being left in the void of space was so sad.

— I enjoyed the callbacks to The End of the World!

— Overall, the episode was fine, nothing special, but there were some lovely moments.

The Devil’s Chord

— Okay. WOW. I loved this episode so much. This is by far my favourite of all the episodes we’ve gotten with Fifteen and Ruby, and I can see it becoming a new favourite in general too.

— I loved when Fifteen and Ruby stepped out of the TARDIS and we got a little Abbey Road moment. Expected? Yes. But it was very adorable.

— Maestro was an incredible villain and Jinkx was giving everything!! Are they a child of the Toymaker? I feel like that was sort of implied, but either way they’re definitely part of his liege. I’m sure we’ll be seeing many more of the people connected to him throughout the series.

— Conceptually, I loved this. I love when DW takes a big concept asks questions. Like what would the world be like without this thing that’s so integral to humanity that we take for granted? It reminded me a little bit of the Yesterday movie (“what if the Beatles’ music didn’t exist?”) if it was good and thoughtful lol.

— I loved the slight corniness of seeing the world without music and how devastating that is. It made me cry seeing Ruby and Fifteen in the 2024 post-nuclear earth without music. And then seeing the joy Ruby’s song brought to people?! That song itself was absolutely beautiful and I’m so thrilled Murray Gold is back because wow. Stunning. Made me cry!

— We also learn that it’s June (or July?) 2024 now, which means they’ve been travelling for about six months. That’s quite a substantial chunk of time that we haven’t seen. Which leaves a lot of wiggle room for Big Finish audios. And that’s always welcome!

— The Doctor’s soul is split in two?! Woah. That’s a big deal and was brushed over really fast? Which is fine, maybe we won’t come back to that. But that in itself is very interesting.

— The Harbinger again. Hmmm.

— Also: Susan Twist again? What is happening!! She appeared in the previous episodes too.

— Ruby and Fifteen’s outfits were so fuckin good, I know so many people will cosplay them and look incredible doing it. I need Ruby’s dress badly.

— The part when Maestro was trying to steal Ruby’s song inside of her soul (very cool concept) and CAROL OF THE BELLS PLAYED OH MY GOD. The callbacks to the church are crazyyy and I’m so intrigued. I’m loving the mystery.

— SUSAN MENTIONED! All of these classic who references…Susan, other Time Lords, etc. are making me wondering if they’re just unsubtle easter eggs OR if they’re building towards something.

— Maestro referred to Ruby as a “creature” which is another tidbit that may point to her not being human, which I’m very intrigued by.

— I enjoyed the fourth wall breaks, which were slightly unsettling and especially the theme song beginning in piano which was such a cool callback to the original DW theme.

— THE SNOW IN THE TARDIS?! What is happening omg. The collision of that memory into the current time where Ruby is…what’s going on?! I’m scared but so, so invested.

— Musical number at the end was so much fun. Was it necessary? Not at all. But it was good camp fun and that’s why I watch DW, so I’m here for it!!

— There’s definitely more I’m forgetting to mention because this episode had a lot packed into it, but basically I loved it so much and am adoring Ruby and Fifteen as a duo. This was strong writing and a great episode for me!

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Following the Supreme Court’s elimination of the federal right to abortion in June, conservatives have taken aim at other fundamental protections, such as same-sex marriage and access to contraception. But some on the right are resurfacing a different, long-simmering project: stigmatizing divorce, including, in some instances, attacking no-fault divorce laws.

No-fault divorce in the U.S. was first adopted in California in 1969, and New York was the last state in the country to pass a no-fault divorce law, which it did in 2010. Although state laws differ, in general no-fault divorce means that one party can successfully dissolve a marriage without needing to first prove wrongdoing by the other partner – including adultery, abuse, or desertion.

Ohio Republican Senate nominee J.D. Vance praised the idea of staying in violent marriages in remarks to high school students in southern California last September. Vance argued “all of us should be honest” about how “making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear” by leaving marriages that were “maybe even violent” had negative effects on the children, according to Vice, which first reported the comments.

Although Vance’s comments were made before the overturning of Roe v. Wade, they’ve taken on a new salience amid a conservative movement that sees formerly out-of-reach goals as newly attainable. And Vance has lots of company in right-wing media.

Reactionary YouTuber Tim Pool recently discussed no-fault divorce laws on his show, titling the clipped segment: “No-Fault Divorce Has DESTROYED Men's Confidence In Marriage, Men Don't Want To Get Married Anymore.” The discussion focused on how no-fault divorce laws were to blame for what the panel perceived to be a rise in prenuptial agreements, which segued into a meandering discussion lamenting divorce in general.

