Freethought & Rationalism Archive

babelfish · 01-25-2002, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ales:
<strong>Can an ovovegetarian eat a fertilized egg? A pro-lifer would argue, that he would eat the meat.

</strong>

Maybe they can, but only if they are not anti-choice fundamentalists. I haven't met that many fundies who were vegetarians, have you?

brighid · 01-25-2002, 06:36 AM

babelfish,

I agree too. I think it is the most healthy alternative for families. Either he or I will get that done when the time is right.

And no - I know of no fundamentalist vegans or vegatarians. Oh - yes I do - my step father, but not my mother and she is by far the more rabid of the two with fundamentalist views.

Brighid

DarkBronzePlant · 01-25-2002, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by babelfish:
<strong>
In my neighborhood there's a car with bumper sticker that says "As a former fetus, I object to abortion." I want a bumper sticker for my car that says "As a former ovum, I object to menstruation," or maybe "As a former sperm cell, I object to masturbation."

</strong>

I've seen one on the bumper of an 18-wheeler asking "Those who would approve of abortion, would you have wished it upon yourself?" or something to that effect. Since they're asking, I was thinking of heading to Kinkos and making my own bumper-sticker reponse to the effect of "Since I was born to upper-middle-class parents who were ready and willing to have children, probably not. Sadly, if I was an abused child born to irresponsible, unwilling parents my answer might have been different."

I didn't think I could fit that all on a bumper sticker, though...

bonduca · 01-25-2002, 09:07 AM

A very good point. I had a pamphlet fellow ask me once, "what if your mother had had an abortion?" Unfortunately, she actually should have had one, being a truly dreadful parent. But I got no brownie points for saying so.

Queen of Swords · 01-25-2002, 09:17 AM

My mother once had an ectopic pregnancy, which of course was ended before it could kill her.

I'm still here, she's still here, we're both pro-choice, what was the question again?

01-25-2002, 09:44 AM

Quote:

I had a pamphlet fellow ask me once, "what if your mother had had an abortion?"

Well, I wouldn't be here to know about it, so what's the problem?

Don't forget that Nature (or god) arranges large numbers of natural abortions (known by the squeamish as "miscarriages"), particularly early in pregnancy. Do any of the pro-lifers bother about this? As has been suggested before, why not hold baptism rites over the menstrual flow, just in case?

Don't forget the hypocrisy of the catholic pro-lifers who are also against contraception and sterilisation. Some of the more extreme ones have characterised contraception as baby slaughter, even though there's nothing to be slaughtered if contraception works.

I am convinced that repression of women lies at the bottom of the anti-choice stance. The availability of reliable contraception has truly liberated women in my lifetime, and we can't have all these uppity women thinking that they have rights!

Why don't the "pro-life"rs get worked up against the slaughter of chimpanzees for "bushmeat"? A fully sentient chimp seems to me much more important than a non-sentient human embryo that may or may not develop to full term.

babelfish · 01-26-2002, 11:22 AM

Another thing that drives me crazy about pro-lifers is their emotional manipulation of people by focusing on late-term abortions. I read somewhere that 98% of abortions take place in the first trimester. Yet the pictures of fully-formed embryos that are on all their signs and in their brochures are of second and third trimester babies.

Quote:

Don't forget that Nature (or god) arranges large numbers of natural abortions (known by the squeamish as "miscarriages"), particularly early in pregnancy. Do any of the pro-lifers bother about this? As has been suggested before, why not hold baptism rites over the menstrual flow, just in case?

I've often wondered about this myself, DMB. A couple of years ago a movie came out called "Citizen Ruth" (with Laura Dern). Besides being a hilarious movie, it also made you think about both sides of the issue. It poked fun at people on both sides of the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice battle-lines. And at the end, while both sides are furiously battling over "Ruth," the inhalant-addicted main character, she has a miscarriage and sneaks out the bathroom window.

abe smith · 02-04-2002, 06:55 AM

N.B. that Viagra of course has nothing to do with human reproduction; {quite unlike the Pill & otherbirth-prevention methods]. VIAGRA is a recreational substance, like heroin, alcohol [the potable kind], tobacco, etc. That is why predominantly-male legislatures vote laws to subsidize the use of Viagra; but not the {women-only} use of female contraception. WOMEN HAVE TO BE PUNISHED for being sexual; and that really sums the whole mess up. Abe

brighid · 02-05-2002, 05:31 AM

Quote:

WOMEN HAVE TO BE PUNISHED for being sexual; and that really sums the whole mess up

Yeap - and men must be rewarded by allowing this recreational substance to be paid for by their insurance.

It is much easier to control a women who is dependent upon a man for her support and therefore it is advantageous to those who believe women are inferior, that they should be submissive, women are evil seducers, and that we can only be redeemed through child birth - so, ladies they are really doing us a favor by doing everything they can to make sure we are barefoot, pregnant, dependent and vulnerable. Cuz it's our fault you know!

Yeah - Christianity = moral system - yeah, that's the ticket!

Brighid

bonduca · 02-05-2002, 05:40 AM

Brighid, you simply don't understand, men must be able to maintain an erection, it is essential to both their pleasure and self-esteem. Since it is a necessity, drugs facilitating this should be easily accesible and paid for by insurance. For the same reason, women must know their place, whether as dirty girls on the side or virtuous mothers dependent upon men for protection and sustenance. Anyone who attempts to be both is crossing the line. Therefore, contraception is not to be paid for by insurance without much wrangling and protest, or else they will be encouraged to get out of line. (sigh) Must I keep explaining this to you?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-25-2002, 06:36 AM	#32
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	babelfish, I agree too. I think it is the most healthy alternative for families. Either he or I will get that done when the time is right. And no - I know of no fundamentalist vegans or vegatarians. Oh - yes I do - my step father, but not my mother and she is by far the more rabid of the two with fundamentalist views. Brighid

01-25-2002, 09:07 AM	#34
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	A very good point. I had a pamphlet fellow ask me once, "what if your mother had had an abortion?" Unfortunately, she actually should have had one, being a truly dreadful parent. But I got no brownie points for saying so.

01-25-2002, 09:17 AM	#35
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	My mother once had an ectopic pregnancy, which of course was ended before it could kill her. I'm still here, she's still here, we're both pro-choice, what was the question again?

02-04-2002, 06:55 AM	#38
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	N.B. that Viagra of course has nothing to do with human reproduction; {quite unlike the Pill & otherbirth-prevention methods]. VIAGRA is a recreational substance, like heroin, alcohol [the potable kind], tobacco, etc. That is why predominantly-male legislatures vote laws to subsidize the use of Viagra; but not the {women-only} use of female contraception. WOMEN HAVE TO BE PUNISHED for being sexual; and that really sums the whole mess up. Abe

02-05-2002, 05:40 AM	#40
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	Brighid, you simply don't understand, men must be able to maintain an erection, it is essential to both their pleasure and self-esteem. Since it is a necessity, drugs facilitating this should be easily accesible and paid for by insurance. For the same reason, women must know their place, whether as dirty girls on the side or virtuous mothers dependent upon men for protection and sustenance. Anyone who attempts to be both is crossing the line. Therefore, contraception is not to be paid for by insurance without much wrangling and protest, or else they will be encouraged to get out of line. (sigh) Must I keep explaining this to you?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.