(crossposted at DailyKos, go recommend, sucka)
I was walking through UK's campus today and ran upon a little demonstration in front of the classroom building. There were about 20 huge pictures of bloody fetuses, along with "Stop the Genocide" signs.
If you know me well, you know... well.... I can't resist.
I decided to go up to the young female students who were passing out their "genocide leaflets" to the students walking by and chat.
I asked each one if they wanted to overturn Roe vs. Wade and make abortion illegal. They all said yes, of course. I asked them if abortion was murder. They all said yes, of course.
I then asked each of them, once this is made illegal, what the preferred prison sentence should be for a woman that has an abortion.
The first girl I talked to seemed bewildered by the question. She literally had never thought about that before. She was willing to stand in front of these horrible pictures and accuse people of murder and genocide, yet she had never even thought what type of penalties women would get if this was made illegal. She looked like a deer caught in the headlights, so I let her go to ponder just what in the hell she's doing out here.
Another girl seemed a bit taken aback, but then went into the "well, it's not the women who should be punished, it's the doctor who performs it" line.
"So wait a second, if someone hires a hitman to kill someone, they're charged for murder, right? Then why wouldn't the woman who hires the person to perform the abortion guilty of murder".
Silence. "Well... maybe. I don't know."
"Well, you're out here calling people murderers and accusing them of genocide. What do you mean you don't know?"
"Ummmm..."
One of the girls who was listening in came to her defense. "Well if abortion is made illegal, yes, that should be a crime."
"So, what, 20 years in jail? 40 years in jail? What should a woman have?"
"Well, I don't really know if jail is necessary..."
"So... abortion is kinda like jaywalking?"
"Oh no!"
"So, it's murder?"
"Oh, yes!"
"And you don't think that people should go to jail for murder?"
"Well, yea, I guess they should"
"For how long? 20 years? 40 years?"
"Well, I guess if the jury felt they should"
"What about capital punishment?"
"What?"
"If a jury felt that she should be put to death for having an abortion?"
"Well... I.... suppose"
"So, you're not really pro-life, more pro-fetus?"
(Silence...)
"OK, well just think about that. Have a nice day."
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Fun with Fetus Fetish Fighters
Posted by Media Czech at 3:37 PM
Labels: fetus fetish, fundies, wingnuttery
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
47 Comments:
Hypocritical wingnuts. They seem to want to keep themselves out of prison incase they decide to explore "other options".
g-d bless them.
Dear Joe,
I love you. In a total heterosexual, platonic way.
Love,
Robert
Gah ha ha hah.
Hopefully your little conversation will encourage them to think about such things and perhaps change their hearts/minds on down the road.
you're supposed to be on vacation! back to the beach with you, i say!
This must be what it felt like to listen to Socrates twisting someone up.
You're a gentleman and a scholar!
Hey Joe, what Robert said.
Abortion should be outlawed, it is important to protect the right to life of all human beings. Anyone who takes the life of an innocent has to be prepared to face the consequences. I would never advocate the death penalty, because the root argument against the death penalty is the same as that against abortion, the right to life of all human beings. We can't be selective, the right to life should be equal for all.
Of course, just setting up a tariff of punishment isn't going to resolve the problem, as with most crime you need to get to the root cause of why that crime is committed. For most people, abortion doesn't seem wrong because they have little understanding of what they are doing. Their ignorance isn't solely their fault, living in a society that constantly preaches the unborn don't deserve life, you can understand why people would consider abortion is ok. They are wrong, but you can see what leads them on the path they choose.
Making light of the situation and attacking those who are prepared to defend the rights of the helpless doesn't help, either. This serious issue needs to be dealt with, people need to understand the true value of ALL human life.
Jay, are you going to punish God, too?
Because God kills more than anyone, or don't you know anything about the miscarriage rate?
What are you doing to make sure that women who WANT children don't have miscarriages?
[crickets - the prolife movement has NEVER given a damn about miscarriages...]
No, no punishing of God.
I don't understand how you can compare the natural process of miscarriage to the unnatural process of abortion. Two totally different concepts. And to suggest God 'causes' miscarriage, that really is extreme.
OK, jay, how many years in prison for the woman would you recommend?
And what makes it your business what someone does to their own body?
The tariff for manslaughter is already well established in many countries, that is a good guideline to go by.
My interest in what people do to their own body is little, if nothing. But when that action removes the life of an innocent then it is my interest to try and defend the life and rights of those who cannot defend themselves.
The mantra "It's my body" doesn't apply to someone who is with child. It ceases to be *just* their body, as the child is also part of that body.
But this is nonsense: "For most people, abortion doesn't seem wrong because they have little understanding of what they are doing."
