The Volatile Mermaid (@OhNoSheTwitnt@mastodon.social)
Saying women can’t choose to have abortions unless we’re raped is telling us we don’t EARN autonomy over our own bodies until a man violates it.
mastodon.social
BREAKING: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs Wade
- Thread starter Dr. Acula
- Start date
mastodon.social
Shorty was spitting with that one. True post
The Volatile Mermaid (@OhNoSheTwitnt@mastodon.social)
Saying women can’t choose to have abortions unless we’re raped is telling us we don’t EARN autonomy over our own bodies until a man violates it.
The Volatile Mermaid (@OhNoSheTwitnt@mastodon.social)
Saying women can’t choose to have abortions unless we’re raped is telling us we don’t EARN autonomy over our own bodies until a man violates it.
That's not what it's saying. It's saying that if one chooses to commit an act that creates a kid, then one should own the consequences. Smh.
well other people believe that sex isn't only for making babies and thats OK.
Ending the pregnancy before pain and suffering is even possible IS owning the consequences.
Not owning consequences would be doing zero prenatal care, and abandoning the newborn after birth ... which these policies would likely cause MORE of, not less. You're advocating for a worse world because you want to punish women for having sex, or think zygotes should have special rights. It's despicable.
AquaCityBoy
Veteran
Maybe I'm crazy, but I think you should have kids because you want to love and take care of them, not because they're a 'consequence.' 
If you want to get scientific, most people are not even aware that they're pregnant on it's just a zygote. Let's be real breh.
And I don't see how that's a special right for a fetus.
But anyway, I'm pro life but if people want to kill their own kids, I'm not going to step in front of them doing that. I'm cool with their genetic material not propagating. I was responding to the poor logic in the tweet.
What do you mean you don't see how that's a special right? No one has the right to use someone else's body for sustenance against their will ... EVEN IF their actions directly caused said person to be dependent on them to survive. Prove that false, and you might have an argument. But otherwise, once you realize that is true, and only true for zygotes/embryos, you'll realize you want special rights for them that other humans wouldn't receive in any circumstance.
Well then one can argue that no one else can kill another human being at a given development stage besides a pregnant woman. That's a special right as well.
There's no other comparable situation anyway, it's not as if there's another scenario where a human uses another human's body for sustenance.
Also, you forgot to include a fetus when you mentioned zygote/embryo
These mutha fuccas are crazy.
TLR loves this indoctrination of "life is hard" to the point where they make things as harsh as possible