Log in

No account? Create an account
..:: .::: .:: .::.::.:.: .. ..:: .::: .:: ....

May 2011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

Ys [userpic]

naamah_darling makes a very cogent post.

omimouse replies:

May Kali Durga take them, every last one of them.

At this point, if someone professes themselves as 'pro-life', I will not tolerate them in my life. With this ruling; with this law, they have just made it abundantly clear that they think I deserve to die.

We're only a few laws away from me considering each and every one of them a direct threat to my life.
naamah_darling comes back with:
YES. Thank you for putting it that way.

That's why I don't tolerate that shit from people in my life, either. I have stopped speaking to people over it, and I don't feel any regret at all.

It's very real for me, considering that I can't use most birth control, and if I got knocked up, I'd be pretty much (pardon the pun) fucked, because my uterus is completely screwed up. Anyone who tells me that abortion is not okay has just told me that, hey, it's no big deal if I die in screaming agony from an ectopic pregnancy.

And those who say that they'd ever-so-graciously grant me an exception for my health are still patronizing fucks who deserve to have their colon filled with live electric eels.
I think this captures some things I feel right now very well. I understand that for some people it's a truly complex question...but in my experience the ones I know who struggle with it (and whom I respect for the struggle) are not the ones who can just smugly sum it up as "pro-life".

And at some point, showing no respect for the right to life of a thinking human being under the guise of respecting the supposed rights of an already dead fetus? Calling that pro-life is beyond hypocrisy, it's disgusting.

But, as naamah_darling so eloquently pointed out, what do I know? I'm a fucking animal.

Current Mood: pissed offpissed off

For the record, I *can be* (and *am*) pro-life and still realise that I have no right trying to make that decision for anybody else. (I call it being personally pro-life and politically pro-choice.)

As yet another woman who essentially has no birth control options beyond abstinence, you can bet that this is something I've spent some time thinking about.

The world would be a better place if more people shared your faculty for separating the two.

There is a reason they call it pro-choice and not pro-abortion. I truly wish more people got that. Myself, I've got serious issues with abortion... what I'm not at all fuzzy on is whose right it is to be in on the decision. I'll be damned by your gods and mine before I accept the governments authority to regulate inside someone's body. And doubly not as a matter of morality.

Governments aside, while I hope fervently that a woman in my life would include me in such a decision and value my opinion. While I would give my all to talk her out of it. I can't imagine trying to claim the right to force her decision. My rights end where someone else's nose begins. And we've gone pretty far beyond the nose here. If I have to deal with having been complicit in something I find morally objectionable that is MY issue and I should have dealt with it at the beginning of this dance. I forfeit my right to object the moment I involve her body in the equation.

There is a reason they call it pro-choice and not pro-abortion. I truly wish more people got that.
The theoconservative movement which controls the social agenda of the Republican party works actively and continually on propaganda to destroy the concept that there can be any difference whatsoever. It seems to work for them.

Of course, it's not just in that respect. It's in others as well.

Of course, it's not just in that respect. It's in others as well.

Well yeah, when you realize that they see women as merely inconveniently vocal domestic animals, several ugly puzzle pieces fall into place.

Her post was excellent and well written. As for the ruling? See the young man in the icon for my opinion. I have nothing to add to the opinions expressed. I am still too angry. :\

The "anti" crowd loves to frame the debate in terms of "abortion is wrong" vs. "abortion is great". As if people really LIKE having abortions.

I prefer to frame the debate in terms of "choice", mostly because I don't believe unquestioningly that MY way is right. Reasonable people believe murder is wrong, should be prevented and should be punished, but there is no such overwhelming majority mandate in the case of abortion. So, they have to resort to intimidation and other crappy tactics. They think their judgement is morally superior to everyone else's. To me that's what makes them ineligible for friend status and only just barely eligible for "fellow human" status.

I also feel that believing something because of membership in a church, or believing something because some religious leader has convinced you that's what the Bible says, is a form of cowardice. It takes a pretty strong willpower and sense of self to question your own belief system and even more inner strength to admit that what someone else believes might be perfectly right for them too. That's why anyone trying to "save" or "convert" me doesn't get the time of day. I don't care if they believe super super strongly... failing to admit that something else could be right too is a form of cowardice.

In other words, amen to all that. True "anti's" are cowardly fuckers who have already dismissed me as not equal, so they don't face time, let alone friendship.

I hate pro-lifers with a fucking passion.

