Thread: Anti-abortion rhetoric and violence Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029923
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
This Slate columnist sees a direct connection between the right wing rhetoric against Planned Parenthood and the recent shootings at one of their sites. I go further and think all the priests and pastors who call a three month embryo a baby and the abortion doctors murderers are inciting violence against them. I've always thought that encouraging people to think an embryo is the same as a five year old are naturally going to create this sort of hatred for doctors who perform abortions. Soon they're looked upon as worse than the Sandy Hook elementary mass murderer.

Move this to DH if you think it's necessary, but I just wonder what people both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice think about this.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The pro-choice/pro-life issue is a complex one and shouldn't be reduced to simple sound-bites nor to the kind of left/right rhetoric that it accrues - particularly in the US.

My problem with the OP here is that it is too binary ... if you regard a three-month old embryo as a baby, as a human being, then, by extension, you are effectively condoning the murder of abortionists by those who oppose abortion.

How does that follow?

I happen to believe that a three-month old embryo is a human being - what else are they?

Does that mean that I'd sanction the murder of people who work in abortion clinics? No, of course not.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
That's cobblers.* It's no more inciting violence to speak against abortion than it is to speak for it.

Either way, those with tendencies to violence will use it as an excuse.

* Cobbler's awls - Balls. Rhyming slang.

cross-posted with Gamaliel

[ 30. November 2015, 20:18: Message edited by: Raptor Eye ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Indeed ... and where do we draw the line?

I don't think anyone is saying that a three-month old foetus is the same as a five-year old - but they have the potential to become a five-year old, a 15 year old, a 25 year old, a 50 year old ...

At what point does the foetus become a baby? When it's born?

[Confused]

I'm pretty 'progressive'/lefty on most issues but I find it as hard to stomach some of the pro-choice rhetoric as I do some of the very right-wing pro-life stuff ...

I worry about the extremes in each case.

We need cool heads all round and not rhetoric. But that's easier said than done with emotive subjects like this.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
In general I find the rhetorical atmosphere of the US right now (particularly in connection with the blatant dishonesty of the media) terrifying.

I have some idea how we got here but very little idea how the hell we get out of this mess.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Host tags light on

The place for the rational discussion of abortion and pre/post-birth life is in Dead Horses. Hell is for screams and rants.

Do not think that Russ's Homophobia thread is a precedent. It's not. We are capricious by nature, and frankly, I've had it up to here with that thread, about two pages in, and the only reason it's lasted this long is so we can all call Russ an arse.

No shipmates are involved in this incident, so unless there's more heat than light here, I'll be damned if I'm going to read pages of what the Finns call 'comma fucking' - arguing over minute details.

DT
HH

Host tags light off
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
Heat, you say? *cracks knuckles*

Who the fucking hell thinks that they can call doctors murderers, call their actions a holocaust, and then sit back and watch them get FUCKING WELL SLAUGHTERED - and then reserve the right to give dainty little gasps of tut-tutting horror at these misguided folks who use violence? YOU SAID THEY WERE KILLING BABIES. WHAT DID YOU THINK WOULD FUCKING WELL HAPPEN.

Not to mention the people saying "oh, well, the woman who got killed at Planned Parenthood clearly deserved everything she got". SHE WAS THERE TO SUPPORT HER FRIEND. WHAT KIND OF PERSON DESERVES TO DIE BECAUSE SHE'S BEING A SUPPORTIVE FRIEND??? Even if she had been a patient - (1) Planned Parenthood provides services other than abortion; (2) abortion is sometimes the necessary aftermath of a much-wanted pregnancy going hideously, horribly wrong; (3) it's nobody's business why she was there at all; (4) how does she deserve to fucking DIE to justify your moral superiority?

...and (5) if she DOES deserve to die, how are you still maintaining that you're not spreading violent fucking rhetoric, you FUCKING ARSEHOLES????


(Hope that's sufficiently hellish. At any rate, I've been needing somewhere to say that for a few days now, so huzzah.)
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Oh, fucking hell. I believe that my unborn child who died at six weeks was a human being and a person; does that de facto make me a murderer or a rabble-rouser? Get a clue, get some nuance, get a rusty farm implement and use it to good effect.
 
Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :
 
What Lamb Chopped said.

Further more there are a number of us who are both pro life and pro choice but no matter where you stand on the issue you have to be fucked in the head to think that shooting or bombing a group of people who disagree with you is going to a. Fix the issue b. Give you the moral high or c. Win anyone over to your perspective.

Finally, you Yanks really have to do something about how easy it is for nutcases to get guns in your country. We all have nut cases but for some reason yours seem to find it so much easier to get hold of a weapon and shoot people up.

Your fucked up gun control laws are not helping you!

[ 30. November 2015, 22:36: Message edited by: Dee. ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The pro-choice/pro-life issue is a complex one and shouldn't be reduced to simple sound-bites nor to the kind of left/right rhetoric that it accrues - particularly in the US.
Of course it isn't a simple issue. But, it suits some politicians to make it simple. Particularly in the US where the Republican party for many years has counted on the votes of a large number of evangelical Christians who have (for some bizarre reason I've never understood) made abortion the one issue that decides their vote. So, we have Republican candidates making strong anti-abortion speeches, promoting fraudulent videos about an organisation that (as a small part of their service) provide abortions and generally stirring things up to try and get votes from the same group of people. Yet, will any of those candidates propose policies that will ban abortions? Of course not, even if they actually wanted to ban abortion they'll never be able to do it. They're not even saying they'll do anything to reduce the number of abortions - the exact opposite in fact (you do not reduce abortions by being prudish about sex education, by cutting the funding to family planning clinics, by cutting funding to adoption services etc). It's that increasingly vocal appeal to the small minority who are considered to hold the key to Republican candidacy that is fuelling domestic terrorism in the US - the blatant racism of Trump may also be encouraging white supremacists in their terrorist activities as well.

The irony is that despite all their rhetoric to appeal to the religious right, the Republicans fail miserably to follow through. The idiocy of those who vote Republican because they talk tough on abortion is most clearly demonstrated by data. US abortion rates were highest under the Presidencies of Reagan and the Elder Bush (average about 360 per 100,000 live births), fell steadily under Clinton (to about 250 per 100,000 births), levelled off under the second Bush, and under Obama continued to fall (currently around 200 per 100,000 births).
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
Where in the hell is there demonizing and incitement to violence on the part of the pro-choice movement?

The Colorado Springs murders are not the first killings by those influenced by "pro-life" inflamatory rhetoric. In addition, there have been plenty of arson and other criminal acts directed at providers of pregnancy termination.

I see a definite causal link.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
Worthy of a Hell call, too,are the pathetic "religious" leaders who claim that every major problem or disaster that occurs in the US is a result of God punishing us for permitting abortion (unless, of course, it's God's wrath for tolerating gays and lesbians).
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I'm pro-life. I just happen to believe the term applies to people after they're born, too.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed ... and where do we draw the line?

I don't think anyone is saying that a three-month old foetus is the same as a five-year old - but they have the potential to become a five-year old, a 15 year old, a 25 year old, a 50 year old ...

At what point does the foetus become a baby? When it's born?

Yes. When it's born. Potential is not the same as actual. There is a shock value in saying that a doctor who performs an abortion on a ten week embryo has "killed a baby," that does produce a sort of horror that "performed an abortion," does not. Calling the fetus a baby is not accurate and I believe it is inflammatory.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
It's TERRORISM, but because he's a white Christian, we're supposed to pretend that he's mentally ill and never watches the news and the pro-life movement has nothing to do with it. <la la la fingers in ears la la la>

Well, fuck that shit. [Mad] This is TERRORISM, pure and simple. The pro-life movement is associated with, encourages, and supports TERRORISM. They call doctors "murderers". They harass and attack doctors and their staff and patients and burn and bomb and vandalize clinics. They spread false propaganda. There are direct links between pro-life terrorists and leaders in the movement. And only after people are injured or killed do they clutch their pearls and say that of course they oppose violence, even though their next newsletter or email blast will celebrate the deaths of "baby killers" and brag about how many babies were saved by a soldier for Christ. Don't tell me that their violent rhetoric doesn't have an effect. Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining. There is no plausible deniability for them to hide behind, none.

And if any pro-lifers think it is terribly unfair to associate them with terrorists, well, now they know what it's like to be an ordinary Muslim.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Calling the fetus a baby is not accurate and I believe it is inflammatory.
For those who believe an unborn foetus has exactly as much value as a newborn baby, how is it inaccurate? Because they didn't use the medical term "foetus"?

Most people don't. Millions of pregnant women talk about having a "baby" inside them. It is entirely normal and commonplace to refer to the "baby" contained in a pregnant woman's bump. When expectant mothers proudly show off fuzzy ultrasound pictures, they talk about their "baby" - not their foetus.

Yes, I agree, talk of "baby killers" is intended to be shocking. But that doesn't necessarily make it unfair.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
When we are able to clone people, will we need to save every drop of blood and every scrape of skin because it all will technically have the potential to become a human?

No. Because that's stupid.

