The Pro-choice Oklahoma blogger wrote yesterday:
I was driving along Western crossing Classen Blvd. [in Oklahoma City] yesterday and caught a glimpse of a baby on a billboard. Then I was shocked at the words underneath "I used to be an embryo".
Have you seen this billboard in your neighborhood?
New tactics from the anti-choice groups...leading away from the ugly pictures...
I can't locate the exact billboard yet, but it must look something like this:
#1: That babies were once embryos came as a "shock" to you, PC OK?
#2: Citing this biological fact is a "tactic"? Actually, it appears pro-lifers provided a much needed biology lesson you missed in high school, if you attended high school.
#3: What's "anti-choice" about making this biological fact available to women? Are you saying you'd rather they not know? You call that "pro-choice"?
#4: Pro-lifers showing photos of babies who escaped being drawn and quartered before birth isn't anything new, honey. Your mom likely displayed one of you.
#5: What's so "ugly" about those drawn and quartered photos anyway?
You want to see a picture of a 60 year old man having open heart surgery? Or a 30 year old woman having a brain tumor removed? I don't like those kind of pictures because I don't like graphic pictures of surgeries people go through. I have no stomach for it. It could be an aborted fetus, it could be a shot of a person's liver, it's still going to make me nauseous.Posted by: Erin at July 10, 2007 9:16 AM
Seems it's only a choice when you choose to abort. When you decide to love your baby it is called a burden.Posted by: Rosie at July 10, 2007 9:24 AM
Seems it's only a choice when you decide to abort. If you decide to love your baby it's caled a burden.Posted by: Rosie at July 10, 2007 9:27 AM
As a pro-choicer who intends to have a baby SOMEDAY, I resent that. It's a choice to love a baby, and to carry a pregnancy to term, too. If you only knew the amount of staunchly pro-choice women HAPPILY having babies, you'd change your tune.Posted by: Lyssie at July 10, 2007 9:46 AM
"It could be an aborted fetus, it could be a shot of a person's liver, it's still going to make me nauseous."
Thats the point in the case of abortion, to make people see the in-justice of it. Surgeries are meant to help people while abortion is meant to kill people.Posted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 10:17 AM
The picture of the babies head (with hair on it) in the previous post OK with you? Should this be allowed all in the name of "choice"?Posted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 10:25 AM
The picture of the baby saying "I used to be embryo": I have no problem with this at all.
It's the vans that drive around town with the pictures of aborted babies on them that ANGERS me to no end. They drive past elementary schools and don't seem to care that they could severely traumatize a child who is innocent and has no business knowing about abortions.Posted by: midnite678 at July 10, 2007 11:07 AM
"They drive past elementary schools and don't seem to care that they could severely traumatize a child who is innocent and has no business knowing about abortions."
why should they not know about abortions midnite?Posted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 11:23 AM
b/c they're under the age of ten, that's why. Would you REALL want your five, six or seven year old to know about the horrors in the world?? I mean seriously Jasper use your head...Posted by: midnite678 at July 10, 2007 11:25 AM
"Would you REALL want your five, six or seven year old to know about the horrors in the world??"
Choice is a horror Midnite? Good for you! we finally agree....Posted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 11:28 AM
No Japer, there you go twisting my words around. I've stated here before I dont like abortions, and I really wish they numbers would go down.
Would you let your son watch a true story (graphic) and all that talked about serial killers?? It goes in to detail about how they killed/tortured/ate their victims? Would you let him look at crime scene photos of a murdered woman who had been tortured before and after death?? I DONT THINK SO!!Posted by: midnite678 at July 10, 2007 11:31 AM
Is abortion a horror or not Midnite?
All she meant is that that kind of thing (among others) simply is not appropriate for children of that age to see.Posted by: Heather B. at July 10, 2007 11:40 AM
Jasper, stop twisting midnite's words around. It makes you look stupid.Posted by: Stephanie at July 10, 2007 11:41 AM
Is picture of the babies head (with hair on it) in the previous post OK with you? Should this be allowed all in the name of "choice"?Posted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 11:44 AM
I agree with midnite. I don't mind the picture of the baby saying "I used to be an embryo". That's all fine and good. Those stupid pro-lifers who wave around gory pictures (that are sometimes not even accurate) in inappropriate places, such as an elementary school.
There were people at DISNEYLAND waving those stupid bloody abortion pictures around, for pete's sake. Disneyland is not the appropriate place to be doing that. Idiots.Posted by: Stephanie at July 10, 2007 11:47 AM
Why wouldn't we be okay with it? Believe it or not, we're not all radical pro-choicers.Posted by: Heather B. at July 10, 2007 11:48 AM
Is the picture of the babies head (with hair on it) in the previous post OK with you? Should this be legal all in the name of "choice"?Posted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 11:50 AM
Ah, that post.
I find it quite distasteful, myself...just as I would find pictures of anything dead distasteful.
As to whether or not it should be legal, I suppose making it illegal would be in violation of the First (?) Amendment, so...sure.
Now...I've got to wake up the boyfriend and go grocery shopping. Goodbye.Posted by: Heather B. at July 10, 2007 11:54 AM
Im talking about the picture aborted baby in the previous post (you know, the poor baby who got his head ripped off). Should this be legal to do?Posted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 11:56 AM
I'm fine with using those kind of photos. It's propaganda, just like pro-choicers dressing their kid in a "Mommy's Little Choice" t-short. It's much better than waving around questionable photos at elementary school kids.Posted by: Stephanie at July 10, 2007 11:57 AM
jasper: "Im talking about the picture aborted baby in the previous post (you know, the poor baby who got his head ripped off). Should this be legal to do?"
jasper: wowPosted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 12:00 PM
Now, see. I'm damned if I do, and I'm damned if I don't.
If I had said it should be illegal, I'm sure someone would have jumped all over me for "hiding the truth" or something similar.
Anyway, now I really must go. Toodles.Posted by: Heather B. at July 10, 2007 12:05 PM
Oh, that photo.
I don't like it, but it shouldn't be illegal. I wish people would actually give facts though. Most of those commonly used propaganda photos are fake or misrepresented, and even if they were real only account for a tiny percentage of abortions.
Again, people need to know the appropriate time and place for these type of things. Outside a abortion clinic? Sure. Outside of Disneyland? Hell no.
And I've got to get to work.
PS. Jasper, what are you so surprised for? You asked Heather if the display of such photos should be legal in the name of choice. It seems like you are setting a trap. If Heather had said no, you would have complained of not allowing choice for the protesters. If she said yes, you act all surprised and indignant that she would allow such a photo be displayed.Posted by: Stephanie at July 10, 2007 12:08 PM
And reading back over the post....
I see you must have been asking about the procedure, not whether or not it should be legal to display the pictures (which is what I was referring to).
Argh. I wish I could remember what I've read about that picture....
NOW I am going :). Have a nice day, all.Posted by: Heather B. at July 10, 2007 12:10 PM
Lol, Heather, looks like you and I came to the same conclusions about jasper, eh?
All right, I'm off. See you all later!Posted by: Stephanie at July 10, 2007 12:10 PM
"Why should children not know about abortions?"
Because you idiots freak out if kids see a naked breast or if homosexuality is discussed within a 20 mile radius of anybody under the age of 30. So seeing a part of the natural human body is inappropriate and going to traumatize children, but a photoshopped picture of an abortion from 1980 isn't?
Did it ever occur to you that if a kid saw a picture of an abortion, you would be forced to explain where babies came from - and we all know how fond of sex education pro-lifers are! What a pickle that puts you in, hmmm? I can just see the conversation now: "Mommy! What's that picture of?!" "Oh, that's what Democrats and liberals want to do to good little children like you!"
Hitler used to be an embryo too. Every time I see a pro-lifer with a "I could have cured cancer, but I was aborted sign" I get out my "I could have been the next Osama Bin Laden, but I was aborted" one. You people will never get it, will you?
jasper: "Im talking about the picture aborted baby in the previous post (you know, the poor baby who got his head ripped off). Should this be legal to do?"
Stephanie: it shouldn't be illegal.
jasper: brutal, just brutal.... at least your honest about it. I just don't know what to say next....Posted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 12:16 PM
I think PC OK was shocked because it was a cute lil' baby... when in fact everyone was once an embryo. How come just babies on the billboards. I think it's age discrimination. I used to be an embryo too.... even MK was once an embryo.... we're not sure about jill though. She may have been grown from a fragment of Ralph Reed. Terrorists were once embryos too.
Personally, I like the baby billboards wich I equate to cartoon booze/cigarette adds intended to target children. It illustrates a seediness in the prolife movement that seems to put aside any sort reason and scruplelessly appeal to the basal instincts.Posted by: Cameron at July 10, 2007 12:16 PM
And for clarification, I am obviously NOT implying that abortions should occur because of the possibility that said embryo may one day be a terrorist or serial murderer - but by that same logic it's totally absurd that pro-lifers imply that abortions SHOULDN'T occur simply because of possible benefits to society that that embryo may eventually contribute.
