|
Author
|
Topic: Pro-Choice Talking Points
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 04 March 2006 08:39 AM
That is fantastic. I particularly like this one: quote:
If a woman has sex, she has to pay the consequences. Too many women have abortions for their own convenience or on "whim."This vindictive, self-righteous attitude stems from a belief that sex is bad and must be punished. Motherhood should never be punishment for having sex. Forcing a child to be born to punish its mother is the ultimate in child abuse. Anti-abortionists trivialize motherhood and childbirth by dismissing pregnancy as a mere inconvenience. They ignore or belittle the needs of the woman and the conflict she endures in making her decision. Guilt is inflicted when compassion is needed.
And this one is good too: quote:
Opposition to abortion is common in all segments of society. It is not a campaign by religious groups trying to foist their beliefs on everyone else.The Catholic Church and the "religious right" are the backbone of the anti-abortion movement. Pro-choice religious people see anti-abortion laws as a violation of religious liberty. Abortion is a religious issue, because the stated basis of opposition to abortion is the theological question of when personhood begins. Also, religious doctrines that dictate female subservience and a childbearing role for women are the real hidden agenda of opposition to abortion.
Sock it to 'em! [ 04 March 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582
|
posted 04 March 2006 09:58 AM
One PBS's News Hour last night, there was a piece on South Dakota's ban on abortion. I had a real eye-opener about these people. One (old, white) guy, a state senator I think, was asked by the PBS reporter for a 'scenario' in which the SD law would allow a woman to have an abortion (apparently, even though it won't allow them for rape, incest or health of the mother, there is a small opening for the mother's life at risk). The guy started to list the conditions: brutal rape, woman a virgin who was saving herself for marriage, sodomy (!), brutal, brutal a few more times, then pregnancy. That woman, the guy said, maybe could have an abortion. The reallly sick, creepy part was how much this guy was enjoying this description. It's been said many times -- these people are sex-obsessed. But what a sight to actually see one of them salivating at the images he was concocting. It makes me shiver just thinking about it.
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045
|
posted 04 March 2006 10:29 AM
Punishing the woman, yes. But they don't think much of the kids, either because these are the same ones who are so determinedly against the kinds of social programmes which most benefit children. I can't stop the mental image of these people grumbling that they played with fire, got burned, and have spent however many years in an unhappy shotgun marriage, five damned kids, bloodsuckers each one, draining the very life from them, now grandchildren coming and all of them wanting , gimme gimme gimme, my life is a misery and YOURS WILL BE, TOO!Yeah, it's the sex. And the suspicion that these women ENJOYED what the compulsory pregnancy crowd's wives (or self, if it's a woman) have always found repugnant. There's something so .. immature and bullying about their salacious interest in other people's wombs and the contents thereof...it's like NO! said the bigger girl, I don't know how to ride a bike and you aren't riding one , either, you're too little. NO! I'm afraid of the big slide and you're not going down it either, you're too small. NO! because I said so and I'm older, I got here first.
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934
|
posted 04 March 2006 01:24 PM
Thank you deBeauxos, simple and elegant. In our many conversations over this issue, I don't think there is one point I have left out. Many of those points were expressed by my grandmother (long dead) albeit in different language. Although she concentrates on the biology, I've always sensed there was more to it, the heavy judgement which most definitely comes from a self-righteous moral stance. The rhetoric only enters when I have swung back to the democracy angle, the will of the majority, and of course the ancient subservient aspect of the male-dominated politicians wanting control over women's bodies. Suddenly it occured to me, does her strong gay marriage positive stance come from her belief in true equality, or does it in part, stem from the fact gay couples do not produce children (in and of itself)? Rather gay couples would adopt (if they did not bring children into their partnerships). So to hell with being politically correct and I asked her. I expected a quick response, but instead she was quiet and told me it she'd have to think a little deeper on it. Thanks for the replies.
From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
