Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Foetus)   Kansas abortion supporters hold "chili for choice" fundraiser. "Dialing for D&C" and "Pennies for Partial-Birth" in the works   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Silly  
•       •       •

2465 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2006 at 6:20 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



404 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2006-01-29 02:08:25 PM  
Interesting idea. What if there was a line of food products you could eat to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy? Just open a can of chili, soup, or whatever and eat it. Problem solved.
 
2006-01-29 02:12:06 PM  
le mew: What if there was a line of food products you could eat to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy?

"Morning After" Coffee - No fetus can beat us!
 
2006-01-29 02:13:19 PM  
Equal time: "Beer for *hic* 'bortions".
 
2006-01-29 02:15:34 PM  
I smell a photoshop thread.
 
2006-01-29 02:16:48 PM  
Pro-choice != "Abortion supporter"
 
2006-01-29 02:19:47 PM  
"Morning After" Coffee

Some herbs are helpful the morning after and are pretty easy to locate--legally--at any hippie type store. Pennyroyal (LEAVES, not oil!), angelica, mugwort, and wild carrot seed (aka Queen Anne's lace).
 
2006-01-29 02:22:23 PM  
OMG I BET TEH FEMONAZIS WAS EATERING CHILLI MADE OUT OF DIED BABYS TOO!!
 
2006-01-29 02:22:49 PM  
Spoofman_v2.0: Pro-choice != "Abortion supporter"

Whatever makes you feel better.
 
2006-01-29 02:23:25 PM  
Spoofman_v2.0 [TotalFark]

Pro-choice != "Abortion supporter"

Bullshiat, if you want people to be able to choose to get an abortion then your supporting abortion.

I support choice myself but I'm not so cowardly as to not be able to look my positions ramifications in the face.
 
2006-01-29 02:23:28 PM  
"Falafels for Fetuses" scrapped by one pro-life group for "soundin' kinda fer'in".
 
2006-01-29 02:24:45 PM  
Action Replay Nick [TotalFark]

OMG I BET TEH FEMONAZIS WAS EATERING CHILLI MADE OUT OF DIED BABYS TOO!!

But the real question is did they empty the babies off the truck W a pitchfork?
 
2006-01-29 02:32:36 PM  
Nabb1: Whatever makes you feel better.

Digitalstrange: I'm not so cowardly as to not be able to look my positions ramifications in the face.

I can't speak for Spoofman, but I do feel that being pro-choice doesn't make me like abortions. I share the same goal as pro-lifers in that I want to decrease the number of abortions to 0, but through less abrasive measures. For instance, a much better contraceptive program, or better sexual education. If I could live in a world where no one wanted an abortion, that'd be fine with me, but as long as they are wanted I think they should be provided legally and as safely as possible.

/feel the same way about drugs
 
2006-01-29 02:33:26 PM  
 
2006-01-29 02:34:17 PM  
Nabb1 [TotalFark]

Spoofman_v2.0: Pro-choice != "Abortion supporter"

Whatever makes you feel better.


A) There is a gigantic difference between saying someone should have the right to choose a course of action, and saying someone supports a specific course of action.

B) It is ironic that you say that. Equating pro-choice to pro-abortion villainizes it, making its opponents feel better.

Digitalstrange [TotalFark]

Spoofman_v2.0 [TotalFark]

Pro-choice != "Abortion supporter"

Bullshiat, if you want people to be able to choose to get an abortion then your supporting abortion.


That isn't entirely correct. By supporting a person's right to choose, you then support all options equally, including the option to not get an abortion. Saying "I think you should be able to smoke if you want" is not the same as saying "I think you should smoke".

Saying "abortion support" implies that pro-choice advocates think abortion is the best (or better) course. That is false and dishonest.

Pro-choice = supporter of all choices.
 
2006-01-29 02:41:04 PM  
le mew: Interesting idea. What if there was a line of food products you could eat to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy? Just open a can of chili, soup, or whatever and eat it. Problem solved.

Can't say I've tried that, but I have found that eating food heavy in chopped garlic is a good way to get rid of unwanted company, especially in crowded areas.
 
2006-01-29 02:42:04 PM  
Spoofman_v2.0: Equating pro-choice to pro-abortion villainizes it, making its opponents feel better.