Creating a new human should be preferably a profoundly deliberate act. Sometimes it's not, and that's OK too, but the argument of no-compromise sanctity of all human life is rendered impossible by our shared reality in too many ways already. We suffer enough from preprogrammed urges that bypass our feeble individual wisdoms.

A focus on education and support for mothers (like, say, fucking realistic maternity leave) should be forefront. And, perhaps, where support simply isn't enough, let the potential mothers retain the right to make all their own profoundly deliberate decisions.
 
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :
 
Anyone who violently attacks innocent, defenseless strangers on the grounds of their profession, religious affiliation, ethnicity, nationality, presumed cultural background...is a terrorist (read: cowardly barbaric little shit).

(Tangent: I'm a little annoyed just now because s recent post on the Psychology Today blog puts terrorism and the Charleston church massacre into different categories.)

Also, let's not forget what liars those anti-abortionists are. Examples: abortion supposedly causes breast cancer, women who've had abortions supposedly suffer horrible grief and guilt for the rest of their lives. Made up out of whole cloth. Liars. Liars. Liars.

And hypocrites too of course, because they don't care about those precious lives once they're actually begun. And it's always interesting how "pro-lifers" often turn out to be pro-capital punishment. Wouldn't be surprised if the whackos who advocate capital punishment for disobedient children turn out be "pro-life."
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Calling the fetus a baby is not accurate and I believe it is inflammatory.
For those who believe an unborn foetus has exactly as much value as a newborn baby, how is it inaccurate? Because they didn't use the medical term "foetus"?

Most people don't. Millions of pregnant women talk about having a "baby" inside them. It is entirely normal and commonplace to refer to the "baby" contained in a pregnant woman's bump. When expectant mothers proudly show off fuzzy ultrasound pictures, they talk about their "baby" - not their foetus.

Yes, I agree, talk of "baby killers" is intended to be shocking. But that doesn't necessarily make it unfair.
Intentionally calling someone a "baby killer" goes WAY, WAY, WAY beyond "shocking". Not even the ultra-damning label "child molester" is likely to stir up as much downright hatred.

"...that doesn't necessarily make it unfair..." - unmitigated BULLSHIT!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Even if one believed that doctors are killing lots of little human beings, it wouldn't justify a piece of stupid vigilantism.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's TERRORISM, but because he's a white Christian, we're supposed to pretend that he's mentally ill and never watches the news and the pro-life movement has nothing to do with it. <la la la fingers in ears la la la>
I do not give a flying fuck that he is white or Christian and certainly am giving no one a pass for anything because they are. But he IS mentally ill.
If he hadn't seen the rubbish "investigation" would he have done as he did? No way of knowing, but it is not a stretch to assume that he was influenced at least.
He is not a terrorist any meaningful way precisely because he is mentally ill. There have been bombings in the past, as well as shootings, that should be labeled terrorism. This is one that it doesn't fit.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

And if any pro-lifers think it is terribly unfair to associate them with terrorists, well, now they know what it's like to be an ordinary Muslim.
This is silly. I could be labeled Pro-Life, though I am not strictly anti-abortion.*
And there are strict Pro-lifers who are appalled by this and other violence associated with their movement.
Yes, there is crossover in the Venn Diagram that is anti-abortion and anti-Other, but they are not concentric, equal circles.

*I am Pro-Choice with the emphasis on preventing unwanted pregnancy.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Intentionally calling someone a "baby killer" goes WAY, WAY, WAY beyond "shocking". Not even the ultra-damning label "child molester" is likely to stir up as much downright hatred.

"...that doesn't necessarily make it unfair..." - unmitigated BULLSHIT!
Well, I'm not sure how you could accidentally call someone a "baby killer"!

Here's the deal. If someone views a foetus and a newborn baby as of equal status, then someone who has or performs an abortion is a "baby killer" - a person who kills a baby. You wouldn't agree with that, of course, because you don't agree with the premise, but the reason that it's shocking (or, perhaps, WAY WAY WAY beyond shocking) is that, if you think a foetus and a baby are equivalent, then the act of abortion itself is WAY WAY WAY beyond shocking.

Stop and think about that for a moment. If you think that a foetus and a baby are equivalent, then this label - the one you call more damning than being called a child-molester - is accurate.

I don't think everyone in the pro-life camp thinks this way. There seem to be plenty of people who aren't so much pro-life as they are anti-sex, and want to inflict the "penalty" of a baby on the "wanton sluts". Needless to say, that attitude is hardly pro-anyone's life.

I don't hold this opinion. I don't think a foetus and a newborn baby are equivalent, because you can't write the mother out of the equation - she counts, too. My opinion is probably not far from lilBuddha's: I don't want anyone to end up in a position where they feel they have to have an abortion, but I wouldn't prevent them from having one.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
My opinion is probably not far from lilBuddha's: I don't want anyone to end up in a position where they feel they have to have an abortion, but I wouldn't prevent them from having one.
Me too, absolutely.

But, say I really believed the people administering abortions were killing babies - would shooting them down advance my cause to save these unborns in any way?

Not at all - they are completely deranged - terrorists is a good word for them.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
When we are able to clone people, will we need to save every drop of blood and every scrape of skin because it all will technically have the potential to become a human?

No. Because that's stupid.
Oh, I'm sure the theologians will find a way of getting the answer they want to that question. That's usually how they work.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, you want Hellish, I can do Hellish.

Fuck off Twilight, you twat.

Are you telling me that when I felt my daughters kicking inside my wife's womb they weren't babies, that they weren't people? That they only became human beings when they emerged from the birth canal?

[Confused]

You call yourself 'Twilight' but you've got as much nuance as a solar eclipse. 'Black-and-white-Light' more like it.

Now, does it follow that because I believe that unborn babies are just that - people who just haven't happened to have been born yet - I'm justifying the antics of crazed anti-abortionists in the fucked up gun-law US-of-A?

Now I'm fucking not. And you fucking well know it - or at least you should if you've got any brain cells inside the echoing cavity you call your brain.

As Lamb Chopped says, get some nuance.

Arsehole.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Even if one believed that doctors are killing lots of little human beings, it wouldn't justify a piece of stupid vigilantism.
Why not?

I'm aware that moderate pro-lifers say this, and only the nutters appear to dissent, but I don't think that (unless they are strict pacifists in all circumstances) they are being consistent. It is, morally and legally, a fairly mainstream position that it is justifiable to use force, even lethal force, to prevent a murder. If there is a class of professional, state-licensed murderers, killing thousands of ordinary human beings every week, and no practical way to stop this (and certainly not to stop it now) short of violence, wouldn't it be right to fight against that? If we imagine a similar body-count as a result of government thugs booting down doors and dragging people to extermination camps or shooting them in the street, armed resistance to this would appear more heroic than stupid vigilantism.

Of course, I can't really see abortion as morally equivalent to obvious cases of mass-murder. But I would say that the widespread failure of the pro-life movement to take up arms and resist to the last drop of their blood is an indication that they don't really see it that way either. Most pro-lifers would be shocked and offended at the thought that they might react with any violence at all - yet if they actually believed that people were being murdered, it ought to be a difficult and painful principled stand not to fight back. They certainly shouldn't resent the suggestion that this might even be an option.

I would say that the 'abortion is murder' thing is rhetoric - it's not what most pro-lifers genuinely think, but is a result of the way that the debate has been framed. The proof being that when someone acts rationally and consistently with the view that abortion is exactly equivalent to other violent killings, we don't merely disapprove, we are shocked, pro-lifers included.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, you want Hellish, I can do Hellish.

Fuck off Twilight, you twat.

Are you telling me that when I felt my daughters kicking inside my wife's womb they weren't babies, that they weren't people? That they only became human beings when they emerged from the birth canal?

[Confused]


See how you do that every time? Quickly slide from "baby" to "human being?" No wonder you're confused Mr. Strawman. I've never said a fetus isn't a human being -- that's the dead horse argument we're trying to avoid here. I've said he isn't a baby and he is not. The dictionary defines "baby":
quote:
A very young child, especially one newly or recently born."
What you felt in your wife's uterus was not a baby, a little girl, young woman or an old lady. Calling the unborn a baby, when speaking of a medical procedure, is just a way to make abortion sound worse and upset people more.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That's bollocks and you know it.

What are you saying? That an unborn child isn't a 'baby' until the moment the contractions start and it begins to emerge down the birth canal?

I am well aware that anti-abortion activists can be highly emotive and attempt to inflame opinion, but don't you think that your own brand of double-speak is in danger of doing the same sort of thing in the opposite direction?

You are an even bigger twat than I thought you were.

Of course it's possible to refer to unborn babies as babies. People say, 'So and so is expecting a baby ...'

It's part of common parlance.

Nobody goes round saying, 'She is carrying an embryo ...' or 'We are expecting a foetus.'

I'm surprised you even know how to use a dictionary - other than to wipe your own arse and I doubt you're even capable of doing that without assistance.

But now you have apparently mastered the art of opening Websters and looking words up you clearly haven't mastered the art of nuance of even of putting things into context.

