re: #272 mmmirele

I’m not opposed to that argument either. I think it’s a good argument and it’s one I regularly make to forced birthers, that they have no problem enslaving women’s bodies to their religious beliefs, which kind of reminds of the antebellum religious types who used the Bible to prop up slavery.

And completely out of nowhere—I’m having a great craving for Kraft Mac n Cheese (the blue box, with the powder). Why, I have no idea.

Christians just pull in the Natualistic Fallacy: That’s the way women’s bodies are supposed to work. It’s not slavery.

In the same manner of “do you want to be painted as supporting porn” the argument “you monster, how dare you paint a baby as a parasite.”

It doesn’t matter that “baby” doesn’t exist. It also doesn’t help that virtually every pregnant woman who wants a baby starts talking about their baby long before there is a born baby. The fuzzy language surrounding “baby” allows Christians to paint supporters of choice as “baby-killers,” even though they never intend on giving that so-called baby any real rights or support.