|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:45 pm
Because I was such a dork back then and wrote long-winded diatribes when I didn't have to, here is where I'll sum up the major issues in 1-3 sentences.
Pro-Life on gays and adoption: pro-life consists primarly of christian fundies who think "gay butt sex sends ya straight to hell", so of course they don't want to allow gays to raise "precious" children. It's mighty hypocritical a view, muchless invasive and oppresive not to allow gays rights, however.
Quality vs. Quantity of life: popping out babies like they are sardines does nothing but worsen the conditions of all involved. babies need lots of resources, but the more babies there are, the less resources can be allocated to each.
the feminization of poverty: women do most of the childcare STILL. raising babies are expensive as hell. you do the math.
pro-life on the roles of women: pro-life, or "crazy, uber-repressed christian religious fundies" want that traditional, 1950's style mom to be the model for women. barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.
morality in the abortion debate: there's no such thing as absolute morality. Oh, if only those poor christian religious fundie fools ever learned.
the geeky "abortion-debate" continuum theory: My homemeade, original theory presents a gradation of beliefs concerning the acceptance of abortion. on one far extreme, you have the most extreme form of pro-life. On the other end, you have the most stringent form of pro-choice. It's not a set-in-stone theory, just something fun and workable.
How accurate is abstinence-only education?: OH MY GOD, those kids are geting taught ******** and totally untrue facts about sex. For some teachers, teaching that baby jesus crys at masterbation is more important than stressing that condoms can protect against HIV.
facts on abortion: this is a MUST READ. I repeat, MUST READ. FACTS from a university education. Not coincedently, many of these facts align with what plannedparenthood uses.
women and children: Being a female, I despise that my identity is somehow tied at the core to the identity of children, but it happens. In doing so, this contributes to a woman's total slavery.
"she knew what was coming to her when she had sex!" : again, there is no such thing as absolute morality. So the assumption that there is a morality tied to sex is baseless, but it's rather sexist/patronizing.
is the fetus/baby *really* innocent: I play with some holes in those annoying christian arguments that those things are innocent and pure, therefore they should live unconditionally.
overpopulation. woo hoo, hunger still exists!: I can't believe people want to pop babies out like sardines when the Earth can't even sustain it all.
pro-life means that "god" is too fallible/unpowerful!: I play with more holes in christian arguments for pro-life, just because I like to be an arsehole.
"i'm going to have a baby!" terminology vs. emotions: just because the women who get excited over a pregnancy call the fetus inside of them a baby, does not equal correct medical terminology.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:42 pm
you whippersnappers ought to check out my old crusty posts. wink
*waves her cane*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:45 pm
While you make very convincing arguments, I especially liked the "quantity vs. quality" one. The part that struck a chord with me was when you mentioned that the anti-choicers seem to think that every child, no matter their race, health, etc. put up for adoption is guaranteed a happy life with a kind, loving family.
I work with a staunch anti-choicer/ bible thumper who, for some odd reason, believes that very thing. She and I were discussing abortion, and she said that abortion was "murdering babies" and they should simply be put up for adoption. When I mentioned to her the fact that it was the white, healthy babies who are being snatched up while the minorities, disabled kids, and older kids are being left to rot, she shook her head and vehemently denied that this was the case.
Now here is the weird part: She and I work in a school for disabled kids. A very large portion of the students live in state-run group homes, where they are drugged up, ignored, and neglected. Many times these students will come to school visably dirty, wearing the same dirty clothes all week long, and on several occasions will actually come in with bruises, black eyes, etc. This has happened many times to a student in my class. The group home he lives in is notorious for abusing it's residents. It's actually been in the newspaper several times and has gotten in trouble lots of times as well. One person who lived in the same group home as my student had a tendency to choke himself...the poor kid eventually died from, you guessed it, choking himself to death. The staff, even though they knew that boy would do that, decided to leave him unattended for a lengthy period of time.
