(no subject)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Comments

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

I know, but sometimes you have to ask hard questions.
Let's be honest-that isn't exactly about reproductive rights. What that even means? Isn't it more precise to say that reproductive right is right to have children? Let's not ignore the fact that the woman isn't only one here. What about the baby? I don't care if somebody wants to kill her baby, sometimes it's the only way out, as you said. But let's be honest and don't claim that it's all good.
I think this "reproductive rights" notion benefits irresponsible men that do not want to take responsibility for their action. My only point is that pro-abortion people are a lot more anti-women then the opposite side.

[angelcerv25.livejournal.com]

Right to have children, right to not have children. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Accept both, or neither.

And what about "the baby"? In all situations, without exception, her rights trump the rights of anything inside her. She was here first.

As far as "irresponsible men" goes - you make a point. However, it does not follow that pro-choice people are anti-woman. It is the anti-choicers who limit choices for women and thereby diminish their own agency over body and future in the pursuit of ideology.