Pro choice and narrow minded

Often, we consider a woman’s right to choose as an abortion issue. However, birth control itself used to be illegal. Even rubbers had prohibitions. It is also true that women could be beaten by their husbands without consequence and did not even have the right to vote. In most cases women did not receive equal education opportunities either. It is fair to say that by modern standards women were oppressed.

Many have much to say about the status of women before the 20th century. There is no argument today that the social status of women is remotely like the 1850’s or 1950’s. It is also true that illegal abortions caused the death of some women. Let us not mistake the term illegal with unavailable. Abortions, whether chemical or herbal or surgical have been taking place throughout history.

Today we argue that women should have absolute control of their bodies. They are well represented as voters, are given equal status by law, and go to university in greater numbers than men. Certainly, they can make decisions in their own self-interest. It would be pleasing to say we have evolved past the barbaric animalism of our past.

Birth control rights can be associated with abortion rights as it was Margaret Sanger who began the crusade for legalized birth control. Sanger fought against the hardships caused by illegal homeopathic abortions. This was before her eugenics drive. As we argue today for the right to terminate a pregnancy after birth, it is odd to reflect back to a time when contraception was illegal. What would motivate a society to make women dependent on her relationship with a man for the sustenance of herself and her children. It appears obvious that this social order made women more property than persons.

Today we celebrate a woman’s right to choose. Some argue that a woman has the right to choose post-delivery. Others consider outside the womb terminations murder. Women today certainly have the protected right to choose. At least since 1973 the right to choose has been cemented in law. However, before 1973 women also had the right to choose and this is lost in the current termination debate.

In 1964 only eight states still banned the pill four years after the FDA approved it. Most women had the right to choose contraceptives legally before Roe V Wade. Many partners had used marital aids for a hundred years thanks to vulcanized rubber. Other homeopathic remedies had long been available providing ample choice including withdrawal and the rhythm method. It seems population control was an issue in the 1830’s as it is today. There were even organizations devoted to providing safe surgical abortions before 1973. Clearly women have had the right to choose what is best for them for many, many years.

An obvious question emerges from consideration of this text. Why does abortion define a woman’s right to choose? It has only been a few generations, we must acknowledge, but women today are fully granted adequate opportunities to be educated, economically self-sufficient, scientifically impregnated and represented politically. So, why must we treat them as an underclass and protect their right to choose.

Woman have many choices today. Many choices are made before inception in most cases. If a pregnancy is unwanted the majority of the time it is due to bad choices. This sentiment acknowledges that there are exceptions in terms of abusive behavior of others. Nonetheless, unwanted pregnancies are often associated with poor choices.

We can also acknowledge that there are other parties involved in conception. We must acknowledge the mother disproportionately bears the biological burden compared to the father. This fact cannot be blamed on a conspiracy of men. as we did not design life. There is no political solution to Adam and Eve as this condition predates government.

Considering the context above. The fundamental right to choose contains many options, not singularly the ability to extinguish a life. In terms of crime prevention is preferable to conviction and incarceration. We rely on institutions to provide us a safe environment. In terms of pregnancy. The victim is not the person impregnated. In fact, some say that the free person who made a series of decision which resulted in the pregnancy, has the right to be the police, prosecutor, judge and jury simply because. That is the important question, why does a person that has demonstrated a lack of ability to plan responsibly have the right to make life or death decisions?

Should a woman’s right to choose be independent of the ability to make good choices?

1 Like

Why aren’t men held responsible for getting snipped? Why’s the onus seemingly always on the woman to make better choices?

maybe there is another question or questions; why don’t we force women to take birth control? why do we force men to pay child support? why aren’t women men? why do women have more reproductive choice than men?

Who is we?

Who are these people?

1 Like

we is we the people that want unrestricted abortion.

who is the governor of Virginia and the mayor named Pete.

I think that many on the left are misogynists that think women lack the mental capacity to choose birth control.

Neither of those people argue for what you are saying. It’s pure bull ■■■■■ It’s a grotesque lie. It should be a ■■■■■■■ bannable offense.


Basic math, please?

There are far more birth control options available to women than men.

How about a sense of history, while we’re at it? The California Eugenics Project, which involved involuntary sterilization, evolved from such a procedure on the severely mentally ill, handicapped & criminal elements to those with traits regarded as “less desirable”.

Why is anyone in this day and age talking about forced sterilization, especially with 100% coverage for female birth control in health insurance & Margaret Sanger herself fighting for access to non permanent bc for married couples?

his name is Northam, obviously you did not watch the fox town hall with mayor Pete.

deliver the baby, make it comfortable, and then decide if we will let it live.

are you saying you want an abortion ban?

excuse me.

you are not allowed to agree with me :wink:

1 Like

The context is palliative care for terminally ill babies. BABIES THAT CANNOT SURVIVE. Framing this as post-delivery abortion is grotesque, vile and a ■■■■■■■ lie. These are grieving parents that have experienced great tragedy, and people like you are distorting it for a ■■■■■■■ political point. ■■■■ that ■■■■■



So many bleeps.

You mad, bro?

Your getting hung up in ‘snipped’ versus that the burden is constantly placed on women while it’s never discussed that men should keep in their pants or rubber up or pull out or go anal. Women are not the sole partner in a tiins leading to abortion yet they bear the responsibilities and punishments proposed and in the books.

could you provide a link that defines the context?

Of course it should. It’s her body. It’s none of your business. She shouldn’t be liable for proving to anyone that she deserves to make a choice about her health and her body based on your arbitrary ideas about what a “good choice” is.

And you guys are never going to win this argument. People by and large believe in this freedom of choice.

I think he has every right to be.

Out of context, misleading, and ignorant. None. of. your. business.

this is not about terminally ill babies, it is about botched abortions.

please provide your link.

yet you provide no context as an example.

Abortion defines a woman right to choose at this time because it is the only right remaining conservatives are trying to deny a woman…

And just as cons were on the wrong side of history in denying the other rights they will be the same on this…

is birth control a choice? read the op.