Nonsense. Killing the mother as painfully as possible is one of the goals of the “pro-life” movement. They want her to suffer, and if possible die. I think it was Randall Terry who said “Every woman who dies is a victory for morality”; the anti-abortion movement is a hate movement directed at women.
Randall Terry is as big of a nutjob as the people addressed in the following story, and does not represent most pro-life people.
You assume that I don’t consider the average anti-abortion fanatic a “nutjob” and worse; I do. The pro-life movement is a hate movement, and has demonstrated again and again that all it really cares about is hurting women. The “unborn” are just the club they’ve chosen to use to beat on women with; the antiabortionists don’t care in the slightest about them except as weapons agaiosnt women.
Nonsense.
An acorn actually contains a tiny plant, that, given the right conditions, will grow into what anyone would recognize as an oak tree. It is, in fact, an immature form of an oak tree. It is the very same form of life as the oak tree, just at a different stage of its life. It just needs soil and water and sunlight and a few other basic nutrients, and plenty of time.
Now, of course, if I wanted a fully-grown oak tree, capable of providing a significant amount of shade, big and sturdy enough to build a treehouse in, or otherwise to fulfill any function that a full-sized oak tree would fulfill, an acorn wouldn’t be satisfactory. I don’t have time to wait for it to grow up. A newly sprouted sapling would also be unsatisfactory.
If I wanted a whole live chicken, with the intent of killing and butchering it, to provide the basis for a meal for my family, a newly-hatched chick would be unsatisfactory for the same reason.
None of this means that the immature form of a given organism is anything other than that. The newly-hatched chick is still a chicken, even if there’s not enough of it yet to make a meal.
One side of this debate consists of people who deny the very humanity of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, and on that basis, seek to deny them the most essential nd basic of all human rights, including the right to life. That side defends killing these innocent human beings.
What could be more hateful than that?
I’ve seen blueprints, and I saw a tiny house, requiring only lumber and nails and a contractor with a hammer and plenty of time.
Pretending that a blob of tissue is an “innocent human being” in order to oppress, torment and kill actual human beings because they happen to be female. And yes, it is pretending; the “pro-life” people have shown again and again that they have no concern at all for the welfare of the fetus or of the children they force to be born. They are motivated by malice and bigotry, and their actions prove it.
The people you are talking about are no more representative of pro-life people than Westboro Baptist Church is of Baptists. :rolleyes:
What kind of people do you think sort cans of food and school supplies for the needy, do disaster relief, work at free clinics, etc.? Not all of them, certainly, but a huge percentage of them quietly do this, and it’s often independent of their religious beliefs or political views.
And to me, “anti-choice” is women being forced to have abortions when they don’t want to.
Nonsense; they are the overwhelming majority of the anti-choice movement, not a fringe.
Being reduced to a brood mare is anti choice, the moral equivalent of raping her for nine months.
Fortunately, no one is taking that viewpoint here. A handful of Chinese Communist family planners may have taken it that far, but the pro-choice side as constituted in the western democratic nations absolutely reject mandatory abortions.
And then there’s the issue of parents or SOs who force a woman to have an abortion she doesn’t want. I never had any respect for George McGovern after I read the biography of his daughter who died from alcoholism, who got pregnant at 15 (the relationship was abusive and she may very well have been raped) and because this wasn’t going to make Daddy look good on the campaign trail, especially not in 1964, he made her get rid of it even though she didn’t want to. :eek: :mad: I realize no 15-year-old is ready for parenthood, but it still should only have been her decision.
In her autobiography, published shortly before her death in the early 1980s, silent film actress Gloria Swanson devoted a huge amount of the story to the abortion she had in the mid 1920s of a baby she wanted, which almost killed her (she got an infection, very common at the time). Why did she commit an act that she said was the only regret of her life? She had just gotten married, and knew that if she were to give birth 7 months after the wedding, her career would be over.
Maybe it does happen. Far more often, it happens that parents force their daughters to have babies they don’t want.
The word “choice” has a real meaning, and nearly everyone over here on this side of the debate is “pro choice.”
If someone ever tries to force a woman to have an abortion, I’m pretty sure the ACLU and Planned Parenthood would speak out against it in the strongest terms. It is not in our beliefs (any more than murdering doctors is the standard belief of the pro-life side.)
How many of the anti-abortion crew think any pregnant woman who doesn’t want a baby should be forced to give it up for adoption? I can think of nothing crueler than forcing a woman to carry a fetus for nine months, give birth and then force her to give up her child. Yet anti-abortion protestors think it should be a piece of cake. And most of them think the baby should only go to the right (straight) couple.
You are the one who is defending the indefensible killing of innocent children. You are the one who is attempting to deny the very humanity of these children.
There is no clearer expression of bigotry than your hateful characterization of fellow human beings as “blobs of tissue”, your defense of the indiscriminate killing of these human beings, and your ridiculous false accusations against those of us who would attempt to defend these human beings against those who wish to kill them.
Yours is the position that is most blatantly based on hatred, bigotry, and malice; and probably a fair heaping of psychological projection as well. I have often observed that those who most loudly proclaim their alleged opposition to bigotry very often reveal themselves to be the worst bigots of all. You have certainly demonstrated that point here.
Your posting is clearly not an expression of love or benevolence toward those whose “rights” you purport to defend, but of hatred and bigotry and malice toward those whose rights you wish to deny.
I certainly don’t claim to be perfect with regard to any tendency that I myself might have toward bigotry, misjudgement, or other ill views toward my fellow human beings. But in your post, I see a hatred that is beyond my own ability to fully comprehend. I simply cannot grasp how someone like you can have so much hatred for the most innocent of all human beings, or for those of us who would defend them.
When you refer to a fetus as a child…you are personifying something that has the Potential to be a child but it is not a child.
Personhood, not humanity. My appendix is human, that doesn’t mean it has a right to life.
The anti-abortion movement has zero interest in defending or helping any one, it is about hatred of women and nothing else. And by forcing women to give birth they are the moral equivalent of rapists - unless their forcing her leads to her death, in which case they are rapist-murderers.
Do you understand that he does not see a partially developed fetus as being the same thing as a child, and thus cannot be “defending the indefensible killing of innocent children” in his own mind?
Do you not see the very clear tone in all of his postings on the subject? Nothing that indicates any genuine concern for the women who he thinks would be oppressed by preventing them from having their children killed. There is a very clear tone of raw hatred for the innocent victims of abortion, and for any who oppose this savage practice. I cannot help be reminded of some depictions of the racism that accompanied slavery in the early days of our own nation. Those who opposed slavery were called “niggerlovers”—a term that carried the same hateful connotation toward fellow white men who dared to suggest that “niggers” might be actual human beings, whose rights should perhaps be recognized; that those who used the term held against “niggers” themselves.
And the false accusations that those of us who oppose the murder of innocent children do not really care about the children, but do so out of hatred for women? There is no basis for this. I will point out that approximately half of the innocent victims of abortion are girls, who would grow up to be women if they were allowed to live. I wish them to be allowed to live. He wishes them to die. Which of these is the hateful position?
Nope, you don’t understand.
Bob Blaylock, would you care to address directly the point I made in post #118?
edited to add: BTW, it is considered customary around here to add the signature just once per thread.