blue-duchess

And this isn't to send a swarm of people after this OP, please. It just seemed like a decent enough opportunity to address this, to open a dialogue for anyone to ask questions without it being a "who can say the meanest snarkiest thing" competition. This OP is correct in that trying to argue that a fetus isn't human, or that the age of a human should be tied to its fundamental rights is... flawed. Messy. (Now, there ARE meaningful differences between a fetus and an infant, and we do have many other rights that are granted when reaching age milestones. But we really don't need to even wade into those murky waters- leave that to the rabbis and philosphers, not the government.)

Pro-lifers want to treat a fetus as though it is indistinguishable from an infant. Well, ok. Sure. A fetus can be a person. Their personhood still doesn't override my own.

An infant isn't entitled to the body or organs or another person, regardless of need. The government isn't forcibly harvesting blood from people in order to sustain dying infants in the NICU. The government isn't passing laws that people MUST use their own breastmilk to feed infants under penalty of law. The government isn't denying people access to their medications because it would make them unviable as a bone marrow donor to their infant, even if that infant needed a bone marrow transplant to live.

The government should not be able to deny you power over your own physical body for the benefit of another person. Doing so turns your body into government property. The fact that another person might *really really really* need your body doesn't make your body community property.

Bodily autonomy is a human right, and it should not be infringed upon just because a person becomes pregnant.

Abortion access, as a manifestation of bodily autonomy, is critically important in terms of harm reduction, protecting the legal and social standing of people who can become pregnant, and a safeguard of our personhood. The ability to become pregnant makes us a uniquely vulnerable class of people in many, many ways. Abortion access protects our physical, mental, and legal safety. It's a fail safe. A safety net. A back up option.

I know that's a kind of...clinical explanation, and I'm happy to go into more detail if you don't know what I mean by any of it. Some of it may sound kind of bizarre if you aren't familiar with the facts and situations I'm alluding to here. So please, let me know if you want a deeper explanation.

But I want to assure you, my very firm pro-choice stance is not rooted in dehumanizing the fetus. It's in the steadfast affirmation of the personhood of whoever is pregnant. No one, no person, not even a fetus, should get to diminish that personhood because of their own needs. I will affirm, again and again and again, that we have a right to our own bodies, free of exception or caveat.

Thats what protecting abortion access means. Trusting and respecting the person who is pregnant with their own body. Knowing all the ways in which the world can be a difficult, complex, even painful place, and knowing that in those difficult and complicated situations- more choices is always the kindest thing you can give a person.

Its ok to feel uncomfortable with abortion. Your instincts to protect a group of people are good instincts. Your empathy is a good trait. But by only focusing on the fetus, and not getting into the murky weeds of why people sometimes need the choice of abortion, you're cutting yourself off from a whole other group of people who could also really use some of that empathy. And that lack of nuance and understanding can lead to a lot of people suffering and hurting far far more than otherwise.

Throughout the day, partners would make requests for connection, what Gottman calls “bids.” For example, say that the husband is a bird enthusiast and notices a goldfinch fly across the yard. He might say to his wife, “Look at that beautiful bird outside!” He’s not just commenting on the bird here: He’s requesting a response from his wife—a sign of interest or support—hoping they’ll connect, however momentarily, over the bird.

The wife now has a choice. She can respond by either “turning toward” or “turning away” from her husband, as Gottman puts it. Though the bird-bid might seem minor and silly, it can actually reveal a lot about the health of the relationship. The husband thought the bird was important enough to bring it up in conversation and the question is whether his wife recognizes and respects that.

These bidding interactions had profound effects on marital well-being. Couples who had divorced after a six-year follow-up had “turn-toward bids” 33 percent of the time. Only three in 10 of their bids for emotional connection were met with intimacy. The couples who were still together after six years had “turn-toward bids” 87 percent of the time. Nine times out of 10, they were meeting their partner’s emotional needs.

women in horror + mbti; thomasin (the vvitch)

this nonsense is inspired by my dear father, a stone faced man who burst into laughter when we showed him the Peepi Socks ™