Don't agree with it?

[tsukikage85]

I think I've heard people say things like "Don't agree with abortion? Then don't have one." Now, in my mind this seems like an incredibly simplistic way of looking of things. To those who don't agree with abortion, abortion is murder, an act which takes away the rights of a second party. Whereas saying "Don't agree with gay marriage? Then don'

Comments

[cicipsychobunny]

I think a lot of people who are anti-gay-marriage would disagree; to some, gay marriage has a general detrimental effect on society, which, while it doesn't include such obvious, immediate third parties, is still more than "just a personal choice".

[ihatemostthings]

*imagined general detrimental effect imo

[cicipsychobunny]

Well, yes, but I was more attempting to explain their side of the argument than advocate it.

[ihatemostthings]

i hear ya...I just mean people go on about the horrific dangers of the gay agenda, but none of them have actually presented realistic ways in which any negative effects that might occur as a result of GLBT equality. It's the same way people fought against desegregation... no solid information, no real predictions or grounded fears, just hate...it's all about fearmongering, or trying to protect religious agendas through state legislation - something that always manages to piss me off, being a big fan of church-state separation.

[ihatemostthings]

it makes sense from the standpoint of those trying to protect their right to make their own medical decisions. It boils down to the sentiment that people who have nothing to do with individuals who have a choice to make, thinking they are the ones who get to make that choice; make other peoples' medical decisions. It can be boiled down further to a sentiment of "mind your own goddamn business" on the topic of abortion.

[crafting_change]

this.

[ihatemostthings]

At the same time I understand that "pro-life"rs view it as an issue of protecting the fetus, it's just that this tends to include ignoring the mother's needs/rights/desires.

It just continues to baffle me because of so many already-born children so desperately in need of help, something real and positive that people can do to help children... these people are rarely involved. Their only focus seems to be building up fetus's rights, thus slowly dismantling the rights of women.

So what I guess I mean is, I understand their logic (sort of)...I just refuse to agree with it.

[crafting_change]

That is my issue - the fetus (no matter your belief, or theories) is entirely dependent on a person. Carrying a pregnancy to term has huge ramifications on a woman's health (a spectrum of her entire body). That is what I think requires the utmost respect. And this is why I often say 'if you don't want an abortion, don't have one.'

[neonchameleon]

The line makes sense to people who think that the foetus isn't a separate entity worthy of protection. It makes about as much sense to a pro-Lifer as "Don't like slavery? Don't keep slaves" would have to an abolitionist. (And a lot of Lifer mythology is wrapped up in imagining themselves as the spiritual descendents of Abolitionists).

In short it's the sort of "argument" that may strike a chord amongst the converted, but is worse than useless either amongst the other side or amongst neutrals. (I'm in the safe/legal/rare camp on abortions and it makes me cringe every time I see it - the simple (if corrosive and disconnected from the real world*) moral clarity offered by the Lifers is far more attractive than the cheerful sociopathy implied by the above quote).

* See murderously stupid Brazillian Archbishop for an example.

[bluedragonflye]

First, slavery has been abolished and no one (or virtually no one) is challenging that. We have consensus as a socety that slavery is unacceptable.

We do not remotely have consensus on abortion being murder. So the comparison doesn't wash.

Or if it does, the comparison works better with women: We HAVE consensus that slavery is wrong, so we CANNOT enslave women's bodies and use them as incubators, ESPECIALLY when we do NOT have consensus that abortion is murder.

To review:

1. SLAVERY: wrong. Thus, forced gestation, a type of enslavement: wrong.
2. ABORTION: up for debate. Thus, up to the individual and no one else's place to get involved. Thus, offended by abortion? Don't have one.

[neonchameleon]

First, slavery has been abolished and no one (or virtually no one) is challenging that. We have consensus as a socety that slavery is unacceptable.

If we had had consensus that slavery was wrong while there was an abolitionist movement, there would have been no need for the abolitionists. When they started, slavery was just the way of the world. And even as late as the American Civil War, there were significant numbers of fuckwits willing to secede and trigger a war to defend slavery.

Slavery was once a contentious issue the way abortion is now. Didn't mean that you should have left things up to the slave owners.

Times change.

[bluedragonflye]

Slavery was continuously an essentially universally accepted practice for all of human history ... until it was abolished, almost equally universally, and not many folks have since argued that it was wrong to abolish

[scorpi084]

if I believed that it was murder, I'd be zealous.

I'd hop on board with ways that are proven to decrease it, myself (keeping in mind that it's impossible to end it entirely). Harassing my legislators to make birth control widely available, and putting a stop to abstinence education. I'd probably think about what the consequences of the action were, too, instead of looking like a jackass when someone finally got around to asking me.

[bluedragonflye]

I'd probably think about what the consequences of the action were, too, instead of looking like a jackass when someone finally got around to asking me.

WORD.

[crafting_change]

Imagine seeing you here ;)

Lets not forget that also when it rains, snows, or drops below 40 many of them don't show up.

[bluedragonflye]

Alright, I apologize to the OP that they'll have to read the same line twice, but I'm quoting what I commented to someone else above:

"We do NOT have consensus that porn IS the exploitation of women, so that particular example is nonsense. I WOULD agree that if porn offends you, then don't buy it, much as I say if abortion offends you, then don't have one. That's much more equivalent a sentiment."

[bluedragonflye]

No, you are missing the point. Porn is not necessarily the exploitation of women.