This goes along the line of that "I was an embryo but now I'm a cute widdle baby!" poster, which employs the maturity and reasoning of a 5 year-old. Babies are used for these kinds of messages in an attempt at emotional sabotage - who can hate a BABY, they're completely innocent! But babies aren't babies forever...it's just not as simple as the Lifers would like to make it out to be. Seriously, imagine the outrage if Pro-Choicers put up billboards with pictures of Charles Manson that said "I used to be an embryo!" in an effort to talk people into abortions. Dear God!
It's so sad that the pro-life and pro-choice community can't find a way to work together to do what we ultimately both want: the end of abortion (and don't even try to give me that BS that Choicers really LIKE abortion - I work for one of your main targets, and trust me, we'd rather they not be necessary). There are logical reasons to oppose abortion, but the whole "that fetus may grow up to cure AIDS!" is ridiculous because the flip side is just as possible.
When do we get to see a prolife billboard making a case for compulsory gestation?
Maybe show a slutty looking little white trash teen with a cigarette in one hand... "she had a choice; to wait till marriage."Posted by: Cameron at July 10, 2007 12:43 PM
Oh oh ... just came-up with another one.
Show a woman in a power suit; "She wouldn't have neede to destroy 15 embryos just to have one kid if she hadn't put her career first."Posted by: Cameron at July 10, 2007 12:47 PM
i really dont think i would appreciate my (hypothetical) children being exposed to stuff like that. i mean, if it is in my house, and on my TV and i fail to prevent them seeing it, thats on me. but if i have to send them to a public school, be it people showing them bodies from the genocide in darfur, aborted foetii, or any other type of carnage, i dont think its appropriate. A) children are young and fragile, incapable of caring for themselves, isn't that really what the whole argument comes down to, and B) they cant vote, why bother them? i have less of a problem with public nudity than carnage. to me, nudity has no connotation, but carnage is the result of violence, and exposure to violence causes desensitization and eventually a lack of concern for the same.Posted by: michael at July 10, 2007 12:50 PM
Oh oh oh... one more promis...
30 something with 6 kids hanging on her..."She could've had her tubes tied instead killing of killing a baby she couldn't handle."Posted by: Cameron at July 10, 2007 12:50 PM
jasper- You completely missed my point. My point is that a lot of people don't have the stomach for graphic pictures, whether they have something to do with abortion or not. That's the problem I have with hauling these images around and thrusting them in people's faces- it doesn't matter if it's an abortion or a life saving procedure, it's still going to make me retch. My eyes don't care about the difference- it's still bloody and gross no matter what kind of procedure it is.Posted by: Erin at July 10, 2007 12:58 PM
Oh boy, I started a doozy on a conversation..Posted by: midnite678 at July 10, 2007 1:19 PM
seriously. if you cant make a case without showing stuff like that, stop trying to make a case. we all know genocide is wrong. that doesnt mean we need to print pictures of corpses from auschwitz on dinner plates in restauraunts. and we all know gang violence is a problem (at least where i live) but that doesnt mean we need coroner's photos painted up as murals in the schools. kids need a POSITIVE message. i dont think a lot of you remember just how hard being a kid is.Posted by: michael at July 10, 2007 1:39 PM
why should they not know about abortions midnite?
I agree with Midnight on this one. Children should be taught age-appropriate information about reproduction and political issues and societal issues (robbery, murder, etc). However at ages 5-7 they are too young to be able to process and understand these issues and it may be more traumatizing than good.
When do we get to see a prolife billboard making a case for compulsory gestation?
Maybe show a slutty looking little white trash teen with a cigarette in one hand... "she had a choice; to wait till marriage."
@ Jasper: See, that's just a stereotype. Any woman can get pregnant and have an abortion. It's not like only certain types of women have them.
@ the Board [on topic]: These pictures, while they are quite the reality shock, aren't going to do anything but make people sick. I handle things like those pictures and gore and whatnot without a problem, but that's just me. Erin couldn't handle those pictures of surgeries, and that's completely cool because it's not something she can handle. I've sewed my own stitches and seen birth, cesaerean sections, and surgeries many times in my life, not to mention performed countless first aid, and had a room mate at military school who was addicted to Rotten.com.
It's kinda futile, really. You're either going to drive someone away with a bad case of nausea, or someone's going to see the picture and just not care.Posted by: Skinhead Dan at July 10, 2007 2:59 PM
I have to admit that I kinda agree with the Pro-Choicers on the picutres being seen at elementary schools. I am also conflicted that the trucks just drive around. They could put someone in shock, or horribly upset someone and if you get stuck driving next to one in traffic it's hard not to look. I don't like the idea of people getting upset while they are driving.
I do find the picures appropriate at the right times. and I do think it makes people think about reality, but it needs to be at right time. I read somewhere, can't remember where, that at a college campus there were signs up warning people of the pictures before they got there. I see no problem with that either.
Midnite - Sorry I agreed with you. Does this mean that life as we know is ending? ;-)
Now to the billboard that shocked PC. So, we can't use pictures at all now? Pro-Choice seems to get upset when the aftermath pictures are used, now they are upset that we use scientific terminology. Isn't the whole scientific terminology idea what the pro-choice have been screaming? Unborn baby isn't acurate - fetus is...etc...Posted by: valerie at July 10, 2007 3:00 PM
I am actually relieved that you agreed with me on this one. Jasper apparently thinks that a three year old should be shown these pictures and "know" what an abortion is... No parent I know would voluntarily let their child look at those photos or let be shown any sort of violence or horrible act of mankind.
And I also agree with you on the getting upset while you drive thing. It's not pretty, it can cause wrecks and deaths; all for a political statement! Isn't that going just a little bit too far?? There is a time and a place for everything and schools/driving is not one of them.
You never answered my questions to you. Would you let your child watch a video of a man brutally raping a woman? Would you let your child look at crime scene photos where necrophilia and torture were done to the victim?Posted by: midnite678 at July 10, 2007 3:11 PM
As for kids seeing pictures of aborted babies, I sure wish they didn't have to. Abortion sure is awful, isn't it? In the end, if forced to "choose," however, I'd rather a child see a graphic photo than be one.
Furthermore, I've seen plenty of small, well-adjusted children at pro-life pickets. Kids handle this information as well as their parents do. Recall the lady shouting obscenities on the bicycle toting her small child in the previous post.Posted by: Jill Stanek at July 10, 2007 3:45 PM
I wouldn't show abortion photos to my kids, or other violent photos..
I was trying to make a point. you just said:
"No parent I know would voluntarily let their child look at those photos or let be shown any sort of violence or horrible act of mankind."
my point is to you; On one hand you infer that "choice" is a horrorible act of mankind and on the other you say it still should be legal.
Please explain Southern Belle
It seems like what you have copied and pasted is the full extent of the post, which is why I'm wondering how you can justify drawing the conclusions that your questions seem to indicate that you've drawn.
"#1: That babies were once embryos came as a "shock" to you, PC OK?"
She didn't say she was shocked that babies were once embryos. She said she was shocked to see the words there. She didn't say why, and unless you're psychic you should probably stop making prejudicial assumptions in the absence of evidence.
"#2: Citing this biological fact is a "tactic"? Actually, it appears pro-lifers provided a much needed biology lesson you missed in high school, if you attended high school."
Once again, rather than making an argument, you engage in a smear. And no, citing a biological fact is not a "tactic" doing under the picture of a oh-so-cute baby is - it's called an emotional appeal. (That was a much needed logic lesson that you obviously missed in college)
"#3: What's "anti-choice" about making this biological fact available to women? Are you saying you'd rather they not know? You call that "pro-choice"?"
The use of an emotional appeal is anti-choice, not the biological fact.
"#4: Pro-lifers showing photos of babies who escaped being drawn and quartered before birth isn't anything new, honey. Your mom likely displayed one of you."
So it was a tactic she'd never seen before. Perhaps pro-lifers in Oklahoma prefer fake or misrepresented photos. And?
"#5: What's so "ugly" about those drawn and quartered photos anyway?"
Uh... the same thing that is ugly about a photo of any corpse. Perhaps she's just intrigued that some pro-lifers have decided to opt for more pleasant looking emotional appeals.
I'm a little shocked by this post, Jill, to be completely honest. You really couldn't think of anything else to talk about? I mean, c'mon, picking on some blogger on the basis of your assumptions (and likely misrepresentations) of just a few sentences?Posted by: Diana at July 10, 2007 4:08 PM
Jasper we've been around this circle before. I dont like abortions. I hope the numbers go down. I wouldnt have one unless my life was in danger or I was raped. Why must you continue to go around in circles with me?? Seriously, my whole body aches, I have a migraine headache, and I am STILL pissed of at my boyfriend from last night...Posted by: midnite678 at July 10, 2007 4:17 PM
"She didn't say she was shocked that babies were once embryos. She said she was shocked to see the words there. She didn't say why, and unless you're psychic you should probably stop making prejudicial assumptions in the absence of evidence."
com'on, thats a stretch.
"it's called an emotional appeal"
so what Diana, thats part of the point, to wake up people emotions on the abortion holocoust.Posted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 4:18 PM
Erin: "My eyes don't care about the difference- it's still bloody and gross no matter what kind of procedure it is."
...how about your heartPosted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 4:21 PM
Ok, Midnite, I won't harass you on the abortion topic anymore today. Go take some Execedrin Migrane, it works pretty good. (ibuprofin works too)Posted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 4:29 PM
"com'on, thats a stretch.
Um, no, I don't think so. I stated the facts. What's a stretch is assuming that an adult (who is a pro-choicer, no less, and likely calls embryos "embryos", not "babies") doesn't know where babies come from and then slamming her for it on the basis of no evidence. Honestly, it's not just a stretch, it's flat out pathetic.
"so what Diana, thats part of the point, to wake up people emotions on the abortion holocoust."
Sure, Jasper. That's fine. But Jill purposely misrepresented what the billboard is for. She seems to be claiming it's just stating a biological fact and then asks how that's a tactic. Sure, it's a biological fact, but then why the cutsey baby? Because the point of the billboard is an emotional appeal, and emotional appeals are fallacious rhetorical tactics. That's all I'm saying. I'm well aware that the point (almost the whole point sometimes) is to play on people's emotions rather than their reason. It's a very effective fallacy.
"emotional appeals are fallacious rhetorical tactics"
not always Diana. There's nothing fallacious about displaying the truth about killing embryos or unborn babies, it's actually quite reasoned.Posted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 4:47 PM
All this debate about whether or not pictures of aborted fetuses are too traumatic to be displayed reminds me of an account I read of the end of WW2. American generals Eisenhower and Patton, two very battle hardened commanders, were horrified by what they observed in the liberated nazi death camps. What enraged them even more was the total apathy of local townspeople who the generals were convinced had to know what was going on in the camps.
The generals ordered every citizen in these towns, including town officials, old people, the sick and debilitated, teenagers, schoolchildren along with their parents, and even toddlers in their mother's arms, to march through these camps. They were to smell the stench, observe the piles of dead bodies, the starved and abused survivors, the gas chambers, crematoriums, and horrific conditions prisoners lived in. The townspeople had no choice, soldiers marched them through at gunpoint. The generals were adamant that no citizen could ever claim they never knew what went on in these camps. I understand the mayor of one town and his wife went home afterwards and hung themselves.
Were the generals wrong to order this?
"not always Diana."
Yes, always, Jasper. Emotional appeals are rhetorical fallacies by definition. If it's not a rhetorical fallacy, then it is not an emotional appeal. The billboard (if we're counting it as the premise of an argument whose conclusion is suppressed, but understood) is in fact fallacious, and is an emotional appeal.
"There's nothing fallacious about displaying the truth about killing embryos or unborn babies, it's actually quite reasoned."
The display alone is neither logically valid nor fallacious. It's just a display. The argument from that display to "it should be illegal" rides entirely on emotions and is, therefore, a fallacy. It does not follow that because something makes your stomach turn, it should be illegal.Posted by: Diana at July 10, 2007 5:03 PM
"Were the generals wrong to order this?"
No, not at all Mary...Posted by: jasper at July 10, 2007 5:04 PM
"If it's not a rhetorical fallacy, then it is not an emotional appeal."
what? why does an emotional appeal (based on truth), deceptively false?
"The argument from that display to "it should be illegal" rides entirely on emotions and is, therefore, a fallacy"
No Diana, it rides on truth as well.
"what? why does an emotional appeal (based on truth), deceptively false?"
It's fetus centric. No consideration of the mother.
"No Diana, it rides on truth as well."
Half truth at best.
I thought of another anti-choice billboard...
Show a pregnant junky shooting-up; "some people can't handle a choice."Posted by: Cameron at July 10, 2007 5:29 PM
So seeing a part of the natural human body is inappropriate and going to traumatize children
You misunderstand. We aren't afraid they will be traumatized. We just think it's a bad message. When we complain, it's not because we think our kids can't handle it, it's because the message they receive is that sex is purely for pleasure and bodies are objects.,
There is a difference between "discussing" homosexuality and being taught that it is perfectly natural and moral. I discuss homosexuality with my kids 7-26 all the time.
Not only have my children seen these posters but they have helped me hold them on the face the truth tours since they were 2 years old.
I'm not trying to keep my children from seeing reality. I just want to make sure that I am the one helping them to interpret what they are seeing.
Although I do agree that there is a time and place for these photos and Disneyworld is not one of them. Then again I'm not thrilled with Gay Days there either.Posted by: MK at July 10, 2007 6:05 PM
i dont think a lot of you remember just how hard being a kid is.
I think we do. It's especially hard for the ones who are killed before their born.Posted by: MK at July 10, 2007 6:09 PM
Here's the thing...Not all of us are robots. Some of us actually feel things. I don't look at my husband at night and say "John, When I look at you I get a chemical surge that stimulates the pleasure centers in my brain" I say "John, I love you".
Children are dying by the billions...that's a cold hard fact. They are dying for things as petty as covenience, selfishness, and the illusion that we all have bodily autonomy. That's more fact. Sometimes they die for reasons that seem more serious. But mostly they die for inane reasons.
Bottom line is, it's an emotional subject. No matter which side you're on. So unless you are trying to sway androids, emotional "tactics" are a valid and effective way of reaching people. Maybe not you. But most people. Because most people are not made of stone.Posted by: MK at July 10, 2007 6:22 PM
Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). The English translation pretty much says it all. Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?" The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special pleading can make the impossible possible, the false true, the expensive costless, etc.
It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to point out the severity of a problem as part of the justification for adopting a proposed solution. The fallacy comes in when other aspects of the proposed solution (such as whether it is possible, how much it costs, who else might be harmed by adopting the policy) are ignored or responded to only with more impassioned pleas. You should not call your opposition down for committing this fallacy unless they rely on appeals to pity to the exclusion of the other necessary arguments. It is perfectly acceptable to use appeal to pity in order to argue that the benefits of the proposed policy are greater than they might at first appear (and hence capable of justifying larger costs).Posted by: MK at July 10, 2007 6:33 PM
"Emotional appeals are rhetorical fallacies by definition"
Then what is holding signs of coat hangers? A picture of a woman hunched over with blood coming out of her? Discussing rape/incest and mother's health/fetal abnormalities when that only represents 8% of abortion nationwide?
How can anyone make an appeal without emotion?Posted by: valerie at July 10, 2007 7:02 PM
Phooey!Posted by: MK at July 10, 2007 7:10 PM
MK, LOL and fell off chair @ your above post!Posted by: Heather4life at July 10, 2007 7:23 PM
To clarify, post about John.Posted by: Heather4life at July 10, 2007 7:24 PM
It was probably a little strong, but this isn't a course in logic or debate. It's a pro-life blog and I personally do not live like an automaton...not to be confused with autonomy!
Unless of course you meant the "Phooey Post"...in that case, thanks.Posted by: MK at July 10, 2007 7:26 PM
I agree. I can't deal with this phony body autonomy nonsense. It's just a diversion tactic. The issue here is human life.Posted by: Heather4life at July 10, 2007 7:31 PM
You have to own up to your actions. We all have faults. We have all done wrong. If I steal something, I OWN that action. I did it. If you consent to sex, you have already consented to any consequences that may follow . My gay friend is HIV +. I have never ever heard that man blame anyone for this except himself. He chose to have unprotected anal sex with several men. He told me "I should have been more careful."Posted by: Heather4life at July 10, 2007 7:38 PM
I like it when right-to-lifers display gory photos of abortus--it reminds people that right-to-lifism is at heart silly, a fetishizing of embryos.Posted by: SoMG at July 10, 2007 8:08 PM
Heather, the reason you "can't deal with ... body autonomy [arguments]" is that they are correct and they disprove what you want to believe.
You know this in your heart.Posted by: SoMG at July 10, 2007 8:23 PM
SoMG, okay. Whatever. I'm sittin here sippin a well deserved cold Heineken. I'm not going to let you blow my buzz.Posted by: Heather4life at July 10, 2007 8:28 PM
"If you only knew the amount of staunchly pro-choice women HAPPILY having babies, you'd change your tune."
That's really unlikely, sorry.
Unlikely, Rosie? I know four pro-choice women off the top of my head who either just gave birth or are expecting to within the next two months. My mom is another. And I plan to add to those ranks sometime in the next ten years. As do many of the women I've met in pro-choice AND pro-life blogs.