Actually, half of all women seeking abortions already have at least one child. How can you imagine we don't understand what we're doing? The "root cause" of your imaginary crime is that sometimes women don't want to be pregnant. If you're intent on attacking the root cause, rather than punishing the guilty, what is your plan for eliminating unwanted pregnancies.
Jay, there's "spontaneous miscarriage" and "induced miscarriage". Neither is more "natural".
Awesome post - not just from a pro-choice perspective but from a due process perspective as well. So many people advocate stringent laws as the first solution to every social ill ("ban this!" "make this mandatory!"). But they never stop to think that the obvious consequence of a ban or a mandate is a jail sentence for people who don't follow.
There is a simple solution to not getting pregnant, that is 100% effective. Problem is, most people prefer to ignore that and deal with the unwanted consequences which causes the loss of life to an innocent person.
Jay, if you get cancer, your tumor would be alive and genetically different from you. With appropriate techniques we can keep your tumor alive indefinitely once we remove it from you, which is much more than we can say for a fetus. So, is chemotherapy genocide?
You throw words like "person" around like everyone agrees with your definition. What makes a fetus a "person" more than a tumor? The fact that maybe someday it might turn into an adult if everything goes right? So when we can turn stem cells into fetuses, will cord blood be considered a civilization?
There is a simple solution to not getting pregnant, that is 100% effective.
I thought you people were against homosexuality...
Yeah - I guess I can get my uterus yanked out, so if I get raped, I'll be guaranteed not to get pregnant. Kthxbye.
See, now you are just being silly, offering up stupid arguments to an extreme, because the norm doesn't support your argument. I don't believe for one minute you equate a tumor with a human being.
Don't lose sight of the fact, that whatever the stage of development, that is a person, a human being, a life that is just as valuable as yours or mine. Is that too uncomfortable for you to consider?
Hey Jay, still haven't answered the question: How many years in jail for a woman that has an abortion?
I did say. Tariffs for manslaughter already exist, there is no reason why that cannot be used as a guide.
If you are waiting for me to come out and say "Bang 'em up for life" or "They deserve nothing less than the death penalty" then you're out of luck, it isn't going to happen. As with all criminal acts the defendant should be processed via a court of law, and an appropriate punishment that fits the crime, with all due circumstances taken into consideration, should be handed out.
Yes, but let's look at something here, Jay. I think it's fair to point out that women who choose abortions do NOT sit on the news of pregnancy for a good 4 months before going "No, wait, I changed my mind!" You don't forget or procrastinate on that decision. To assume that we don't know what we're doing is an insult to our intelligence as women and to the clinics that REQUIRE COUNSELING BEFORE THE ABORTION IS PERFORMED. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is pretty much all of them.
You are entitled to your opinion and your beliefs regarding this issue. However, you are NOT entitled to force your beliefs upon ME or anyone else around.
Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. Sound it out, Jay...it means choosing what is best for YOU. If abortion is not an idea you would ever entertain, don't worry, you don't have to have one. You're a man anyway, so what part of this belongs to you? If you don't want your lady to have an abortion, then take steps to prevent pregnancy. If you don't believe in contraception, and she does, then find someone else who doesn't believe and shack up with them.
To paraphrase you, the "root" of this is not the "right of all humans to life", it is a deeply misogynistic fear of women being *gasp* in control of their own lives
On second thought, man, you may be onto something...women in charge of anything!? Scary...
In one comment you say about fetuses:
Don't lose sight of the fact, that whatever the stage of development, that is a person, a human being, a life that is just as valuable as yours or mine.
In another comment, you say about women who obtain abortions:
If you are waiting for me to come out and say "Bang 'em up for life" or "They deserve nothing less than the death penalty" then you're out of luck, it isn't going to happen.
So, a woman who goes into a clinic, goes through counseling and a waiting period, and knowingly comes back to have an abortion and terminate "a life that is just as valuable as yours or mine" isn't a premeditated murderer, in your eyes?
Because, last I heard, premeditated murder involves a punishment of at least life in prison. Either the woman isn't a murderer, or there's something special about the fetus, or the pregnant woman, that just makes this "offense" punishable by manslaughter.
I think manslaughter covers the large majority of abortions, to call it murder takes it to another level, but yes, sometimes it is pure cold blooded murder. And yes, the person who commits that crime deserves the full weight of punishment due for that crime, taken all circumstances of that particular case into account.
What's the matter, is the argument too reasonable? Do you prefer the raving, shouting approach, is that easier to deal with? Does a reasonable approach to the subject ruin your pre-conceived arguments and stereotypes of people who are against abortion? It is not anti abortion campaigners who need to consider the consequences of their actions in calling for abortion to be made illegal, it is people who commit the crime knowing full well the results their actions will bring who need to consider their position carefully
Why do the "vast majority" of abortions deserve manslaughter? What is different about them than drowning a 5-year-old to death? (Isn't that what Susan Smith and Andrea Yeats did? Aren't they in prison for murder?)
