Taking a scientific literacy quiz…
Question 21 is “What term describes the single initial cell of a new organism that has been produced by means of sexual reproduction?”
notice there is no option for “baby”
anti-choicers, please take note
Attention Pro-Life (anti-choice) folks, again THIS IS AN ABORTION
So, I’m seeing yet another abortion debate popping up on my dash, and I’m sick and freaking tired of seeing “kills babies” and “kill children”.
Get your facts straight, don’t want an abortion? DON’T HAVE ONE!!!!
Number one, you have no right NO RIGHT to tell someone else what to do with their body.
Number two, STOP USING PROPAGANDA and tugging at heart strings and emotionally loaded words.
This is what an abortion really looks like:
Again, here is an abortion at 5-6 week pregnancy. Forceps point to
gestational sac. All other tissue is tissue, from uterus associated with the
Gestational sac from a termination of pregnancy at 6-7 weeks.
This is what a “child” looks like at 7 weeks, and this is highly magnified, it’s about the size of a freaking M&M:
STOP SPREADING LIES, IGNORANCE, AND MISINFORMATION.
A few people have asked me for photos of what an abortion REALLY looks like. The original website that posted these images forgot to pay their hosting costs, so I wanted them on my blog. Thanks for putting them up, AB!
I believe that your abortion is none of my business. I don’t need to know:
- why you’re getting the abortion
- how many months you’re pregnant
- what number abortion this is
- whether you became pregnant through negligence or if it wasn’t your fault at all
- whether you have a kid at home already
- how old you are
- what your gender is or isn’t
- whether anyone else has been told about the decision
- how rich or poor you are
- what your race or ethnicity is
- whether you want children in the future
- when you made the decision
- how long you’ve thought about the decision
- whether you feel great, neutral, or terrible about the decision or something else entirely
- ANYTHING AT ALL. It’s your abortion, not mine. Your medical procedure, not mine. Your business, not mine. BECAUSE I’M PRO-CHOICE.
Reblogging myself for current relevance.
Reminder: saying things like, “Considering x, y, and z, I think you’re making a good decision” is inappropriate (unless the person has specifically asked you). It’s not my place to judge, even if I’m judging that yes, the abortion is justified. If the pregnant person requests an abortion, I support the decision and, more importantly, I believe that the abortion should be safe and legal.I don’t need to know any more information.
“I’m sorry, but nobody has, of yet, proven to me how making something illegal will increase the rates. I don’t see this simple logic nor have I seen statistical logic to back your statement.”
—littlemisspolitical, when confronted with the argument that making abortions illegal will in fact cause an increase in the procedure, thus proving that the pro-life movement is nothing but anti-woman and anti-sex. The last thing it is truly about is being anti-abortion—otherwise, the facts would speak for themselves, and they would listen.
All rightie, right now I’m about to give you some straight up facts, mmkay? And if you want to ignore them and ignore this post and ignore what I’m going to say to you here, then you’re nothing but a filthy hypocrite. You know, the one who said “It’s a shame people won’t look at the facts when they’re in front of their face.”? Yeah.
So let’s get started.
We’re not going to argue whether or not a fetus is a human, we’re not going to argue whether or not it is alive, because neither of these things matter. A person’s right to their own body is of the utmost importance and absolutely nothing else has the right to another person’s body without their express consent. If the pregnancy is taken to term, then wonderful—this was (optimistically) consensual. If the pregnancy is terminated, then it is unfortunate that the individual in question needed to undergo the procedure of abortion, but the fact that it was still an option which provided that individual with the right to control what their body does and what their body doesn’t do is also wonderful, and you are cruel to consider it anything else.
But facts, facts, facts. You keep crying for facts, so let’s see how you react to them. I noticed that despite the fact that the image of the illegal abortion you reblogged a week or so ago was proven to not be the product of abortion as it is generally regulated and practiced, you gave no proof that you even acknowledged the rebuttal’s existence—so, needless to say, your track record in regards to accepting facts when they are brought to your attention is dismal at best, but hey, let’s give it a try.
Now, I’m going to be drawing my facts from the well-known Guttmacher Institute—but before you attempt to destroy my evidence based on my source, let’s provide a bit of a history lesson. Initially, yes, the Institute was initially introduced within the corporate structure of Planned Parenthood as the Center for Family Planning Program Development. However, the program was independently developed and overseen by the National Advisory Council. Later, the Center was renamed after Dr. Guttmacher, who early-on nurtured the Center, and was renamed the Guttmacher Institute, and operates as an entirely independent nonprofit policy research institute with it’s own board.
