|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:35 pm
My only words on the Pro-Choice signature icons:
1. None of them are making fun of Pro-Lifers, nor are most of them even that offensive. The majority simply call for Pro-Choicers to wear blue daisies as a way of letting people who are Pro-Choice but not yet in the PCG that there are a lot of people who believe as they do, and that there is a guild for them to find other, like minded people on Gaia.
2. The few offensive-ish icons, in this movement, tend to deal with women having control over their bodies (I believe there are many that have a woman with the words "No Trespassing" or "A woman is not an incubater").
3. Some individual Pro-Choicers, like some individual Pro-Lifers, have personal signatures, not supported by the respective Guilds, that are offensive.
4. Because I was kindly invited to join this Guild, though my personal opinions differ from those of most PLG members, I made my own icon, to tell any Pro-Lifers on Gaia that there is also a Guild for them. I also created the Yellow Flowers for Pro-Life icon that both Ebony and I.Am have in their random signatures. I actually would have had a link to this Guild before I was invited to join, but was unable to find any non-offensive signatures to use as a link. It wasn't until after I joined that I made my own.
I hope this helps to clear up any misunderstandings with the Pro-Choice awareness movement, my own signature, or really anything else of this nature.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:54 pm
Well... Those are the official banners, and I find nothing wrong with them. Except the incubator one, which I personally find offensive as it implies that I would think of any woman as an incubator. Which is why it's in my rando-sig; Only people I've ever heard refer to women as incubators are Pro-Choicers. And that one crazy guy Le Chat mentioned, but let's not talk about him. ninja
Anyways though, even so, many Pro-Choicers decide to go with unofficial ones that -are- offensive, especially the more prominent members of the guild. It's unfortunate that the most prominent members are most prominent partially because they are insulting and loudmouthed, but there you have it. sweatdrop I think that's what she was talking about; Not the official campaign, but the result of it causing many Pro-Choicers to bear signatures that are inflamatory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:46 pm
MiNdCaNdY i saw this in a choicer's sig once: Quote: If a man uses my v****a without permission it's called "rape." If a fetus uses my uterus without permission it's called "pro-life." I think an appropriate response would be this: If a man uses his sexual abilites to harm someone, it's called rape If a woman uses her sexual abilities to harm someone, she's pro choice. someone pointed out that this needs some explanation, since they didn't feel it was a valid comparason: Women can use their sexual ability to become pregnant to 'kill for free' thereby using their sexuality as a weapon. A man can also use his ablity to impregnate a woman as a violent weapon against humanity, but when he does so, it's considered rape. (note, just as abortion, this is not limited to opposite sex, since a man can rape another man. It is true that he obviously can't impregnate another man, but he's still using his ablity to impregnate (ejaculate sperm) to cause harm to another person.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:38 pm
MiNdCaNdY MiNdCaNdY i saw this in a choicer's sig once: Quote: If a man uses my v****a without permission it's called "rape." If a fetus uses my uterus without permission it's called "pro-life." I think an appropriate response would be this: If a man uses his sexual abilites to harm someone, it's called rape If a woman uses her sexual abilities to harm someone, she's pro choice. someone pointed out that this needs some explanation, since they didn't feel it was a valid comparason: Women can use their sexual ability to become pregnant to 'kill for free' thereby using their sexuality as a weapon. A man can also use his ablity to impregnate a woman as a violent weapon against humanity, but when he does so, it's considered rape. (note, just as abortion, this is not limited to opposite sex, since a man can rape another man. It is true that he obviously can't impregnate another man, but he's still using his ablity to impregnate (ejaculate sperm) to cause harm to another person.) Dude, Talon is going to flip when she sees this, I mean, I made the "mistake" of implying that it was like likening Pro-lifers to rapists and she got annoyed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:39 pm
Let her. Mabey she'll write another school paper rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:42 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle Let her. Mabey she'll write another school paper rolleyes Failing that she'll find another philosopher with pro-choice viewpoints and harp on about how he's right and Pro-lifers are wrong. (That's right, I went there)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:56 am
talon? really? that's her
lmao
i talked with her once, thought she was ok. Not as bad as the rest of the wacko pro choicers (not that all of 'em are, but most of 'em)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:03 am
King_Seth MiNdCaNdY MiNdCaNdY i saw this in a choicer's sig once: Quote: If a man uses my v****a without permission it's called "rape." If a fetus uses my uterus without permission it's called "pro-life." I think an appropriate response would be this: If a man uses his sexual abilites to harm someone, it's called rape If a woman uses her sexual abilities to harm someone, she's pro choice. someone pointed out that this needs some explanation, since they didn't feel it was a valid comparason: Women can use their sexual ability to become pregnant to 'kill for free' thereby using their sexuality as a weapon. A man can also use his ablity to impregnate a woman as a violent weapon against humanity, but when he does so, it's considered rape. (note, just as abortion, this is not limited to opposite sex, since a man can rape another man. It is true that he obviously can't impregnate another man, but he's still using his ablity to impregnate (ejaculate sperm) to cause harm to another person.) Dude, Talon is going to flip when she sees this, I mean, I made the "mistake" of implying that it was like likening Pro-lifers to rapists and she got annoyed. WTF else is it supposed to imply? Actually, you could say it compares fetuses to rapists. Yeah, really fair. Accurate, too. Cause y'know, every human being begins life by thinking "YARGH! IM UP IN THIS b***h'S UTERUS EATIN HER FOODZ AND GIVING HER MORNING SICKNESS AND STRETCH MARKS MUAHAHAHA!!!" domokun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:05 am
exactly.