What a pillock.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course it's possible to refer to unborn babies as babies. People say, 'So and so is expecting a baby ...'

It's part of common parlance.
Yes, it's common parlance for the majority of pregnancies where the mother wants a child. Parents (to be) talk about their baby in advance of the birth, it's part of the process of bonding with the child, for first time parents in particular of adjusting to this new circumstance (if they think they're prepared they're in for a nasty shock).

But, it's incredibly insensitive to talk that way where the mother does not want to be pregnant. Even when she isn't contemplating abortion, and is perhaps planning to put the child up for adoption.

The language we use is very powerful, and it's situational.

We will use the language of talking about the foetus as a "baby" when someone desperate for children has a miscarriage. We'll even go to the trouble of organising a funeral. Technically, the child never had an independent existence but we use the language for pastoral reasons.

No one with any shred of humanity will use the same language and approach for a 15 year old rape victim who chose to have an abortion.

So, Twilight is right. Technically right, in that the foetus is not a baby. Pastorally right that to call a foetus a baby within the context of abortion is to pile added layers of guilt on women (and often their partners and family) who have had to make a very difficult decision, often in trying circumstances.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Not sure it will help, but to me the important word is expecting - in the sense that in x months time we are "expecting" a child to be born.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That an unborn child isn't a 'baby' until the moment the contractions start and it begins to emerge down the birth canal?
There's no single moment at which something that clearly wasn't "a baby" suddenly becomes one, any more than there's a dingle moment that a sapling turns into a tree.

The degree to which we see the preservation of the unborn-whatever as important varies. Even though some of the criteria are controversial (such as disability), we almost all do in fact care more about wanted than unwanted pregnancies, late more than early pregnancies, pregnancies as a result of consensual sex more than those resulting from rape. So of course you felt that the children your wife was carrying were babies (I felt the same) and of course we sympathise with the mother who suffers a miscarriage and feels it as a bereavement. An unborn child can be loved. Everyone of ordinary human sentiment understands that.

But it is simply untrue to the psychological and moral reality of people on all sides of the debate (save the most ugly extreme) that we give the same value to all pregnancies. We just don't. They are not all 'people' to us. We don't react to their termination as we do to murder. We are seriously disturbed by people who do.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm with you up to a point, Alan ... the language we use in relation to these things will vary according to the circumstances.

So, yes, it would be pastorally insensitive to use the term 'baby' when dealing with a 15 year old who is having an abortion ...

But in the case of a miscarriage, as you say, we'll often say something like, 'I'm afraid they've lost the baby ...'

I get that. I take the point you're making here.

My beef with Twilight is that he is apparently unable to apply this sort of principle in both directions.

So, for instance, he'll say that to use terms like 'baby' to refer to an unborn child is emotive and is one of the devices that pro-life/anti-abortion lobbyists and spokespeople use to 'make abortion out to be worse than it actually is ...'

When the converse is equally true, that pro-choice/pro-abortion lobbyists and spokespeople will avoid using terms like 'child' and 'baby' for the opposite reason ... arguably, to make abortion more acceptable by, arguably, reducing the 'human' dimension by the use of less 'personal' and more medical terms such as 'embryo' and 'foetus'.

So, yes, the language we use can be highly charged and ideological.

I'm not sure how we avoid that in emotive circumstances and in relation to issues like this one.

What I'm saying is that Twilight is just as subject to that as those who take the opposite view. I'm not saying that he's on the same moral (or immoral) plane as some ding-a-ling who takes a gun along to their local abortion clinic. Of course I'm not saying that.

But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Twilight can't complain about pro-life/anti-abortion people using language emotively when his own use of language could be construed as equally ideological.

I'm suggesting that this is a flaw and a blind-spot in his argument.

That's the Purgatorial part.

I'm also accusing him of being a twat for apparently not seeing the contradiction in his own argument.

That's the Hellish part.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I'm not sure what's wrong with using different words for different circumstances.

It is also undeniable that "pro-life" advocates will use the word "baby" in pastorally insensitive ways, playing the emotional blackmail card to intimidate women who are already largely emotionally distraught - and, to cap off the insult, if they manage to terrorise the poor woman into not having an abortion they won't lift a finger to help her raise the child, or find an adoptive parent.

Doctors and other medical and counselling staff will use the technical language as a deliberate move to de-emotionalise the choice the woman has to make. They aren't trying to force her to have an abortion*, no rational person would actually try to force someone to have an abortion. They are seeking to dampen some of the emotional turmoil so she can make a free, informed choice.

There is an enormous distance between the two groups. I have a lot of sympathy for medical staff trying their best to help someone in emotional distress make the right decision for them - they know that some women will look back and regret the decision they made, especially if made in haste.

I have no sympathy at all for people who force their views on others, using emotional violence to intimidate and terrorise vulnerable women.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Babies being both joys and lifetime parasities on their parents regardless what you call them, this is absolutely the wrong end of analysis. Individual experience is not the way to inform public opinion. It's testimonial and not data. Ignorable regarding writing laws.

The complete lack of an abortion law and putting it entirely in the area of health in Canada is associated with lower abortion rates. So get the lawyers and politicians and eager religious knowitalls out, and legislate nothing about abortion and you can have lower abortion rates too.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

There is an enormous distance between the two groups.
Most of this is due to the nature of the argument. The abortion argument is not symmetric, just like other "rights" arguments.

The anti-abortion side wants to prevent women from having abortions; the pro choice side wants to permit, but not force, it. The anti-gay-marriage side wants to prevent gay couples from marrying; the pro-rights side wants to permit it, but has no intention of dragging random pairs of men off the street and marrying them against their will.

It is inevitable that the argument "you should be prevented from doing this thing you want to do, and forced to do this other thing, in the aid of the common good or whatever" sounds different from "you should be able to make your own decisions."
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Where in the hell is there demonizing and incitement to violence on the part of the pro-choice movement?

Firstly it is in the use of language which dehumanises a baby which has not yet been born, in the same way as the 'enemy' in war is dehumanised, so that it is OK to destroy 'it'.

Secondly in the way some may caricature and demonise those who are 'pro-life', by throwing all of the labels at it that we've already seen in this thread, (which must inevitably end up without a neigh left in its body). This is bigoted and calls out prejudice, which could lead to hatred and violence.

If someone uses the word 'baby' to describe an unborn infant, it does not mean that they are doing so in a hateful way to try to make women who are going through abortions feel guilty, it does not mean that they are over-religious or nutters, it does not mean that they are inciting violence.

If someone thinks that abortion is wrong and therefore they would not condone it but condemn it, they are allowed their pov and allowed to give their pov as much as those who think that abortion is an acceptable method of birth control and condemn those who think otherwise. I do not stand at either extreme end of the argument.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's bollocks and you know it.

What are you saying? That an unborn child isn't a 'baby' until the moment the contractions start and it begins to emerge down the birth canal?


I'd go a few seconds later and wait until it had left the mother's body.

quote:
It's part of common parlance.

Nobody goes round saying, 'She is carrying an embryo ...' or 'We are expecting a foetus.'

I'm surprised you even know how to use a dictionary - other than to wipe your own arse and I doubt you're even capable of doing that without assistance.

But now you have apparently mastered the art of opening Websters and looking words up you clearly haven't mastered the art of nuance of even of putting things into context.

What a pillock.
Of course it's common parlance and expecting parents can refer to their coming child as the holy angel of heaven if they want. We're not talking about sentiment or endearments here, were talking about medical and legal terms and that's where the baby leaves the fetus.

I think that pastors, like doctors and lawyers, should use the correct terms, not the emotional ones. That's the nuance you aren't getting.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Not joining your attackers Twilight, but you are missing the nuance as well.
Determining a point where abortion is permissible is a necessary thing. But it is arbitrary. Loads of people on both extremes use language to minimise the opposition and maximise their own POV.
Neat legal lines are necessary, but we should be cognizant that life is a little sloppier.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight;
I think that pastors, like doctors and lawyers, should use the correct terms, not the emotional ones. That's the nuance you aren't getting.
I know this is hell and I don't do hell really but felt I should point something out.....not sure if you are saying that pastors should follow the lead of doctors and lawyers who already use these terms or if you are saying that all of them should use these terms because they are not doing so already?
Most lawyers I know would use foetus in a technical discussion about abortion law but might well move to using baby in another context
Basically I have heard both doctors and midwives talk about babies rather than foetus on many an occasion especially in obstetrics departments- and it is not always inappropriate IMHO.
I think perhaps the choice of words depends on both context and stage of gestation.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Medical times and absolutely not legal times.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, I get the nuance Twilight, it's you that don't.

I'm with Raptor Eye on this one.

You're also painting yourself into corner.

If I wanted to be really emotive I'd accuse you of suggesting that it's ok to abort an unborn child right up until a few seconds before it leaves its mother's body ... but I know you're not saying that so won't accuse you of it.

I stand by my previous remarks though.

The trouble is, one could argue that the logical conclusion of your argument is that it's ok to abort foetuses (or whatever else you'd prefer to call them) right up until the moment of birth - but not ok to kill them once they've emerged into the cold light of day and are no longer foetuses (or whatever you prefer to call them) and become babies ...

