Pro-choice video: This is my body and don’t you forget it
I fall in love with whomever, sleep with whomever, and marry whomever I choose.
I decide when and how I become a mother.
This is my body, not yours.
~ Various pro-choice activists in a never-ending monologue defending their bodily autonomy, via The Frisky, July 24

I don’t see a body – all I see are talking heads.
Simple question ladies – do you have an obligation to others to use your body in responsible ways?
After all, the Colorado shooter used his own body exactly the way he wanted at the theater.
It’s all about them. Me, Me, Me. My, My, My.
They put on a tough act but I’d like to see them in a room with the likes of Jill, X and Carla.
Their smoke and mirrors would never hold up to the truth.
P.S. You DON’t sleep with whomever you want because you’d only sleep with me OVER MY DEAD BODY.
And don’t you forget it.
This is my body, I will use it to kill another human being if I want to because that human being can’t put propaganda videos on YouTube.
Could anyone else get through all that? I couldn’t. Apparently, not only is the assertion of the “right” to oppress the unborn to death logically contradictory, it’s really boring.
I got through it, Alice, but not without a chuckle. These gals have such a sense of entitlement but it looks like its a man who heads up their little rants. Their anger becomes more apparent towards the end of the video and it is actually worth a giggle.
My dog crapped on the neighbors yard because his body wanted to — maybe next time I’ll just leave it there. The dog does have enough sense to not hump anything he wants to though because he was taught a bit of self-control in his younger years.
All I could think was, This is My Body, given for you.
Same ones who will demand we give OUR money to pay for their sex lives and abortions.
This video has the angry shrill sound of 1970’s feminists….
So does that mean men who impregnant these gals are free from responsibility to raise the babies since these gals claim the babies are their bodies and no one else have rights to them.
After all these years, they are still pretending that the abortion debate is fundamentally about controlling women’s bodies. Because, like, the one being killed does not deserve any consideration whatsoever. Do they know how foolish they look?
So what right do you have to dictate to a woman what she should do with her body? Obviously, if a person wants to eat fatty foods, it will eventually cost the health system (which I pay for) some money. But you still have no right to prohibit a person from eating and drinking what they want. The same principal obtains to a woman’s body which is her property – not yours, not the church’s, and not the state’s. While you complain about “big government” abortion restrictions are the biggest form of government we have.
CC,
why are you forcing me to care for my born baby? it’s none of your business.
Nobody has such a right. But the law should be able to dictate that she can’t use her body to harm someone else’s body. In the case of abortion, this would be the body of her gestating child. That child’s body is their own. Not their mother’s. It is their property, and no one, including their pregnant mother, should have the right to treat them like property to be thrown away.
Also, extra lulz for the fact the person who uploaded these videos is a dude.
Thanks for standing up for us dum wimminz! Wifout u, we wood not no how to upload movin pikchurs to the internets so we cud tell evereewun about how smart and powerfool we is!
CC, if you believe that then advocate repealing laws requiring men to pay child support.
There is some truth in the statement “This is my body.”
And in as much as bodily autonomy entails a freedom, it also entails a responsibility. For example, with getting into spiritual arguments, the freedom to sleep with whomever you choose is accompanied by the responsibility to be aware of the possibility that you may be transmitting or receiving STDs in the process of sleeping with whomever.
Aside from the crass support of abortion, and the denial of the embryo’s body, this video included a lot of other highly politicized demands that have a very tenuous link to the issue of bodily autonomy.
Sadly, I have met too many women who believe all of this garbage without any critical examination of the contents of this message.
We are prohibited from drinking alcohol before driving.
And it is also our body specifically our fingers to type what we want to type.
And nice straw CC. Opposition to big government stems from view that the government should function at most to ensure right to life, liberty and property be preserved. Since abortion violates that first right it is not inconsistent for those who oppose big government to want to have laws outlawing abortion and other forms of murders, rape, stealing, assault, etc.
Actually, it’s not your body….you did not make it….He did.