When it's time to improve the educational system, are they pro-life then? When it's time to keep kids in uniform from dying for the greater glory of rich mens' portfolios, are they pro-life? How about when the same soldiers come back crippled or with PTSD? Where are the pro-lifers when it comes time to talk about health care? How about when it comes time to discuss the dignity and right to continued existence for all people regardless of whom we choose to screw or what deity we choose to worship - or deny, where are they then? Where are the same pro-lifers when it's time to talk about the greater environment?

Frankly, deciding anyone's right to an abortion is none of my damn business until such time as I miraculously develop a uterus and ovaries. So my dislike of these idiots - and the shit they insist on heaping on all of us at our communal expense - is that they're not really pro-life at all. They seem to believe that life ends after something leaves the womb. Then they don't give a crap about babies. All they care about is their sadistic false god, making sure there's plenty of girls to continue breeding, and making sure there's plenty of boys to continue dying in their damn wars.

Non-smug Frog

Without having delved into the issues and the rulings, mainly for want of time and mental energy, just a few simple comments.

The afore-referenced post talks a lot about how anti-abortion laws essentially say that women can't be trusted. Pause for a moment and consider the outrage they feel about that -- and now consider that rent controls essentially say that landlords can't always be trusted, weapons laws say that people can't always be trusted, traffic laws say people can't always be trusted... Hey, I'm sorry, but 'X can't always be trusted' is essentially the foundation of every law. Simple fact is, none of us are terribly trustworthy, and the point of the law is to protect others from us if we want to make 'bad' choices.

And as I've said before, given that I consider an unborn child to be a living human being *just like you are*, abortion seems to me a killing of a weaker person often for the convenience of a stronger one. If that isn't the sort of things laws are there to protect weak people from, what are they for? The strong don't need protection, generally.

And as you've said before, if the above is truly what I believe is truth, how can I be anything but against abortion in general?

Justice == treating one person just like the other. There's a lot of room for debate over interpretation of that, but that's what debate is all about, isn't it.

Also, I fail to see the hypocrisy in allowing, as an 'exception', the case where the mother's life is in danger. Then it's a case of one person who may die versus another person who may die, and that's a rather different situation. I hope I never have to make that sort of decision. I don't know that I could, nor that I could live with myself afterward. That's just a horrific situation. And the case where the baby wouldn't survive (isn't old enough to be viable ex utero) still makes it a horrific situation.

Now again I have to state I haven't read into what y'all are talking about, which I'll have to do if you want to discuss details, but the above should stand on its own anyway.

And at least in the past I've been one of the (few) people Ysabel respects for my intelligence and moral consistency and agonizing over the difference between what I might want and what I think is Right, in the issue. I hope I still am. I'd prefer to forego the eel treatment.

Re: Non-smug Frog

As you might've guessed, I was thinking of you specifically when I said "[they] are not the ones who can just smugly sum it up as "pro-life"."

Having talked to you a bunch, I believe that you truly struggle over the whole issue, and see it for the complex issue it is. Most people who call themselves pro-life, after some discussion discussion, make it clear that it's all about control of women's bodies, and they don't give a flying fuck about the (potential) child except as a tool of control, and this is made obvious by their attitude about the child once it's born.

I can respect the former, even when I disagree. I have nothing but disgust and, recently, fury for the latter.

Anyone who does something like sum it up as "abortion is murder and so it's simple to me" is doing the latter, whether they like it or not. When you remove the adult, clearly sentient person from the equation, you're making it clear you don't consider them human. As long as you believe there are two humans involved in the question, it cannot be simple.

Re: Non-smug Frog

When you remove the adult, clearly sentient person from the equation, you're making it clear you don't consider them human.

I had to read that three times before I understood what you meant. The first two times I read 'remove the adult, clearly sentient person' and thought that was referring to the simple-minded arguers being non-sentient. :) (Which I don't know that I'd disagree with...)

So...no eels, right?

Re: Non-smug Frog

Also, I can sum up the worst bit of the whole thing like this: Women will die over this, when they didn't have to. Their dying will not save their fetuses. Other women will be greviously injured, which will also not save their fetuses.

Maybe not a huge number...but how many people is it okay to have die uselessly to support someone else's morality? Why is that more okay if they're just women and the morality is that of a group of older white men?

There's lots more scary, more subtle stuff too, but that's the real fury-causing bit, I think.

Re: Non-smug Frog

Indeed. Wrongful death or injury is clearly at the center of my concern over the whole issue. Simple solutions don't work for complicated problems.