RSS | Archive | Random

About

Radically Pro-Choice!

Rabble aims to be as communal as possible.

If you have something you'd like to see on Rabble send it to: prochoicerabble@live.co.uk As long as you do not promote an anti-choice agenda Rabble will post it. Your name will be kept secret unless otherwise indicated.

Rabble has a Formspring! http://www.formspring.com/forms/?778964-MGKiwv4d8Q

Contact Rabble via the askbox! rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/ask

tumblr visit counter

Following

8 January 12

ABORTION: Dear women, I vote we re-think our thinking.

workingoninteresting:

This is not going to be a post about being pro-choice or anti-choice.

This is about something far more serious.

Hair.

I am in a constant state of angry confusion when it comes to the conversations about voting on abortion. Why is this an option? I don’t much care where you stand on the topic. That isn’t what this is about.

I am talking about the actual vote. The fact that it is something that is heavily discussed in politics. The fact that it is a governmental topic. 

How is that possible?

Let me put this in perspective. Remember how I said this post was about “Hair?” Well, here it is…

What if the same 70% white male government were voting on the hair style that every American woman MUST have? I see you rolling your eyes about how ridiculous this sounds but let’s really examine this idea.

If they were to make this decision for us, the decision they made would affect diffent women in different ways, right?

1-What if the hair cut they chose was insanely expensive to get? Yet, whether you can afford it or not, you HAVE to get it. If you try to get funded for said hair style, the one you’ve been FORCED to get, you are demonized

2-The hair style they chose might not look good on every face. Maybe the style they chose demands a lot of upkeep and it just wouldn’t be prudent for every woman’s lifestyle.

3-The hairstyle they chose might not work for every ethnicity. ((I’m just gonna leave this here for you to think about))

4-Not only do you have to get this hairstyle against your will but you are also forced to keep it for a minimum of *four years. No matter how it affects your life, your wallet, your livelihood or your actual want of the style.

How many women would go bat shit crazy if this were real? Be honest here, how many women who will refuse to have the “Abortion debate” would lose their damn minds if this were a piece of actual legislation? Think about it. No, I am being completely serious here. THINK ABOUT IT.

Yet, we are all perfectly fine with our ovaries being discussed? I am not even talking about WHAT about our ovaries is being discussed. I am saying why aren’t more women mad that they are being discussed AT ALL?

SEVENTY PERCENT WHITE MEN ARE HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS. 

I ask you, would you let a 60 year old white man who doesn’t know you, your hair issues, hair type or hair needs point at a random magazine and make this decision for you? Then, you just have to “Deal with it” no matter what. You’d be okay with this right?

*Four years isn’t a long time yet, would it be a long time to have a hairstyle you didn’t chose, can’t afford, don’t like, don’t want and can’t keep up with?

CAN’T YOU BE ANTI-CHOICE AND I BE PRO-CHOICE AND IT NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT’S CHOICE? 

Love,

Rabble

Reblogged: workingoninteresting

16 October 11

Ron Paul: Against A Woman’s Right to Choose

miss-luna:

As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is.

Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn.

After being forced to witness an abortion being performed during his time in medical school, he knew from that moment on that his practice would focus on protecting life.  And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption.  And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.

The strength of love for liberty in our society can be judged by how we treat the most innocent among us.  It’s time to elect a President with the courage and conviction to stand up for every American’s right to life.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

This is just one of the many reasons you shouldn’t vote for Ron Paul.

Here are some things from that link:

  • Ron Paul does not support the separation of church and state.
  • Ron Paul did not support the repeal of DADT and does not support the repeal of DoMA
  • Ron Paul supports creationism being taught alongside evolution in public schools

I’ll keep my rights, thanks. I’m sure atheists and LGBTQQIA people would prefer to keep their rights, too, even if it means voting for someone who doesn’t support the legalization of marijuana. 

Love,

Rabble

Reblogged: miss-luna

Themed by Hunson. Originally by Josh