Gosh, you seem awfully intent on believing that we are all so unreasonable. What have we done that is unreasonable, other than challenge the notion that a large portion of adult women on the planet are murderous felons?
Whoops - sorry, "large majority."
Abortion is not murder until you can state that a fetus is a human being. And your argument that "it's not just your body", is in my opinion wrong, because even if you are sustaining another human being, the thing is a literal parasite and you and your education, needs, and quality of life take precedent over it.
When you get pregnant, you can get diabetes, you can have vision problems which can lead to blindness, you can be ripped apart during the delivery, suffer from post partum depression, your position at work is compromised, and you are effectively never the same physically.
I think the right of women to have a safe and healthy education and career trumps the right of a bundle of cells to turn into a human.
If Jay thinks that killing a five year old is murder, but "killing" a fetus is manslaughter, then he obviously views the life of that fetus as less than the five year old, which blows his entire logic on the issue to shreds.
Yes, it's that simple.
Well I don't recall anywhere saying one life is less than another, in fact the whole point of my argument has been the exact opposite! I try to distance myself from the "Abortion is murder" crowd, the set where all the fruit loops usually live.
The simple fact is that all persons should expect the same rights to life, from moment of conception to the moment of natural death. Nothing is more important than the preservation of life. There was a comment earlier that someone thought the right to a good education justified the killing of another individual who *may* impede that! Quite shocking, I thought.
What saddens me most, is there are so many people making comments here who think it is ok to prioritise the life of one individual over another, and the complete lack of respect shown to others just because they are unborn. Unborn doesn't mean not alive. Just because that early stage human is dependent on the mother to give it life is also a complete non-argument, a new born is also highly dependent on the parents. In fact that dependency is always there in one form or another pretty much throughout childhood even into early adulthood.
It is shocking, not one person out of everyone here thinks the right to life of the unborn is worth protecting.
Of course, in any given situation there will always be extreme circumstances that warrant extreme decisions, and I don't envy anyone who is in a position where such a decision is required. But the general level of abortion is for comfort, for lifestyle, the general level of 'unwanted' pregnancy comes from casual sex. It is so unfair to refuse life to the unborn person, just because it will be an 'inconvenience' and it is saddening people refuse to look at the unborn as another person.
Jay, until you grow a uterus, shut up about this issue. You have no idea what you're talking about and have no business telling any woman what to do with her body. Fetuses are NOT people. Get over it.
Lacking a uterus doesn't mean I lack the intelligence to understand what is going on. That is a non argument. Shouting people down, saying they can't possibly understand is just ignoring the issue.
But you do apparently lack the intelligence to recognize that women are human beings and should be able to make their own choices without your oh-so-reasonable patriarchal supervision.
Jay, you've contradicted yourself about 17 times in this thread.
A simple yes or no answer to this question: Do you want to lock up women behind bars for having an abortion, or not?
How come then, these women fail to recognise the validity of the life of the child inside them, and respect that person's rights?
Life starts at the moment of conception. Can no-one see that simple fact?
No contradiction from me.
If you want a simple yes or no answer then ask a simple question and you will get one.
I do not want to lock anyone up, BUT if a crime is committed then the just punishment must be served. Recognising abortion as a crime means that the person who commits that crime must be prepared to pay the consequences of that crime. If that punishment is jail, then that is what will happen.
Jay: it's not a fact. It's your belief. This "moment of conception" thing is YOUR arbitrary definition.
I'm done feeding the concern troll now. Sorry I even started.
Not my opinion, but medical fact. Check it for yourself, if you need. No trolling here, just arguing my point.
Wait - what is this "if there is a crime" business, Jay? You came in here talking about how a fetus is a human life, like any other. Now, you're not even sure if it should be a crime to abort? That's a contradiction, and it's happening because you can't imagine a future where tens of millions of women would be behind bars for the rest of their lives due to procuring an abortion.
Also - let's not mince words about the fetus being "dependent on its mother." It's literally sucking the nutrients from a woman's blood, seeping the calcium from her bones, and using her kidneys to dispel waste. It's changing her skeletal structure forever, and often causing permanent medical damage that will never go away. (And no, that's not a rare occurance, not that frequency matters anyway.)
I don't know any other kind of relationship - even parent/child - that requires that sort of bodily support BY LAW. Do you get why having a child OUTSIDE one's body is a different responsibility than having one INSIDE one's body? Hint: one type of child doesn't cause diabetes and high blood pressure.
I guess when pro-lifers start lobbying for laws requiring all biological parents to give up a kidney to their kids if the need arises (hell, even a pint of blood or marrow), then I'd take their lack of concern for my bodily integrity seriously.
