Log In Sign Up

T-shirt


Abortion Debate

This forum is for Abortion debate only. If you are highly sensitive about this topic, read at your own discretion.

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Abortion Debate LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #21  
May 9th, 2010, 11:59 PM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
I just had a response typed out and I hit backspace and it erased! *$(&%*#Y&!!! *slams head against keyboard*

Let me give the Cliff's notes version:

The t-shirt, quite successfully, serves to highlight hypocrisy.

The crux of the pro-life argument is that the unborn should have LEGAL RIGHTS and LEGAL EQUALITY, which they don't currently have.

The hypocrisy can be justified or rationalized in countless ways, I am sure, but the bottom line is you should be willing and ready to advocate for the LEGAL RIGHTS and LEGAL EQUALITY of everyone after being born just as fiercely as you did when they were in the womb. I don't understand the finish line and ultimate goal of the pro-life agenda being birth, if you (general) have no regard for that life from the moment after birth.

I will entertain the "homosexuals can speak for themselves but the unborn don't have a voice" argument: What about homosexual children, since most gay adults will tell you that they knew they were gay from a very early age? What about the fact that, because we allow homosexuals legal rights to be subjugated, they are discriminated against from an early age? What about the fact that a homosexual child grows up in a society that teaches them that they need to pretend to be something they aren't because they are not "equals"?

IMO, if you refuse to advocate for and defend the rights of our living, existing members of society, it is impossible to take serious any attempt to do so for the rights of potential lives.
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #22  
May 10th, 2010, 07:23 AM
AMDG's Avatar Margaret
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Denver metro area
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaceyC View Post

The crux of the pro-life argument is that the unborn should have LEGAL RIGHTS and LEGAL EQUALITY, which they don't currently have.
.
I think you are missing the crux of the argument. the pro-life argument is that all LIFE is equal. Meaning all have equal RIGHT TO LIFE. Some pro-choice believe that not all life is equal and some believe that the unborn are not real human life yet. Either way, the pro-life moment believes in protecting life.
This is very different than talking about a "right" to get married - I personally don't think there is a "right" to a civil marriage. That is a whole different argument and a whole different discussion from the one about life and whether the unborn are a) a real life b) equal in value to all other life.

I am completely missing the hypocrisy here.

eta: you believe women should have a right to choose - correct? that is "right" you believe in and others don't. The logic of the t-shirt would the safe if it said - if you safe a fetus from abortion will you then defend its right to choose an abortion? but obviously those who are pro-life don't agree that choosing an abortion is a right. Do you see that believing in one "right" doesn't mean you necessarily believe in everything people consider to be a "right"?

Last edited by AMDG; May 10th, 2010 at 07:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
May 10th, 2010, 07:48 AM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDG View Post
I think you are missing the crux of the argument. the pro-life argument is that all LIFE is equal. Meaning all have equal RIGHT TO LIFE. Some pro-choice believe that not all life is equal and some believe that the unborn are not real human life yet. Either way, the pro-life moment believes in protecting life.
This is very different than talking about a "right" to get married - I personally don't think there is a "right" to a civil marriage. That is a whole different argument and a whole different discussion from the one about life and whether the unborn are a) a real life b) equal in value to all other life.

I am completely missing the hypocrisy here.
Then you don't believe that "ALL LIFE IS EQUAL", as you claim. You (general) believe that CERTAIN lives are equal and only CERTAIN lives are worthy of equal rights and POTENTIAL lives are more deserving, or "more equal" than a homosexual.
Quote:
eta: you believe women should have a right to choose - correct? that is "right" you believe in and others don't. The logic of the t-shirt would the safe if it said - if you safe a fetus from abortion will you then defend its right to choose an abortion? but obviously those who are pro-life don't agree that choosing an abortion is a right. Do you see that believing in one "right" doesn't mean you necessarily believe in everything people consider to be a "right"?
This logic fails, completely.
The basis of pro-choice argument is that an existing life takes precedence over a potential life. The pro-life/pro-choice debate is premised on the question of "when does life begin?", since that is the point that confers the legal rights of "personhood". There is no consensus on that answer, hence the debate. However, I don't think it can be argued that Joe and Larry, the happy couple down the street who are denied certain rights because of who they go to bed with, are autonomous, living, breathing persons. But, according to some, they are not even equal enough to be worthy of rights equal to an embryo.
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #24  
May 10th, 2010, 08:17 AM
AMDG's Avatar Margaret
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Denver metro area
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaceyC View Post
Then you don't believe that "ALL LIFE IS EQUAL", as you claim. You (general) believe that CERTAIN lives are equal and only CERTAIN lives are worthy of equal rights and POTENTIAL lives are more deserving, or "more equal" than a homosexual.

