infinitelyprochoice-blog

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

Obstetric violence is institutional violence. Break the silence.

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

being pro-life doesn’t translate to ‘I would never get an abortion’. what being pro-life actually translates to is ‘I think my opinion is more important than a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her own body’.

seems reasonable. and while you’re at it, maybe you should take one of her kidneys, too. because she probably won’t die from that - and you won’t have to deal with the life long consequences after all. but it could save a life! so who cares!! I mean yeah, she might, but your opinion is more important!!

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

The right to bodily autonomy is non-negotiable, otherwise it does not exist.

Bodily autonomy, otherwise known as bodily integrity, is a basic human right granted to people at birth that states that no one can use your body without your consent. 

It is why mandatory blood or organ donation does not exist - you, as a born person, have the rights to your own body and organs. Even corpses have this right, since you cannot harvest someone’s organs post-mortem if they expressed during their life that they didn’t want them to be harvested.

In order to have bodily autonomy, you must be born and be relatively self-autonomous - that you are self-sufficient and not using someone else’s body and organs to survive. 

**This does not mean that people living off of machines, people in comas or people who cannot physically take care of themselves do not have bodily autonomy - they are still autonomous because they have rights over their organs and are not infringing on anyone else’s body. The comatose and deathly ill are being willingly helped to survive and are not using anyone’s bodily organs directly to survive. Bodily autonomy does not mean ‘doesn’t rely on anyone to live,’ it means your rights over your own body. 

Fetuses, however, do not have bodily autonomy. They cannot survive outside of the womb on their own, as their bodies cannot physically sustain themselves. They are literally directly relying on someone else’s organs to survive.**

**and like my above point, this does not rely on newborns since although they rely on others for food/shelter, their bodies are running themselves and not on other people’s organs.

***also note: fetuses cannot feel pain until 30+ weeks gestation and are not aware and conscious. Abortions do not happen at this point except for medical reasons.

An important point about bodily autonomy is the legal case McFall vs. Shimp. In this case, a man was dying of bone cancer and needed a bone marrow transplant in order to survive. His cousin was found to be a match, but refused to donate the marrow. The man took his cousin to court and lost the case, because the court ruled that regardless of whether the man would die or not, life-and-death situations do not trump a person’s right to their own body and organs. From the court case:

“The question posed by the Plaintiff is that, in order to save the life of one of its members by the only means available, may society infringe upon one’s absolute right to his “bodily security”?

The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue.

[…] In preserving such a society as we have it is bound to happen that great moral conflicts will arise and will appear harsh in a given instance. In this case, the chancellor is being asked to force one member of society to undergo a medical procedure which would provide that part of that individual’s body would be removed from him and given to another so that the other could live.

 Morally, this decision rests with the Defendant, and, in the view of the Court, the refusal of the Defendant is morally indefensible. For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn. This request is not to be compared with an action at law for damages, but rather is an action in equity before a Chancellor, which, in the ultimate, if granted, would require the submission to the medical procedure. For a society, which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concept of jurisprudence. [Forcible] extraction of living body tissue causes revulsion to the judicial mind.“

Now, why is McFall vs Shimp relevant? because a fetus is relying on the pregnant person’s body and organs for survival. Pregnancy can lead to many complications and risks to the pregnant person. If the person does not want to be pregnant, then the fetus is directly infringing on the pregnant person’s right to govern the use of their own organs. 

As McFall vs Shimp and other legal precedents have stated, regardless of whether the subject will die or not, they do not have the right to use someone else’s body without their consent. This applies to fetuses, since fetuses are directly using someone else’s body. If the pregnant person does not wish to be pregnant anymore, regardless of the fetus’s death, the pregnant person’s rights to their organs comes first.

If every born person must follow the right to other people’s bodily autonomy. then fetuses must follow it too. Every person has the right to their own body, and like McFall vs Shimp said - “For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion to his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded.” Exceptions cannot be made to basic human rights without weakening the very foundation of those human rights.

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

Missouri Bill Would Make Gun Purchasers Jump Through The Same Hoops As Women Seeking Abortions

“Missouri State Rep. Stacey Newman (D) has a creative idea for tackling the high rates of gun violence in her state: regulate gun purchases as tightly as abortion services.

According to St. Louis Magazine, Newman pre-filed a bill this week that would make it just as difficult to buy a deadly weapon in Missouri as it currently is to get an abortion — including imposing a 72-hour waiting period for prospective gun buyers and requiring them to receive information about alternative to guns, like “peaceful and nonviolent conflict resolution.”

Missouri, which is home to just one clinic that performs abortions, has some of the harshest restrictions on the procedure in the country. Patients must wait three full days before they’re allowed to end a pregnancy and make two separate trips to the state’s lone clinic.

“It is logical we borrow similar restrictions to lower our horrific gun violence rates,” Newman said in a statement. “If we truly insist that Missouri cares about ‘all life’, then we must take immediate steps to address our major cities rising rates of gun violence.”

Read the full piece here

Graphic Source

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

My abortion was great.

My abortion was safe.

My abortion was smart.

My abortion was good.

My abortion changed me for the better.

My abortion positively impacted everyone.

My abortion was handled with respect.

I am proud of my abortion.

I am proud of myself.

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

stop trying to control women’s bodies 2k15

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

Abortion in YA Lit

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

"Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. It considers the violation of bodily integrity as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal."

Another's "right to life" does not override my right to bodily integrity. I have a right to deny another access to my body. No one can tell me I have to donate blood, no one can tell me I have to donate my organs, and no one can tell me I have to carry out a pregnancy and go through labor, whether it was a result of rape or sex. Doesn't matter. If another's "right to life" overrode my right to bodily integrity, like I said, it would be mandatory to donate blood, organs, etc. So, I guess you're saying that the "right to life" only overrides bodily integrity when it comes to people with a uterus, correct? Otherwise, you have to agree with the mandatory blood and organ donations.

- Alice

The unborn baby is not your body.

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

Lmao. A newborn cannot latch onto your nipple like a leech. If the newborn is using your body, it’s because you’re willingly letting it and giving it continuous consent. Also, not everyone who gets pregnant chooses to be pregnant, and I won’t be letting anyone use my body, whether they need it to survive or not, without my continuous consent. The right to life doesn’t exist. However, the right to bodily integrity does. You need to do your research, my friend. If the right to life was a thing, then there would be mandatory blood and organ donations because another’s right to live overrides your right to deny them access to your body.

- Alice

The unborn baby is not your body.

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

via Everyday Feminism

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

why are people so impressed with kangaroo pouches? oh wow, an animal has a built-in place to store things. you ever heard of a butthole

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

This is what consent looks like>>

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]

Hugging 101!

[infinitelyprochoice-blog]