That's what you're not getting. That the rhetoric on your side of this argument can lead to extremes just as it does on the other side.

I know you're not saying that unborn children aren't human beings until they're born ... I'm simply suggesting that your language can be just as ideological as any of the emotive terms used by the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd.

It runs the risk of becoming euphemistic ... in a rather sinister way. The US Air-force didn't fly bombing raids in Vietnam, it flew 'pacification missions' ...

There was that notorious piece of reportage/double-speak during WW2 when the BBC announced, in relation to a British defeat and withdrawal, 'our troops successfully disengaged the enemy ...'

I fully accept what Alan Cresswell is saying about the medical profession having to take the 'heat' out of these things by using clinical and non-emotive language ... his point is well made.

However, there is still a 'however' ...

I find myself in a dilemma with much pro-life/pro-choice debate as I find both sides can incline towards a very hard-line and binary position.

I wouldn't be true to myself, though, if pretended that I found abortion acceptable as a generally applied means of contraception - although I appreciate the complexities and the horror when, say a teenage girl is impregnated by a rapist and so on ... [Frown]

I also know that people find themselves in desperate straits and that for some of them a termination is the only way out ...

[Votive]

I do have friends/former colleagues who have had abortions - one couple while they were students and before they wanted to start a family - and someone else who'd been married for years, had 3 kids and didn't want any more ...

I'd be lying if I didn't admit to having a problem with that ... it's not for me to judge though. I think we have to judge each case on its own merits and I don't envy the people who have to make these kind of decisions nor those whose professional role it is to help them choose a way.

[Help]

I don't pretend it's an easy or clear-cut issue - not for one moment.

But what I don't agree with is the implication you've put forward in the OP that anyone who apparently has some kind of moral qualms about abortion and says as much is somehow fuelling the gun-nuttery of certain pro-lifers and the US religious right.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, I get the nuance Twilight, it's you that don't.

I'm with Raptor Eye on this one.

You're also painting yourself into corner.

If I wanted to be really emotive I'd accuse you of suggesting that it's ok to abort an unborn child right up until a few seconds before it leaves its mother's body ... but I know you're not saying that so won't accuse you of it.
I stand by my previous remarks though.

The trouble is, one could argue that the logical conclusion of your argument is that it's ok to abort foetuses (or whatever else you'd prefer to call them) right up until the moment of birth - but not ok to kill them once they've emerged into the cold light of day and are no longer foetuses (or whatever you prefer to call them) and become babies ...

That's what you're not getting. That the rhetoric on your side of this argument can lead to extremes just as it does on the other side.

I know you're not saying that unborn children aren't human beings until they're born ... I'm simply suggesting that your language can be just as ideological as any of the emotive terms used by the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd.

It runs the risk of becoming euphemistic ... in a rather sinister way. The US Air-force didn't fly bombing raids in Vietnam, it flew 'pacification missions' ...

There was that notorious piece of reportage/double-speak during WW2 when the BBC announced, in relation to a British defeat and withdrawal, 'our troops successfully disengaged the enemy ...'

I fully accept what Alan Cresswell is saying about the medical profession having to take the 'heat' out of these things by using clinical and non-emotive language ... his point is well made.

However, there is still a 'however' ...

I find myself in a dilemma with much pro-life/pro-choice debate as I find both sides can incline towards a very hard-line and binary position.

I wouldn't be true to myself, though, if pretended that I found abortion acceptable as a generally applied means of contraception - although I appreciate the complexities and the horror when, say a teenage girl is impregnated by a rapist and so on ... [Frown]

I also know that people find themselves in desperate straits and that for some of them a termination is the only way out ...

[Votive]

I do have friends/former colleagues who have had abortions - one couple while they were students and before they wanted to start a family - and someone else who'd been married for years, had 3 kids and didn't want any more ...

I'd be lying if I didn't admit to having a problem with that ... it's not for me to judge though. I think we have to judge each case on its own merits and I don't envy the people who have to make these kind of decisions nor those whose professional role it is to help them choose a way.

[Help]

I don't pretend it's an easy or clear-cut issue - not for one moment.

But what I don't agree with is the implication you've put forward in the OP that anyone who apparently has some kind of moral qualms about abortion and says as much is somehow fuelling the gun-nuttery of certain pro-lifers and the US religious right.
What in the whole wide world are you talking about?

Your conclusion that by calling a child in the uterus a fetus I am saying it's okay to abort it is completely out of left field. You, not me, are coming up with the idea that because this unborn fetus is a fetus, it's okay to abort it. I never heard of such a thing. Are you that easily swayed by terminology that you've decided the word "fetus," means "something you can abort," or "something not human?" Don't put your own messed up definitions on me. You may scorn the use of a dictionary all you want but I think maybe you need to refer to one about now, before you get any deeper into your phony "I'm sure you're not saying [some ridiculous thing only you thought of]..." foolishness.

My OP did not say or imply that anyone who is against abortion was fueling "gun-nuttery." (?)
The subject here is rhetoric. It is about using exaggerated language to make abortionists sound like child murderers and incite hatred toward them.

Yes, Mrs. Beaky is right, doctors and lawyers do use the word "baby." I was thinking more about their text book language, medical journals that show "the development of the fetus," sort of thing.

What I'm most upset with is pastors who preach angry sermons about "baby killers." That's not about whether or not someone has a moral issue with abortion it is about inflammatory rhetoric.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not joining your attackers Twilight, but you are missing the nuance as well.
Determining a point where abortion is permissible is a necessary thing. But it is arbitrary. Loads of people on both extremes use language to minimise the opposition and maximise their own POV.
Neat legal lines are necessary, but we should be cognizant that life is a little sloppier.
Where have I said a single word about "a point where abortion is permissible?"

All I've talked about, is the definition of the word baby. I happen to agree with the dictionary that it's a child that has been born, and while, yes, life is sloppy, I think it's pretty clear, even to non-medical people whether or not a child has been born or is still inside the mother's body.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
War on Christian Terrorism
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Where have I said a single word about "a point where abortion is permissible?"
But that is the whole point of defining what term to use and when to use it. Otherwise baby is the right word at least from viability onward. Foetus is specific to one side of the labia, baby isn't.
You might think it neutral, many people don't. The topic isn't neat or neutral. And, to almost everyone, it is contextual.
The point shouldn't really be you must/cannot use X terminology, but that love and respect be the driving motivations despite disagreements.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dee.:
Finally, you Yanks really have to do something about how easy it is for nutcases to get guns in your country. We all have nut cases but for some reason yours seem to find it so much easier to get hold of a weapon and shoot people up.

Your fucked up gun control laws are not helping you!
No, they're not. But have a look at this list of the terrorist acts committed in the US against abortion clinics and doctors in the last 40 years, and you'll find that arson and bombs seem to be the terrorists' weapons of choice.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've re-read your OP Twilight and to be quite frank, can understand why I received the impression I did ...

Sure, I get the point about inflammatory rhetoric from right-wing preachers in pulpits ... of course, that goes without saying.

Perhaps it's the internet 'flattening' things but the way I read the OP it did look as if you were saying that the unborn were somehow less deserving of care and attention than five-year olds or new borns ...

That's how it came across to me.

And no, I doubt disparage dictionaries. I was disparaging your ability to use one.

Particularly when you can't even spell 'foetus' properly ... [Razz]

Chuck out your Webster and get the Oxford English - it'll learn you to talk the Queen's English tidy like what I do do ...

[Biased]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Chuck out your Webster and get the Oxford English - it'll learn you to talk the Queen's English tidy like what I do do ...

[Biased]
Erm, not quite. Whilst it is often assumed that the older culture is in the right, it is not so neat and simple in practice.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
All I've talked about, is the definition of the word baby.
I think you may be taking things a little bit too far in asking people to not refer to a fetus as a baby - it's too common. Now, not calling abortion providers 'baby-killers' or 'murderers' (even if that's what people think) is a bit more realistic.

But then I could do with everyone toning down the implications of actual physical violence in their rhetoric.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Spoilsport ...

But yes, there are plenty of Americanisms which are older than current Queen's English usage ... 'I got me a ...', or 'gotten' for instance.

I was, of course, being ironic by lapsing into non-standard English - in this case an approximation of 'Wenglish' - the dialect of the South Wales Valleys - (hence the double 'do' in 'what I do do') in order to lecture Twilight about his/her spelling (she must be a 'she', she's someone's sister, apologies for the masculine pronouns earlier).

As it happens, I don't object to US spellings but it's always puzzled me why Webster tackled 'plough' and not 'bough' or 'rough' and made such a fuss about 'colour' and 'humour' when US spelling preserves other idiosyncracies he didn't address.

Just wondering ...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

As it happens, I don't object to US spellings but it's always puzzled me why Webster tackled 'plough' and not 'bough' or 'rough' and made such a fuss about 'colour' and 'humour' when US spelling preserves other idiosyncracies he didn't address.

Just wondering ...
Webster wished to develop a standard and generally favoured the simpler version of existing words. And nationalism,* he wished to distinguish American English from British English.


*Works both ways. Soccer is actually a British word. Dropped when Yanks began using it.
 
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 
And while you're debating the rhetoric try this one on for size: When Ms Molopata was pregnant with Molopata-Jr-No.1, her gynaecologist - out of the blue - suggested that now was the time to consider whether we wanted to "interrupt the pregnancy". There was not the slightest indication that we would even want consider it, so why bring it up? And having brought it up, why not say what you mean: "Scrape it out and bin it"? Not imply that we might want to stop for a break and then pick things up again where we left off whenever we get round to it.

When I see what's become of "the pregnancy" some 10 uninterrupted years later, I feel all the more like shoving his Hippocratic oath up his arse in a fit of rage.

I wouldn't quite call him a murderer, but a fucked-up shit-face would do perfectly fine.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Dee.:
Finally, you Yanks really have to do something about how easy it is for nutcases to get guns in your country. We all have nut cases but for some reason yours seem to find it so much easier to get hold of a weapon and shoot people up.

Your fucked up gun control laws are not helping you!
No, they're not. But have a look at this list of the terrorist acts committed in the US against abortion clinics and doctors in the last 40 years, and you'll find that arson and bombs seem to be the terrorists' weapons of choice.
Shockingly, there are posters here who seem to advocate the head-up-the ass/arse notion that standard "pro-life" rhetoric is perfectly innocent and/or no worse than that of the pro-choice movement.

Baby, fuckin' schmaby! Calling people "baby killers", not to mention other inflammatory "pro-life" rhetoric obviously has encouraged a long list of violence.

[ 01. December 2015, 22:47: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Indeed. Here’s how far-right Christians incited stochastic terrorism at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood.

quote:
Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. In short, remote-control murder by lone wolf.
Probably the best thing is to advocate shooting the people who engage in stochastic terrorism. Not. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
And while you're debating the rhetoric try this one on for size: When Ms Molopata was pregnant with Molopata-Jr-No.1, her gynaecologist - out of the blue - suggested that now was the time to consider whether we wanted to "interrupt the pregnancy". There was not the slightest indication that we would even want consider it, so why bring it up? And having brought it up, why not say what you mean: "Scrape it out and bin it"? Not imply that we might want to stop for a break and then pick things up again where we left off whenever we get round to it.

When I see what's become of "the pregnancy" some 10 uninterrupted years later, I feel all the more like shoving his Hippocratic oath up his arse in a fit of rage.

I wouldn't quite call him a murderer, but a fucked-up shit-face would do perfectly fine.
You wouldnt "quite call him a murderer"? I should hope not. What are the murder laws wherever the hell you live.

Offended by the doctor's comment? Grow some skin and/or balls. Doctors ask all kinds of standard questions and make lots of standard unsolicited comments. It's called preventive medicine, and too the fuck bad that you don't like it.

It's a sensible comment for the doctor to make and to make it in all cases of early pregnancy, which I'm confident is his practice. It's a matter better dealt with earlier rather than later.

Haven't you outgrown the "Boo, hoo,hho. That doctor was mean to me." stage?

Also, your silly story of extreme overreaction has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by molopata:
[qb] And while you're debating the rhetoric try this one on for size: When Ms Molopata was pregnant with Molopata-Jr-No.1, her gynaecologist - out of the blue - suggested that now was the time to consider whether we wanted to "interrupt the pregnancy". There was not the slightest indication that we would even want consider it, so why bring it up? And having brought it up, why not say what you mean: "Scrape it out and bin it"? Not imply that we might want to stop for a break and then pick things up again where we left off whenever we get round to it.

When I see what's become of "the pregnancy" some 10 uninterrupted years later, I feel all the more like shoving his Hippocratic oath up his arse in a fit of rage.

I wouldn't quite call him a murderer, but a fucked-up shit-face would do perfectly fine.
You wouldnt "quite call him a murderer"? I should hope not. What are the murder laws wherever the hell you live.

Offended by the doctor's comment? Grow some skin and/or balls. Doctors ask all kinds of standard questions and make lots of standard unsolicited comments. It's called preventive medicine, and too the fuck bad that you don't like it.

It's a sensible comment for the doctor to make and to make it in all cases of early pregnancy, which I'm confident is his practice. It's a matter better dealt with earlier rather than later.

Haven't you outgrown the "Boo, hoo,hho. That doctor was mean to me." stage?

Also, your silly story of extreme overreaction has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread. Try it on for size? It sure as hell doesn't fit. In fact is belongs in the trash.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
The poor doctor had probably had a few bad experiences of people coming in demanding abortions at the fourth or fifth month, when it was far too late. So he decided to issue a, "It's now or never," warning to all his patients at around the 22 month, so that wouldn't happen anymore. Of course, he's hated for it.

I've always wondered at the mindset of people who say, "If abortion was legal,(or it had worked or if we had done what the doctor suggested) I wouldn't be here!" As if their specialness is so apparent we'll all be horrified, and the thought of their near non-existence will be the ultimate Pro-Life argument. We can all tell similar stories. If my parents had been a little better at the rhythm method, I wouldn't be here, but that possibility has never caused me or anyone else to lobby against the rhythm method.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
It was pretty standard during the AIDS crisis for doctors to talk about it briefly and routinely with nearly all patients. I'm sure there were fuckwits who got all pissed off about it: "How could that damn, fucked-up, shit-faced doctor think I could ever get AIDS!"

[ 02. December 2015, 00:51: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As it happens, I don't object to US spellings but it's always puzzled me why Webster tackled 'plough' and not 'bough' or 'rough' ...
I can't speak to "rough" but "bough" is easy to explain. There are already too many meanings to "bow" and two separate pronunciations to go with them. Adding yet another meaning would burden an already overburdened word.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The poor doctor had probably had a few bad experiences of people coming in demanding abortions at the fourth or fifth month, when it was far too late. So he decided to issue a, "It's now or never," warning to all his patients at around the 22 month, so that wouldn't happen anymore. Of course, he's hated for it.

I've always wondered at the mindset of people who say, "If abortion was legal,(or it had worked or if we had done what the doctor suggested) I wouldn't be here!" As if their specialness is so apparent we'll all be horrified, and the thought of their near non-existence will be the ultimate Pro-Life argument. We can all tell similar stories. If my parents had been a little better at the rhythm method, I wouldn't be here, but that possibility has never caused me or anyone else to lobby against the rhythm method.
I wouldn't call that inflammatory, but it certainly fits the pro-life movement's over-all appeal to emotions. It's similar to the statement,
"I'm so glad I didn't have an abortion because I now have a precious, wonderful child."

That's well and good, but what about all those who
end up with an unwanted child who is a psychological or financial albatross or a constant reminder of a rapist, a vile relative, or a deadbeat former lover?

To those who argue that the pro-choice movement is equally guilty of appeals to emotion, may the sweet baby Jesus open your little eyes, and shut your fuckin' mouths.

[ 02. December 2015, 01:17: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Soccer is actually a British word. Dropped when Yanks began using it.
[tangent] Not so. Soccer was public school jargon for "Association Football". Football was always the popular (usual form amongst most people) term in England (and I suppose in the rest of the UK as well), as it was in Europe and, indeed, the rest of the world outside the US and Canada.

Why those two countries adopted the slang word I don't know, unless it was to distinguish it from the game played with an oval ball -- known in most of the world as rugby football, or rugger. The US and Canada modified rugby (though the game was still called that as late as the 1950s in some parts of Canada) to the point that, being no longer rugby but (North American) football, the normal word for the game with the round ball was not available. [/tangent]

JOhn
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Soccer is one of the codes of football. It is commonly played by girls and boys until about the age of 12, but there is a rapid falling off in followers after that age. Other codes played here include Rugby (meaning Union, the game that is played in Heaven), Rugby League, and Australian Rules. The position elsewhere may be different, but it is wrong here to appropriate the general word to only one of the codes.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:

To those who argue that the pro-choice movement is equally guilty of appeals to emotion, may the sweet baby Jesus open your little eyes, and shut your fuckin' mouths.
You are a tool. An imbecilic* waste of oxygen worth no more than your temporary carbon storage value.
*Well, you could just be massively ignorant...
How about you dial down your blood pressure, engage a few brain cells and attempt semi-reasoned discussion?
Foetus - baby
Baby killer - Oppressor of women.
Both sides use emotion or suppression of emotion.
Both sides attempt to belittle and dismiss the other.
Well, more accurate to say some people do this, neither side is monolithic and there are plenty of people in the middle.
But you don't appear to wish to be rational, so shout away.
 
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
You wouldnt "quite call him a murderer"? I should hope not. What are the murder laws wherever the hell you live.

Offended by the doctor's comment? Grow some skin and/or balls. Doctors ask all kinds of standard questions and make lots of standard unsolicited comments. It's called preventive medicine, and too the fuck bad that you don't like it.
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
You wouldnt "quite call him a murderer"? I should hope not. What are the murder laws wherever the hell you live.

Offended by the doctor's comment? Grow some skin and/or balls. Doctors ask all kinds of standard questions and make lots of standard unsolicited comments. It's called preventive medicine, and too the fuck bad that you don't like it.
Having made your point twice, you obviously totally miss the argument. What is important is that he used the word "interrupt", which is misleading, as it implies we stop and start pregnancies at will. It also suggests that in his mind there is not the slightest moral predicament in terminating a pregnancy. Well, fuck him. I'm ok with engaging in debates about the ontological evil of certain human situations which might make it the lesser of two evils etc, but to not see any loss in capriciously scrapping a child-to-be-born is plain sick. It was perfectly clear from they way we had behaved and spoken up to that point that it did not as much as cross our mind to go for an abortion, so why bring it up? In fact he was surprised when we challenged him on his semantics and seemed slightly disappointed that we weren't inspired by them.

And something else: If I had wanted to call him murderer or potential murderer then that would have been up to me. Obviously, it would not hold up in a court of law, but all sorts of people get called murderers for all sorts of things (bankers, oilmen anybody?). Meanwhile, this doctor suggested that killing a human foetus is a mere interruption, which equally is bad.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The poor doctor ...
Well bugger me dead. So I'm suddenly supposed to feel sorry for him. Maybe you're right, but not for the reasons you quote.
quote:

If my parents had been a little better at the rhythm method, I wouldn't be here, but that possibility has never caused me or anyone else to lobby against the rhythm method.
That's not the point. Avoiding a pregnancy is not the same as terminating one. Most pro-lifers start from the point of what is already there, nor from what could conceivably have been there. To use pro-Choice vocabulary, they are against potential human-beings in their foetal stage being terminally interrupted in their development to an extent that they are hindered from reaching the stage at which a birth registrar will accord them an independent identity from their mother.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
And while you're debating the rhetoric try this one on for size: When Ms Molopata was pregnant with Molopata-Jr-No.1, her gynaecologist - out of the blue - suggested that now was the time to consider whether we wanted to "interrupt the pregnancy". There was not the slightest indication that we would even want consider it, so why bring it up? And having brought it up, why not say what you mean: "Scrape it out and bin it"? Not imply that we might want to stop for a break and then pick things up again where we left off whenever we get round to it.

When I see what's become of "the pregnancy" some 10 uninterrupted years later, I feel all the more like shoving his Hippocratic oath up his arse in a fit of rage.

I wouldn't quite call him a murderer, but a fucked-up shit-face would do perfectly fine.
Simply for using the wrong word?

Of course he should have said 'terminate' - but what's wrong with reminding people (in good time) that they have the choice?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Thanks for the inside track on Webster, Mousethief, I've often wondered about that ...

I'm sure there are other examples and idiosyncracies all way's round ... but enough on the tangent ...

Back to the point.

I rest my case on the issue of emotiveness from both sides. And indeed, there's a parallel thing going on in the Commons debate as we speak as Cameron seems not to be backing down from his accusation last night that those who oppose the bombing of ISIS targets in Syria are 'terrorist sympathisers'.

So, if you don't vote for the bombing then you're complicit with the terrorists ... yeah, right.

That's for the thread over in Purgatory about the UK Parliamentary debate, but it's pertinent here insofar as it shows how the language can be ratcheted up and binary positions painted.

ldjjd suggests that those who suggest that the pro-choice lobby can also use emotive language and rhetoric are somehow giving carte-blanche to the often strident rhetoric of the pro-lifers ...

[Confused]

How does that work?

If, for instance, I were to criticise a Pentecostal church, say, for being overly emotional and perhaps manipulative would it follow that I was saying that such things couldn't happen in an RC Church, for instance? No it wouldn't.

These things have to be looked at on a case by case level.

Blanket generalisations about either pro-choicers or pro-lifers don't get us anywhere.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:

To those who argue that the pro-choice movement is equally guilty of appeals to emotion, may the sweet baby Jesus open your little eyes, and shut your fuckin' mouths.
You are a tool. An imbecilic* waste of oxygen worth no more than your temporary carbon storage value.
*Well, you could just be massively ignorant...
How about you dial down your blood pressure, engage a few brain cells and attempt semi-reasoned discussion?
Foetus - baby
Baby killer - Oppressor of women.
Both sides use emotion or suppression of emotion.
Both sides attempt to belittle and dismiss the other.
Well, more accurate to say some people do this, neither side is monolithic and there are plenty of people in the middle.
But you don't appear to wish to be rational, so shout away.
Pissist of piss-poor examples, my dear.

No sane, let alone rational, being would equate the vemon implicit in the words "baby killer" with
the words "opressor of women", and haven't we beaten the life out of why the term "baby" is used/misused/avoided?

In any case, I think no sensient being would deny that "baby" is near infinitely more emotive than "foetus/fetus".

Nowhere do I say or even suggest that either side is monolithic, nor do I say or suggest that the pro-choice movement makes no appeals to emotion. I may be stupid, but at least, I can read.

You also introduce, apparently out of somebody's ass/arse, the concept of "suppresion of emotion", an odd value for someone like you who claims to be dedicated to rational discussion. Slow as I am, I need time to think about whatever the fuck "suppression of emotion" has to do with inciting acts of violence. It sounds a bit Freudian. Perhaps you could ask your psychiatrist to clarify.

I do not, however, buy into anything that looks to me (irrational as I am) like a claim that both sides use the same kind of rhetoric. My tiny brain sees big differences.

You could possibly change my narrow mind by using your superior intellect and rationality in clearing up some questions that trouble me:

Why have all the aforementioned murders, kidnappings, bombings, etc. been directed at abortion clinics, providers, and patients?

Is there no causal cannection? Are these simply random violent crimes committed by mentally unstable people, who do so for no apparent reason?

Why have there been no (correct me if I am wrong) criminal acts directed at the various bastions of the anti-abortion movement?

By the way, my blood pressures is fine, so I feel
no need to cease my irrational shouting.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

If my parents had been a little better at the rhythm method, I wouldn't be here, but that possibility has never caused me or anyone else to lobby against the rhythm method.
That's not the point. Avoiding a pregnancy is not the same as terminating one. Most pro-lifers start from the point of what is already there, nor from what could conceivably have been there. To use pro-Choice vocabulary, they are against potential human-beings in their foetal stage being terminally interrupted in their development to an extent that they are hindered from reaching the stage at which a birth registrar will accord them an independent identity from their mother.
I wasn't meaning to say that avoiding a pregnancy and terminating one was the same thing. My point was that the If my mother had, had an abortion I wouldn't be here! is a bad argument for the Pro-Choice side. Another bad argument that I hear often was the story about the poverty stricken syphilitic woman with too many children who tried to abort her child and failed and that child was.....Beethoven!" I always want to counter that one with the story about a similar woman who didn't want her child and that child was Charles Manson.

But the oddest thing to me is that I first heard the Beethoven story from a nun. A woman who had obviously allowed about fifty eggs to shrivel and die in her womb. Who knows? If they had been fertilized, they might have all been Beethovens.

My husband's grandmother had twenty children. She said that from the time she married she never had a single period. She's the only person I can think of who can't imagine any ghosts of children she could have had, children who would be here now, if she had; married early, never used birth control of any kind, and never said "no."

So when you look at your daughter and get outraged at that doctor, who only reminded you and your wife that you were entering the no going back stage, ask yourself who might be nine months younger than that daughter, and nine months younger than her, etc. Because you are more responsible for those children not existing than that doctor who was just doing his job.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
Hello, Gamaliel.

"djjd suggests that those who suggest that the pro-choice lobby can also use emotive language and rhetoric are somehow giving carte-blanche to the often strident rhetoric of the pro-lifers ..."

Could you unpack that for me? I don't think I intended to make any such suggestion.

Also, see my position above on generalizations. I am absolutely not attacking the entire anti-abortion movement, but on a case- by-case-basis, the cases of violence are adding up in one direction only. Why is that?

No and again no, I do not blame the whole movememnt, and almost certainly not a significant number of its members.

Don't get me started on some politicians and some clergy however. I will say "Fuck them" to keep things Hellish.

[ 02. December 2015, 11:41: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
Having made your point twice, you obviously totally miss the argument. What is important is that he used the word "interrupt", which is misleading, as it implies we stop and start pregnancies at will.
"Interrupt" needn't allow for the continuance of something after the interruption. That's one way of using the word. It's not the only one. You are a victim of the "every word has exactly one meaning" fallacy. Someone should give that a Latin or Greek name.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Particularly when you can't even spell 'foetus' properly ...
US spelling is different
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok ldjjd, here's a bit of 'unpacking' as requested ...


quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Shockingly, there are posters here who seem to advocate the head-up-the ass/arse notion that standard "pro-life" rhetoric is perfectly innocent and/or no worse than that of the pro-choice movement. [/QUOTE]

I don't see anyone here who has made such a claim. I don't see anyone here who is in favour of the kind of emotive rhetoric favoured by certain sections of the pro-life movement.

On the issue of the violence being one-sided ie. by pro-lifers against pro-choicers - well yes, I would agree that this has been the case - although, in fairness and in no way aiming to take some kind of moral high-ground with this observation, it is also the case that attacks on abortion clinics, patients and personnel has been more a feature of US pro-life movements.