The girl at 2:40 seems guilty. She’s trying hard to justify anything immoral -including “allowing myself to be penetrated once”……. What a depraved statement, because THAT is what it’s all about to these people. If it feels good, do it.
Funny how they’re trying to spin their “pro-choice” stance as them defending their bodies against cancer. SMH
The government has a natural interest in what both men and women do with their bodies. For one thing, partnered sex, especially male homosexual and heterosexual, spreads STDs. This is a public health problem. Pregnancies can be a problem for all of us.
Much partnered sex is exploitative of the female.
For these reasons, there is a state interest in increasing celibacy. The computer may help do that by promoting both education and work from home. This will decrease the face-to-face contact that leads to flesh-to-flesh contact.
It is also true that men do not have a legal right to decide not to become fathers. They are indeed held responsible for child support even though many would happily leave it to others to be responsible for this. As someone who write true crime, I am very aware of the many people in prison and on death row whose fathers absconded from them as well as the children neglected and mistreated by their mothers, shuffled from foster home to foster and placed for adoption.
“My pursuit of orgasam.”
Who has ever said that a person’s pursuit of orgasam is unnatural, dangerous, scary or an infringement of another person’s religious liberty. Only in cases of rape does one person’s pursuit of orgasam infringe upon an another person’s liberty, is dangerous, and most likely unnatural (if considered from the natural law perspective). However, we already have laws against rape.
I think she may be trying to link the need for state funded contraceptives to her “pursuit of orgasms”, but I am not sure if this is her point. In any case, if it were she would have to be involved in some kind of kinky sex if this woman’s ability to achieve orgasam is tied to the State’s provision of contraceptives? What kind of fetish is this? I think this woman might be erotically turned on by a Sugar Daddy type of government. Sheesh! Who knew what bodily autonomy truly meant!
“I am not sure if this is her point” [about pursuit of orgasm]
Tyler – There is no point…it just relieves her angst to say something…anything…sounding a little sexy and like she is fighting hard for her rights as a woman that are under threat and and …oh whatever. She said something and it made the final cut into the video…that’s all that matters. ;)
Women live longer than men. We are less likely to be imprisoned or homeless. Men are much more likely to be injured or killed on the job.
Don’t men have many of the characteristics of an oppressed group?
She said something and it made the final cut into the video…that’s all that matters.
Yup. They all sounded like a middle school forensics group. Way OVER-THE-TOP in the drama department.
This video has the angry shrill sound of 1970?s feminists….
Agreed. The more we know about fetal development, the less convincing their arguments sound.
Yet these same women want our money to fund their reproductive choices, and if not, like Sandra Fluke, they start whining. Here’s an idea: call 1-800-CRY-BABY!
Tommy R,
I didn’t feel up to watching it, but the quotes make me think it has the shrill sounds of a 4-year old throwing a tantrum right before being packed off to bed.
-K
….. Oh my. Alright, little girls, let’s just calm down.
First, who in heck is trying to keep these girls from “falling in love with whomever they want” and hold them back from their “pursuit of orgasms?” Seriously. It’s stupid, there might be people who try to advise them, but as far as I know, there is no law forbidding them from this.
Second, what a sad state this generation is in. They’re howling for …. what? Oh, that’s right: attention.
That’s really what these girls want, I think, is attention. Any form of attention. Get on the internet and talk about sex. The poor girls.
Third, where exactly is the logic in this?
Actually, it’s not your body….you did not make it….He did.
Actually, the formation of an embryo is a scientific process not in any way associated with a late bronze age, middle-eastern male deity.
I’m a bit confused – who has said that their body is not their body?! That seems like common sense.
The unborn’s body is a different matter.
And Tyler, the “state” is not providing birth control. It’s mandating that health insurances provide birth control with no co-payment for those women who have these policies. In many cases, these women are paying out of pocket for their coverage.
