Given the religious orientation of most “pro life” adherents, they are absolutely certain they KNOW WHAT’S BEST FOR EVERYBODY.

They may be targeting women right now, but we’re all on their list…

Oh no. Pro-life women are pro-choice for themselves. Pro-life women who want to prevent other women from choosing are active agents in enforcing misogyny.

They shouldn’t remind you of poor people: they are the ones who are forcing misery and death on poor people. The whole point of being pro-life is that you know what’s best for other women - far better than those women can know for themselves.

Those pitiable conservative women. They remind me of poor people.

Yeah, it’s neat - but some of the comments here are investing it with near-religious significance. I can’t help thinking of the morons who associate penile erections with power.

You know, I don’t see an inherent problem with treating pregnancy as special, spiritual, etc., etc. Many of the most profound events in people’s lives are in fact incredibly mundane — falling in love, having children, the deaths of close relatives, etc.

Forbidding masturbation is basically about forbidding the person to have independent ownership over their own bodies, basically laying claim to their sexuality. At what point monogamy isn’t about a private agreement to share your sexuality only with each other, but about laying claim to someone else, which is unacceptable.

That does clarify it for me. Thank you. The notion of being someone’s ONLY source of orgasms is pretty unpleasant to me (what if I’m not in the mood? I need this guilt?), but I’m really impatient with “no one should be monogamous” arguments, and was having trouble articulating the difference.

Plus, as Marcotte put it in the post, “What made the cartoon endearing and funny is how respectful the male figure is towards the female figure, in his own eccentric way.”

It’s still pretty cool when they do it, too. A lot of animals can fly under their own power- but that doesn’t stop me from seeing a hummingbird and thinking “Wow. That’s kinda awesome.”

It’s these which are the better test of character - being a parent as opposed to bearing a baby. Giving birth does NOT produce a person - loving a baby produces a person.

1. I don’t think that anyone was suggesting that carrying a fetus is somehow a test of character- only that it’s sort of awesome.
2. “loving a baby” does not, in fact, produce a person. Personhood doesn’t rely on having loving parents. At least, no definition of personhood I’ve ever seen.

Yeah, it’s neat - but some of the comments here are investing it with near-religious significance. I can’t help thinking of the morons who associate penile erections with power.

Well, for some people, it can be a near-religious experience. I don’t think it’s fair to call them morons, but, that’s me.

the people with the red tape across their mouths

The first time I saw that I thought it was a pro-choice protest, to the tune of “the pro-life agenda silences/ignores/oppresses women.”

It’s the difference, I think, between the unhealthy codependent model of relationships where your identities blend together and the healthier model where you are separate people who choose to be together. Unfortunately, dependence has been held up as a norm for so long that this sort of thing confuses people. As a feminist, I see how the dependency model of relationships that we deem romantic is often about making it hard for women to extract themselves from oppressive situations, so I’m super hostile to it. Love is more fun when you maintain separate identities.