This logic fails, completely.
The basis of pro-choice argument is that an existing life takes precedence over a potential life. The pro-life/pro-choice debate is premised on the question of "when does life begin?", since that is the point that confers the legal rights of "personhood". There is no consensus on that answer, hence the debate. However, I don't think it can be argued that Joe and Larry, the happy couple down the street who are denied certain rights because of who they go to bed with, are autonomous, living, breathing persons. But, according to some, they are not even equal enough to be worthy of rights equal to an embryo.
I don't understand you first point. I don't and never did say that a "potential life" is more deserving of the right to life than a homosexual. I believe all life is equal - a homosexual is just as deserving of the right to life as any other human being. I know I keep harping on logic but you say I think : "POTENTIAL lives are more deserving, or "more equal" than a homosexual" I never said anything like that. I have NEVER heard any pro-life person say that only a heterosexual life is worth protecting or that the unborn (or potential as you call it) is more valuable and more deserving of life than a homosexual.

Secondly - If you would go back and read, you would see that I already recognized that many pro-choice don't believe that the unborn is a life yet. I already said that!! But, there are those who are pro-choice who believe that life begins sometime in the 2nd or 3rd trimester but that abortion should still be legal in cases of rape, insect etc and so there certainly are those who say not all life is equal. That that unborn baby at 24 weeks is a person with protecting but that the mental health of the mother is worth more - therefore not all life is equal to some. I already said that as well. BUT you finish your second point by again saying: "But, according to some, they (homosexuals) are not even equal enough to be worthy of rights equal to an embryo" - again, we are talking about an equal right to LIFE are we not? who, where, when did I ever say that homosexuals are not equal in value or equally deserving of life? if you are trying to say that an unborn's right to life is equal to the "right" to marry, I'm sorry that logic just doesn't follow.
Do you think it is a hypocrisy for people to believe in the right to choose an abortion and yet be against the right to universal health care?

edited for grammar and spelling
Reply With Quote
  #25  
May 10th, 2010, 11:23 AM
Quantum_Leap's Avatar frequent flier
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area, Washington
Posts: 9,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaceyC View Post
However, I don't think it can be argued that Joe and Larry, the happy couple down the street who are denied certain rights because of who they go to bed with, are autonomous, living, breathing persons. But, according to some, they are not even equal enough to be worthy of rights equal to an embryo.
That's not what she's arguing. She's not saying that Joe and Larry should be killed. She's saying that Joe and Larry shouldn't be allowed to marry (and I happen to disagree with her, but I'm just trying to help clarify the position here). In the phrase "Right to Life," it seems that you are focusing on the term 'Right,' while she is focusing on the term 'Life.' Life is the object of the preposition in that phrase, and it's an important one, essential to the whole phrase's meaning. AMDG would surely say that all people have the right to life, but that NOT all people have the right to marry, NOT all people (or anyone, really) has the right to abort, etc. Take the example to a further extreme, and maybe you'll see the difference. Do you, personally, believe that we all have the right to work? To live as millionaires? To murder others? To answer those questions with a 'no,' or at least with a partial 'no,' does not negate one's belief that all people have a right to live. You are pointing out that there is a hierarchy among people who may or may not be entitled to rights (in your view, an adult woman has more rights than a fetus), but entirely separate from this issue, there is also a hierarchy among the rights themselves. When rights happen to come in conflict with one another (i.e. the right to free speech v. the right to physical security), some have to take precedent over others.

Again, I need to stress that I personally DO believe in gay marriage, very strongly. But I don't think that it's necessarily logically inconsistent for someone else to disagree with me on that particular issue and still be pro-life.
__________________

Thank you to the SSMC makers for my beautiful siggies!

(x2)(x2)(October 2011)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:21 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0