Just some thoughts I have had from time to time:
1. Why do we allow the opposition to frame the debate about abortion in terms of slut shaming?
All of their arguments strongly imply that only single, and/or promiscuous women *need an abortion or want an abortion.
2. They use the same tactic with contraception and birth control.
In both cases, women--married and single use these services and options. But for some reason the visual is almost always of a single, loose, women or teen. For them it isn't about unwanted pregnancies, or medical issues, it's all about women having sex without the sword of Damocles [pregnancy] hanging over their head.
3. Why do I have to experience the ultimate loss of bodily integrity [RAPE] in order to exercise my choice to not be/remain pregnant?
By perpetuating this argument, it presupposes that unless you are raped that you should be punished with pregnancy for having sex [at all].
4. Now that the rest of the country has mostly figured out what some of us have known for a while--that all forms of family planning are under assault--have you made the connection yet--that the attack on In vitro Fertilization [IVF] is just another aspect of punishment for independent women?
If you wanted to have children, maybe you should have skipped college and a career and got yourself a husband! --This certainly rings true with all the other nasty, religious based bullshit we see flying around with regards to women and their bodies.
5. why should an employer have the right to force me to live by a religious moral doctrine in exchange for a job? This question is associated with the current bs about employers [corporations are people] who think they have the right to set the lifestyle choices of their employees. As if working for said companies wasn't trade enough, now they want our souls too-- or at least the appearance of such a trade off.
Does this mean your employer owns you? Coupling this with invasions of our privacy, internet searches for our profiles, that affect our hire-ability, etc., one has to ask, what other rights we will be forced to give up for a mere job?
But this goes to other cases. Remember Faith Based Initiatives and the Salvation Army. They won a case, saying they could receive federal money, but choose to discriminate against future employees based on said employees sexual orientation.
Well there's your precedent--[and the reason I have not given to the Salvation Army since].
In all fairness, even the military cannot do this--why should we allow corporations to do this? Anyone else find it ironic that the military is better at least appearing to honor our First Freedoms than some employers and most Legislators?
6. Why aren't the anti-choice people also attacking the use of penis pumps and erectile dysfunction drugs? The other side has consistently failed to adequately explain to me, what a medically necessary boner is, and how that differs from a regular old boner?
If sex is only for creation, then how many boners does a man need? Especially one that is past his prime? or that is infertile? Inquiring uterii want to know! Wouldn't sex with a sterile man be the same as masturbation--theologically speaking? And if women are not supposed to have sex for pleasure, then who will these medically, unnecessary boners be for?
And if it's only okay for men to have sex for pleasure, but not women, doesn't that mean that certain religious institutions are encouraging homosexuality and masturbation or even bestiality? [No women--so those are your options in a Biblical World].
Just some thoughts.