CC,
why are you forcing me to care for my born baby? it’s none of your business
Actually, it’s the state’s business as post-born babies are considered “persons” who are protected under the law. Fetuses are not considered, legally, persons. States that have attempted to make them so have failed.
My body – my property.
CC, why should birth control pills be given to a woman with no co-pay required, but if my child is sick and needs antibiotics, I’ll have to pay the co-pay, or perhaps even buy them entirely out-of-pocket. What makes the birth control pill so sacred that it must be provided, while other, actually life-saving medicines for people of all ages must be paid for?
Talk about a sense of entitlement! Women need to grow up already and accept the responsibility for their choices. If they want their damn Pills, they can BUY THEM THEMSELVES. I WILL NOT DO IT FOR THEM.
“Actually, it’s the state’s business as post-born babies are considered “persons” who are protected under the law.”
thats not what I asked. Why should I be compelled by the state to care for my born baby?
Talk about a sense of entitlement! Women need to grow up already and accept the responsibility for their choices. If they want their damn Pills, they can BUY THEM THEMSELVES. I WILL NOT DO IT FOR THEM.
Jen, I assume that most of the women who are purchasing these pills are doing so because they are having sexual relations with a male. Why can’t their partners help them? It takes two to tango! Why should all the responsiblity be on the woman? if your partner is too cheap to help you pay for bc’s, maybe you should find someone else!
phillymiss, not a bad point!
But then again, why should the guy fork over? After all, it’s HER BODY, HER CHOICE, right? And he gets no say whatsoever about the child if she wants to abort, so what guy in his right mind would feel inclined to pay for the Pills?
I love the my body / my property thing! It’s tough to argue with that in this life. Because it seems that you CAN do what you like with it. There are exceptions by law, of course. Like when what you choose to do with your body harms another person’s body. That’s the nub of the argument here, isn’t it? OH, and there’s that fussy law about suicide–but we’ll soon settle that, I suppose. Keep pushing the envelope of personal autonomy! As Screwtape says “They’ll find out in the end to whom their time, their souls and their bodies really belong…certainly not to them, whatever happens!”
The new bill of rights per this video:
1) the right to be spared this killer (not identified but could be breast cancer execept this right is said immediately following this right) of women;
2) the right to defend myself against cancer;
3) the right to birth control
4) the right to be spared demeaning comments you would never want levelled at your daughter or mother;
5) the right to be made happy by one (“one” is not identified – “one” could refer to a man or a woman);
6) the right to marry whomever (whomever sure got lucky in this video) I choose – woman or man; [this appears to be the same right as number 5 except whomever is identified as a person dealing with gender identity issues]
7) the right to equal pay;
8) the right to healthcare;
9) the right to education;
10) the right to divorce;
11) the right to safety;
12) the right to protection under the law;
13) the right to respect and dignity; and
14) the right to complete equality.
Does anyone think this was put out by a person from the left, perhaps a democrat?
Do these rights extend to men?
Sorry women in the video, we are listening, and we just notice that your insecurities are being exploited by a political party that wants to continue slaughter your daughters and sisters by the millions. Perhaps, one day, you women of the video, will care about their discarded bodies, and mourn their muted cry for a right to life.
If you want to see the video of the unborn women’s “This is my body” video – simply close your eyes and cover your ears for 5:05….oh, but I’ll be more merciful…don’t forget to enjoy the sensation of your breathing.
I couldn’t stop rolling my eyes long enough to watch it. But just listening made me laugh…until I remembered they actually believe what they’re saying.
Actually, it’s the state’s business as post-born babies are considered “persons” who are protected under the law.
Can’t a woman be prosecuted for ingesting substances that can harm humans in the womb? How can this be if it is her body alone? Can’t someone who hits a pregnant woman and harms her unborn child be charged with harming that child? How can this be if it her body alone?
Hmm. I guess their talking to their unfortunate children in utero? I never like it when the bad guys taunt their victims first.
I guess I’m going to have stop tut-tutting at people mistakenly using antonyms.