While multiple biased anti-choice sources will tell you otherwise, and attempt to claim that the Guttmacher Institute is in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, this is an outright lie, a slanderous attempt to vilify reliable and reputable sources for unbiased information regarding abortions worldwide, simply because the facts speak in favour of keeping abortions legal because otherwise, the cost is much greater.
Which brings us to what you have requested—facts that making “something” illegal increases the likelihood of it to happen. We’ll get to those pesky things you anti-choicers hate so much, you know, the facts, but for a second, let’s take a look at what we’ve been witnessing here in the U.S. on our own, and use our critical-thinking skills to analyze why this has even the potential to be true—that the stricter conditions set on abortions leading up to it’s illegality has a very high chance of producing more abortions.
In recent years we have witnessed a devestating and drastic war on women. Our rights to our body have been the subject of political debate, even though the politics of the matter were settled years ago. Ranging from limitations and regulations on abortions, such as requiring ultrasounds or enforcing extended waiting periods that pushed many women into a later trimester, thus effectively rising the cost of the procedure and even potentially making the procedure illegal for her, depending on the laws regarding late-term abortions.
This was awful enough. And for a while, the anti-choice movement had us convinced that the issue with them was honest and truly a matter of abortions. Which could easily be combated with scientific fact and evidence, but obviously this hasn’t happened. Now we’ve seen fights about our access to the most fundamental requirement in keeping down the rate of unintended pregnancies—birth control!
It is not a leap to suggest or believe that this is the basic motivation behind the anti-choice movement—one that prevents people from enjoying sex “consequence-free.” (Although the concept of a child being a consequence ought to unsettle you at least a little bit, but alas, you are the ones toting around deeply offensive pictures of miscarriages, wishing death or rape upon clinic escorts and abortion providers, and even bombing and murdering clinics and providers, so I suppose by now being unsettled is impossible.) If birth control would (and does) help the rate of unintended pregnancies—the cause of abortions—and thus reduce the rate of abortions, why on earth so adamantly fight against it?
Because, quite simply, anti-choicers don’t want people to have the right to their own body. They don’t want consequence-free lives, they want punishment and “justice” for any “wrong-doings” in their self-righteous eyes.
So, by assuming that an all-out ban on abortions in other countries where the rate of abortions are higher, it’s safe to assume that access to affordable birth control for women is virtually non-existant. Thus, it’s safe to assume that there will be more unintended pregnancies and if you’ve been following along yes!—more abortions!
But let’s look at these pesky facts, now. I’m going to copy-paste (and direct you back to the reading material) the facts which will effectively blow your “making it illegal doesn’t make it increase” argument out of the water.
-Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.
-Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.
These ought to be enough to quench your thirst for knowledge, as it is effectively proven that the legality of the procedure only affects the rate of its occurance by increasing it. Simply because abortions are not legal does not mean that they do not happen. But, gasp! What does this mean? If the government is telling everyone what to do with their bodies, then gosh, how are these abortions happening?
They are called illegal abortions, and they happen far more often than you would like to worry yourself over. Illegal abortions create numerous complications, and even death. The estimated annual number of deaths from unsafe abortion declined from 56,000 in 2003 to 47,000 in 2008. Complications from unsafe abortion accounted for an estimated 13% of all maternal deaths worldwide in both years. In the United States, legal induced abortion results in 0.6 deaths per 100,000 procedures. Worldwide, unsafe abortion accounts for a death rate that is 350 times higher (220 per 100,000), and, in Sub-Saharan Africa, the rate is 800 times higher, at 460 per 100,000. Unsafe abortion is a significant cause of ill-health among women in the developing world. Estimates for 2005 indicate that 8.5 million women annually experience complications from unsafe abortion that require medical attention, and three million do not receive the care they need.
So, instead of debating over the fetus’ rights, which you must admit is arguable, otherwise it wouldn’t be an argument at all, why not look at a horror that you can not argue if you are truly pro-life. Women are dying. People are dying. They are hurting, they are in agony, and they will still seek out these procedures regardless of your opinion, religion, or personal god, because whether you want to admit it or not, this is a procedure that is highly demanded. You don’t have to understand why to understand that keeping them unsafe is a problem.
To keep abortion rates low, however much it might turn your stomach to consider the possibility of the rates even existing (legally, that is) you must see reason and accept that the procedure must be kept legal. There is plenty of logical evidence backing this up, and plenty of hard, concrete evidence proving that if you make the procedure illegal, it will only increase, and more people will die.
But hey, cognitive dissonance has really worked out well with you so far, so while I might think it’s awfully hypocritical of you to encourage a ban that would kill and maim hundreds of thousands and still consider yourself pro-life, I guess there must be some kind of trick to it, right?
