Ah, now I remember! ZPG Zealot is the"handshake rape and vampire bastards" poster!
Yes, but usually it has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing; in fact, getting people to adopt across ethnicities is typically a bigger problem.
…and then hugged. The trifecta of evil is completed.
Regarding the question of abortion in the case of rape. There are 2 considerations:
(1) Emergency contraception can be used for up to 72 hours.
(2) If you believe that there are two human lives involved, instead of just one, you’re still balancing “murder” versus “inconvenience.” The choice is clear. If you do not, the choice is less clear.
Regarding the “line”. “Brain activity” has never been the test for personhood. Without it, you may be adjudged incompetent and have a guardian appointed for you, but you’re still a “person”. Roe says “viability”, and that’s the law of the land for the time being.
That’s just not true. Florida has tried such a bill. And didn’t Randall Terry promote the idea in the 1980s?
Nonsense. That’s why it’s legal to harvest the organs of the brain dead; legally and morally, personhood is in the brain. Everything else is just meat.
Really? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. But I don’t see how it would pass Constitutional muster.
Speculating that the lump is going to be MLK just makes the pro-woman haters feel better about having such huge hang ups about sex that they want to regulate everybody else’s sex life.
The anti-choicer’s insistence on that tired meme----“OMG, you just killed Beethoven!”-----just ignores the fact that most people aren’t special. Most people aren’t MLK. But you never know. While you’re focusing on somebody’s internal organs that aren’t any of your goddamned business, the MLK might be starving to death or suffering from child abuse or not getting the education he or she needs (Martina Lucille King?) to turn into a fantastic heroic person. Because people like you are too busy fantasizing about lumps of protein. You couldn’t give less of a shit about children if their umbiliical’s cut.
I LOLed.
I think we can all agree that forced adoption is evil. But to say all adoption is evil is nonsense.
How do you know that the couple you referred to earlier, the " gentleman averse to the prospect of child support, who was hurrying his visibly-disconcerted “friend” into the building. "
Were not a couple going in to get emergency contraception after she had been raped?
How did you KNOW this?
The answer is, that you and your fellow moralist protesters do NOT know the circumstances of people going into Planned Parenthood, nor do they even know what sort of appointment these people are going in for. As we’ve heard in this thread, it does not even matter if you are simply parking in a lot nearby to go to work - you’ll still be called a murderer.
It matters not though. Prevention of contraception information and birth control is also an important goal of the moralizers.
Since he was responding to the suggestion that the aborted baby might be Bin Laden or Hitler, I think this was a fair point to raise. In reality any given baby is unlikely to be either MLK or Hitler.
Randall Terry or Joseph Scheidler, who used to be head of a different anti-choice group but was just as fucked up. “I think contraception is disgusting. All those people using other people for pleasure.” Don’t you just get the feeling that the only thing resembling pleasure that somebody like Scheidler feels is stifling other people’s pleasure?
The Right has been promoting so-called ‘conscience clauses’ which allow any busybody asshole to deny a woman birth control or emergency contraception if they want to on stupid grounds that they have thus far apparently never used on a guy. I haven’t seen a report of any pharmacists turning down anytihng but drugs relating to birth control, EC, and that one case of a coagulation drug that was usually used after either abortion or miscarriage. Seems to me if you really are against abortion, you’d be merrily skipping along with a huge basket of condoms like the Condom Fairy and gaily giving them out by the bushel full.
Is forced pregnancy evil?
I would never say that. But to say all adoption is perfect is also nonsense. I’ve heard protestors state that “Your child would rather be adopted and murdered than aborted.” I cannot begin to tell you what’s wrong with that statement.
If you don’t like the abortion laws, you should work to make Roe v. Wade overturned. You should NOT harass woman who are going into a medical clinic.
ZPG and I do not see eye to eye on almost everything in the world but we agree on this. [There are enough kids out there that can be adopted anyway.]
Sometimes birth control fails even when properly used [mine did 3 times, one was a tubal ligation] and sometimes rapes occur to women and girls who are practicing chastity. sometimes the pregnancy is too dangerous to the health of the mother. Not everybody is using abortion as birth control.
Now if the protesters offer to house the pregnant single woman, pay her medical bills and adopt the kid when it pops out, THEN I will consider it a valid protest. Otherwise you are trying to control people who are not your brand of religion with your religious beliefs, which is against their constitutional rights to freedom of religion.
Or if they are willing to support her and her child for 18 years.
ETA: One tactic used by the protestors is that they are subject to “threats of violence.” This despite the fact there has not been one case of pro-choice violence against a protestor that I have heard about, but the pro-life violence is very well documented.
I doubt the National Association of Black Social Workers would agree with you.
http://www.nabsw.org/mserver/PreservingFamilies.aspx
Harvesting babies from poor families in the developing world is an industry possible only because greedy, white infertiles want babies.
I’m okay with murdering the inconvenient.
That they don’t do this speaks to a major motivation of the moralizers;
They believe that any sex outside marriage is wrong and sinful. It should never be done. If someone does it, they are immoral and sinful, wrong and dirty This is true of the man involved, but is particularly true the woman, who must bear the consequences of being immoral and sinful.
Carrying to term giving birth and either giving the child up for adoption or raising it in poor circumstances are the punishment that the woman deserves for her sin.
This is the only reasonable explanation for the fact that anti-abortion folks are also anti-birth control. This is why they don’t differentiate in their picketing, and just ASSUME that people are going in for abortions. They don’t care. Anyone going in for birth control is a sinner.
This also explains why anti-abortion folks are rarely concerned with helping mothers after they give birth. These women are seen as immoral sinners who deserve their punishment.
I said that because a pro-abortionist stated that the aborted baby could have been the next osama.
That’s not what the Courts say. Courts say “viability”. What you’re positing would actually be earlier than that, as EEG’s detect brain activity before the 12th week. If that’s your position, I’ll take it, as it’s better than what we’ve got now. Eventually, I think we’ll come around, though, and realize the horrible mistake we’ve made in warping the Constitution the way we’ve done (penumbra!?), and stop treating people like commodities.
Oh, I understand. And I know it’s tempting to argue against the low-hanging fruit of tards like ZPG Zealot, so I appreciate your taking the time to answer a less provocative post. 
I get that many pro-life people are opposed to pre-marital sex, and as such would prefer not to take any action that might encourage it. However, that horse has left the barn. The number of people who wait until they’re married before having sex is miniscule, regardless of their access to contraception. (Studies have shown that abstinence-only education doesn’t in any way reduce the percentage of teens having sex, for example.)
And I think it’s pretty undeniable that most (if not all) abortions involve unwanted pregnancies, pretty much by definition. So you’d have to think if you put contraception into the hands of the people who will abort a baby if they get pregnant, many of them would use it. They don’t get pregnant, they don’t have an abortion, so you’ve prevented the murder of an innocent. Doesn’t the good far outweigh the bad, in this case?
Yes, you’re assisting a population engaging in an activity you don’t morally agree with, but given that not intervening doesn’t in any way reduce their activity, isn’t it better to focus on mitigating the consequences so as to prevent harm to innocents. For example, imagine if an airborne version of AIDS developed among drug addicts that only could be caught by children under five. Wouldn’t you then support a needle exchange program for heroin addicts, even if you were deeply morally opposed to heroin use? Standing by your principles may feel better, but the inevitable and predictable consequence is going to by the deaths of children that you could have prevented if you’d compromised.
Obligatory link: The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion.
Anyone who doesn’t think some members of the anti-abortion group think it’s moral when they have an abortion is deluded.