And I’ll also have to stop referring to antonyms when I meant homonyms. Hoo-boy!
Jamie ~ Thanks for the Screwtape quote. Unfortunately, it is so appropriate:
As Screwtape says “They’ll find out in the end to whom their time, their souls and their bodies really belong…certainly not to them, whatever happens!”
cc ~ As long as you keep coming here to chat, I have the hope that you will find out before then.
And Tyler, the “state” is not providing birth control. It’s mandating that health insurances provide birth control with no co-payment for those women who have these policies. In many cases, these women are paying out of pocket for their coverage.
Women pay for their choice OUT OF POCKET?!??!?!! Ohhhh, the HORROR! Whatever shall we do! It’s a national emergency!!!!!!!!!!
*laugh* Please, CC, I’m so sick of your recycled, illogical arguments. Whatever – so many people pay for contraception out of pocket. I have to pay for my life-saving medicine out of pocket, and for other things as well.
Get well soon, mkay?
I agree, women shouldn’t have the right to kill a fetus. However, they have every right to remove it from their bodies if they don’t want it there. If that results in its death (the same way the refusal to, say, donate bone marrow results in a death), that’s unfortunate but no one has the right to use someone else’s body against his or her will.
GGal: “I agree, women shouldn’t have the right to kill a fetus. However, they have every right to remove it from their bodies if they don’t want it there. If that results in its death…”
So, you’re saying a fetus should be removed intact and alive, instead of removed in pieces or injected to kill them before removal?
“If that results in its death (the same way the refusal to, say, donate bone marrow results in a death), that’s unfortunate but no one has the right to use someone else’s body against his or her will.”
The main problem with this analogy is in the mode of action as well as the nature of the situation itself. When I refuse to donate bone marrow, I am not engaging in an action that results the person’s death. Rather, what kills them is their lack of bone marrow (or whatever). I in no way contribute to the cause of their death. However, this is not the case with abortion. The removal of teh fetus from teh woman’s body is DIRECTLY what causes the fetuses death. The fact that this is foreseen in teh sense that we know through medical science that the fetus will die if not housed in its proper place in teh womb is reason enough to morally conclude that removing the fetus from the mother would be immoral since it will directly result in teh foreseen death of the fetus as an immediate corollary of the removal.
Furthermore, giving someone bone marrow is a supererogatory work which goes above and beyond the natural function of the bodies. The final ends of my bone marrow is for me, not someone else. But the female body, the womb, IS precisely for someone else. The female body is designed, by nature or God, to bear children. When an embryo is inside a woman, it is EXACTLY where it should be according to the order of nature. To remove it is to act against the very natural act or proper function of childbearing, unlike giving your bone marrow to someone who needs it, which is not the proper function of your bone marrow.
Hence, I find the argument that all that we are doing is removing the fetus, not directly killing it, to be unpersuasive.
It seems more like refusing to breastfeed your newborn (if you run out of baby formula and can’t get any more) than refusing to donate bone marrow (to a stranger presumably?).
But this type of refusal would be wrong, wouldn’t it?
Punisher says:
July 25, 2012 at 10:23 am
So does that mean men who impregnant these gals are free from responsibility to raise the babies since these gals claim the babies are their bodies and no one else have rights to them.
(Denise) Many men are using precisely this argument to argue that men should be able to legally get out of mandatory child support. They argue that a woman can: 1) Get an abortion 2) Place a baby for adoption or 3) Legally abandon a baby.
Therefore, men should be able to sign a paper opting out of both the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood.
GGal that is probably the most cold-hearted thing I’ve heard. A woman and a mother has a natural response to the helplessness of her unborn or newborn child. She never thinks of him taking up room in her body without her consent, like a parasite, or a rapist. No one has the right to use a person’s body against his / her own will???? Who speaks this way? Pregnancy as “using” the mother? Cold indeed.