Imagine how the father's activists would complain about having to take an afternoon off work to give a bit of bone marrow to their kid, huh? Or is giving a pound of flesh (literally) only required of women?
Where does it say that it's a medical fact that life begins at conception? I know the Catholic church's stance is conception, but I was unaware that was the medical opinion.
So, when a woman has this unwanted baby, who's going to take it? How babies many should we put down your family for taking in?
"Life starts at the moment of conception. Can no-one see that simple fact?"
Life of some kind might start at conception, but personhood does not. A clump of cells is not a person, no matter how you spin it.
I haven't fed a troll in a while so here goes.
I will believe your professed concern about protecting all forms of life when you openly and loudly support: comprehensive, medically accurate sex education that includes reproduction as well as sexual health, tubal ligations and vasectomies for anyone who wants them, free condoms, contraceptives and EC in vending machines easily accessible even to teenagers, no pharmacy can ever refuse to fill a birth control or EC prescriptions, family planning services are free to all, regardless of age and marital status, insurance must cover all contraception and sterilization procedures including male birth control, equalize wages for women so that if she does want children she can take care of them (again regardless of marital status or age), and universal free day care.
I am in favor of a regulated right to abortion, and so I disagree with Jay. But he is being reasonable and consistent, and "my" side is filled with the "shut-up", "your a troll" types.
As someone said previously, it all comes down to personhood, doesn't it. I have a conservative friend who says it is when the heart is beating. We agree to disagree, but I can understand his position.
So lets have the pro-choice stance, when is a fetus a person? One person seems to think as long as it is in the womb it is a parasite and abortion is ok. I think it is pretty easy to defeat that argument.
Any thoughts?
I don't really get the troll reference, to be honest. I hope I've shown I commented here to put forward the alternative view, and to answer the comments made. I'm not here just to stir things up just for the sake of it, this is a very important issue. Literally, innocent lives are at stake.
I'm more than happy to talk with any of you via email, if you wish. You should get that info from my profile.
To answer a couple of points:
Stacey - As I am pro life, why would I come out and support many of your listed requirements, before you accept my pro life views? A lot of what you list is not pro life view. Contraception, contra-ception, contra-conception. Not acceptable, really.
Amanda - Some lists of doctors and text books where you can find the medical opinion of life beginning at conception:
Medical Textbooks and Scientific Reference Works
Dr. Bradley M. Patten's textbook, Human Embryology, states, " It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatazoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that...marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." - Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968) 43
Dr. Louis Fridhandler in the medical textbook Biology of Gestation, refers to fertilization as "that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new individual." - L. Fridhandler, Gametogenesis to Implantation, " Biology of Gestation, Vol. 1 ed. N.S. Assau (New York: Academic Press, 1968) 76
Time and Rand McNally's Atlas of the Body states, "In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, whch is the start of a new individual." - Time Magazine and Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand-McNally, 1980) 139, 144
Encyclopedia Britannica, says, "A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg." - "Pregnancy," The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed. Macropedia, Vol. 14 (Chicago: Encyclo. Brit., 1974) 968
Prominent Scientists and Physicians:
The late Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, and discoverer of the genetic cause of Down Syndrome said, "After fertilization has taken place and a new human being has come into being. It's no longer a matter of taste or opinion, and not a meta-physical condition, it is plain experimental evidence." - Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981)
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." - Ibid
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo clinic: "By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." - Ibid
Ashley Montague, Geneticist and Professor at Harvard and Rutgers, who is unsympathetic to the pro-life cause, said clear, "The basic fact is simple" Life begins not at birth, but conception." - Ashley Montague, Life Before Birth (New York: Signet Books, 1977) vi
Dr. Landrum Shettles served twenty-seven years as attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. He was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility and is internationally famous for discovering male-and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of pre-born children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states, "I oppose abortion...because I accept what is biologically manifest--that human life commences at the time of conception--and...because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic and humanitarian." - L. Shettles and D. Rorvik, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence of Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. 1983) 113
I repeat what I said at the beginning, if anyone wants to discuss the differences in opinion, feel free to email.
Continue fucking and don't feed the trolls!
Jay wrote: "It is shocking, not one person out of everyone here thinks the right to life of the unborn is worth protecting."
Echoing Stacey's point, there are plenty of people here who are interested in protecting the life of the unborn, only their preferred approach is to address societal conditions that increase the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies, rather than using state coercion to force all pregnant women to carry their pregnancy to term.
In contrast, people like Jay seem more interested in protecting the (non-existent) "right" of the unborn than protecting people themselves.
Miscarriage is manslaughter !
but if it's unintentional manslaughter, should the person unintentionally responsible be unintentionally executed?
Post a Comment