Why is this place allowed to stay open? Because no one else will take these kids and their parents certainly don't want them. And yet my co-worker, just like her fellow anti-choicers, seem to think the adoption system is some mystical wonderland where hobbits and unicorns roam and children will be taken care of and loved by kind, nurturing parents. But hey, I guess it's alot easier to denounce women who get abortions as evil baby killers when you deny the facts and bury your head in the sand.
(Sorry for going off on a long-winded tirade, I just feel very strongly about this subject. sweatdrop )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:50 pm
Bored? Good, I've got something for you to read!
I am bumping this old, crusty topic and furthermore promoting these old, crusty topics I made back in 2004-2006 back when I was a new, aware pro-choicer.
I think a lot of these arguments feel so.. obvious by this point. But it was so important for seasoned and amateur pro-choicers to realize these things.
Now when I reflect on my own posts I have a sleepy-eyed revision to edit in.. I have failed to add a very big part of the equation. I focused a lot on how awful the Christian Bible was, but the Christian bible/christians are only a part of this system- PATRIARCHY. A lot of the anti-choice, anti-abortion stuff has a core ideal of hate against women. and a LOT of the fault lies in MALES and their system, the fact that males fail to recognize their own privilege EVEN if they do not hurt/rape/murder women overtly. Males do not actively work towards listening to, and respecting women- is it no wonder that women have to worry and dote as much as they do over what SHOULD be such a simple issue of the right of choice? Even gay males, poor males, and minority-race males, vulnerable groups, can participate against the interests of women, and their interests trump women still.
In a nutshell, in my sleepy-like stupor...
- No, men do NOT get to have the say for or against abortion. of COURSE men would LOVE to have abortion ONLY on THEIR own terms as abortion isn't inherently a bad thing to all men. Some men may use abortion as a tool to coerce women into gratuitous casual unprotected sex, infact. Once it is on a woman's terms, however, the s**t hits the fan but that's too bad, too sad, the fetus is not in their body sucking the life out of them, nor do fetuses spell for men almost an entire working lifetime of limited opportunities.
- NO, men do NOT get to rescind child support if he did not consent to allowing the woman's wanted child to be born. He is as responsible to practice safe sex as the woman is if pregnancy is an undesireable scenario, ALSO, the child does not deserve to live a life of poverty simply for existing, and it is NOT fair for all taxpayers to support a child a male did not want. The male should help support the child, not everyone else BUT the male. The woman is already at a disadvantage since pregnancies are very painful, life-altering, and she has a lot more at stake in the first place. Focus on increasing women's educational and occupational opportunities and easy access to contraception, and she will be more intrinsically motivated to hold off on the children, instead of allowing the brainwashing that begins in girlhood that "bebbies totally rawk" to take over.
- men's "rights"? in comparison to "women's rights"? ... give me a BREAK! Since when is women doting on men suddenly "empowering"? Let the men take care of their own "rights", i'm pretty sure they actually have more than "rights" when we're talkin' privilege in the first place. >.<
We're talking a worldwide society where a woman's body is worth more than her mind/soul, a woman's body is a commodity, and her fertility is a tool of capitalist gain, a tool of oppression. Poverty-stricken women and poverty-stricken children are tools for the Patriarchy, cheap capitalist labor and an ample supply for prostitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:14 am
I didn't know posts got crusty gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:53 am
I remember ALL of those. Abstinence-only education education stats stick out the most.
That said....
*takes Grips cane and runs with it*
w00t, I got a cane!
You need a hubaround anyway..... razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:01 pm
These are awesome, Grippy. You should put this collection in the Library of Logic. Nethilia, in your 'she asked for it' rebuttal thread You know what I have coming to me when I have sex? An orgasm. That's it. I ******** love Neth. What happened to her? What's she been up to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:13 pm
Archangel Caphrael <3
... (used to be Embyr Arrikanez, famous for the long laundry list of pregnancy symptoms, including a risk of morality!)
also, Sybex Shark!
