I gave, what I hope is, a thorough, in-depth opinion on my views of abortion last year, when the Supreme Court decided that biological women “don’t” have a right to their own health without government interference.

If the whole point of their argument is that it’s government overreach to enforce healthcare to cover abortion—then, goddamnit, it’s more of an overreach when any level of government decides to restrict or ban access to abortion services.

It is not hipcrisy to demand access for birth control and abortion care, but be against the bodily mutilation.

Because you know what? You just banned access to safe abortion—if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, she will find a way to either abort, or if she carries to term she will try to use Good Samaritan laws to safely give up the child. Rich women can easily travel to somewhere where it’s still legal to get one; poor women will find ways to get abortion pills, or find some back-alley doctor to do it instead.

And last I checked, all those “pro-life” cuckservatives banning access to abortion sure aren’t raising taxes to cover for all those unplanned pregnancies, for the increase in foster and orphan care; to fund for the housing, clothing, care, and education for all those children.

“Pro-life”? Nah—you’re pro-birth … until you find out the child is gay. Or gender variant. Or decides to develop opinions different from your own. Then you probably might kick them out of your house.

Are you a woman who claims she’s pro-life? Fine. Don’t get one yourself. But don’t you dare say other women shouldn’t be allowed access to it, especially in cases of rape, incest, or medical emergencies. Does your interpretation of your religion say it’s now allowed? As I previously posted, it was only considered abortion if it happened at earliest the quickening, or when the baby took their first breath—this whole “personhood in the womb” idea is a relatively new idea. And what if someone else believed in an interpretation of the same religion, or in an entirely different religion, that allows for reproductive rights, including access to abortion? You could argue that this country was founded upon Christian values—I may agree to a point, as the colonies of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Massachusetts were, but other colonies like New Jersey were founded for purposes of trade, and Georgia was founded as a penal colony. So, no, our country as a whole was not founded upon Christian values—and even then, who we are as a country now is very different from what we were 250+ years ago. Get with the times already!

Should men—if this was straight sex—be allowed in the decision as to whether the woman should get an abortion or not? I don’t care if he’s the sole breadwinner for the two of them—NO. She is the sole person who has to go through nine months of dedicating her body, if not her life, to the fetus, not the man. Should he be allowed “financial abortion” if he decides that he doesn’t want to help raise the kid? Before I said yes—now I say no, because otherwise it will encourage men to be nothing more than players and man whores. They will then want to forgo condems because it “feels better”, despite the chance pregnancy will happen, but then say to the mother that he’s off the hook because he never wanted the resulting pregnancy. If she has to endure the pregnancy and raising the child, he has to endure his share in raising the child as well, or at least pay his fair share of rearing and raising the child.

I think insurances should be mandated to allow for tubal ligations and hysterectomies for women who want permanent birth control—she should be informed of the risks and complications, of the fact she will have to remain on hormone therapy anyways until she reaches her 50s or so to maintain proper hormonal health, that some forms of tying her tubes are reversible but won’t be covered, while hysterectomies will make her permanently infertile. Not all women want kids!!!

Does this mean I am a hypocrite now, demanding access to abortion yet be against “sex changes” for transgenders? Certainly not. Abortion is for when birth control doesn’t work, a woman is raped, there is a medical emergency that will result in the mother dying if she doesn’t take action. Abortion is certainly not easy on a woman’s body, but also being forced to carry to term a pregnancy she did not ask for is equally taxing mentally and emotionally, as it is physically (been there, endured it). Whereas, demanding that a doctor or surgeon operate on and remove perfectly healthy body parts because it’s “dysphoric” sounds like someone is instead mentally ill, in need of psychiatric care, not surgical care. (Because it sounds no different than from someone with body dysmorphia!)

Same for mandating masks during an epidemic. The government has no right to mandate I wear a mask that has been proven not to reduce its communicability, for the sake of “public sanity”. Meanwhile, I don’t think the government has any right to mandate “sex change therapy” be covered by insurance—if you got the cash to splash on cosmetic surgery, who am I to say how you spend your money? What I object to, as a group policy holder who is mandated to have health insurance anyways, is that my premiums are being used to fund operations that most of us know are bogus delusions, just to satisfy irrational radicals who think chemical castration and bodily mutilation allow them to live “authentically” as their “preferred pronouns” and “gender identity”. And don’t argue that covering such surgeries only raise premiums up by $.15 per year—that’s $.15 per premium, per pay period, which still equates to $10-$20 extra per year I should be using towards MY expenses, not these delusional assholes.

“Abortion” has just become a synecdoche for all of women’s healthcare, not just itself or even just reproductive rights. This is why women are fighting for “abortion rights”—we are fighting to stop cuckservatives from denying us equal access to basic healthcare.

%d bloggers like this: