Ship of Fools: Jesus is not a dick

Thread: Jesus is not a dick 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=030694

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

so keep Him out of my vagina

Welcome to the war-on-women that the GOP says is not a war-on-women.

How does calling a 14-year-old girl a whore help the cause of anti-abortionists?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
How does calling a 14-year-old girl a whore help the cause of anti-abortionists?

I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the anti-abortion movement is interested in stopping abortion. They're not. Their ultimate goal is keeping women "in their place" (i.e. subservient and not willing to express any but the mildest opinions). This kind of harassment is exactly in line with that goal.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Is that kind of thinking prevalent enough in the US to keep the GOP somewhere close to power?

Or, put another way, is the Gen-X/Millennial cohort at some time going to be big enough as a voting bloc to reduce the level of anti-woman hysteria (and to reduce the clout of the Christian right/GOP/Deep South)?

Edited to add: I've just been reading Rachel Held Evans who indicates that the Millennials (and others) are rapidly leaving the evangelical churches that push the negative agenda

[ 29. July 2013, 18:04: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
How does calling a 14-year-old girl a whore help the cause of anti-abortionists?
I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the anti-abortion movement is interested in stopping abortion. They're not. Their ultimate goal is keeping women "in their place" (i.e. subservient and not willing to express any but the mildest opinions). This kind of harassment is exactly in line with that goal.

Well, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

The mistake here is assuming that this story says anything at all about abortion or so-called "reproductive rights," rather than about the general vileness of fallen man.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

This story has echoes in a current UK story - which isn't a Dead Horse issue.

Caroline Criado-Perez has successfully campaigned for Jane Austen to be depicted on a bank note. Probably from 2017. Her campaign responded to the removal of Elizabeth Fry from the £5 note and her replacement by Winston Churchill.

Since the story broke over the last few days, Criado-Perez has been abused on twitter and threatened with rape and murder often by people using specially set up accounts. One man has been arrested so far. Story here

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
How does calling a 14-year-old girl a whore help the cause of anti-abortionists?
I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the anti-abortion movement is interested in stopping abortion. They're not. Their ultimate goal is keeping women "in their place" (i.e. subservient and not willing to express any but the mildest opinions). This kind of harassment is exactly in line with that goal.
Well, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

No, it is not stupid. It is a bit simplistic, IMO.
I used to be vehemently anti-abortion, and no one can realistically accuse me of trying to suppress women. However, Crœsos is correct in that much of the debate is about control before anything else.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
How does calling a 14-year-old girl a whore help the cause of anti-abortionists?
I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the anti-abortion movement is interested in stopping abortion. They're not. Their ultimate goal is keeping women "in their place" (i.e. subservient and not willing to express any but the mildest opinions). This kind of harassment is exactly in line with that goal.
Well, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.
No, it is not stupid. It is a bit simplistic, IMO.
I used to be vehemently anti-abortion, and no one can realistically accuse me of trying to suppress women. However, Crœsos is correct in that much of the debate is about control before anything else.

If someone claims to be against abortion but is against programs that help poor single moms, or is against sex education that goes beyond "abstinence only", then they are not against abortion. If they are against contraceptives, they are not against abortion. If you ask someone "would you rather have abortion illegal and prevalent, or legal and rare?" and they say "Illegal and prevalent," then they are not really anti-abortion.

People who do everything they can to push up the abortion rate -- by taking away programs to help the poor, by eviscerating the food stamp program, by shaming pregnant unmarried women, by fighting against availability of contraceptives --- these people aren't really against abortion. Someone who is truly against abortion would do everything in their power to reduce its frequency, not merely make it illegal.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
How does calling a 14-year-old girl a whore help the cause of anti-abortionists?
I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the anti-abortion movement is interested in stopping abortion. They're not. Their ultimate goal is keeping women "in their place" (i.e. subservient and not willing to express any but the mildest opinions). This kind of harassment is exactly in line with that goal.
Well, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

Then would you care to explain why most of the so-called pro-life lobby is against literally everything shown to lower the abortion rate (especially contraception and real sex-education) and in favour of just about everything that forces subservience on women but in practice does nothing to lower the abortion rate (like sexual purity and abstainance only "sex education")?

Either the so-called pro-life lobby is intentionally acting exactly as Creosus indicates or they are incredibly stupid and all their actions are in line with what Creosus' believes their goals to be. One thing we know is that anyone who opposes abortion and also opposes contraception either considers taking lives morally equivalent to using tiny bits of rubber or doesn't give a damn about taking lives.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Again that's just a false dichotomy, I'm afraid. The answer isn't throwing contraceptives about. A much more holistic approach is required and like all such things the root of the problem is a spiritual one.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Someone who is truly against abortion would do everything in their power to reduce its frequency, not merely make it illegal.

I agree and this is closer to my position now. Though I would remove the word merely from that statement, I would not have it be illegal.
But one should consider those who, like me, did not think through the entire issue. Who had compassion for the women choosing to abort, even if not accepting the choice. If I am honest, I have to admit I still wish there were never a need for abortion, that unwanted pregnancy were prevented, not ended.
However, I would not have that mandated, I would not impose my choices on another. And, for those whose "choice" is less or non-existent, why make matters worse for them? I believe that education, equality and the like are roads to reducing abortion. And yes, supporting, not shaming, helping not hurting.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again that's just a false dichotomy, I'm afraid. The answer isn't throwing contraceptives about. A much more holistic approach is required and like all such things the root of the problem is a spiritual one.

A spiritual solution? What about those of us who do not accept your version of spirituality, or any at all?
Holistic approach? I agree. But I think we might disagree on those methods.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

When I've tried to raise this issue on more conservative Christian boards, I've invariably hit a brick wall. It's not that there's malice there or an anti-women 'animus' (except in a few cases) - as far as I can tell - so much as a logical disconnect: they either simply don't grasp the connection between eg: opposing free contraception and abortion rates increasing, or they do but argue that two wrongs don't make a right ie: it's all sin and God doesn't want us encouraging more of one kind of sin (promiscuity via increased availability of contraception) to have less of another (fewer abortions); to them, God just 'doesn't work like that'.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

I don't think that the entire anti-abortion movement is solely about putting women in their place. I do think that many of the more vocal elements within it have that as a priority though. And in the case of those scumbags who harrass 14 year old girls and issue rape threats to any outspoken woman on the internet, that's the whole point of it. But I suspect that these particular individuals are really more interested in harrassing women than they are in abortion, or indeed any other issue. I suspect that in this case it's not really the abortion issue that offends them, but the slightest whiff of feminism.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If someone claims to be against abortion but is against programs that help poor single moms, or is against sex education that goes beyond "abstinence only", then they are not against abortion. If they are against contraceptives, they are not against abortion. If you ask someone "would you rather have abortion illegal and prevalent, or legal and rare?" and they say "Illegal and prevalent," then they are not really anti-abortion.

People who do everything they can to push up the abortion rate -- by taking away programs to help the poor, by eviscerating the food stamp program, by shaming pregnant unmarried women, by fighting against availability of contraceptives --- these people aren't really against abortion. Someone who is truly against abortion would do everything in their power to reduce its frequency, not merely make it illegal.

One of the best posts I've ever seen on the Ship.

[Overused]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again that's just a false dichotomy, I'm afraid. The answer isn't throwing contraceptives about. A much more holistic approach is required and like all such things the root of the problem is a spiritual one.

Indeed. The answer isn't just throwing condoms about - and no one claims that it is. Condoms and other contraception, on the other hand, are a part of all actually effective holistic solutions. And anyone opposing contraception is opposing hollistic solutions.

And the cure to the spiritual problem involves (amongst other things) curing the anti-contraception lobby of their judgementalism.

[ 30. July 2013, 11:25: Message edited by: Justinian ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

ISTM, they care more for concepts than people.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Ad Orientem--

How are these issues handled in Finland? I assure that what others have said is a fair representation of the situation in the US (and elsewhere).

MT [Overused]

[ 31. July 2013, 08:39: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
How are these issues handled in Finland?

As I understand it, in Finland the majority of the population are very nominally part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (it being an established "opt-out" church) - but only 2% of members attend weekly church services. And the ELCF is about as big a muddle of a church as the CofE is. 1.1% of the population of Finland is Orthodox, and 1.4% other religions.

This means that there quite simply isn't a serious religious "pro-life" brigade in Finland - and because the so-called pro-life position has never been anything other than a strictly religious position I doubt it has much traction in Finland. So it is entirely possible Ad Orientem hasn't seen the way the so-called pro-life lobby operates in every single country it has gained traction in because he lives in a civilised country that effectively allows abortion on demand and provides free contraception. So everything is theoretical to him - and the observational evidence about the way so-called pro-life movements behave every single time does not match his theory. And he won't discard or even examine his theory that doesn't match reality.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If someone claims to be against abortion but is against programs that help poor single moms, or is against sex education that goes beyond "abstinence only", then they are not against abortion. If they are against contraceptives, they are not against abortion. If you ask someone "would you rather have abortion illegal and prevalent, or legal and rare?" and they say "Illegal and prevalent," then they are not really anti-abortion.

People who do everything they can to push up the abortion rate -- by taking away programs to help the poor, by eviscerating the food stamp program, by shaming pregnant unmarried women, by fighting against availability of contraceptives --- these people aren't really against abortion. Someone who is truly against abortion would do everything in their power to reduce its frequency, not merely make it illegal.

I couldn't agree more. These people aren't anti-abortion because they care about babies, they're anti-abortion because they care about making sure that sluts who can't keep their knees together get punished for it.

Relevant thread from last year.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
in favour of just about everything that forces subservience on women but in practice does nothing to lower the abortion rate (like sexual purity and abstainance only "sex education")?

I think the key here isn't abstinence but the focus on women. It's the same old double standard - women have to be pure, virginal creatures, whereas men are giant animatronic penes ejaculating everywhere they can.

It's about the language of sex and sex education amongst teenagers, where so often it's portrayed as the woman letting the man do something.

It's about describing girls who have sex as sluts, whereas it's just what boys do, isn't it.

When the pro-life groups start making as much noise about boys who have sex having to live with (and pay for) the consequences as they do about pregnant girls having "made their beds," then we could talk about their being concerned with abortions rather then subjugating women. But there are always excuses for the boys, who just "made a little mistake" and "shouldn't have to be tied down for a lifetime because if it."

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
These people aren't anti-abortion because they care about babies, they're anti-abortion because they care about making sure that sluts who can't keep their knees together get punished for it.

True. For one thing if they cared about babies they would be screaming for research to prevent the over 50% of pregnancies that end in spontaneous abortion within the first week after conception. Far more "babies" die from that than from elective abortion. Yet from the so-called pro-lifers, silence.

As for holding an aspirin between your knees, only the most boring of heterosexual fuckers (I am using that term literally here) think this is an effective method of contraception. Somebody should send them a copy of the Kama Sutra. Then they might do an about-face.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But there are always excuses for the boys, who just "made a little mistake" and "shouldn't have to be tied down for a lifetime because if it."

Hell, in this country they make excuses and say "they shouldn't have their lives ruined by being held accountable" for boys who GANG RAPE. Fucking GANG RAPISTS are given a bye by these people. Getting some girl pregnant isn't even on their radar.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

What a load of old crock. Who says that men don't have any responsibilities? I don't and I don't think most Christians who oppose abortion do either.

Straw man.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What a load of old crock. Who says that men don't have any responsibilities? I don't and I don't think most Christians who oppose abortion do either.

Straw man.

The evidence is that the voluble opposers of abortion in the US do not, in fact, expend much of their volume on men and boys. Most of their public pronouncements are variations on "women and girls chose to have sex, and so have to accept the consequence."

I'm glad that you think that men and women share equally their various obligations and responsibilities concerned with reproduction. It is, however, inevitable that if you are standing next to a bunch of people shouting about how certain women are sluts, you're going to look like you agree with them.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Yes, she is a slut and he is "just a bit of a lad"

[ 31. July 2013, 17:56: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What a load of old crock. Who says that men don't have any responsibilities? I don't and I don't think most Christians who oppose abortion do either.

You don't THINK? Based on what?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What a load of old crock. Who says that men don't have any responsibilities? I don't and I don't think most Christians who oppose abortion do either.
You don't THINK? Based on what?

From my experience of having been an RC and now an Orthodox Christian. I have never ever come across another Christian who believed that men don't equally share responsibility.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I think, perhaps, you have led a very sheltered life.

Very few men turn up at abortion clinics supporting their partners/wives/rape victims. I get particularly upset when I hear about Pacific Island women who are pregnant for the 7th, 8th, 16th time because their husband believes his manhood will be damaged by using a condom or letting her use contraception. These make up a surprising number of the visitors to NZ abortion clinics, women who are full of shame, but no longer able to cope with the number of children they already have with no practical support from Dad.

In my job as a parenting educator, I rarely ever see a dad who willingly engages in spending time with his kids. Maybe that's because of the families that are referred to me, but it adds up to rather a large number.

I guess I'm more interested in kids once they're out of the womb. I get to see some horrendous situations where children are being neglected, abused and treated like things. Quite honestly, I'd rather the mums had an abortion than inflict pain and suffering on children.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
From my experience of having been an RC and now an Orthodox Christian. I have never ever come across another Christian who believed that men don't equally share responsibility.

I wonder, perhaps, if you are familiar with what economists call "revealed preference?" (Broadly speaking, look at what people do, rather than what they tell you that they want.)

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Hosting

I'm going to post a reminder here -

quote:
4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell

If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.

Some posts are getting a bit close to the line. Make sure that your reflections on people's arguments and style of posting does not stray over into getting personal. I'm particularly thinking of this, Justinian

quote:
And he won't discard or even examine his theory that doesn't match reality.

You know where the Hell board is if you want to get personal. Do not do it here.

Thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host

Hosting off

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I couldn't agree more. These people aren't anti-abortion because they care about babies, they're anti-abortion because they care about making sure that sluts who can't keep their knees together get punished for it. ...

The pro-lifers looooove fetuses. They love fetuses because fetuses grow into babies which are the woman's punishment for having sex. They may call it "consequences" or "responsibility" but Marvin has nailed it. <so to speak>

Pro-life = offer expires at birth.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

I respect that the Catholic Church seems fairly consistent on its pro-life stance. I don't agree with the extreme nature of it, but they have had their reasons for this stance for a long, long time.

American evangelicals, particularly the Southern Baptists, either did not typically have a strong opinion on abortion or, in the case of the SBC, were officially pro-choice until the late sixties, early seventies. The shift to the unshakeable conviction that a 4-cell embryo is a human being entitled to live even if it kills the mother is an innovation that corresponds almost directly with the rise of women's rights, the pill and the sexual revolution. It has been cemented by the alliance of conservative evangelicals and conservative Catholics under the Republican Party.

If you can't punish women with unwanted babies or AIDS, how else can they be made to suffer for not getting married and having our dinner ready when we get home from work?

[ 31. July 2013, 23:47: Message edited by: Mockingale ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Ad Orientem:

quote:
From my experience of having been an RC and now an Orthodox Christian. I have never ever come across another Christian who believed that men don't equally share responsibility.

I take it you haven't met the men who actually get women pregnant against the women's requests, or the men who, as described above, simply don't care. I'm sure there are some, even in Finland.

Try moving outside of celibate places before you pronounce on "how the world works".

Virtually every problem in the church stems from particular people refusing to take responsibility for their actions/obligations/vows, BTW.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Ad Orientem:
quote:
From my experience of having been an RC and now an Orthodox Christian. I have never ever come across another Christian who believed that men don't equally share responsibility.
I take it you haven't met the men who actually get women pregnant against the women's requests, or the men who, as described above, simply don't care. I'm sure there are some, even in Finland.

Try moving outside of celibate places before you pronounce on "how the world works".

Virtually every problem in the church stems from particular people refusing to take responsibility for their actions/obligations/vows, BTW.

Don't talk such crap. I've known plenty of people in my life time, both Christian and non-Christian, and I've never come across such an attitude, that's not to say such attitudes don't exist but to claim anti abortion equals such and such, quite frankly, is bullshit.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I couldn't agree more. These people aren't anti-abortion because they care about babies, they're anti-abortion because they care about making sure that sluts who can't keep their knees together get punished for it. ...
The pro-lifers looooove fetuses. They love fetuses because fetuses grow into babies which are the woman's punishment for having sex. They may call it "consequences" or "responsibility" but Marvin has nailed it. <so to speak>

Pro-life = offer expires at birth.

I love fetuses because I used to be one.

I'm Pro-Life because I was born after Roe vs. Wade and I could've been legally killed in the womb. I'm Pro-Life because in the opinion of a great many people my mother would've have been completely justified in killing me in her womb. I'm Pro-Life because I believe a person's value exists independently of age, health and "use" to society.

i'm also anti-death-penalty, for what it's worth.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Don't talk such crap.

I feel like perhaps you did not take the Hostly direction quite seriously enough.

You now have two weeks to ponder it further. Assuming our own reflections don't convince us to make it permanent.

-RooK
Admin

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I'm Pro-Life because I was born after Roe vs. Wade and I could've been legally killed in the womb. I'm Pro-Life because in the opinion of a great many people my mother would've have been completely justified in killing me in her womb. I'm Pro-Life because I believe a person's value exists independently of age, health and "use" to society.

Fair enough. I take it then that you support the use of things like contraception that will actually reduce the number of abortions (as opposed to the number of legal abortions)? No person created in the first place = no person to kill, right?

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

Here's a solution for the pro-lifers wondering what to do with the babies whose parents can't look after them after they're born: Give 'em away as game-show prizes. I just don't quite know what to think, really. Maybe it's not true? Maybe something good will come of it?

(FWIW, I don't like the idea of abortion, I think it's desperately sad and a trauma for everyone involved, but I like the idea of women using dangerous 'backstreet' methods of ending a pregnancy or children born into an environment which may become toxic or may destroy lives in other ways less. It's just sad, which surely begs compassion and the chance for someone to be supported and safe to make a choice rather than condemnation.)

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I'm Pro-Life because I was born after Roe vs. Wade and I could've been legally killed in the womb. I'm Pro-Life because in the opinion of a great many people my mother would've have been completely justified in killing me in her womb. I'm Pro-Life because I believe a person's value exists independently of age, health and "use" to society.
Fair enough. I take it then that you support the use of things like contraception that will actually reduce the number of abortions (as opposed to the number of legal abortions)? No person created in the first place = no person to kill, right?

What Pancho said and yes to your question, Marvin. Yes also to better sex education (especially of boys), better housing conditions for struggling families (single parent and other), easier adoption (including - and this may surprise some of you - gay adoption), in short, all the things which are likely to reduce rather than increase the perceived need for abortion

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I'm Pro-Life because I was born after Roe vs. Wade and I could've been legally killed in the womb. I'm Pro-Life because in the opinion of a great many people my mother would've have been completely justified in killing me in her womb. I'm Pro-Life because I believe a person's value exists independently of age, health and "use" to society.
Fair enough. I take it then that you support the use of things like contraception that will actually reduce the number of abortions (as opposed to the number of legal abortions)? No person created in the first place = no person to kill, right?
What Pancho said and yes to your question, Marvin. Yes also to better sex education (especially of boys), better housing conditions for struggling families (single parent and other), easier adoption (including - and this may surprise some of you - gay adoption), in short, all the things which are likely to reduce rather than increase the perceived need for abortion

In other words you agree with almost every plank of the pro-choice position other than whether abortion should be legal as a last resort when prevention fails and keeping the baby is impractical?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Yes, that's what I mean when I call myself pro-life**

(**Offer doesn't expire at birth [Razz]

)

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Another data point in the question of whether the pro-life* movement is really the pro-controlling-how-other-people-live movement:

quote:
Calling it a “war waged on children,” a pro-life group of about 20 gathered outside the Montgomery County Courthouse Friday afternoon to protest the register of wills’ issuance of same-sex marriage licenses.

Pumping signs in the air that read, “stop the war on children” and “marriage = man & woman,” the Pro-Life Coalition of PA addressed a throng of reporters urging Register of Wills/Clerk of the Orphan’s Court D. Bruce Hanes to stop writing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

<snip>

“It’s not about love. It’s about children,” said Michael McMonagle, president of the Pro-Life Coalition. “There’s a thing called just discrimination. For example, should blind people be allowed to vote? Of course they should, because not being able to see has nothing to do with having the right to vote. Should blind people get a driver’s license? Of course not, because being able to see is essential to being able to drive.

“Heterosexuality is essential to the meaning of marriage. Civil government has an interest in producing future children. It’s utter arrogance to think that we can redefine the institution that has been the bedrock of all society throughout history.”

I think we've reached the point where we can safely conclude that the overlap between the official pro-life* movement and authoritarian busybodies is not purely coincidental.

--------------------
*offer expires at birth

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
I think we've reached the point where we can safely conclude that the overlap between the official pro-life* movement and authoritarian busybodies is not purely coincidental.

Not purely coincidental, but certainly unusually specific.

They could do a lot more good saving children if they went to shame and protest dead beat dads coming out of family court. I mean, the story of Jesus starts with Joseph agreeing to raise and support a child that he knew wasn't even his. Surely the Gospel has a more direct message on paternal responsibility than on anything to do with abortion or gay marriage.

What I find particularly weird is that these same groups that focus on women instead of men in the case of abortion, is that they tend to be the types of churches that insist on male-only leadership. So men are responsible for everything EXCEPT their own sexuality, in their world. It's slightly terrifying.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
(**Offer doesn't expire at birth )

It does in this country. And that goes double for Texas.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I'm aware of that; I am saying that in the part of the universe inside my own head and heart, it doesn't.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
I think we've reached the point where we can safely conclude that the overlap between the official pro-life* movement and authoritarian busybodies is not purely coincidental.
Not purely coincidental, but certainly unusually specific.

They could do a lot more good saving children if they went to shame and protest dead beat dads coming out of family court. I mean, the story of Jesus starts with Joseph agreeing to raise and support a child that he knew wasn't even his. Surely the Gospel has a more direct message on paternal responsibility than on anything to do with abortion or gay marriage.

What I find particularly weird is that these same groups that focus on women instead of men in the case of abortion, is that they tend to be the types of churches that insist on male-only leadership. So men are responsible for everything EXCEPT their own sexuality, in their world. It's slightly terrifying.

[ETA - yeah, we can't be trusted with our own dicks, but we can be trusted with leadership in the church and society - wtf??]

[ 01. August 2013, 15:55: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I couldn't agree more. These people aren't anti-abortion because they care about babies, they're anti-abortion because they care about making sure that sluts who can't keep their knees together get punished for it. ...
The pro-lifers looooove fetuses. They love fetuses because fetuses grow into babies which are the woman's punishment for having sex. They may call it "consequences" or "responsibility" but Marvin has nailed it. <so to speak>

Pro-life = offer expires at birth.
I love fetuses because I used to be one.

I'm Pro-Life because I was born after Roe vs. Wade and I could've been legally killed in the womb. I'm Pro-Life because in the opinion of a great many people my mother would've have been completely justified in killing me in her womb. I'm Pro-Life because I believe a person's value exists independently of age, health and "use" to society.

i'm also anti-death-penalty, for what it's worth.

Foetuses aren't people.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I believe they are.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

hosting

We have the big general thread (originally called Cleft Lip and Palate) for general Abortion right/wrong debate. Please take arguments about whether fetuses are 'persons' there or start a new specific thread on personhood of foetuses.

We have the big general threads so that that every thread doesn't turn into a clone of them with the same tiny set of arguments being rehashed constantly, yea or nay. I've bumped up the big thread to make it easy to find

thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0