#paper markers | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

aalt-ctrl-del · 2 years

Text

I am working on a "pro-choice" document for information and materials to assist with the movement of reproduction rights, and there are things on the narrative regarding the pro-choice movement I want to shift the perception of because the old narrative does fill constricted and outdated.

Constrictive in that it settles that promoting 'abortion' in unwanted pregnancies. A narrative that many '''''pro-lifers'''' latch onto, and is their only default. It's not the strongest counter argument, but it inserts negative connotations. As well, every person should have the right to cancel an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy for whatever reason. HIPPA should come foremost and protect that right.

Outdated in that is beyond the Roe V Wade timeline, wherein through scientific advancements, we know more about development through trimesters, the evolution process of a zygote (fuk them btw) and the fetus, and complications that can arise through the trimesters - OBYN doctors have better equipment for identifying a healthy fetus, for managing complications to preserve the fetus, and what to do when that fetus fails - what the body does with the material, and what becomes of that material. A "Stonebaby" or "reabsorption".

All pretty heavy stuff that ''''''pro-lifers'''' can't really comprehend.

There is also the misconception of "when life begins" as by scientific definition, life does not begin in the fetus until at least the 3 trimester. This date is important, because it is when the fetus is more likely to survive without life support - i.e., a preemie birth is no quite a miscarriage, but the 'birthed' fetus has the highest probability of survival without medical intervention. A preemie 'dropped' in the 2 trimester (3-4 months) has no chance of survival, this is still an underdeveloped fetus and requires oxygen feeding tools, and other specialized equipment to keep the fetus stable if not alive - even in those cases, the chance of survival is so low. In some cases, the doctors will allow the fetus to pass, since the mountain of complications that can come about are monumental, and the 'birthed' child is forever tethered to the medical service industry for their quality of life - which is denied by '''''pro-lifers'''''.

There is also the argument of humane treatment, or choice to 'self-terminate' that can be argued for fetus.

There is the whole and debate on quality of life for those already living, such as in the struggle of the dying process - terminally ill individuals. I want to add here that the process of hospice treatment and care for terminally ill, can endure for months, if not years. And it is a hot debate, because people ask about the ethical demands of allowing someone to end their life, when this process should be undertaken - when it is clear recovery is not possible, and the quality of life is in acute decline.

What does this have to do with a hypothetical human? A lot. Human biology is complicated, messy, and horrendous when it comes down to the process of conceiving a fetus. We have already seen the texas authoritarian government in heated pursuit of women with missed periods, women who need follow-up care following a miscarriage, and prosecutions - there is a critical lack of scientific comprehension from the governments part, in that those like abbot and private citizens do not understand the relationship between the biological functions of a living person and a zygote or zygotes - that the body itself WILL HAVE BEEF with the hypothetical human and decide to terminate naturally, if that zygote or fetus poses a threat or is not a viable cluster of cells.

It's all interesting stuff.

And what does that have to do with the quality of life and right to "self-terminate" or in this case, terminate the pregnancy. It falls under the persons choice to terminate an unwanted or nonviable pregnancy, in the privacy of a medical facility aimed at protecting the rights and fundamentals of those patients, and providing essential care in all situations, in an impartial environment. So if someone is told that the fetus has complications that will make the hypothetical child nonviable following birth, or other issues which will diminish or plateau a critical lack of life and quality to living, then the pregnant person is fully equipped to make the best and most humane decision for the child, if they wanted that child. Or if they wanted to continue the pregnancy, and care that this may require. A "wait and see" situation without threat of undermining the pause, because it goes beyond the marker for 'abortion", and which will leave the choice to the individual regardless unrealistic constraints.

This as well falls into the quality of life and critical plateau, in a situation where a person who is pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy, can decide that this is not the time for that - because situations in their environment and beyond their control and will disrupt the pregnancy - harm the fetus - or wherein bringing this hypothetical human into their home environment will not be safe; i.e., the environment is toxic, they live with hostile, and unstable individuals, the pregnant person has work full time and no assistance to provide care to the child - in the case of medical or food, or even shelter. A situation where resources divided between the child and its birther is not applicable, and one or the other must perish - usually the child.