I'd like you to back up your "that's really unlikely, sorry", because it's more of a personal bias than actual fact. Pro-choice women actually DO want to have babies.Posted by: Lyssie at July 10, 2007 8:40 PM
Heather, you're an ethanol user? That actually explains a lot.Posted by: SoMG at July 10, 2007 8:49 PM
"Pro-choice women actually DO want to have babies."
thank-god they do Lyssie, thats a relief, otherwise they'd be exterminated. whew.
Posted by: jasper
at July 10, 2007 9:01 PM
I disagree with the graphic (truthful) pictures of aborted babies being shown outside elementary schools. I do think there is a place for it, like abortion clinics. I think women should know exactly what they are about to do when they go in to have an abortion. I do not want my small children to see the graphic photos without my consent.
How could you possibly have a problem with the "embryos are babies!" Obviously, there is guilt deep within if you have a problem with the cute picture of a baby and that statement. As far as showing a baby instead of a grown person. Who cares, put up a picture of a grown kid, any age! It doesn't matter! Abortion kills!
Somg, once in a while I like a beer. It's legal. You're still ticked off about the other day aren't you? To that I say, GET OVER IT!Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 6:53 AM
Diana, 4:09p, said: "She didn't say she was shocked that babies were once embryos. She said she was shocked to see the words there. She didn't say why, and unless you're psychic you should probably stop making prejudicial assumptions in the absence of evidence."
Diana, consider all possible reasons why a pro-abort would be "shocked" to see a photo of a baby with the words "I used to be an embryo" underneath.
The photo was shocking? Then my analysis is correct.
The biological connection ("I used to be an embryo") was shocking? Then my analysis was correct.
The fact pro-lifers showed a pretty photo instead of an "ugly" photo was shocking? Then my analysis was correct.
Any other reasons you can dream up why this pro-abort would be shocked, Diana? "Shocked," as in pleasantly surprised? Sheesh.Posted by: Jill Stanek at July 11, 2007 9:07 AM
"that's really unlikely, sorry"
Yes, it's unlikely that i'll "change my tune" especially when said in such a snotty way. I know pro-aborts have kids, duh.Posted by: Rosie at July 11, 2007 9:12 AM
Snotty way? As in "Seems it's only a choice when you decide to abort. If you decide to love your baby it's caled a burden."
I guess that's not snotty, then. Well if "pro-aborts" have kids....where's the burden? Can you explain that to me? If you know that they have kids, what's the big deal?
I didn't ask you to change your opinion on abortion. I alerted you to a fallacy in your opinion on pro-choicers. I could really care less if you didn't change what you thought about pro-choicers. I just needed to let you know that you made a snide remark characterizing a whole group of people...aka generalizing.Posted by: Lyssie at July 11, 2007 9:18 AM
I think this analysis of yours is quite correct. I have for um-teen years now found that it's a very tough roe to teach teens that they do have a huge and wonderful future as human beings. This is often contrasted by peers or young-adults who display the same angst/hostility/futility towards life.
This is likely the main reason for my posts ... to display something totally lacking in the pro-abort/pro-choice side - hope. Hope is understood by reductionists (like Diana) as controlling-the-future. Hope is more about that-little-spark-WILL-start-a-fire. That little spark are children ... some of them yet-to-be-born. Old folks ... no, all folks ... are beautiful! I love the old tv commercials that used to proclaim: 'Frankly, I'm worth it!' Far too many don't believe this.
Too many pro-aborts say: [I believe humans are expendable] but we are worth it! - after all I say so.Posted by: John McDonell at July 11, 2007 9:54 AM
No my comment wasn't snotty, just true. If a woman on welfare were to have an abortion pro-aborts would say that was her "choice" however, if she chose to love her baby they would call it a burden, would they not?Posted by: Rosie at July 11, 2007 10:16 AM
Well, I can't deny that that certain people might say that, but I don't fault a woman for CHOOSING to have a baby, either way. Someone who is "pro-abort" might think the way you're describing, but I think I speak for many PRO-CHOICERS when I say that a woman who carries a pregnancy to term, welfare or not, is doing so because she thinks it's the best thing for her. We don't view it as a burden, we view it as her choice. You really do have a hugely cynical view of us in general.
We might say that it could inflict a financial burden on a welfare mom to have a child...but when did we ever say that she "shouldn't have a baby because it's a burden". I mean, can't you see, or agree, that a welfare mom would have a tough financial time if she were to have a child? What YOU seem to think is that we WANT women to abort based solely on that. That is completely false.
It's her choice. Period. Not the choice of people with differing opinions. There are, and definitely should be, programs for welfare moms to help raise their babies.Posted by: Lyssie at July 11, 2007 10:34 AM
Rosie, excellent point. Are you MK's friend?Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 10:52 AM
I think the main issue here is being side-stepped; abortion is performed (legally in my country) by a variety of different proceedures. I, personally am against the 'sucking' method of disposal which is usually performed in the later stages of pregnancy. However, the method with I PERSONALLY have undergone involved taking a tablet which brought about a miscarriage. What I believe needs to be established is at what stage do we consider the 'baby' to be a 'baby'? The photo you show, to me, looks like if it had been born it may have survived. This means you ARE killing a 'baby'. I personally was at the 11 week stage of pregnancy where there is an 80% chance of miscarriage anyway. I was not carrying a 'baby', it was a bungle of cells that had I given 'birth' to would not have survived.
May I also add: Abortion is not a decision that ANY women undertakes likely! It is a painful, emotional process that is in no way an 'easy option'.
Not that it matters, but I would like to tell you all that I am a married woman of no particular religion. The conception occured while i was on the contraceptive pill and I was only 21 years old. Given that I live in a country where the teenage pregnancy rate is through the roof, I think (and so does my husband) that we made a very hard, but ethical decision.
I'm in no way saying that it is the right choice for everyone, but I am saying that women should HAVE a choice. How I live my life is my decision and nobosy else's. I have make a LIFE CHOICE not to smoke, but I don't expect them to ban cigarettes because they offend my personal opinions.
Live your own lives rather than trying to tell others how to live theirs!
Mrs. Clarke, Please stop lying to yourself to make yourself feel better.Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 1:01 PM
Heather4Life: Is it so hard for you to accept that some women honestly DO NOT REGRET abortions? You're being really snide. She isn't lying to herself when obviously she thinks she did the best she could. Quit assuming and thinking that only you "know better".Posted by: Lyssie at July 11, 2007 1:15 PM
Hi, yeah I used to write to MK on another blog site until she came here.
"Heather4Life: Is it so hard for you to accept that some women honestly DO NOT REGRET abortions?"
Have fun with that question, it seems like it loaded.Posted by: Rosie at July 11, 2007 1:23 PM
Lyssie: "but I think I speak for many PRO-CHOICERS when I say that a woman who carries a pregnancy to term, welfare or not, is doing so because she thinks it's the best thing for her"
Posted by: jasper
at July 11, 2007 1:27 PM
me,me,me,me,me, what best for me,me,me.
Well, I do know of some women who claim that they DO NOT regret their abortions. Do I buy it? No. I'll tell you why. I think that abortion affects a woman's psyche and soul more than she'll ever know. A lot of women go on to become suicidal, substance abusers,suffer low self esteem, drug abusers and many tend to get involved in very dysfunctional relationships.They may not think that it has anything to do with the abortion, but I think it does. You don't ever have to tell anyone that you have had an abortion, but YOU will always know what you've done.... My opinion.Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 1:39 PM
Rosie, how, may I ask, is it loaded? I asked a simple question: is it impossible for a woman to NOT regret her abortion? Yes or no. I don't want an explanation, just an answer. Simple. Although, I wouldn't expect someone who only argues in logic-bereft, irrationally snide remarks to even understand simple, Rosie.
Oh, and Jasper, if you really want to do something about abortion, why don't you do something proactive about it. You're the kind of guy who b*tches and moans about the "depravity" of the world, but the last one to do anything about the problems that cause abortion. Poverty IS one of those. Hell, you should be happy if a welfare mom DOES carry her pregnancy to term. The fact that she might not be able to due to destitution is something that we all should try to fix, instead of you complaining about how it's all "me me me". You honestly don't care about women... you're just sitting there talking about how everything is black and white in Jasper world and how everything should be your happy Catholic way, and all you do is come on here to complain and rant against abortion to feel like you're doing your "purpose" and to feel self-righteous enough to look down upon others. I really don't think you care...you're just trying to look like a "good" Catholic.Posted by: Lyssie at July 11, 2007 1:40 PM
Thanks, Heather4Life. Just wanted to know your take on it. Personally, I know several women who have had abortions, and a few regret it. However, the others still maintain that it was the best they could have done under the circumstances. None of them abuse drugs or are suffering from depression. See, I believe that some women CAN feel guilt and depression as a result of abortion...but I know and have witnessed that others don't. Just my opinion, too, Heather.Posted by: Lyssie at July 11, 2007 1:43 PM
Pro choicers are so quick to say "There is no such thing as PAS." How do they know? Did they survey every woman who has aborted? Impossible! I know of a woman who will not even discuss her abortion. She opened up to me one day, and she said, "Heather, I had an abortion in my past." I saw tears begin to fall, so I hugged her." I asked her "Do you want to talk about it?" She replied "I can't!" She proceeded to sob in my arms for about 45 minutes. Think women don't suffer from abortion? Think again.Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 1:46 PM
lyssie, we are not fighting, just debating. I'm sure that you know a lot of women who have aborted, and so do I. Each person is different. Each case is different. Some of MY friends maintain that abortion was the best thing for them. So be it. I can't change their position. I just have my own feelings on it. I kind of see dysfunction in their lifestyles. After a close friend of mine had an abortion, she began to sleep around with most anyone. This eventually lead to abortion #2. She became even more promiscuous after the 2nd abortion. Then she began smoking crack and had a string of abusive relationships. It all just seemed to viciously cycle.Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 1:55 PM
I think my friend felt like a sperm receptacle. She was pretty, and all guys wanted to do was have sex with her. After she had the abortions, the guys began to label her 'The neighborhood $lut.'Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 2:02 PM
Concerning pictures of fetuses and emotional appeal. Wasn't it abortion advocates who paraded pictures of horribly abused children with the promise that abortion would stop child abuse? I still remember bumper stickers that said "Stop Child Abuse, Support Abortion Reform". I also remember seeing the picture of Gerri Santoro displayed on a daytime TV talk show for millions to see, some of whom may well have included children.
It seems that abortion advocates have not been above a little shock and emotional appeal of their own.
Concerning my earlier post concerning Generals Patton and Eisenhower ordering German civilians of all ages to march through the death camps. Would everyone agree the generals should have been more sensitive as to what trauma they were inflicting upon the citizenry? Or would you agree the citizenry had to see what had gone on in the death camps?
About the billboard with the pregnant junkie shooting up. Wasn't legal abortion going to eliminate the problem of pregnant junkies and drug addicted babies? Why hasn't it?
I understand that people feel emotions. Nice of you to assume that I don't just because I happen to prefer valid reasoning to fallacious reasoning.
"You should not call your opposition down for committing this fallacy unless they rely on appeals to pity to the exclusion of the other necessary arguments. It is perfectly acceptable to use appeal to pity in order to argue that the benefits of the proposed policy are greater than they might at first appear (and hence capable of justifying larger costs)."
Did you see any other argument being made with the billboard? I didn't. Furthermore, while it may be true that it is okay to appeal to pity when weighing benefits of a policy (better versus way better or worse versus way worse), appeal to pity has no place in a discussion of RIGHTS. If it did, then "But all us plantation owners will go under, our families will be poorer than dirt and will have to eat out of trash cans. Just imagine our poor sweet southern belles living below the poverty line." would be a valid premise for the conclusion that slavery should continue or "But see all that those terrible Tutsis did to us for years! We were oppressed horribly by them... look at these pictures of how we were treated, and are still being treated" would be a kosher way for the Hutu to justify the genocide. Rights are rights, no matter how much the people who want to violate them deserve pity.
The "analysis" (read: unsubstantiated claim) I was picking on was this: "That babies were once embryos came as a "shock" to you, PC OK?"
That claim holds only if he/she didn't know that babies were once embryos. Presumably, he/she does. You've no real evidence to the contrary (oh, and caustic attempted wit is not the same as evidence). If you can't admit that you attacked this blogger without cause, evidence or rational basis, I'd say that's your problem. If people are stupid enough to buy that your attacks are arguments against the legality of abortion, then that becomes my problem. I'm just wondering why you chose to engage in attacks like this. Boredom? Deep seated maliciousness? Or is is just that you recognize that you can't win if you fight fair.
"Then what is holding signs of coat hangers? A picture of a woman hunched over with blood coming out of her?"
Emotional appeals. Did I say that the pro-choice side was innocent? No. I personally wish both sides would knock it off. But who'll be first? It's really hard to get people to think rationally when they've got nasty pictures in their faces (from either side of the issue). If we're going to have a real argument with one another, both sides have to cut out that crap.
"Discussing rape/incest and mother's health/fetal abnormalities when that only represents 8% of abortion nationwide?"
That actually depends on the context of the argument. But it could be an emotional appeal.
"How can anyone make an appeal without emotion?"
It's an appeal to emotion - that is, the argument relies solely on emotion. Valid arguments appeal to evidence or reason.
"Hope is understood by reductionists (like Diana) as controlling-the-future."
John, I dig you, man, but please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say this, nor do I believe it.Posted by: Diana at July 11, 2007 2:39 PM
Diana, if you answer my question we can analyze whether I was off-base in my analysis.Posted by: Jill Stanek at July 11, 2007 2:47 PM
Mrs. Clarke -
"I personally was at the 11 week stage of pregnancy where there is an 80% chance of miscarriage anyway."
huh? I may be reading this wrong. Did you mean to say that 80% of miscarriages happen before the 12th week of pregnancy? and not 80% of pregnancy end in a miscarriage?
I agree with what the generals did. You can't turn your back on those sorts of things.
I'm not being witchy - I just want to know - Can you give me an example of an appeal that doesn't use emotion? My family does call me a drama queen so I may just be missing something. Of course I am convinced that some of my family members are truly Vulcans.Posted by: valerie at July 11, 2007 3:47 PM
Valerie, how about when embryonic stem cell research advocates drag little children with juvenile diabetes to legislators' offices to get them to sign funding legislation?
Oh wait, that won't work. I'll keep thinking.Posted by: Jill Stanek at July 11, 2007 3:51 PM
didn't say this is what you said, but it is my analysis of what you have said.
you make a classic error as do many philosophers in assessing the 'validity' of emotional argumentation. The emotions do have a 'logic', but it is much different from a rational one. The 'weapons' for the rational debate are fixed to words .... for emotions the 'weapons' are more personal: a stare; a hug; someone calling you by your nickname; sharing - a breakfast of 'tossed' mullet ; sharing a laugh; sharing sorrow; sharing a song ... dancing together .... living joy ..... tell me just once if reason = power is not weaker than the absurdity of shared laughter. We might not know where we are going ... but damn it we're going there TOGETHER!
Pro-choicers are making formidable choices ... and as you get older, such pain-filled ones will get worse! I am trying hard to stop the nonsense now so life can be filled with adventure ... not regrets.Posted by: John McDonell at July 11, 2007 4:13 PM
Thank you for your response. That's the point I'm trying to get across. There are simply things we cannot turn our backs on. Yes pictures can be offensive, but maybe they are telling us what we would need to acknowldege but would prefer to ignore, like the German citizenry who preferred to ignore the local death camp.Posted by: Mary at July 11, 2007 4:36 PM
OK here's simple: NO, I think there are people that truely don't have consciences. I've heard pro-aborts say that they know it's a baby and that they don't care. One can't be a pro-abort and care that a baby is dying. All that comes out of their mouths is "what about the woman?" I challenge "what about the baby?" What about adoption? How does that ruin their lives? The only answer I get to that question is "I could never do that to a child." What? give him or her a good home when you can't, it's better to rip the kid to shreds? Where's the down side to adoption? Please don't say "well the pregnancy is hard on the body"....Posted by: Rosie at July 11, 2007 4:48 PM
Right Rosie. And the "Choice" is murder!Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 5:12 PM
"Diana, if you answer my question we can analyze whether I was off-base in my analysis."
What question? What could she have been surprised about? If you go back and actually read my orginal post on this thread, you'll note that I have something to say about each and every claim you make about the blogger's post and her surprise at seeing the billboard. I said there what I think is wrong with your "analysis".
But since you ask, I'll give you another possibility just for fun - the likely reason that I would be shocked seeing this billboard and might tell my pro-choice friends about it. Perhaps she's used to seeing johnson and johnson commercials, or public health ads, or gerber ads, underneath the pictures of smiling babies. Maybe that's why she was shocked. When is the last time you saw a billboard with a big juicy steak on it that said "I used to be part of a cow" underneath it? Think you might be shocked? It's just not what you expect under the picture of a steak.
"I'm not being witchy - I just want to know - Can you give me an example of an appeal that doesn't use emotion?"
Oh sorry. Sure. I told my roomy just yesterday that there was a fire in our neighborhood. He asked how I knew, and my reponse was "I can see smoke". I appealed to perceptual evidence to justify my claim. No emotion, just fact. Similarly, any time you and I agree on basic premises - say, that all people have equal rights and that one of those rights is free speech - then I can appeal to your reason to justify the conclusion that Joe Blow has a right to free speech. Most of the justifications we give for claims that we make throughout the day is just appeals to reason and evidence (mostly both in concert).
"My family does call me a drama queen so I may just be missing something. Of course I am convinced that some of my family members are truly Vulcans."
"you make a classic error as do many philosophers in assessing the 'validity' of emotional argumentation. The emotions do have a 'logic', but it is much different from a rational one."
I don't believe it is an error in the least. I'm pretty sure that Shakespeare had it right when he said: "To speak truth, love and reason keep little company together nowadays" and "Love has reason that reason knows nothing of". How many times have you heard someone say that they were jealous even though they knew they had no reason to be, or they had no right to be? Who amongst us hasn't met a person who just rubbed them the wrong way, for no real reason at all? How many children are frightened of things that aren't really there? How many adults have phobias or compulsions that they know to be irrational? Emotions do not obey any logic whatsoever. And personally, I think it would be less human if they did. That's part of being the creatures that we are - that sometimes we are pulled in different directions, not by our reason, but by our feelings.
"Tell me just once if reason = power is not weaker than the absurdity of shared laughter. We might not know where we are going ... but damn it we're going there TOGETHER!"
I have no idea what you're asking me here. I don't understand, though, why people here seem to think that just because I know, and point out, that emotions are not a proper basis for drawing factual conclusions that I must somehow be a robot who has no emotions whatsoever. Of course I value feeling emotions, sharing laughter with a friend, loving and being loved! I'm human! How could I not?! I just understand that the fact that I have a certain emotional reaction to something does not make it true or false, right or wrong.Posted by: Diana at July 11, 2007 5:54 PM
"I think there are people that truely don't have consciences."
Oh, Rosie, thanks. You're too kind.Posted by: Diana at July 11, 2007 5:56 PM
I'm not trying to be kind, i'm trying to be honest. Should I shut my mouth so I don't offend anyone? After you sista!Posted by: Rosie at July 11, 2007 6:22 PM
There ARE people out there without consciences. The prisons are full of them.Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 7:05 PM
So are abortion clinics.Posted by: Rosie at July 11, 2007 7:09 PM
Scott Peterson is not sorry. John Wayne Gacy was not sorry. Jeffery Dahmer was not sorry. Eileen Wuornos was not sorry. Pamela Smart is not sorry. Richard Ramirez is not sorry. Ted Bundy was not sorry. Well, maybe they felt sorry for themselves.Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 7:11 PM
Abortionists are not sorry. A lot of women who have abortions are not sorry.Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 7:13 PM
What a quinkydink.
Just got a knock on the door from a young NARAL PP rep asking for money. They are trying to blame pro-lifers for abortion rates going sky high due to the lack of coordination of sex education efforts.
I explained to her that the rates go up everytime they open one of their "clinics" and
now with their new merchandising efforts they make even more profits. (Not to mention the tax payer dollars I pay)
I kindly asked her to exit my property.
Well, it may not have been tooo kindly.
Posted by: Sandy
at July 11, 2007 8:20 PM
Lyssie:"You're the kind of guy who b*tches and moans about the "depravity" of the world, but the last one to do anything about the problems that cause abortion."
My church consistantly helps CPC's and homeless shelters for single woman and their children.
..and I don't bitch, I just don't think it's right to kill the unborn.
Lyssie:"You honestly don't care about women"
yes, I do care about women.
Lyssie:"all you do is come on here to complain and rant against abortion to feel like you're doing your "purpose" and to feel self-righteous enough to look down upon others."
No, I don't look down upon anybody Lyssie. I just don't like the abortion industry.
Lyssie:"I really don't think you care"
Yes, I do care!
*jasper kisses Lyssie* *smooch*Posted by: jasper at July 11, 2007 8:31 PM
"Well, maybe they felt sorry for themselves."
I'm sure they at least pretended to.
I LOVED that post...Posted by: MK at July 11, 2007 9:14 PM
GO SANDY!!!!!Posted by: MK at July 11, 2007 9:20 PM
"No my comment wasn't snotty, just true. If a woman on welfare were to have an abortion pro-aborts would say that was her "choice" however, if she chose to love her baby they would call it a burden, would they not?"
No, Rosie, they would not. If a woman decided to have an abortion it would be her choice, and if she decided to keep it it would still be a choice. Stop being silly.Posted by: Stephanie at July 11, 2007 9:29 PM
Whilst is oft fun to debate with you on your terms, this is not the senate floor nor the judges chambers. Completely rational, based on facts arguments most definitely have their places. But this is a forum, a blog, a place where regular folk get together and express their opinions. It's not a boxing ring (tho it often feels like it), it's not a textbook, a classroom, or a scientific experiment.
It is a place where people TALK. Sometimes we debate, yes, sometimes we rant, sometimes we spill our guts and sometimes we toss mullets.
But as John says, it is a journey that we have all decided to take...TOGETHER.
To try to turn it into a cold, hard, emotionless, podium to simply exchange facts, misses the whole point of the site.
Again, I respect your way of doing things, and I have tried at times to do them your way...but they are just that, Your Way. Not mine. And certainly not the most right or the only way. Just one of many ways!
Jill's job is not to be some sort of professor that gives us a daily essay assignment to test our knowledge of perfect arguing skills. It is her job, (correct me if I'm wrong Jill) to post things of interest and to spark conversation, stimulate friendly debate, grow friendships and help put an end to abortion...with any means available. If that means playing on everyones emotions, then I say GO FOR IT!!!
I know this has been rather uncomfortable and certainly rather harsh, but after weeks and weeks of trying to understand your position, only to find out that it comes down to one right versus another, and that IN YOUR OPINION, the right to autonomy trumps the right to life, period...well, I'm left speechless.
All your talk of proof, and fact and logic...and the bottom line is the right to autonomy trumps the right to life because you say so...no proof, no facts, no logic that I can see. Well, I was left apoplectic. Me! Speechless! Unheard of!
Then you just up and disappeared and left the whole thing hanging...I guess you can tell, that I still had a few things to say.
Sorry. I mean no hard feelings. I just finally got my speech back. Think I'll go suck a lemming now. Peace.Posted by: MK at July 11, 2007 9:36 PM
My friend is HIV +. Does his body autonomy trump his disease, because he never consented to it? Enough already!!! He is HIV + because he made poor choices.Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 11:39 PM
Sandy, way to go!!Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 11:47 PM
John, excellent post!Posted by: Heather4life at July 11, 2007 11:49 PM
"I know this has been rather uncomfortable and certainly rather harsh, but after weeks and weeks of trying to understand your position, only to find out that it comes down to one right versus another, and that IN YOUR OPINION, the right to autonomy trumps the right to life, period...well, I'm left speechless.
All your talk of proof, and fact and logic...and the bottom line is the right to autonomy trumps the right to life because you say so...no proof, no facts, no logic that I can see. Well, I was left apoplectic. Me! Speechless! Unheard of!"
MK - I've given analogous cases. I've explained WHY the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life. I've justified my belief (or as you say "opinion") with rational claims. I'm pretty darn sure the burden of proof now falls on you to show at the very least that my argument is bad, and if you're really going to make a case for your side, ALSO an argument that isn't easily torn down for your own claims.
I understand that this is not a classroom. Believe me, I understand that. Thankfully, my students are a lot better at making arguments than most of the people around here (I'm not saying you). I could never do what I do for the rest of my life if my classes were like this blog, because unlike here, I can't be mean to my students when they say stupid stuff. And I understand that you all are determined to end abortion by any means necessary. That's fine. But then be prepared to deal with people who are going to call you on making bad arguments. Be prepared to have people say "look, you're saying we should end abortion because that picture is icky, but that's not reason enough." If you'd rather than those of us who actually care about getting at the truth, rather than at what we're feeling inside and what tradition tells us weren't around, then fine, let me know, but if not, I see no reason to cease attempting to bring logic into this den of emotional mudslinging.
And I wasn't upset with Jill for an emotional appeal - I was upset with Jill for attacking a random person without cause. That had nothing to do with bad argumentation and everything to do with Jill just being mean to someone for no real reason (except, I guess, that he/she is pro-choice).
And I do apologize for disappearing sometimes, but here's the thing - I'm busy! I'm teaching a summer class AND doing work for the department chair at the same time while also trying to get a jump on dissertation research (which has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, ethics, or rights). So I can't come and post all the time. Sorry.Posted by: Diana at July 11, 2007 11:53 PM
"I'm not trying to be kind, i'm trying to be honest. Should I shut my mouth so I don't offend anyone?"
No. Why would you need to keep your mouth shut when you can make blanket assumptions about people based on a few things that they've posted on a blog, or their line of work, or a single past action? Right, cuz that one thing tells you EVERYTHING about that person, how they feel and who they are. Of course! I'm sorry, I forgot that all pro-lifers have a supersense of what sort of person someone else is solely on the basis of a few words, or one past action. I also forgot that a single belief or act makes you completely without a conscience. My bad.
"After you sista!"
As far as I know, I've never made any sweeping assumptions about the individuals on this blog based solely on the fact that they are pro-life and have certain reasons for being that way... so, yeah, Rosie, after me. I won't hold my breath.Posted by: Diana at July 11, 2007 11:58 PM
"If you'd rather than those of us who actually care about getting at the truth, rather than at what we're feeling inside and what tradition tells us weren't around, then fine, let me know, but if not, I see no reason to cease attempting to bring logic into this den of emotional mudslinging."
