Blog For Choice Day

[callistra]

I am pro-choice because I believe NO ONE has the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body. I believe I have the RIGHT to remove an unwanted pregnancy if I so desire, and that the only other people who can have a say in this is my partner, and realistically this is a CHOICE of mine and not a right of his. You don't own it cos you fucked it. I have the RIGHT to have this performed in a medically safe and approved manner. My body is MINE.

I think Lauredhel wrote a better rant about how women are legally children. Go and read it.

Comments

Re: Random comment...

[zey.livejournal.com]

You seem to like the word "right", but nowhere do I hear the word "responsibility" mentioned. Don't you think that a person should take responsibility for their actions?

There's an interesting argument that where a woman uses her (completely correct) freedom to decide to carry a child to full-term without the male parent's agreement or consent, that she should carry full financial and parenting responsibility for it: the right of choice being balanced by the responsibility of choice. (Most responses to that seem to centre on the male's choice being one of abstinence: by not abstaining from the nooky, he takes automatic responsibility.)

But I don't think that's where you're coming from. The thing that's always puzzled me about US Republicans is they'll die in a ditch to protect a 1 month foetus. Then, once it's born, they'll abandon its "rights to life" and let it starve in a world of poverty caused by their free market ideology. Strange human beings, the lot of them.

(Sorry Chesh. Shouldn't feed the trolls...)

Re: Random comment...

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

Where that "interesting" argument becomes tiresome and instantly evaporates is at the point when the arguer finds out that financial child support is a child's right, not a parent's.

Re: Random comment...

[zey.livejournal.com]

Where that "interesting" argument becomes tiresome and instantly evaporates is at the point when the arguer finds out that financial child support is a child's right, not a parent's.

Yes and no. The born child certainly has a right to exist and be supported in some way.

That debate's more about who has the responsibility to foot the bill: the one who actually wanted the baby and had the right and responsibility to choose (to keep the bub, abort or put up for adoption) -- or the guy she bonked one night ;-).

I'm sure there are lots of genuine "deadbeat Dads" around, who don't pay mandated child support costs for children of broken relationships. Yep, they're villains: they accepted responsibility for a child and are now trying to duck it after the fact. But that's a whole separate debate on a different issue.

Re: Random comment...

[zey.livejournal.com]

Oh, off-topic here, congratulations on your excellent site (http://www.ozclothnappies.org/). A good resource which seems to be becoming justifiably popular.

Might be worth seeking sponsorship soon to help defray those hosting charges.

Re: Random comment...

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that!

One of our core ethics at Ozclothnappies is no paid advertising, no money, no budget. We're part of the global gift economy resurgence: people offering each other information, no more, no less.

Anything really needed (like hosting) can be donated directly by interested parties, but with no advertising or promotions in return.

Lara