I thought .. what's that dude's name with the paper bag on his head? Gash? I heard he later got 'banninated' from Gaia. He was funny and obnoxious against pro-lifers, boy those pro-lifer guild people hated him! xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:20 pm
Also, I would think I need to heavily revise my old work in order to really include it in the library of logic. If not on the arguments themselves, then at least by the way I word things because I fly off the handle!
I think the most endearing thing about these old topics is that they really were from an older time, and you see my dorkier side and you see old pro-choice members comments in them.
I've seen since then, more maturity and depth in both pro-choice and pro-life guilds, even though I'm to the point where I totally laff @ the pro-lifers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:42 pm
You know what scares me, though? Right now, I'm in a thread about putting an end to/finding a solution to the abortion debate. I feel like I'm compromising or something.... It's FREAKY to me that I'm actually getting along with these people. It creeps me out that I can be friendly to someone who puts the rights of a fetus over mine!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:49 pm
I finally read through all of your threads, and I'm surprised. I actually disagreed with you less than I thought! (In threads in here before about the only thing we agreed about was being pro-choice).
I did find one thing disconcerting. You seem to be strongly against Judeo-Christian religion, and as someone who is Jewish, it bothered me. You know what? I understand the bible has some archaic views. I understand it places women differently than men. (Most modern Jewish commentary on it has it as a "separate spheres" type deal, where the women and men are in charge of their own spheres, but not the "man is the head of woman" that you actually really don't find in scripture until the New Testament). I'm even considering in the future taking on some of the obligations of women that you'd probably find completely wrong, such as the codes for modest dress.
Thing is, I, like many, though not enough, religious people, understand that it's necessary to keep religion and law separate. To me, to be pro-choice it is not necessary to bring down the beliefs of the Christian faith, but rather to convince them that their faith is not meant to be law (which is why I loved MOST of that absolute morals post... I just hated the anti-Judeo-Christian bits). Actually, in Jewish tradition, there are only 7 commandments that someone is to follow to be considered a righteous Gentile (non-Jew). Some of them are the society-safety ones. One, I disagree with. I'll post them just for reference.
From the Wiki article:
1. Prohibition of Idolatry: - There is only one God. You shall not make for yourself an idol.
2. Prohibition of Murder: - You shall not murder.
3. Prohibition of Theft: - You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: - You shall not commit adultery.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: - Revere God and do not blaspheme.
6. Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals: - Do not eat the flesh of an animal while it is still alive.
7. Requirement to have just Laws: - You shall set up an effective government to police the preceding six laws.
My personal explanation:
1. This is the one I do not like, nor do I agree with it.
2. This one is obvious, and notice, just like in the 10 commandments, it's MURDER, NOT killing.
3. Again, obvious.
4. Here, I see adultery as sex with a married person, or sex with someone not your spouse while married. This is not a condemnation of unmarried sex, though.
5. Blasphemy is probably a poor translation. I need to find the Hebrew. It's probably more along the lines of the commandment, "Do not take the Lord's name in vain", which is a prohibition against false VOWS/PROMISES.
6. Cruelty to animals, this one is pretty specific. The cruelty to animals prohibitions are MORE extensive than this.
7. Good government. This is a pretty flexible thing, though it implies a court system and judges.
STRONG DISCLAIMER: The above is my PERSONAL interpretation. For a more authoritative one, see the Wiki article.