Actually, I take this back, I do see a reason. It's bloody pointless. Forget it.Posted by: Diana at July 12, 2007 12:47 AM
Heather- it was your friend's fault that he got a disease. He was irresponsible. He lives with the consequences.
If there was a cure for HIV, would you deny him?Posted by: Erin at July 12, 2007 1:04 AM
MK, 9:36p, said: "Jill's job is not to be some sort of professor that gives us a daily essay assignment to test our knowledge of perfect arguing skills. It is her job, (correct me if I'm wrong Jill) to post things of interest and to spark conversation, stimulate friendly debate, grow friendships and help put an end to abortion...with any means available. If that means playing on everyones emotions, then I say GO FOR IT!!!"
Yes to all, except the "any means available," which I know MK didn't really mean, but I must * b/c pro-aborts incessantly and purposefully inaccurately accuse pro-lifers of being violent, when it's actually quite the opposite.Posted by: Jill Stanek at July 12, 2007 7:16 AM
That's why I said any means available and not any means possible...but I get your point.
Violence (obviously, as that is what we are fighting against is NEVER the solution.Posted by: MK at July 12, 2007 8:02 AM
Erin, absolutely not, but unfortunately there is no cure in site.Posted by: Heather4life at July 12, 2007 8:05 AM
Your "arguments" are not wasted here. I'm sorry I flew off the handle.
But you have to understand that we don't all "argue" the same way. If this were school, then yes I would be learning all about circular arguments and red herrings. But it's not and I don't want to have to live up to the standards of a strict school marm.
You say it is up to me to "prove" that you are wrong and I say you didn't prove anything except that you came to the conclusion that the right to autonomy is greater than the right to life. I came to the conclusion that the right to life is greater than the right to autonomy. THERE IS NO PROOF. On either side. And contrary to what you believe, you have not shown a reasonable argument for your particular conclusion. All you have done is say that after veiwing the evidence, you believe that your right to do what you want with your body is greater than all other rights. I'm saying that after viewing all of the evidence, I disagree. I don't believe their is any right greater than the right to life except the right to worship God.
Same road, different conclusions...Posted by: MK at July 12, 2007 8:10 AM
Be prepared to have people say "look, you're saying we should end abortion because that picture is icky, but that's not reason enough."
We are not showing these pictures to gross people out. That might happen but it is not the primary purpose of showing them. I'm surprised that you think that it is.
We show them because it is irrefutable, cold, hard, fact-based evidence, (something you are keen on) proving that these are human beings, not a collection of cells without value. Not an emotional tactic, although they can evoke emotions. But facts. These are people we are killing.
Most people in the pro choice movement are still able to convince themselves that these little creatures are not real. That they are leaches, non-persons, burdens, clumps of cells, whatever illusion they choose to believe. It is those people we are trying to reach. Not you.
You already admit that they are people. You just think your right to autonomy gives you the right to kill them.
Quite frankly, I find your view the coldest and most heartless of everyone else on this blog. At least with them you can see how they blind themselves to the truth to ease their consciences. But you, you KNOW the truth and still feel (and I use the word "feel" loosely) that somehow your right to bodily freedom is more important than these childrens right to breathe. I've never heard anyone, in all my years of pro-life advocacy, express this sentiment, and honestly, I'm left numb.Posted by: MK at July 12, 2007 8:19 AM
MK, I agree with you 100%!Posted by: Heather4life at July 12, 2007 11:20 AM
Hi Heather4life,Posted by: John McDonell at July 12, 2007 11:32 AM
Thank you for the link John! Looks like progress IS being made. I figured that since his condition has deteriorated so rapidly, there would only be a slim chance of hope. I'll show this to him! He has been so depressed lately.Posted by: Heather4life at July 12, 2007 11:38 AM
I don't think any of us can 'fault' Diana for her adeptness. Every one of us (learned as kids) to back-up our dealings-in-life with corresponding rhetoric ... we learned to do this from parents and teachers; but by far my 'teachers' were my sibs and peers. [I would be pulp if I did not.]
The up-shot of this training was that as 'grown-ups', we needed rationalization or justification for silly-adult activity. Ex. How many young adults get purposely 'smashed' to excuse themselves from the consequences of their activity? I know many people get drunk for this reason specifically.
I half-think that philosophic 'rationalization' is a sober-man's method of ducking-out.Posted by: John McDonell at July 12, 2007 11:59 AM
ok, i know this is a little old, but it bothers me because... well, its always coming up and i actually study rhetoric. there are three parts of any argument, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. for an argument to be both effective and sound, it usually needs some of all three. they are basically defined as credibility, emotional appeal, and logic respectively. to argue against.. say... a law being made, it would be a good idea to use a heavily logical argument with respect to constitutional law and legal precedent. when trying to get donations for a charity that helps sick kids or some other depressing cause, obviously a largely emotional appeal is the way to go, and when running for office, or applying for a job, its a good idea to reinforce your credibility. however, to use one of these tactics to push an entire social movement, be it pro choice or pro life, is a bad idea and unsound.
that being said,
yes, the pro life movement relies largely on emotional appeals because there is little else they CAN rely on other than some presupposed universal moral code. this is still a legitimate rhetorical tool, so stop saying it isnt.
yes, the pro choice side uses logic and constitutional law to the exclusion of much else (when an emotional appeal for the mother may work better in my opinion) but this is likewise still a rhetorically sound method, stop saying it isnt.
i personally believe that the side most people in this country pick is less determined by careful personal meditation on the issue than a simple matter of whether they are more susceptible to logic or emotion. neither is right, neither is wrong. i simply take my stance based on my own examination of medical data and constitutional law.
so can we please stick to attacking the issues and quit attacking the TYPE not even the VALIDITY of eachothers arguments?Posted by: michael at July 12, 2007 1:41 PM
we're in a bit-of-a-pickle here because some time ago MK quoted Chesterson saying women talk to each other and men talk about an issue. Perhaps an rational appeal suits you as a male ... we can just eat lunch and it's over. Our ability to distance ourselves from our responsibilities may be a male thing. Contrast this with the relationship of a mother when her child is ill. We-males continue to see the world as disinterested observers and have a huge problem with these who are closer-to-the-action. A Dad is as close as we'll get, maybe. But I still haven't seen any - for Dad(s) laws. Too bad ... the exclusion may/may-not be fortuitous, eh?Posted by: John McDonell at July 12, 2007 2:25 PM
just remembered - - - the 'for-Dad' used to be called: 'paternalism'Posted by: John McDonell at July 12, 2007 2:52 PM
Those posts were brilliant. And exactly what I am trying to say. I don't fault Diana for fighting with logic. I try to meet her halfway. But she can't or won't acknowledge that there is a place for an emotional argument. She needs to meet us halfway also.
Not one or the other, but both. And more if another way comes up...the whole thing reminds me of a Monty Python skit...Posted by: MK at July 12, 2007 11:26 PM
Michael:"the pro choice side uses logic and constitutional law to the exclusion of much else"
really? what kind of logic is this (2+2=5)? and where in the constitution does it allow (implicitly) for the right to an abortion? Even Ruth Ginsberg said the argument that Blackmun made in Roe V Wade was baseless. the Roe Court relied on a "right of privacy" that it said was located in the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. ha, what a joke...read the Due process clause.
Posted by: jasper
at July 13, 2007 12:01 AM
jasper, if you're a strict constructionist than please tell me where it specifically forbids it? and how a fetus has any rights. i'm not arguing one stance or the other, all i'm saying is a fetus is not "a person born or naturalized" in the US, neither is it a resident alien. it has no legal personhood, ergo no rights, therefore there is no conflict of rights. that is the pro choice stance as i understand it. get foetii personhood and then there is legitimate claim for conflict of rights with respect to the murder argument.Posted by: michael at July 13, 2007 12:08 AM
While I (unforntunately) have to agree that at this point in time, a "fetus" has no legal rights, as Diana has pointed out, rights are not something that are given to a person (on this Diana and I actually agree). They are something a person just has. ( I don't know why Diana thinks they have them. I think they were God given.)
But I find it pitiful that it has to be spelled out. It should be obvious (as it is to 6 year olds) that these "fetuses" are babies. I can't believe the "leader" of the western world is so backward that it doesn't get this. If we're supposed to be the best there is and we can't grasp something as simple and fundamental as the notion that unborn children should have the same legal rights as every other member of the human race, then maybe we should relegate ourselves to the class of third world countries and let someone else "lead the world".Posted by: MK at July 13, 2007 7:59 AM
Can you show me where in the Constitution it says old people are persons with rights? Where it says specific races and ethnicities are persons with rights?
