|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:07 pm
So, Battlestar Galactica decided to tackle the topic of abortion on tonight's episode, and I'm not surprised at the way it was protrayed: religious pro-life nuts trying to take away an oh-so-important-and-necessary woman's right.
(Brief summary for those who unfamiliar with the series: Humans vs. Cylons (androids); Cylons destory the home worlds of the humans, leaving only around 50,000 survivors who are trying to find Earth while fleeing from the Cylons. Religion is a huge part of their society which is where the religious nut portrayal comes in.)
The city I live in has over 1 million people living it in. That's 20 times the number of people left on the show, people who are literally the last of their kind. And yet the right to kill babies is more important (morally) than the survival of their race. Even though the President did in the end make abortion illegal, she still teared up- while publicly making this announcement- over the fact that it was necessary to give up the right to kill their children in order to save their race.
This is the pro-choice view? That even when you are down to the last generations of your people abortion is still a right that is utterly devastating to lose? That somehow you become less human (and, yes, that was a sentiment expressed in the show by one of the characters) by making abortion illegal?
If you were one of 50,000 people, would you quibble over the right to having an abortion? If you were (or are) pro-choice, would you feel that you'd lost something beyond value by having abortion be made illegal in order to save your race?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:13 am
That is so stupid... I hate it when the TV networks try to make it sound like Pro-Choice is the only rational side of the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:49 am
As much as I enjoy the show, this was one of the worst pro-choice propaganda episodes of any show I've ever seen.
I guess we could at least be amused that the only way they can portray the pro-choice side as rational is to make everyone on the pro-life side religious freaks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:16 am
There are some choicers who think that we SHOULD bring an end to our race, actually. o_O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:34 am
Beware the Jabberwock There are some choicers who think that we SHOULD bring an end to our race, actually. o_O Mis-anthropism FTW!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:49 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:22 pm
Beware the Jabberwock There are some choicers who think that we SHOULD bring an end to our race, actually. o_O
The only way to make that even better is to tell me that at least some of them are also anti-war. Then I'll be able to have a really good laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:16 pm
Ava R. Beware the Jabberwock There are some choicers who think that we SHOULD bring an end to our race, actually. o_O
The only way to make that even better is to tell me that at least some of them are also anti-war. Then I'll be able to have a really good laugh.SOme of them are
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:35 pm
Wait was Captin Planet pro-abortion? I don't remember that *is sad now*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:15 pm
Its kind of hard to sya he is or isn't/ Personly, I think it kind of silly to delve into the mind of a fictional character whos only purpose is to help stop polution. On one hand, who would be pro-abortion. Think about it, less peopel equils less pollution. On the other hand he would have to be pro-life. The creation of a human being is natural, and abortion is unnatural. Not tu mention all those calues that are disposed, even incenerated, have to go some where and would in one point polute the earth.
So, I'm board and thats why I entertained this thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:32 pm
Beware the Jabberwock There are some choicers who think that we SHOULD bring an end to our race, actually. o_O AHM. Anti-Humanity Movement. Arggh, I feel like stabbing them in the a**, when they come and tell me that all human life has to be destroyed on this planet. Then I just tell them that maybe they should start immediately and go kill themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:58 pm
Ava R. Beware the Jabberwock There are some choicers who think that we SHOULD bring an end to our race, actually. o_O
The only way to make that even better is to tell me that at least some of them are also anti-war. Then I'll be able to have a really good laugh.Why? It's no more a conflict of interests than a pro-lifer being a non-vegan. "I believe that humans are detrimental to this planet via consumption of goods, usage of dangerous materials, and destruction of the environment... therefore we should voluntarily stop having children until our population is small enough that the planet can sustain us without damage or until we are completely gone" does not have to be mutually exclusive from "I believe the malicious killing of innocent people with heavy artiliary for any reason is wrong." One can believe that the planet would be better off without people on it and at the same time believe the needless killing of humans is wrong. Now if someone was pro-forced-extinction via the non-consented usage of sterilization and attempted to call themselves pro-choice you could easily point out that they are truly anti-choice where reproductive choices are concerned because they seek to leave them with only one - do not breed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:12 pm
Talon-chan Ava R. Beware the Jabberwock There are some choicers who think that we SHOULD bring an end to our race, actually. o_O
The only way to make that even better is to tell me that at least some of them are also anti-war. Then I'll be able to have a really good laugh.Why? It's no more a conflict of interests than a pro-lifer being a non-vegan. "I believe that humans are detrimental to this planet via consumption of goods, usage of dangerous materials, and destruction of the environment... therefore we should voluntarily stop having children until our population is small enough that the planet can sustain us without damage or until we are completely gone" does not have to be mutually exclusive from "I believe the malicious killing of innocent people with heavy artiliary for any reason is wrong." One can believe that the planet would be better off without people on it and at the same time believe the needless killing of humans is wrong. Now if someone was pro-forced-extinction via the non-consented usage of sterilization and attempted to call themselves pro-choice you could easily point out that they are truly anti-choice where reproductive choices are concerned because they seek to leave them with only one - do not breed. But if your belief is, "The human race should end," then it would be kind of hypocritical to turn around and say, "but all war is wrong."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:37 pm
I.Am But if your belief is, "The human race should end," then it would be kind of hypocritical to turn around and say, "but all war is wrong." I just don't see it that way. Saying you believe the human race should end does not mean you should be for it ending by any means available. The VHEMT (I think that's the acronym), which is the movement a lot of pro-choicers would claim to be a part of if they were for human extinction, is a voluntary human extinction movement. I just don't see the conflict in thinking both "humans hurt the world and the world would be better off without them," and "murder is wrong." To me saying that "if you're pro-extinction then you must also be pro-extinction-by-any-means-possible" (including war) makes as much sense as saying "if you're pro-life then you should be a vegan and anti-death penalty."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:10 pm
Talon-chan I.Am But if your belief is, "The human race should end," then it would be kind of hypocritical to turn around and say, "but all war is wrong." I just don't see it that way. Saying you believe the human race should end does not mean you should be for it ending by any means available. The VHEMT (I think that's the acronym), which is the movement a lot of pro-choicers would claim to be a part of if they were for human extinction, is a voluntary human extinction movement. I just don't see the conflict in thinking both "humans hurt the world and the world would be better off without them," and "murder is wrong." To me saying that "if you're pro-extinction then you must also be pro-extinction-by-any-means-possible" (including war) makes as much sense as saying "if you're pro-life then you should be a vegan and anti-death penalty." Sorry all I could think of when you said VHEMT was soilent green...that and the painter who was having triplets and they had to kill off 3 people in order for him to have his children...*I think it was Vonnegut but I could be mistaken, it's been awhile since I read it*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