I might be wrong, but the worst I've been aware of over here are emotive protests outside abortion clinics and health centres - which, although ugly, insensitive and unpleasant - have yet to escalate into threats against life and limb.

I've got to be honest, I do feel uncomfortable with the kind of equivalence that Twilight appears to draw between a nun's ovulation cycle and the termination of pregnancy. That's just as muddle-headed - in my view - as claiming that hundreds of potential human lives have been extinguished each time a teenage lad has a wet dream or jerks himself off.

In neither instance has conception taken place - or is that a naive view on my part?

[Confused]

Sure, I recognise that there are issues with various forms of contraception but am I naive in continuing to believe that there is a substantive difference in 'barrier' or other pre-conception methods of contraception and post-conception abortion?

I'm not advocating a ban on abortion ... or the excoriation of those who have - for whatever reason - chosen to go down that route ... but I still feel very uncomfortable with the idea of abortion as a general form of contraception other than in particular circumstances.

That may put me at variance with Twilight and ldjjd but it surely doesn't put me on the same platform as ranting pro-life preachers or those who incite people to attack abortion clinics and threaten patients and staff?

[Ultra confused] [Confused]

That's the point I was trying to make.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
US spelling is different [/QUOTE]

Well, duh ...
[Roll Eyes]

Do you think I didn't know that?

Your brain is different and your quickness on the uptake is different. Perhaps you need to give that some attention?
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
Gamaliel,

I am definitely very uncomfortable with the idea of abortion as a general form of contraception other than in particular circumstances.

I very much agree with a great man who said, "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

I see no reason, however for some anti-abortion people to use inflammatory terms like "baby killer" or "muderess" inter alia.

[ 02. December 2015, 14:27: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I've got to be honest, I do feel uncomfortable with the kind of equivalence that Twilight appears to draw between a nun's ovulation cycle and the termination of pregnancy. That's just as muddle-headed - in my view - as claiming that hundreds of potential human lives have been extinguished each time a teenage lad has a wet dream or jerks himself off.

[Confused]


Did I equate a nun's ovulation cycle with termination of pregnancy? If so, I didn't mean to. What I was talking about was the argument of; "Someone who is born wouldn't have been born if..." As far as that argument (not the abortion argument) goes, the mythical person is just as missing if the nun never has children as it would be if she had an abortion. Because if you keep talking about potential life. Every egg has potential and yes that teenage boy is wasting potential life, too. See "seed on the ground" rule per Leviticus.

Gamaliel, you think you know which side of the abortion issue I'm on, but I haven't actually said anything about that here. I'm trying very hard not to get into Dead Horses territory so I've kept my remarks limited to the rhetoric surrounding the issue.

I think I could argue both sides of the issue pretty well, but the first thing I would do would be scratch a whole lot of what I see as really silly remarks frequently used by both sides.

(1) Starting with the Beethoven story, because that embryo could just as easily be a mass murderer.

(2)Leaving out any mention of rape, because if that's a fully living,viable baby in there, then it's not his fault his father was a rapist and we wouldn't kill a five year-old if we found out his father was a rapist, would we?

(3) Leaving out falsehoods about how much guilt the aborting mother is likely to feel.

(4) Leaving out lies about abortion causing breast cancer.

(5) Leaving out twisted inference that "I knew you in the womb," means abortion is wrong because firstly, it's probably meant symbolically and secondly, it could mean, "I knew you in the final trimester," for all we know.

(6) Keeping in the mentions of quickening and when John the B leapt in the womb, because if you're looking for Biblical backing of when the soul enters the fetus, I think that four month old quickening age would be a good place to start.

And so on. There are many more good and bad arguments on both sides, but the worst are clearly the arguments that ask us to see the fetus exactly the same way we see a five year old, because there lies the impetus to murder doctors.
 
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
Having made your point twice, you obviously totally miss the argument. What is important is that he used the word "interrupt", which is misleading, as it implies we stop and start pregnancies at will.
"Interrupt" needn't allow for the continuance of something after the interruption. That's one way of using the word. It's not the only one. You are a victim of the "every word has exactly one meaning" fallacy. Someone should give that a Latin or Greek name.
I don't think I am. It is the implication that the pregnancy might be continued which is the problem, and kind of softens what one is talking about. "Abort" would be infinitely more accurate, but considerably harsher. It's not the first time that the use of ambiguous language is used to make certain ideas acceptable which might otherwise be treated as outrageous.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
I think it should be obvious that Twilight isn't really equating the nun and the abortion. It's a reductio ad absurdam response to a very familiar argument. I'm used to seeing this argument as "be glad your mum is pro-life!" or "everyone arguing for abortion has already been born!" Basically "What if YOU had been aborted, smartass? What then?"

It's annoying not least because my mum is very, very pro-choice. I was very much a wanted baby. But had I not been wanted I think it would have been fine for her to have aborted the embryo that eventually became me. The world would have coped just fine, as it may have done in all the alternate universes in which I wasn't born.

But I think there's a really important point here. For many of us on the pro-choice side (and I'm as pro-choice as they come, so if you want to fight the "extreme" pro-choicer I'm your opponent) there really is no moral difference between a person who was never born because Mrs Smith had a headache that night, and a person who was never born because Mrs Smith had an abortion at nine weeks pregnant. I don't consider that embryo a person. It had no experience of life. I don't consider that abortion a tragedy. I do think that it's better to avoid getting pregnant in the first place, obviously, but not because I think that this type of abortion is morally wrong, but it is unpleasant and expensive. What I don't go in for is this rhetoric that abortion should be there for women who want it, but it should be difficult to get, and everyone should feel bad about it. I don't think anyone should have to feel bad about making the right decision and often abortion is the right decision to make.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok - I can see what you're getting at, Twilight but perhaps I have the disadvantage (or advantage?)of not being as familiar with that sort of rhetoric as we don't so much of it on this side of the Pond ... even in full-on evangelical circles.

I've been involved with evangelical churches which were very pro-life and which ran 'Pregnancy Crisis Centres' and the like - but whilst I'd distance myself from elements if that, I can honestly say I've never once heard the Beethoven argument or any of the other tropes you've cited.

Perhaps it's a Pond thing. I'm not for a moment suggesting we're more sophisticated on this side of the Atlantic or that the US consists of wall-to-wall internet memes masquerading as debate ...

Anyone, this has got Purgatorial and I've got nothing to argue with you about any more.

Abandon thread ... abandon thread ...

(Although I could question your apparent literalism about the Onanism thing or attempts to identify when the soul enters the body and so on ... but that would be arguing for the sake of it ... which has never stopped me arguing before but time to stop I think ...)
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
An article proving that anti-abortion violence does not in fact diminish the number of abortions.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I always expected it would actually increase the number of abortions by taking away one of the main sources of birth control.

The Mighty Sea Creature's signature made me laugh and now I don't feel like fighting anymore.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
What I don't go in for is this rhetoric that abortion should be there for women who want it, but it should be difficult to get, and everyone should feel bad about it.
Yeah, don't know too many of those people myself.
Those people would be misguided.
quote
I don't think anyone should have to feel bad about making the right decision and often abortion is the right decision to make. [/QB][/QUOTE]
No one should feel bad for having to make that choice. But this does not equate with trying to reduce the necessity of that choice.
From a disease POV, from a medical POV; prevention is better than a remedy.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I take it that the information that having no abortion law, and regulating it entirely within health care in Canada and associated lower abortion rates in The Great White North than the comparable country to our south doesn't register at all. WTF! Free access and dealing with this entirely privately as a medical thing means lower abortion rates.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
the information that having no abortion law, and regulating it entirely within health care in Canada and associated lower abortion rates
doesn't seem relevant to anti-abortion rhetoric and whether that is a form of, and/or incites, terrorism. If you want to make a point that gets acknowledgement then perhaps you need to either make it relevant or extremely outrageous.

Besides, you have stated an association with lower abortion rates. That doesn't suggest causation, and your language suggests you're not even sure there's a causal link. This is probably a different thread, but ISTM that the most effective means of reducing the rates of abortion will include:
  1. Quality sex education
  2. Availability of contraception
  3. Access to quality family planning counselling
  4. Availability of parental leave and for low income families welfare to support the costs of child rearing
  5. Assistance in adoption for those who would prefer to carry to term but (for whatever reason) are unable to care for the child themselves
  6. General reduction in poverty through the provision of high quality medical care free at the point of need, a minimum wage at close to living wage levels, welfare for those unable to find work etc
And, in the US, the evidence is clear that the best way to reduce abortion rates is to elect a Democrat for President.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
Indeed.

I think it's clear how all or most of the occupants of the clown car have addressed or would address your six sensible (imho) suggestions.

