On engaging with an anti-choice/ anti-abortion troll on social media

 So a Facebook friend of mine - someone I don't think I've actually met - posted this on Facebook. 

Not much argument from me there - I mean, I haven't been out there screaming "get a vasectomy!" Haven't seen anyone actually seriously argue FOR mandatory vasectomies. And while it says something that this is, apparently, a woke white person making this argument, possibly as a woker-than-thou gesture - it would be an entirely reasonable thing to be sensitive about, assuming anyone from the mentioned groups actually is sensitive about it. So whatever. 

But the discussion got derailed in the first post. Someone observed that we should also not make this discussion a "men vs. women thing, saying:

I don't know *any* men who believe that a woman should be denied the right to choose what happens in her own womb. And I know a lot of bulky, loud, insensitive men.

There was some discussion of that, quickly made inflammatory by someone named Chris, who was either a sincere anti-abortionist or else a troll trying on a character, accusing the poster of being a "sissy" and observing that no real man would allow his woman to abort his fetus, including some language saying the commenter could not speak for them.

Sadly, these comments were removed by the owner of the thread, since they were inflammatory and inarticulate and taking "the wrong side," I guess. So I can't replicate them. But my responses remain, now decontextualized: 

Chris ____: - he can speak for me. I am entirely pro-choice. If a woman were impregnated by me and there were serious complicating factors, economic or physical, or we weren't in a serious relationship, it would be HER BODY HER CHOICE. She is the one most immediately impacted. I might wanna have INPUT and I might feel feelings about it, might even be devastated, but FORCE HER TO CARRY IT TO TERM AND BIRTH IT for my benefit, fuck the consequences of that? It is grotesque and frankly I do not think I could be friendly with someone who was that selfish and unenlightened. 

The reason I suspect this "Chris" character might have been a troll? They leapt to inflammatory name-calling right off the bat both times anyone engaged with them. The previous commenter had been a sissy. I was quickly called a Satanist. It's POSSIBLE that the person really was that emotive/ broken/ stupid - there are people that emotive/ broken/ stupid out there, to be sure - but it's just as likely it was an idiot on a lark. There's lots of that out there, too. 

But for clarity's sake: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Satanist. I've interviewed one or two, have read a book by Anton LaVey, and I once, as a teenager, wrote away to the Temple of Set for a pamphlet; I enjoy the provocations of the Satanic Temple, too, and would probably feel comfortable in their company... but I feel no need for ritual or organized religion in my life. I own no dark robes. I have never sacrificed a baby, not even figuratively. Nor have I ever, as far as I know, been involved in the conception of one, aborted or otherwise. 

Anyhow, the response was quite something - I'm sad that it's gone forever. It included the assertion that this had nothing to do with a woman's body. but was all about the life of the baby. It did suggest that the person making the comment was unreachable. But I engaged anyhow, more out of charity of spirit than anything, and I'm rather pleased with my calm reply, The transition between the first paragraph and second, below, is slightly rocky, but I was standing in a doorway or something, on my way from A to B, thumbing this into my Android, y'know? I think you'll still be able to follow me. 

Chris ____ - aha, I see! Look: if we had a way to REMOVE THE NEWLY CONCEIVED FETUS and raise it to term, in an artificial womb or even the womb of an infertile woman who WANTS to conceive, at that point, you are right: her body has nothing to do with it, and she should have no say beyond "Do you want to give birth? Can you, safely?" - and she said NO...

 ... Well, in that case, sure. Her body ceases to be a consideration, the fetus is safely transplanted, etc... I would even go so far as to say, at that point, that the fetus should be protected by law. Someone who came around terminating embryos being brought to term in an artificial womb would be a murderer. Would go THAT FAR with you... 

But to insist that her body has nothing to do with it when you expect the fetus to be carried to term inside it...

... When it's her body it needs to safely emerge from...

... When it may have been put in her body against her will...

...well, sorry, but you are missing some key items. But for all I know you are a bored troll out for lullz, so I won't engage further here. Good luck in your life.

Anyhow, if you're curious about where I stand on the whole Roe vs. Wade/ SCOTUS thing, that's about it. I don't like the idea of abortion. I actually do think there's a grey area about where life begins; but the life of the "host organism" trumps the life that is dependent on it. It'd be great if someone came up with technology - the artificial womb, or the idea of a "fetal transplant" (which I guess isn't a real idea yet, since Google corrects it to "fecal transplant" when I search) - to safely remove the fetus from women who do not want, for whatever reason, to carry or birth it, without actually destroying the fetus. That seems like the "best of both worlds" scenario here, but it's the stuff of science fiction, I guess. 

Until that time, though, "her body her choice" is about the last word for me.