I don't know what my point was anymore... but, just, don't paint everyone with the same brush, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:01 am
I didn't realize that I was being personally offensive to Jewish people. It wasn't my intent to offend you. But at the same token, I'm sure if there was a problem, it would have been said a lot earlier than now too.. In the time that I wrote a great deal of those posts, especially in 2004, I had recently "deconverted" from Christianity, and was very frustrated- as anyone could infer from my posts. As an insider to Christianity, I finally realized then that they resort to LIES or twist the truth in ways that will form-fit their agendas- including the pro-life agenda ("fetus" pictures, anyone?). For such a religious group, you'd think they'd be more motivated to have integrity, right? A great deal of pro-lifers are Christians, usually catholic or fundies, and their religion is usually the strong drive for being so politically "pro-life". As far as I understand it, the Jewish community is a very small minority, whereas Christian fundies are a big majority. A big, obnoxious, loud-mouthed, pushy majority that would *love* to impose it's laws on everyone else, whereas the other religions tend to keep to themselves. Take away the religious fundamentalism, and you'd take away a great brunt of the pro-life trouble in the first place. Christianity isn't the only problem with fundamentalism, other religions have it too. Islam is a pretty obvious example, though the Islamic community is very small here in the U.S. Islam still isn't the only problem with fundamentalism. Disenfranchised people everywhere have the tendency to be attracted to such a strict, literalist interpretation of their religion so if educational and occupational opportunities were more available, they would be less attracted to that extremist junk. Sure, Christianity had roots with ancient Jewish tradition (though not the only religious tradition, but the ones only Christians tend to acknowledge), but from what I understand it, the Jewish tradition is very, very very different from what the Christians do. Other than the 5 books of the Torah which are basically history books, I believe the Jewish community reads from several other books specific to their religion that the Christians don't even know about, muchless read. Now if I am mistaken on any of these things, please elucidate for the rest of us because I'm far from an expert on the Jewish tradition. Still, I got to add that the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) do have a heavy tone of Patriarchy in them. There isn't many religions out there that are female-friendly, though. >.< As long as none of these religions out there are fundamentalist though, religion and modern life *can* be accommodated. My personal experiences and observations say that the religion should not define you, that you should define the religion. This is for utmost personal happiness and accommodation. Life is as hard as it is... why make it even more difficult for yourself? Spiritual connection is sacred for many. Quite a few atheists would like to think that they are more intelligent than religious people... while I agree to them to the extent that Atheists/Agnostic people have the rational opinion... that this does not make the religious people "dumb". I have seen intelligent thinkers no matter what religion it was... sometimes, religion motivates people to dig deeper in general even if it was misguided.. whereas many other people don't care too much about the details and would just commonly like to have a decent life of good food, shelter, clothes, jobs, etc. I've still seen more examples of how fundamentalism destroys and hurts the individual, and has a reducing effect on the individual's happiness, increasing their paranoia and that fuels extremism. :/ I must make a special mention that I do not consider "messianic jews" real Jews in that sense because the real Jewish community does not validate them as a part of their group. Messianic jews are just another clever name for another type of fundamental christian who actually follows the rules of the old testament whereas other christians see it as little more than history books. I think the term actually upsets the Jewish community, but I am not sure on that. Quote: I don't know what my point was anymore... but, just, don't paint everyone with the same brush, I guess. Off topic, but I had to mention this. I notice in a lot of posts directed *at* me, you make these comments towards the end of your posts that essentially say I generalize too much, I'm not open-minded enough, etc. I ignored those personal comments for a while. But... If I didn't know any better, I would be wondering if you actually targeted my posts in this guild, but I will assume generously for now that this is just my imagination. Yes, I tend to be quite opinionated, especially when irritated (as i get with pro-lifers). Being opinionated is definitely no excuse to be an a*****e. >.< But I don't think you really know me as well as you think you do in order to make such claims, and the ad hominems really aren't necessary out in public. It's patronizing to tell someone else how close-minded and ignorant they are instead of pointing at the parts of their ideas that *don't work*. Ironically, a LOT of us here are more liberal, left-leaning, socialist, etc so calls to be "open minded".. is preaching to the choir here. I'd like to think that all of us *like* to try to be as open-minded, educated, fair, etc as possible, to not discriminate due to an ascribed status like age, race, gender, disability, etc. We might have personal quirks in our personalities, or in our lifestyles, but I think it's safe to say one can't *ever* be open-minded enough, educated enough, fair enough, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:47 pm
Honestly, I should have deleted that post. I wrote it too late at night, and I forgot about it in the morning instead of deleting it.
I apologize.
If you want me to delete it, I will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