If any one of those loathsome nincompoops becomes President, the US is well and truly fucked in matters way beyond abortion.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
What I don't go in for is this rhetoric that abortion should be there for women who want it, but it should be difficult to get, and everyone should feel bad about it. I don't think anyone should have to feel bad about making the right decision and often abortion is the right decision to make.
And I don't go in for the rhetoric that says that being willing to discuss the morality of abortion equates to being anti-choice, which is an inherently violent position.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
I certainly don't think that the pro-life movement is inherently violent. I doubt that many pro-choice people think that either, nor am I aware of such sweeping rhetoric.

[ 03. December 2015, 01:11: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
No, not at all. [oops, you edited your message so that doesn't make sense]

Such sweeping rhetoric exists. Can't be bothered to torment the Hell-hosts with multiple examples since the last time they threatened to plank me for doing so.

You can argue all you want that that rhetoric is being spouted by a small percentage of the population: when that small percentage controls the schools, therefore the law schools, therefore the courts...

I agree with Alan on what should be done. I'm willing to consider the possibility that the rhetoric being shouted is being shouted by such a small minority as to not matter. I don't particularly understand why violent rhetoric only matters when one side does it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, in the US, the evidence is clear that the best way to reduce abortion rates is to elect a Democrat for President.
By and large they don't want to reduce abortion RATES. If you ask them if they would prefer to drastically reduce the rates, or make abortion illegal, most will choose to make it illegal, even if that means the rates are higher. Because morality, or something. Actual number of babies dying doesn't matter, it's the principle of the thing. Or something.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, in the US, the evidence is clear that the best way to reduce abortion rates is to elect a Democrat for President.
By and large they don't want to reduce abortion RATES. If you ask them if they would prefer to drastically reduce the rates, or make abortion illegal, most will choose to make it illegal, even if that means the rates are higher. Because morality, or something. Actual number of babies dying doesn't matter, it's the principle of the thing. Or something.
Bingo. With the 'something' being power and control. The ability to tell people (the sort of people who have the capacity for pregnancy) what they can and can't do with their own bodies. It's not enough to stop them wanting one. They must be unable to get one, regardless of what they may or may not want.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Of course he should have said 'terminate' - but what's wrong with reminding people (in good time) that they have the choice?
On what planet is it normal behaviour for a doctor to ask a mother who goes to her doctor for a confirmation of pregnancy / first prenatal visit whether she wants to get rid of it? Let alone, as molopata seems to describe, suggest that you should kill it off!

If you go to get a haircut, do you insist that your hairdresser point out that you can always have it all shaved off?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Regarding what Anoesis said.

I'm currently reading an old book by Faith Baldwin, popular author of the WWII generation. In this novel, contemporary for 1942, a young woman is in labor in the hospital. Her husband is off at war and her in-laws, whom she has only known for a few weeks, are in the waiting room.

After 12 hours of hard labor the doctor leaves the entirely lucid young woman, goes into the waiting room, and tells the father-in-law that things look bad, he's afraid he can only save one, mother or baby, which one does he prefer?

I almost dropped the book. This was a romance, the woman in labor wasn't even the protagonist, so the writer wasn't even trying to make a point, it was just taken for granted that the nearest man would make this life or death decision for the woman he barely knew.

[ 03. December 2015, 11:07: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one should feel bad for having to make that choice. But this does not equate with trying to reduce the necessity of that choice.
From a disease POV, from a medical POV; prevention is better than a remedy.
Of course prevention is better. Not having an unwanted pregnancy in the first place is better than having an abortion in every respect. But given that shit happens, contraception sometimes fails, circumstances change, people get carried away in the moment, abusive partners sabotage contraception, I don't think that anyone should have to feel bad about making the right choice.

In practice much of the atmosphere in the US seems to be aimed at just this kind of "you can have an abortion but you should feel bad about it and it should be difficult." Mandatory waiting periods, ultrasounds etc, that serve no purpose whatsoever except making the whole process more difficult and infantilising women who know already exactly what their situation is and why they're there. They then often have to walk past a loud of people shouting "murderer" at them. Then the pro-life crowd insist that women are always crushed by guilt after having an abortion, which is why you shouldn't have one, while at the same time doing their best to create that guilt in the first place. It reminds me of the "you can see that homosexuality sick and wrong because of the high suicide rate of homosexuals, which is absolutely not caused by people like me constantly telling these people that they're sick and wrong."

I dunno. I think I've gone all shouty with you and you don't deserve it, but I'm so frustrated with all of this. I've reached the point where I don't see any way forward, because the two sides are committed to things that are mutually incompatible, and every single argument has been made a thousand times.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, Anoesis. If the goal really were the lowering of abortion rates, they'd be handing out condoms like candy at every pro-life event, and shoehorning birth control into every health plan and clinic in existence. ("Hi, I'm your dental hygienist and I'll be scraping your tartar today. Do you need any condoms today or can we just give you a wee tube of toothpaste?")

That they are -not- shows that there's something quite different going on under the label 'pro-life'.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
IMO, calling a "fetus" a "baby" falls apart when you start calling an embryo a fetus. That allows one to say it's a baby from the moment of conception. Words do matter.
I wouldn't agree that the right incites violence against abortion providers, but they certainly provide the justification for those with a tendency to run with it.
And, to top it all off, following the San Bernardino shootings, we have the right yelling about "Muslim Muderers", but horrified at the suggestion the PP shooter was a Christian killer.
Fuck 'em all.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, Anoesis. If the goal really were the lowering of abortion rates, they'd be handing out condoms like candy at every pro-life event, and shoehorning birth control into every health plan and clinic in existence. ("Hi, I'm your dental hygienist and I'll be scraping your tartar today. Do you need any condoms today or can we just give you a wee tube of toothpaste?")

That they are -not- shows that there's something quite different going on under the label 'pro-life'.
No, it means that the rest of us have to cope with the fact that the RC is both a major pro-life force and (pardon me, RC shipmates) seriously messed up in their thinking about contraception.

I'd happily give condoms out like candy if I had the money. And IMHO so would most of the rest of us (non-RC) types.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, Anoesis. If the goal really were the lowering of abortion rates, they'd be handing out condoms like candy at every pro-life event, and shoehorning birth control into every health plan and clinic in existence. ("Hi, I'm your dental hygienist and I'll be scraping your tartar today. Do you need any condoms today or can we just give you a wee tube of toothpaste?")

That they are -not- shows that there's something quite different going on under the label 'pro-life'.
No, it means that the rest of us have to cope with the fact that the RC is both a major pro-life force and (pardon me, RC shipmates) seriously messed up in their thinking about contraception.

I'd happily give condoms out like candy if I had the money. And IMHO so would most of the rest of us (non-RC) types.
Hobby Lobby is not owned by Catholics. Evangelicals in this country are jumping onto the anti-contraception bandwagon in increasing numbers. It appears to be entirely about punishing unmarried women for having sex.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There's this really strange theory going around that if you make it easy to get contraception then you're encouraging young people to have sex. It's probably much closer to the truth that if they're thinking of having sex the provision of a condom won't change that - it'll just make sure they have safer sex.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It dates all the way back to the Comstock laws and the Victorian strictures against even mentioning all that icky physical stuff. In that period the ideal was, not only do you not get birth control, you do not know about the Birds and the Bees and when you get married you chart those unknown waters like Columbus. Ten minutes of historical reading would reveal how well this works. (Google on Ruskin's marriage for a sterling example.)
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
<snip>
Hobby Lobby is not owned by Catholics. Evangelicals in this country are jumping onto the anti-contraception bandwagon in increasing numbers. It appears to be entirely about punishing unmarried women for having sex.
What about unmarried men? Are they punished for screwing around too?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Men fall for temptation, you can't blame them when the girls in the class wear clothes showing too much collar-bone. It's those hussies we need to prevent from leading men astray.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The hair of women emits rays that drive men into immorality. An ayatollah in Iran said so. Would he lie?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The hair of women emits rays that drive men into immorality. An ayatollah in Iran said so. Would he lie?
Sounds like he's been consorting with Tertullian and the writers of "The Hammer of Witches".

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
<snip>
Hobby Lobby is not owned by Catholics. Evangelicals in this country are jumping onto the anti-contraception bandwagon in increasing numbers. It appears to be entirely about punishing unmarried women for having sex.
What about unmarried men? Are they punished for screwing around too?
Of course not. They're men. Only women are punished with pregnancy, because they're women. Don't you know nothin'?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
<snip>
Hobby Lobby is not owned by Catholics. Evangelicals in this country are jumping onto the anti-contraception bandwagon in increasing numbers. It appears to be entirely about punishing unmarried women for having sex.
What about unmarried men? Are they punished for screwing around too?
Of course not. They're men. Only women are punished with pregnancy, because they're women. Don't you know nothin'?
I thought it must be like that. Reminds me of Holy Ireland in the days of the Magdalene Laundries (which weren't so long ago). Gosh they were evil things.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I thought it must be like that. Reminds me of Holy Ireland in the days of the Magdalene Laundries (which weren't so long ago). Gosh they were evil things.
I wasn't familiar with that term so I googled it & read some of the article in the Repository. OMG.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There is a movie out recently about them.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
The most important point surely is that the embryo/foetus/baby has the right to bear arms from the point of conception. We just need to figure out how to get 'em in there.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0