What you have to realize, though Jamie, is that the rationale that GGal is giving for abortion is indeed the one that is most commonly given by academic, intellectual pro-choice types. Very few academics hold to all the silly question begging arguments that we usually see here, nor do they hold to the idea that it isn’t human. There are some who still hold to a personhood theory in favor of abortion, but not as many from my understanding as those who argue that you may remove (unplug) the fetus from your body, knowing that the fetus will die without it as a foreseen but undesirable consequence. This entails that those pro-chociers do concede that the fetus is a full human person just like you or me, that directly killing it would be wrong, but removing it from the body and hence killing it indirectly is morally permissible.
The price to pay to 1) defend abortion and 2) do it in a way that is intellectually credible is becoming higher and higher. It is a very hard pill to swallow to be like “yup, I can engage in an action which is guaranteed to be the direct cause of the death of my child for any reason whatsoever.” Once again, it is more evidence to my hypothesis that the belief that abortion is morally justified is an axiom that pro-choicers hold, one that is not come to through logic and argumentation, but rather is assumed to be true from the onset and then we look back for evidence to support our preconceived notion that abortion is permissible.
Let us turn the cold logic of the PC on themselves: by admitting to the unborn beings they lose their claim for right to abortion on grounds of no one has right to use another’s body against that person’s will. Guess what? Abortion precisely does that in terms of violating the bodily integrity and autonomy of the person in the wonb in the max sense.
I’d also add that for the vast majority of pregnancies, the fetus is there b/c of an action on the part of the mother (and father) that is designed to create a new life/fetus in your womb. You have participated in creating a situation where a human being is dependent upon your body. I understand that this is not a full argument against abortion since there are the tiny minority of abortions that happen after a rape. But surely, it has to be considered when the bodily autonomy argument is raised.
Heck, let’s play the other side, why not?
“You have participated in creating a situation where a human being is dependent upon your body. ”
I consented to the sex and I took every precaution to avoid pregnancy, implying that I did not consent to the pregnancy. Consent to sex does not imply consent to pregnancy.
I found something that makes sense of the video. The guy who did this video also made a video about condoms. The message is quite clear – this dude wants to promote sex.
I consented to the sex and I took every precaution to avoid pregnancy, implying that I did not consent to the pregnancy. Consent to sex does not imply consent to pregnancy.
Oh, I love this one. ;) Here’s how I go with it.
I have taken karate classes in the past. When sparring, we were required to wear pads on our hands to cut down on the risk of injury. That we wore pads did not, in any way, imply that any injuries that did occur were totally unfine and give us permission to sue the pants of the dojo. Rather, it meant the opposite: we knew what we were getting into when we made the decision to get into it, and we chose to proceed anyway. Or, in more simple terms, we gave informed consent.
Taking precautions to avoid pregnancy, in this context, is identical to the wearing of pads while sparring. Quite apart from indicating a lack-of-consent to potential consequences, it indicates an awareness of them and informed consent to proceeding with the activity despite the risks. If you use any form of contraception, that doesn’t “cancel out” consent to pregnancy. It just indicates such consent was given from an informed POV.
So, yeah. Total bunk. …We should do more like this. This is fun! :D
Yeah, that is fun. That’s a really good analogy. I think I’ve learned some stuff from your post. I can’t think of any good way to respond. We should definitely do this more often…
Alice,
Are you also a blackbelt in verbal judo?
*bows to her sensei*
Why so much emphasis on the BODY? Humans are distinctive because of our MINDS! If we would emphasize that which is distinctive — our minds — and pursue INTELLECTUAL activities to a greater extent, have intellectual friendships instead of romances, this whole problem of unwanted pregnancy might recede as it should.
If your body is yours, but at some point in your life you argue that it would have been permissible to abort you, then how is your body truly yours?
Some Guy says:
July 27, 2012 at 10:20 am
If your body is yours, but at some point in your life you argue that it would have been permissible to abort you, then how is your body truly yours?
(Denise) And at a point before that, it would have been possible that the pregnancy that lead to your birth never occurred.