tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post7169708334440291992..comments2023-05-26T10:55:27.696-04:00Comments on Jc_Freak: How Being Anti-Abortion Is Like Being Anti-SlaveryAn appeal to the Pro-Life movementJc_Freak:http://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-52091789264215462052013-08-11T03:21:40.215-04:002013-08-11T03:21:40.215-04:00"you're not being clear on what you are a..."you're not being clear on what you are advocating" <br /><br />Because that wasn't the point of either post. My posts have more to do with rhetoric than on the ground action. However, it is certainly worth stating: I believe that a fetus is a human being with human rights. Therefore, no fetus should be killed without probable cause, such as self-defense. I don't have a desire to legislate anything else. So, for contraception for instance, I believe it should be legal. <br /><br />I most certainly do not believe that any legislation should influence a non-pregnant woman. <br /><br />One thing that I have to be clear about is that this isn't an issue that I have done a lot thought or study. My beliefs on the matter are rather abstract and based off of general guidelines instead of the kinds of specific questions or situations that you would be far more aquainted with. So I am not sure that I could give an answer that you would find adequate without prompting. But then, my posts were meant to be rather limited in what they asserted for precisely this reason. Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-76982833645708817662013-08-01T11:36:26.960-04:002013-08-01T11:36:26.960-04:00Feeling abortion should be outlawed is not pro-cho...Feeling abortion should be outlawed is not pro-choice. This is frankly one of issues with this post and your statements - you're not being clear on what you are advocating. You say that you don't support the fetus being put above the woman but that is exactly what you're doing if you support abortion being outlawed unless its some exception that you deem worthy. So what is it? What are you actually advocating other than in some way shape or form acting like abolitionists? <br /><br />I don't have an absolute definition of prolife, which if you published my comments would be clear. I accept that there is dissent and disagreement as its a movement populated by a diverse group of people. But in its relevant post, which apparently I can't comment on because they don't get published, you were making sweeping defenses of the movement. And while there is diversity in the movement, there is also consensus and publicly stated goals of agencies and leaders that are vastly supported by the movement. To make a defense of the movement and to then refuse to acknowledge these goals and beliefs, which again was the subject matter of the post, is unfair and nonsensical. <br /><br />what I have repeatedly done is made a distinction about is morals vs. laws, and with laws I include politics. As you remain unclear on exactly what you're advocating, I simply pointed out that to be prochoice does not mean to be "pro-abortion" as there are many in the movement who personally abhor it but for public policy reasons don't support it being outlawed (check out Amber Marlowe). Anticipated Serendipityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04811224510476832369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-39290398857936470852013-07-31T12:01:27.782-04:002013-07-31T12:01:27.782-04:00*should, not showed*should, not showedJc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-72506608151393611612013-07-31T11:59:49.245-04:002013-07-31T11:59:49.245-04:00I don't have time at the moment to sort throug...I don't have time at the moment to sort through everything you said on the first post (and I'm only going to publish one of them due to my rule on length), but I find it odd that you seem to have such an absolute definition of pro-life yet a nuanced definition of pro-choice (I recognize spectra exist on both sides). Naturally there is more to be pro-choice than just accepting abortion, just as there is more to being pro-life then just rejecting it. But it is one's stance on abortion that determines one's side. <br /><br />I just read <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/07/questions-about-both-sides-of-the-abortion-debate/" rel="nofollow">this post</a>, which seems to agree with me on my stances. I don't see how recognizing the need for an abortion is a few specific circumstances (like when the woman might die), but feeling it showed be outlawed in most instances is somehow pro-choice.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-90952716203659382013-07-26T08:24:56.393-04:002013-07-26T08:24:56.393-04:00Your answer, to me, seems out of step with your ab...Your answer, to me, seems out of step with your above post. Even now re-reading your post, I don't see what your comment says. However, you wrote it, so if you say your comment is what you meant, obviously I accept that. Furthermore if what you are saying is that you support other venues of reducing abortion rates and don't seek to put the fetus ahead of the woman but rather you personally are against abortion in most cases for moral reasons, them frankly I would say you're pro-choice. Pro-choice isn't pro-abortion - its pro reproductive choice. This means being pro-birthing choice, pro-birth control, pro-adoption, pro-parental rights, pro-education, pro-ending sexual violence and coercion, etc. I know many, many pro-choice people who personally abhor abortion and would likely personally advise women of the other choices available to attempt to dissuade them from abortion. They remain pro-choice because they maintain its an individual issue, not a legislative one. The National Advocates for Pregnant Women is a pro-choice organization and they fight for women to be able to KEEP their pregnancies, not end them. If you are saying that THIS should be the future of the pro-life movement, you will hear nothing but support from many many people. Anticipated Serendipityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04811224510476832369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-60300402839556852812013-07-24T08:14:52.595-04:002013-07-24T08:14:52.595-04:00"These situations are not analogous, they rea..."These situations are not analogous, they really just aren't." <br /><br />Glad we agree, but I explicitly said this within my post. I said, " I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not think that being Pro-Choice is anything like being Pro-Slavery. Abortion and slavery are very different institutions, and thus the defenses for them are very different."