So there. There’s your fucking debate.
Come back at me, “I dare you,” sweetheart.
I’m just going to leave this here.
I’m sorry I’m just confused. Let me rant in peace. If I get hate-mail for this, I don’t care.
When does it become okay to get an abortion? What makes that right? It is SELFISH and wrong. You are killing something because you couldn’t keep your legs closed, and don’t have the money to take care of it? Get off your ass and get a job then. It is a BABY your killing, a BABY. A helpless, defenseless, little baby. To the people who say it’s just “cells”, no sweetie those cells are what your BABY will develop organs and body parts. Which only takes about a few weeks. I can’t begin to understand how anyone could think it’s okay to kill something, whether or not you believe it’s a baby yet. Those “cells” will be SOMEONE someday. Those “cells” would grow up and have a family of their own someday. So you can’t sit there and tell me, because YOU wanted to have sex you can just kill something. But, for the girls getting raped, I understand why you wouldn’t want the baby… But other people do. People who can’t have babies, you can put it up for adoption. Or keep it yourself, just because someone took advantage of you doesn’t mean you have to kill a little baby.
I guess I’m done now. Judge me all you want, whatever.
The cell is the fundamental unit of life. All organisms are comprised of cells. When you put the word in quotation marks, you only reveal your ignorance of common, rudimentary scientific facts.
The reason that many people describe the embryo or fetus in an abortion as “a cluster of cells” is because the vast majority of abortions take place very early in pregnancy. 62% of abortions take place before the embryo even looks like this:
Keep in mind that this image is ridiculously magnified. At this point, the embryo is less than 20 mm long. That’s about three-quarters of an inch.
So in the majority of abortions, a mass of cells smaller than a U.S. quarter is removed from the uterus. Let’s see what that looks like:
At this point, I feel it would also be prudent to point out that the word “baby” is a colloquialism for the word “infant,” which is a medical term referring to a human between birth and one year of age. No “babies” are directly harmed by anyone’s reproductive choice (although 61% of abortions are for people who already have at least one child, and that child could certainly be hurt if their parent cannot care for another dependent).
And while we’re talking about who has abortions, would it surprise you to know that 69% of them are below 200% of the federal poverty line? That means that if they are a single person, they make less than $21,660 annually. And 42% are below 100% of the federal poverty level, which is $10,830 for a single person. And like I said before, most of these people already have at least one child to care for.
I’m not sure how you think all of these people are just going to get jobs, either. Right now, there are four unemployed people for every open job in the U.S. And it is incredibly difficult to find employment when one is pregnant, as employers are not happy to lose an employee to maternity leave. And most of these people who cannot afford a child are, in fact, employed, but still cannot afford a(nother) child. And how does one get a higher-paying job? Usually through education, which is made exponentially more difficult by having a(nother) child to care for.
So let me ask you, could you care for another human being while earning less money than is necessary to survive (which is the definition of poverty, btw)? And would you consider yourself to be selfish if you needed to ensure that you only had to care for the child(ren) you already are barely able to care for, and not an additional dependent?
You harp on about how an aborted embryo could grow up to be ~*~*~*~SOMEONE~*~*~*~, but fail to recognize that born SOMEONEs like you and I do not have the right to use another individual’s body without their consent. If my born child needed my kidney to survive, I am not legally or morally obligated to provide it. Why should an embryo incapable of surviving outside another’s body be granted rights that born humans do not have, solely because one day it may be born? Your logic does not follow.
Another inconsistency in your ill-informed rant is your failure to believe in an embryo’s sacred potential to be SOMEONE when the embryo is the product of rape. The fact that you conveniently support killing a precious, potential person when the pregnant person was raped tells me that you don’t actually give two shits about embryonic life- you care only for shaming sluts for having sex. And while you appear to have so much faux respect for embryonic “SOMEONEs,” you apparently have no respect for born SOMEONEs, as you expect people who are pregnant and don’t want to be to sacrifice their health, comfort, and livelihood to gestate a fetus for someone else who can’t be bothered to go adopt one of the nearly 200,000 adoptable children already born and sitting in foster care right now. You don’t care about SOMEONEs one bit.
And no, sweetie, when you bang out steaming piles of ignorance and tag them for everyone who cares about reproductive rights to see, you don’t get the right to rant in peace. You see, your anti-choice rhetoric is an attack on me and every other potentially pregnant person’s bodily autonomy and status as an independent human being. You aren’t just ranting- you are shaming us for being sexual, you are championing the removal of our rights, and you are sending the message that we are less deserving of human rights than a blastocyst. People like you are taking over, and you can be sure that people like me won’t go down without a fight.
Keep your ignorance to yourself.