“The courts are heavily biased in favor of women to an insane degree, especially with children,” Pool said, parroting a cliche often espoused by so-called men’s rights activists, an anti-feminist movement that claims men are structurally disadvantaged in divorce proceedings and family court. (Although it is true that women are generally granted sole custody more frequently than men, the reasons for that are complicated and have to do with men historically having higher incomes and sexist ideas about mothers being natural caregivers.)

Fellow conservative YouTuber Steven Crowder has also argued that no-fault divorce laws are disincentivizing young men to get married. In an unfocused June 24 rant calling for the Supreme Court to now overturn marriage equality rights conferred in Obergefell v. Hodges, Crowder said no-fault divorce laws are “a raw deal for a lot” of men.

“Oh, it’s no-fault divorce, which, by the way, means that in many of these states if a woman cheats on you, she leaves, she takes half,” Crowder said. “So it’s not no-fault, it’s the fault of the man.”

“There need to be changes to marital laws, and I’m not even talking about same-sex marriage,” he added. “Talking about divorce laws, talking about alimony laws, talking about child support laws.”

That wasn’t the first time Crowder has made the argument. After referring to “no-fault divorce states” using air quotes in an April 22 segment, he said, “It’s the only contract that I know of where one side is financially incentivized to break it.”

“If you’re a woman that comes from meager means, and you want to get wealthy – you’ve never worked, you didn’t get a degree, you have no skill set, but you’re good-looking – your best path to victory is simply to marry a man, leave him, and take half,” Crowder added. He later reiterated that “we need to reform divorce laws in this country.”

Some of the loudest anti-LGBTQ conservative voices are also the biggest critics of no-fault divorce, in both cases making an appeal to tradition and what they see as a God-given natural order while defending nakedly patriarchal power relations. Patriarchy depends on a rigid gender binary, with clearly defined roles and expectations; conservatives believe LGBTQ identities subvert this dynamic. Similarly, no-fault divorce laws upended patriarchal power, freeing women from de facto second-class status and dependence on men.

No one encapsulates this tendency more than the virulently anti-trans conservative pundit Matt Walsh. In defending Kanye West’s harassment and threatening behavior in March toward his estranged wife Kim Kardashian, who had recently filed for divorce, Walsh also argued that it should be more arduous to dissolve marriages.

Walsh has made versions of this argument dating back to at least 2015, explicitly in the context of the supposed threat that same-sex marriage posed to heterosexual couples.

Walsh’s Daily Wire colleague Michael Knowles made the same point last year.

“We see the weakening of marriage through no-fault divorce," Knowles said. “This is a very bad turn of events.”

“Do you think society has gotten much better since the social and sexual revolutions of the 1960s? Or has it gotten a little bit worse?” Knowles asked. “Are we in a period of ascendancy or a period of decline?”

Knowles’ line is increasingly common on the right. Senior writer at National Review Online Dan McLaughlin also sees the liberation movements of the second half of the 20th century as a locus of social disintegration, recently linking gay marriage rights and no-fault divorce as twin aspects of a singular problem.

Some conservatives are even more overt in their playbook. The right’s successful campaign to overturn Roe should serve as a “path by which campaigns for social change must be patterned,” Katy Faust and Stacy Manning write at The Federalist. “That’s especially true for those still willing to fight the battle for marriage.”

Faust and Manning run Them Before Us, which describes itself as “a global movement defending children’s right to their mother and father.”

In their piece, they present a hypothetical back-and-forth that activists can use to field questions, such as:

“If you really think family is so important then you must be against divorce.”

• Correct, no-fault divorce is the original re-definition of marriage and it has devastated the American family.

(The two also oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that “children of gay couples lose maternal or paternal love and half their heritage.”)

Others on the right downplay this trend.

“As for no-fault divorce, it’s not entirely clear that the policy — while a tragic mistake, from the social-conservative perspective—actually features prominently in the mainstream Right’s priorities. (Which Republican is campaigning on repealing no-fault divorce?)” writes Nate Hochman at National Review. To answer the rhetorical question: the Texas Republican Party, for one, which includes in its 2022 platform a proposal “to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws and support covenant marriage and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six months after the date of filing for divorce.”

Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in the Supreme Court’s recent Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe, made it clear that aspects of the right are interested in rolling back marriage equality and contraception rights. “We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents," Thomas wrote. It’s not difficult to imagine a movement built on patriarchy targeting divorce laws next.

[odinsblog]

When the Supreme Court’s decision undoing Roe v. Wade came down in June, anti-abortion groups were jubilant – but far from satisfied. Many in the movement have a new target: hormonal birth control. It seems contradictory; doesn’t preventing unwanted pregnancies also prevent abortions? But anti-abortion groups don’t see it that way. They falsely claim that hormonal contraceptives like IUDs and the pill can actually cause abortions.

One prominent group making this claim is Students for Life of America, whose president has said she wants contraceptives like IUDs and birth control pills to be illegal. The fast-growing group has built a social media campaign spreading the false idea that hormonal birth control is an abortifacient.

Reveal’s Amy Mostafa teams up with UC Berkeley journalism and law students to dig into the world of young anti-abortion influencers and how medical misinformation gains traction on TikTok, Instagram and YouTube, with far-reaching consequences.

Tens of millions of Americans use hormonal contraceptives to prevent pregnancy and regulate their health. And many have well-founded complaints about side effects, from nausea to depression – not to mention well-justified anger about how the medical establishment often pooh-poohs those concerns. Anti-abortion and religious activists have jumped into the fray, urging people to reject hormonal birth control as “toxic” and promoting non-hormonal “fertility awareness” methods – a movement they’re trying to rebrand as “green sex.” Mother Jones Senior Editor Kiera Butler explains how secular wellness influencers such as Jolene Brighten, who sells a $300 birth control “hormone reset,” are having their messages adopted by anti-abortion influencers, many of them with deep ties to Catholic institutions.

The end of Roe triggered a Missouri law that immediately banned almost all abortions. Many were shocked when a major health care provider in the state announced it would also no longer offer emergency contraception pills – Plan B – because of a false belief that it could cause an abortion. While the health system soon reversed its policy, it wasn’t the first time Missouri policymakers have been roiled by the myth that emergency contraception can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting and cause an abortion. Reveal senior reporter and producer Katharine Mieszkowski tracks how lawmakers in the state have been confronting this misinformation campaign and looks to the future of how conservatives are aiming to use birth control as their new wedge issue.

—The Long Campaign to Turn Birth Control Into the New Abortion

[princessnijireiki]

like obvs this is a majorly anti cop anti military website, I can read the room and take the temperature of the room & the situation

but it is so fascinating to me the way the LGBT+ community and sphere online has such derision, disdain, and resentment for the people who came before them and ACTUALLY pushed progress in real life... like it's an "extremely online" phenomenon and is perched on such a pedestal, like a tier of unchallenged privilege & safety in these folks' real lives

like to pivot for ex to women's rights in the US, obvs there's soooo much tone deaf racism & classism still regurgitated, right, but we have concrete specific dates for things like the right to vote, right to independent finance, right to independent non inherited land & property ownership, rights to abortion or adoption or divorce, the criminalization of spousal rape, etc etc on top of racially specific laws incl slavery abolition, abolishment of anti miscegenation law, legal protections against forced sterilization, laws around informed medical consent re: experimentation or companies' retention of your cells, DNA, or remains

it's documented!

with racial stuff, the progress is also often so recent, like in a lot of places shit was still legally segregated when my parents were kids, def was segregated in my grandparents' and great grandparents' time, we see the lives & lived memories of our families' existence in this country, the Civil Rights Movement was recorded on video, audio, and in writing, despite Gil Scott-Heron's insistence that the revolution will not be televised, we watched... ALL of that!

and obvs there were & are activists then & now who rightfully point out that if you limit yourself to climbing that sheer cliff face to fight for your rights & for respect & equality within the framework of an oppressive culture, nation, or institution, you then limit the potential for truly radically demanding to be regarded as an equal by destroying & disnantling those unjust systems from the outside, because the master's house will never be dismantled with the master's tools...

but at the same time; there is room for more than "revolution or nothing," and no one secured full rights and killed racism in the womb in one fell swoop, sometimes you have to fight the unglamourous un-gloried fight from within the master's walls because that's where you fucking live.

the US military is not "good," no military is "good," and any military directed by a corrupt imperial/neoimperial racist state even moreso, but it is still the scaffolding through which many of us, our peers, our community, our comrades, must climb. the same as any of our other, many, corrupt institutions, particularly as engaged with the judicial branch of a government that does not care if disenfranchised, oppressed, and/or minority citizens or non-citizens alike live or die.

progress within an institution imposed upon me is still progress, progress within an avenue of survival of that institution, even while that avenue may be oppressive and imposed upon others itself, is still progress. two things can be true at once, and many more besides, if you are willing and mentally capable of looking beyond the limitations of your own life experiences.