A lot of complications which devalue and endanger the life of a child, and which results in a high infant fatality rate. Talk to a pediatrician who deals with "shaken babies" and you will immediately become pro-choicer.

Or if you have no soul and no morals, continue to be this delusional weirdo who gets off on taking care vulnerable individuals.

All of this cycles back to the human anatomy and biological process of forming the zygote, and all the drama that entails. Due to the """pro-lifers""" fixation with micromanaging a process that is both dangerous and life-threatening, to all those involved - the pregnant individual and zygote-fetus. Wherein some essential medications may become unavailable to the individual due to pregnancy or the chance of pregnancy - which falls into state management of rights and what medications can be allowed to a certain demographic, inducing violation of rights and freedoms. Which in turn endangers a pregnancy and those involved, based on medial issues the pregnant individual suffers (and a reason not to get pregnant).

"Well just don't have sex!" Again, a violation of basic human rights and privacy. None of this is anyone's business, aside from those involved. Stop state managing, stop with the authoritarian governing. You're supposed to be the "people of freedoms".

All of this narrative boils down to what is safe and humane to the individuals involved. In the medical field, there come tough choices which require technical training and an expertise into that field, in order to preserve the life and health, to the best of the physicians ability. Such elements are not really explored fully in the "pro-choice" movement, which - though it does outline the narrative fully - has an underlying distraction because of a negative perception that is "choice" versus "life", wherein the ideal of 'choice' is far more complex, involved, and messy (seriously, fuk zygotes).

Pro-choice should not be a single ideal of 'choice', it should be the inclusion of the practice of humane care and preservation of the individuals involved. It should be the acknowledgment that even in the medial field, despite the best efforts from the best doctors, the limitations and situations are beyond our control - in short, shit happens. This is a matter of "save all the babies" - as in the case of '''''pro-lifers''''''' wherein the narrative is ignorant, biased, and riddled with judgment for the persons involved. Whereas in the case of the "pro-choice" movement, difficult information is presented, and those involved make difficult choices to the best of their ability. The HUMANE choices, with intent for quality of life, and the idea that next time, better can be done.

If a person suffers multiple miscarriages, that they are not then ridiculed or prosecuted for "crimes" that are beyond their control. That this person - if they so choose - will retain the right to continue the pursuit of conceiving and bearing their own child.

That if someone is told that their fetus has no heartbeat, or the spine is exposed and the head is malformed, that when any complication arises that would either endanger the person pregnant, the fetus - that it can be canceled at any time, thus the process of healing and trying again, will be within reach. Or if a pregnancy results in the degradation of the pregnant individuals health, causes seizures, that a hormonal imbalance or multitude of other health issues arise from the current pregnancy - can be met with a choice to terminate - regardless who is in danger from the pregnancy. That if someone sees their future is bleak and they feel their life is in danger, for any reason, that terminating an unwanted condition can be within reach, and can be conducted in safety and privacy.

"Pro-lifers" want the preservation of judging and controlling other peoples bodies, with the stakes so high - it is a malicious cruelty these people relish in. It is their call to action and narrative. The concept of "all life is precious" is only spouted by these individuals, thus that ''''pro-lifers''''' can torture and mock those that they deem lesser. There is no kindness nor compassion among this group, there is only superiority.

Though I express that the "pro-choice" narrative needs fresh posturing in modern times, it should press upon that "choice" is conducted with the best information, with the best intentions, and with an ideal of humane and ethical pursuit. These values are not easy to meet, but they are the best argument. That the Hippocratic Oath will be upheld to the best of the abilities of the physician and the individuals involved. This narrative does not include ignorant and short lived Senators or Congressional representatives to the state, but should only involve the individuals with years if not decades of training.

1 note · View note