![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I Enjoy Being A Girl ...
May. 10th, 2011 01:25 pm... much more now that I have no womb to be legislated. :-D (Actually it was just a little over a year ago I had my hysterectomy. No complaints yet; I'll alert you if I start missing random bleeding, painful cramps, pregnancy worries, increased chance of disease, or having an entire political party believe it owns the rights to go spelunking up past my now-nonexistent cervix, LOL.)
Ah, you anti-choice scamps. Here we are again. What's with all the uterus-gazing? Honestly, if Mitch Daniels is that interested in one, I don't have one to offer, but I don't live too far from him, and I'll happily introduce him to another body part where he's welcome to put his head. Considering it's been up his own posterior for so long, he should feel right at home suffocating in mine.
Pro-lifers, let's review: Forcing girls and women to "learn to love" that lil' punkin they didn't want in the first place also harms that precious child you claim to love above all else (which we know you don't, since you also tend by and large to support measures reducing welfare assistance to families with dependent children - and care for the children themselves). Most kids aren't stupid; they know when they're not wanted and they interpret it as being their fault. It also cheapens the decision of those women and couples who DO choose to have a baby because, y'know, they actually want to be parents. Far from extolling life, restriction of legal abortion options actually cheapens the concept of life - we know the only reason you want to protect fetii at all costs is to help corporations have a bigger labor pool to cut down on workers demanding their rights be respected in the workplace (when you're having to compete against 1,000 people instead of, say, 100, you're far more likely to shut up about wages, workplace conditions, and benefits TO WHICH YOU ARE ENTITLED).
After all, you also probably support the idea of a corporation's status as a legal person with a person's rights - which is the biggest cheapening of "life" I think I've ever seen under the law. Especially when it means corporations are legislated less than half of the population that works for them.
Ah, you anti-choice scamps. Here we are again. What's with all the uterus-gazing? Honestly, if Mitch Daniels is that interested in one, I don't have one to offer, but I don't live too far from him, and I'll happily introduce him to another body part where he's welcome to put his head. Considering it's been up his own posterior for so long, he should feel right at home suffocating in mine.
Pro-lifers, let's review: Forcing girls and women to "learn to love" that lil' punkin they didn't want in the first place also harms that precious child you claim to love above all else (which we know you don't, since you also tend by and large to support measures reducing welfare assistance to families with dependent children - and care for the children themselves). Most kids aren't stupid; they know when they're not wanted and they interpret it as being their fault. It also cheapens the decision of those women and couples who DO choose to have a baby because, y'know, they actually want to be parents. Far from extolling life, restriction of legal abortion options actually cheapens the concept of life - we know the only reason you want to protect fetii at all costs is to help corporations have a bigger labor pool to cut down on workers demanding their rights be respected in the workplace (when you're having to compete against 1,000 people instead of, say, 100, you're far more likely to shut up about wages, workplace conditions, and benefits TO WHICH YOU ARE ENTITLED).
After all, you also probably support the idea of a corporation's status as a legal person with a person's rights - which is the biggest cheapening of "life" I think I've ever seen under the law. Especially when it means corporations are legislated less than half of the population that works for them.