[papirouge]

Your position on abortion is interesting to me because I have never heard or seen someone be pro life and be anti gun ownership. Or call themselves pro woman. My experience has been the opposite

Usually if not all pro life activists have been hostile and misogynistic. When I got pregnant as a teenager, it was the pro life group in my small town that harassed me and humiliated me constantly. My ex left because he wanted nothing to do with us. And I didn’t even have that option to terminate because I hardly showed and had just no symptoms until much later. It was the pro life Christians that tried their best to make me feel so terrible and insignificant. They called me a whore and slut when I was in my first relationship that was really long term. But they still thought that I shouldn’t be cared for by my doctor because I didn’t deserve the help for being “loose”. There weren’t any strong social programs since where I lived it was small. Everyone knows everyone else, your business becomes drama and not secretive. There was one time a woman from that church tried to convince me to give her my baby to her and her husband that couldn’t conceive. I think it’s fucked up because I never once said anything about adoption to anyone. And I felt used. Thankfully I moved and doing so much better and most of those people have stayed and rotted there as that town is practically dead.

These people were the same people who really believes in the death penalty and being very pro gun ownership. I used to be neutral and considered owning one because it would make me feel safe as guys around me would love to taunt women about how no matter how hard we train in the gym, they can easily overpower us. So when i started looking at guns they got hostile and called me dramatic and crazy for being so paranoid.

But yeah, sorry for this rambling message. It’s just odd to me that you’re pro life but you also want more socialized care for women because I have never ever seen anyone say that. Maybe it’s a region thing

I mean, I'm Christian and every person who actually read the Bible, and more precisely the passage where Jesus rebukes Peter who harmed one of the guy who came to arrest him with a knife (and went as far as to HEAL him) can easily understand Christianity is against violence in any shape or form. Any Christian still advocating for gun violence is either uneducated about biblical theology, dishonest, an idiot, or a USAmerican evangelical which basically lumps all of those attributes.

If you're Christian you're not supposed to fear physical harm to the point of sinning. I've heard countless stories of Christians being saved from imminent death (being hunted by murderer, assaulted, etc.) by prayer. And if we die we die. It's no big deal. Every Christian should long to rejoin our God. The fact so many Christians are hellbent surviving on this hellscape, even if it means by sinning (killing our assaulter) is very strange, and I can't believe I'm the only person to point this inconsistency out.

Experiences with pro life group seem to vary a lot from one person to another, and I'm sorry you had to deal with the awful side of that movement. But a few days ago on TikTok there a girl who shared her positive experience with pro life group that helped her all throughout her pregnancy and even after.

But the thing is : even if every prolifer was a piece of shit, I would still be pro life, because my stance doesn't rely on prolifers likeability. I am pro life because I defend the right to exist of the unborn, and the behavior of people fighting for them is absolutely irrelevant to whether the unborn deserve to live or not. The same way the mother opinion on whether she wants this baby or not is irrelevant to the fact this baby has the right to live. A fetus right to live is not correlated to anybody else behavior or willingness to see them live.

I think outside the US you'll more prolifers open to socialized system for future mom. Don't forget that the US is only 4% of the world population. You'd be surprised to realize the world is much more "socialist" than you imagine - less financially liberal too. Like, in my country it's absolutely normal to say "yeah mom should have welfare and free stuff" because that's our culture. My opinion is not an oddity here. However I'd be burnt at the stake if I openly say I'm against abortion.

The only people seething on my dash about big bad government are north American. It's great to have state controlled stuff, like medicine prices. That's how for example some medicine is cheaper her (in Europe/France) than the US. Like, I got my 4 wisdom tooth removed + 5 ceramics installed in my mouth (yeah that's a lot LOL) and I only paid 200€ while the total cost of those procedures was around 3000€. Anti government USAmerican will use big words to act like universal healthcare is a threat for freedom but objectively speaking it really removes a weight on the shoulder of many people on a day to day basis - especially moms. That's also why in my country at least, fertility rates managed to be stable (though it started to decrease bc of covid + inflation). If you financially help mothers, they'll be more likely to have kids, who would've thought? Someone tell that to the moids seething against childless women while advocating to remove any sort of welfare for them.