<br /><br />My point is not that the situations are the same, but that the ethos or character of the two are similar, and if you disagree with me on <b>that point</b>, fine. I'll just agree to disagree with you on that. <br /><br />You also say, "Even if you endow the fetus with all the rights of a born human being, this still does not supercede the woman." This is exactly my point, and my reason for <i>critizing the Pro-life movement</i>. Because the heart of the Pro-life movement is similar to the abolitionist movement, we should strive to emulate them more, and ensure that we are respecting the women equally with the child. The fact that many pro-lifers don't bothers me immensely. So I find most of your complaints moot. <br /><br />I actually specifically address this with my second example. If you asked me directly, I would say that it falls into the ethical arena (and this is ethics, not morality, there is a difference) of self-defense and therefore should be justifiable. This would also be true of major physical trauma, such as danger to the vertebrae, or something similar. <br /><br />So I don't really think your response is to me, but to the movement which I am actually criticizing within my post. I think what might have confused you is that I am criticizing them from the inside, and not in an attacking way, but in a way that is calling the movement to focus on something higher. Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-89419463678864184492013-07-22T22:20:22.716-04:002013-07-22T22:20:22.716-04:00To address your last point first - you're talk...To address your last point first - you're talking about two very different Republican parties, just saying. <br /><br />These situations are not analogous, they really just aren't. At its very basic, slavery takes people against their will and forces them into situations and actions they would otherwise never consent. In the most "pro-life" view, abortion does not fit this, it doesn't even come close. If your claim is so just and so right, why compare it to anything else? Why can it not just be? <br /><br />Abolitionism freed humans from bondage. Anti-abortion methods embrace bondage by removing choice from the woman. Even if you endow the fetus with all the rights of a born human being, this still does not supercede the woman. The fetus cannot live without the mother prior to viability, this is medical fact. In no other situation do we force others to harm or cause a detriment to themselves for the sake of another, regardless of the reason this other person may need help. Check out McFall v. Shimp. Let's make it more extreme - say you and I are the only genetic match in a 1,000 mile radius and I attack you and remove your kidneys causing you to fall into renal failure and the only local hospital has limited dialysis function; butfor my kidneys, which the hospital could do an immediate transplant, you would die. And I am the sole cause of you needing that treatment. I am under no legal obligation, and neither the hospital nor you has the power to compel me, to help you. I can choose to let you die. To grant the fetus the rights you are championing here is to give the fetus MORE rights than a born person has - it would actually <b>lose</b> rights upon being born. Women on the other hand would lose rights as soon as she is capable of giving birth - a span of about 13-55. <br /><br />Lastly, the only cure for slavery was abolitionism, plain and simple. The anti-abortion crowd routinely backs agendas, politicians and legislation that are counter-intuitive to their proposed goal. If your aim is truly to reduce the number of abortions, you do that by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. If the pregnancy is wanted, then there is no desire to abort it - obviously. We reduce the number of abortions by providing low-cost health care, easy access to birth control, wide-spread availability of sexual education, and providing financial and emotional support for struggling families. It has been shown time and time again, that when legal access to abortion is restricted, the numbers of abortions do not go down, they simply become more dangerous. It has <i>also</i> been shown that when abortion access <i>as well as</i> other health care initiatives like prenatal care and general reproductive care, are highly accessible, abortion rates actually drop. School districts with abstinence-only education have some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and schools with comprehensive sexual education not only have lower rates, they have higher rates of delayed sexual activity among teens, especially surrounding intercourse. And when intercourse does happen, it is more likely to be protected, which not only lowers STI rates, but pregnancy rates and therefore abortion rates. <br /><br />Maybe you're right and the anti-abortion movement should act like the abolitionist movement - go for the actual cure and really address the issue you profess to care about. If you want to lower abortion rates, empower women - don't enslave them. Anticipated Serendipityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04811224510476832369noreply@blogger.com