Jasper and Michael, I understand that the "right" to abortion was found by the Supreme Court in (paraphrasing) "emanations" that arise from the "prenumbra" cast by 2 or 3 of the Constitutional Amendments. In simple English, this "right" was found in steam or vapor (emanations) that floated above the shadow normally cast during a solar eclilpse (penumbra) cast instead by certain Constitutional Amendments, which I never realized cast shadows It sounds to me more like a combination of tea leaf reading and astronomy than any kind of Constitutional law.Posted by: Mary at July 13, 2007 8:17 AM
you are right ... but there are little confounding twists to this, that are not immediately evident. The word fetus is a Latin/medical term that describes the time/stage of a being. [It properly is attributed to any species. Therefore, 'rights' which are attributed only to humans, cannot apply to the term 'fetus'.] 'Personhood' relates to the species human. So the argument that speaking of unborn beings of our species as 'babies' is quite appropriate.
They do not suddenly become human/persons by passage down the birth-canal. These beings are NOT recognized as legal-persons in the US-constitution. Why? Many think that this was an oversight because of insufficient access to modern technology - (4D imaging). What now ... do we update the Constitution/laws in accord with this newer info or do we hold the words as a fixed/locked-in Truth?
This is not the only such fight ... at present, there are health freedom advocates that are having a particularly hard time because such freedoms/rights were not enshrined. [It also will spell death to hundreds of millions of US-citizens.] Many people contend that those in the health industry have a free reign to ride roughshod over their 'different-from-orthodoxy' health-desires.Posted by: John McDonell at July 13, 2007 8:24 AM
"all i'm saying is a fetus is not "a person born or naturalized" in the US, neither is it a resident alien. it has no legal personhood, ergo no rights, therefore there is no conflict of rights. that is the pro choice stance as i understand it. get foetii personhood and then there is legitimate claim for conflict of rights with respect to the murder argument."
It's funny Michael that George Tiller (abortionist from Kansas) holds funerals for these "non persons", kind of strange isn't it. Why would anybody have a funeral for a non-person?
seven justices took it upon themselves to operate as a super-legislature, effectively amending the Constitution in order to achieve the policy result they desired, which was legalized abortion on demand. They negotiated over the scope of the right that they were inventing, and then argued over what language in the Constitution they could use to justify their policy.Posted by: jasper at July 13, 2007 8:54 AM
As in the recent cases of "double homicide" verdicts. Once a "fetus" reaches viability, a person that kills him/her can be charged with murder. What gives? Is it a person with rights or isn't it? It wasn't born or naturalized. So what's with the double standard.
Where are the lawyers?Posted by: MK at July 13, 2007 9:35 AM
good point MK,Posted by: jasper at July 13, 2007 9:38 AM
How about people who actually bury and hold funerals for their premature infants who have passed away? *gasp!* Why would we hold a funeral for that deceased premi? Isn't it a non person according to some? Hold a funeral for a blood clot? Get off this body autonomy thing already. It just keeps falling flat. Who is this straw man you guys keep referring to? Is he a non person? Is he real? Does he have a name?Posted by: Heather4life at July 13, 2007 9:50 AM
good job ignoring what i said and attacking me on the presumption i'm pro choice...
what I am saying is until a fetus has legal personhood it has no standing in a US court of law other than as a protected interest of the state.
and as for the double homocides, it is because in the case of a (sane and non intoxicated) adult, the power of bodily autonomy extends solely to the person who's body it concerns, hence a man not being able to have a woman abort his child (at least not legally) so if anyone BUT the mother should accidentally or otherwise abort that child without her consent it is considered homicide due to it being against her interests. and holding a funeral does not a person make. we had a full funeral mass for my (unbelieveably catholic) little cousin, in latin, when his goldfish died. is that a person now?
"so if anyone BUT the mother should accidentally or otherwise abort that child without her consent it is considered homicide due to it being against her interests."
garbage, stinking non-sense. Please don't tell me you're a Catholic Michael.
"we had a full funeral mass for my (unbelieveably catholic) little cousin, in latin, when his goldfish died. is that a person now?"
what? are you sick? Catholics don't hold funerals masses for animals or fish.Posted by: jasper at July 13, 2007 1:49 PM
you hit the nail on the head!!! Yep, a blood clot with ten finger, ten toes and the sweetest little face you'll ever see. Do you know that people who have a stillborn baby after 20 weeks get to have a funeral too?
"Do you know that people who have a stillborn baby after 20 weeks get to have a funeral too?"
Yes, Rosie, good point. The lie that unborn babies don't have "personhood" falls on it's face.Posted by: jasper at July 13, 2007 2:41 PM
The women I know who have aborted do the same thing. "I was only 6 weeks along." "It was the size of a dime." "It was a blood clot at that stage of the game." This is what their abortionists said to them. They just repeat it to make themselves feel better. One girl even said "Well at least I had mine in the first trimester, because I think that women who have PBA's are disgusting." HELLLLLOOOO! What is the difference? Murder is murder.Posted by: Heather4life at July 13, 2007 3:50 PM
Body autonomy is just a diversion tactic. They are trying to steer us off course. Abortion is murder!Posted by: Heather4life at July 13, 2007 3:55 PM
well jasper, the hate comes out. yes i am catholic, yes i am damn proud of my faith, no i dont care if you say i'm not christian, or if you attack my church, fact is we are one of the two most legitimate branches of christianity. i'm not here to debate doctrine.
i am not a priest. we said a mass for my cousins fish because it meant nothing to us and because he was really upset. can you blame me? for someone who supposedly loves children and wants to prevent tragedy you are one cold hearted POS.
you arent pro life because you love babies, you are pro life because you hate women. the same reason you got up in arms when i mentioned i had A CATHOLIC RELATIVE. you're just xenophobic. go sit in your bunker with a shotgun and pray for the rapture, and leave civilization alone.
Jasper is right we don't hold masses for animals or fish, to do so is to mock our faith and make it look ridiculous. Though I can see why you would want to make your cousin feel better. Though it could have probably been done differently because as a Catholic you are supposed to bring your children up to believe a specific way. Animals don't have immortal souls. A dead fish is not a tragedy when compared to a dead person and should not be treated as such. Just because a specific Catholic church does something, it doesn't make it right. Just because Jasper thinks that a mass for a fish is dumb doesn't make him any less pro-life either. I think you really over reactedPosted by: Rosie at July 13, 2007 4:49 PM
are you telling me seriously that you think saying a prayer for a soul you doesnt believe exists for the sake of a distraught child is a mockery made of our faith? hardly. i believe that God looks more favorably on my little cousin's compassion for all of His creatures than he does on jasper for adhereing so strictly to doctrine he forgets the teachings of Our Lord.
I'll pray for him.Posted by: michael at July 13, 2007 5:08 PM
Jasper and all of us are not perfect and have a long trek yet to go. Maybe, there is a time when silent prayer is more helpful than shooting from the hip. We all need refreshment from our Lord, so that our words will lead others to Him. Your comments above about rhetoric and argumentation were most helpful [and reassuring to me, who relies heavily on emotion]!
I'm starting to understand this entrenchment-of-position as a spiritual battle. And much more prayer is being demanded of me. Let's pray for each other ... it sure beats flinging aggressive words!
again I say PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!Posted by: John McDonell at July 13, 2007 6:02 PM
I think that having a MASS for a fish is going way overboard and is a mockery, yes. Sure, God does look favorably on your cousin's compassion, (look at Saint Francis) but not on a mass for a fish, even Saint Francis would know the difference.Posted by: Rosie at July 13, 2007 6:05 PM
Please, no hard feelings... I know your intentions were good for your little cousin. I wasn't attacking catholism, I am catholic. I don't hate anybody.Posted by: jasper at July 13, 2007 6:50 PM
Jasper is, I believe, also a Catholic. (am I right Jasper? It's Rasqual is a protestant) so he certainly wasn't attacking the C.C.
And having a little funeral for your cousins goldfish would have been perfectly appropriate to me. But a mass? That does seem borderline mockery.
More importantly, comparing a "pretend" funeral for a fish to a funeral for a woman who has just had a miscarriage seems colder than anything that Jasper has said.
You're right, everyone seems to have "assumed" you were a pro-choicer. Are you, or were you just playing devils advocate?
I thought I understood your point earlier. You didn't seem like you were advocating the fact that a fetus is not a person, you just seemed to be pointing out that "legally" this is the case. I might have been wrong.
But if you are pro-choice and claiming to be a Catholic, you're going to have more than just Jasper, John, Valerie and Rosie on your case. I'll have to jump on the bandwagon...Please tell me it ain't so...Posted by: MK at July 13, 2007 6:51 PM
yes, MKPosted by: jasper at July 13, 2007 7:44 PM
Lacy and Conners law doesn't say that there is a separate offense for the child because the mother did not consent to it.
It's say's that it bars prosecution under this Act for any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained. (I'm sure the Democrats made sure this was in place)Posted by: jasper at July 13, 2007 8:03 PM
"Let's pray for each other ... it sure beats flinging aggressive words!"
Yes John, I have to work on this... I'm trying...Posted by: jasper at July 13, 2007 10:00 PM