and if she dosn't want to read things like this that might make her angry, why the hell would she be lurking the pro life guild?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:52 pm
La Veuve Zin King_Seth MiNdCaNdY MiNdCaNdY i saw this in a choicer's sig once: Quote: If a man uses my v****a without permission it's called "rape." If a fetus uses my uterus without permission it's called "pro-life." I think an appropriate response would be this: If a man uses his sexual abilites to harm someone, it's called rape If a woman uses her sexual abilities to harm someone, she's pro choice. someone pointed out that this needs some explanation, since they didn't feel it was a valid comparason: Women can use their sexual ability to become pregnant to 'kill for free' thereby using their sexuality as a weapon. A man can also use his ablity to impregnate a woman as a violent weapon against humanity, but when he does so, it's considered rape. (note, just as abortion, this is not limited to opposite sex, since a man can rape another man. It is true that he obviously can't impregnate another man, but he's still using his ablity to impregnate (ejaculate sperm) to cause harm to another person.) Dude, Talon is going to flip when she sees this, I mean, I made the "mistake" of implying that it was like likening Pro-lifers to rapists and she got annoyed. WTF else is it supposed to imply? Actually, you could say it compares fetuses to rapists. Yeah, really fair. Accurate, too. Cause y'know, every human being begins life by thinking "YARGH! IM UP IN THIS b***h'S UTERUS EATIN HER FOODZ AND GIVING HER MORNING SICKNESS AND STRETCH MARKS MUAHAHAHA!!!" domokun Ok, this is like a PS to my final word. *grin* Here: http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11582937&page=2305#841720518 is the explination for that signature. Obviously, no one else was going to link to it, and I feel that a few misunderstandings would be cleared up by what exactly the person who made it meant when she did. I'm sure none of you will agree with her explination, since you feel differently on this subject that she does. And that is fine. Just, if you don't know what she is trying to say, please read her own explination, which is a link in the very same signature. [Edit]I, hopefully, fixed the link, which was going just to the first page of the ED Debate thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:20 pm
WatersMoon110 Here is the explination for that signature. Obviously, no one else was going to link to it, and I feel that a few misunderstandings would be cleared up by what exactly the person who made it meant when she did. I'm sure none of you will agree with her explination, since you feel differently on this subject that she does. And that is fine. Just, if you don't know what she is trying to say, please read her own explination, which is a link in the very same signature. I read the page. Poor McPhee... gonk I stand by my IM IN UR UTERUS EATIN UR FOODZ argument-- intent. If I'm screwing a guy, and I suddenly decide I don't want to anymore (I dunno, I switch personalities or something?), if he stops when I ask him I'm not going to accuse him of attempted rape. That would be unfair. If a 3-year-old child (which we all know has higher brain function than a fetus) wanders into my house, even if they take something, I'm not going to kill them in retribution. They don't know any better. They meant no harm. Killing them would be unreasonably harsh. And really, if pregnancy is a living hell, why do women try to get pregnant? If mammalian reproduction oppresses women, how are we supposed to continue the species? Fetuses don't choose to invade your body, growing in a uterus is just what humans frigging do, whether they want to or not!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:50 pm
MiNdCaNdY talon? really? that's her lmao i talked with her once, thought she was ok. Not as bad as the rest of the wacko pro choicers (not that all of 'em are, but most of 'em) Actually, we all thought she -seemed- okay, when she was posting in here as the resident Pro-Choicer. Unfortunately, she turned around and compared all Pro-Lifers to racists, and said that she couldn't be friends with Pro-Lifers in the Pro-Choice guild. Since then, since we "outted" her in the Pro-Life guild, she's decided to not "pull any punches," and she actively acts hatefully and spitefully towards all Pro-Lifers, through her signature and her posts. That's the main reason a lot of us don't like her. That and she apparently stole Broorel's husband's thesis paper, and basically ripped into it for her thesis paper. I'm not exactly sure how that came about, but it's what I've heard. sweatdrop EDIT: She denies it, so I don't know. I guess for that last one, we should ask Broorel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:50 pm
Zin's right.
Pro-choicers say that fetii aren't worth much because they can't feel emotion.
Rapists, however, do possess that ability.
If a fetus can't even comprehend the concept of their own existance, how can people claim that their existence is a malicious blow at women?
A teenage/grown man can cause harm to another individual with cruel intentions.
But a fetus?
I just don't see how that would work out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:37 am
La Veuve Zin WatersMoon110 Here is the explination for that signature. Obviously, no one else was going to link to it, and I feel that a few misunderstandings would be cleared up by what exactly the person who made it meant when she did. I'm sure none of you will agree with her explination, since you feel differently on this subject that she does. And that is fine. Just, if you don't know what she is trying to say, please read her own explination, which is a link in the very same signature. I read the page. Poor McPhee... gonk I stand by my IM IN UR UTERUS EATIN UR FOODZ argument-- intent. If I'm screwing a guy, and I suddenly decide I don't want to anymore (I dunno, I switch personalities or something?), if he stops when I ask him I'm not going to accuse him of attempted rape. That would be unfair. If a 3-year-old child (which we all know has higher brain function than a fetus) wanders into my house, even if they take something, I'm not going to kill them in retribution. They don't know any better. They meant no harm. Killing them would be unreasonably harsh. And really, if pregnancy is a living hell, why do women try to get pregnant? If mammalian reproduction oppresses women, how are we supposed to continue the species? Fetuses don't choose to invade your body, growing in a uterus is just what humans frigging do, whether they want to or not! *butthumps* *glances around nervously* *regains composure* well said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:04 pm
divineseraph *butthumps* *glances around nervously* *regains composure* well said. RAPE!!!1! ZOMG RAPIST!!! YOU DIE NOW EVIL RAPIST SCUM!!! scream j/k, whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
