Against slavery? Don’t own one.
So all those companies that pay for expensive billboards to try and influence your opinions on matters from soft drink choice to political candidates must be wasting their money?
I suspect that “they bother” for the same reason that people used to picket outside of corporations that did business with South Africa in the '80s…or that environmentalists picket outside of lumber companies…or that African Americans picket outside of Denny’s or…well you get the idea.
Are you seriously questioning why groups picket/demonstrate…or are you singling out pro life groups in this regard? (And no, I don’t condone violent or confrontational protests by pro life groups, PETA, African Americans in Beford Stuy or any other protests of the same ilk)
Yup.
Yeah, and I wanted a Lamborghini when I was a kid. I didn’t get my wish either. Life’s a bitch.
My statement wasn’t intended to be a refutation, logical or otherwise. It was an observation: to wit, throwing around labels like ‘pro abortionists’ is factually incorrect, inflammatory, and counterproductive. Demonizing the party with whom you disagree isn’t conducive to reaching an agreement.
And I agree that they’re perfectly within their rights to hold that belief and espouse it at will. This was the intent of my statement, “speak out against it if you must.” I wouldn’t wish to deny anyone that opportunity even if I had the ability to do so, regardless of how vehemently I might oppose their premise.
Here’s my view, if one life depends completely on another, then the life that is being depended on has every right to stop the flow to it’s dependent. If I had a tapeworm I would not think it has any right to life. A baby, while not a tapeworm, does affect your physiology and your health. Therefore the baby has no right to take nourishment from you, if you do not wish to give it. A foetus IS alive, as a sperm is alive, as an egg is alive. If it has cells and grows, it’s alive. All this alive/not alive bullshit is rhetoric that people use to justify their actions. Fuck it, if you have to say something isn’t alive to justify your actions maybe you need to rethink your actions.
A foetus is alive, it IS human. Can you kill it in the womb? Yes as it is a parasite to it’s host even if for the most part a benign parasite. Saying a foetus is not human is a way for people who got an abortion to sleep at night, and it’s bullshit in my opinion. I don’t go around telling people who’ve had abortions that, because well, fuck it, it’s traumatizing and I don’t need to rub shit in their face, but I do feel that it IS a human, that you ARE killing it, and that’s it’s perfectly ok to do so.
Erek
I certainly concur with that.
Well, I find nothing to disagree with in the above, either.
But with such sweet reason now pouring from your keyboard, I am at a loss to discern what motivated:
I gather that you’re now saying the Penised-American business was merely hyperbole, and that the sum of your commentary was to the effect of: “Don’t demonize your opponent.”
Well, I absolutely agree with you.
- Rick
Just out of curiosity - what would you say to the mother of a five-day-old infant, who decided to stop breastfeeding her child, refused to buy him formula, and let him starve to death? How is that distinguished from your example?
If you say that she has a duty to call someone, because her baby could survive without her if someone else steps in and cares for him, then what would you say to an eight-month pregnant mother who wanted to abort the baby?
And what would you say to a woman who agreed to be a surrogate mother, accepted the fertilized embryo from a couple, and then decided a month into it to call it off? Is she guilty of murder? While it’s true the embryo was “drawing sustenance”, she did agree, in advance, to permit that.
As I say - just curious.
- Rick
Essentially, though I’d note that the “Penised-American” comment, apart from being a lameass dig at the hyphenated-American phenomenon, was just my way of saying “these are my thoughts on the matter, and they needn’t necessarily extend to anyone else.” Self-deprecating humor, badly rendered though it was.
Well, since she has an option to rid herself of the baby that day, then I’d say she does have the responsibility of doing something about it. Abortion is a messy business and not really healthy for any of the parties concerned, and should NOT be used as a precedent for anything else.
It would be safer to have the baby delivered by Caesarian for you. You run a pretty big risk aborting a baby that far into the term. Isn’t it impossible at that point though?
You ma’am are subject to all the terms of the contract which you signed. She’s guilty of breaking a contract.
As I said abortion is a messy business, but I don’t think that saying the baby is alive or not has a whole lot to do with getting an abortion. I think a wart is technically alive but I remove them anyway.
Now, I don’t think that babies are the same as diseases, but I do think that the pro-choice argument in general tends to avoid the issue by conveniently changing the wording. I’d say the Pro-Life movement does the same for the most part. I mean Pro-Lifers oftentimes take pictures of 5 month fetus’s and say something about 3 month fetus’s on their posters.
Personally, I don’t get involved in this issue much. I am pro-choice and I don’t care what rhetoric is used to justify my stance. I usually don’t get into this argument as my stance tends to get both sides screaming at me and it doesn’t really matter what I think to either of them.
Erek
Erek,
As I said, my question really were idle curiosity. Since you say that, in your view, abortion shouldn’t be used as a precedent for anything else, I guess that settles it.
- Rick
Yeah, I view it as one of those ugly businesses that is a necessity to a more cohesive society.
Erek
Are you a talking about Pflichterfüllung?
I agree with mswas, the reason abortion should remain legal is the fact that the fetus is wholly dependent on the host for life and it’s presence imposes a physical handicap on the mother. The only difference between a fetus and an infant is the infant is NOT wholly dependent on the mother - the mother has the right to give it up and never see it again. She can’t do that with a fetus. The fetus is going to be sitting in her womb, pushing her organs out of the way, increasing her risks for various ailments, and delivering it alive is always going to be more risky for the mother than aborting it. We would never allow a self-aware adult human to do that to a woman, why should we allow a fetus with an undeveloped brain that has lived in a state of sensory deprivation for it’s entire existence?
I agree. Babies are only people. Sometimes you have to kill people. What’s the problem?
I’m sorry, but that is so much bullshit. It is in fact the opposite. Quit fucking man-bashing. This is from Gallup.
I am so damn tired of some feminists grasping at any oportunity to blame men for anything and everything. Heres the link to the Gallup findings: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr990518.asp Get your damn facts straight before you go making sweeping generalizations.
All I was saying is what is the purpose in picketing something that is not a relatively current issue. The people that I was refering to were just standing alongside of a road holding anti-abortion signs. They weren’t in front of an anti-abortion clinic or a courthouse or any other place of law.
Its one thing to picket in front of a building to protest what they are doing, or during a time where a legislature is voting for or against something, but abortion has been an issue for a long time. I don’t understand picketing of something on just any day in any place. The people that you used as examples were all picketing outside of places that were agianst their beliefs, this wasn’t. That is why I don’t understand the purpose.
As I said before, I am neither for nor against abortion.
My question was simply why go out and picket something on a road for no reason other than to state your belief?
LOL! I love this term!
So, help me out with this one.
Let’s say that the next time an abortion thread gets started, I break my foot off in the OP’s ass, and it develops a parasitic relationship with the OP’s colon, drawing direct sustenance from the shit that it normally has to wade through in here.
Should the host then be permitted to have my foot, which is now firmly ensconced in their ass, removed and terminated? Or would that be morally BAD?
Just a thought. 