I'd say it's the pro-choice people doing the rationalizing there. It's a barbaric practice, akin to human sacrifice, IMHO. I'm not a religious nutcase, either. I don't think a society that allows the destruction of human life, even in early developmental stages, for convenience's sake can claim to be civilized. Same goes for the death penalty. If you are in favor of keeping abortion on demand legal (as opposed to medical necessity and other extenuating circumstances), then why should the term "pro-abortion" be bothersome, unless of course you think that there is something inherently wrong with the practice.
 
2006-01-29 02:48:39 PM  
Nabb1 [TotalFark]

why should the term "pro-abortion" be bothersome, unless of course you think that there is something inherently wrong with the practice.

I just said why in my previous post.

A) There is a gigantic difference between saying someone should have the right to choose a course of action, and saying someone supports a specific course of action.

Saying "abortion support[er]" implies that pro-choice advocates think abortion is the best (or better) course. That is false and dishonest.


Making abortion illegal won't stop them. The only way to get rid of abortions is to alter our society in such a way that people no longer put themselves into situations where abortion becomes an option. Simply making abortions illegal not only doesn't solve the root of the problem, it wastes resources by attacking the symptom and doing nothing about the cause.
 
2006-01-29 02:53:51 PM  
Spoofman_v2.0: The only way to get rid of abortions is to alter our society in such a way that people no longer put themselves into situations where abortion becomes an option. Simply making abortions illegal not only doesn't solve the root of the problem, it wastes resources by attacking the symptom and doing nothing about the cause.

I think sex is the cause of 100% of abortions. I don't think we need to get rid of sex. The problem is people not taking responsiblity for their own actions. I'm all in favor of widespread sex education and easy access to contraceptives, although I think it's no secret that sex is designed as a reproductive function. Don't sell me any nonsense about poverty being the cause of abortion, either.
 
2006-01-29 02:54:37 PM  
Drugs are illegal. That stopped their use 100%, didn't it?
 
2006-01-29 02:56:00 PM  
Kyosuke: Drugs are illegal. That stopped their use 100%, didn't it?

Apples and oranges. Besides, I think our drug policy is way out of control.
 
2006-01-29 02:57:00 PM  
You can just forget about the last paragraph of my previous statement. It delves into areas outside my original point and I don't wish to derail.

In further response to the statement:

why should the term "pro-abortion" be bothersome, unless of course you think that there is something inherently wrong with the practice

I ask this question:

If the position of pro-choice is so untenable, then why would its opponents need to oversimplify it (straw man) or otherwise misrepresent it in order to argue against it?

Any logically acceptable debate against pro-choice should not fall back on dishonesty of any kind.
 
2006-01-29 03:05:43 PM  
Any logically acceptable debate against pro-choice [any idea] should not fall back on dishonesty of any kind.
 
2006-01-29 03:06:35 PM  
Spoofman_v2.0: Any logically acceptable debate against pro-choice should not fall back on dishonesty of any kind.

And engaging in debates about semantics is logical? If the pro-choice advocates argue that abortion is a "right" that must be protected, then are they not in favor of abortion being an option? Why is the term "pro-abortion" so bothersome? Is it because at it's core, abortion as a form of birth control nothing more than a bloody method of avoiding the natural consequences of one's own actions? I don't care what some pro-choice advocate wants to call himself, but taking umbrage of being called "pro-abortion" when you are arguing for the legal recognition and preservation of abortion is a bit thin-skinned.
 
2006-01-29 03:18:32 PM  
Nabb1

And engaging in debates about semantics is logical?

Semantics is often what separates a logical argument from mindless rambling. It seems like you want to ignore semantics just so you can say that pro-choice = pro-abortion. If that is what you want to do, then you don't really need to respond to me anymore. If someone wants to contradict me, I'm more than happy to debate a subject with them, but if they just want to be contrary, then I have better things to do with my time.

If the pro-choice advocates argue that abortion is a "right" that must be protected, then are they not in favor of abortion being an option?

No more than they are in favor of adoption and keeping the child as options. If your argument is that pro-abortion is a valid term for pro-choice people because abortion is one of the choices, then I can also call them pro-lifers too, because life is also another option as well.

Why is the term "pro-abortion" so bothersome?

I have said so already, yet you keep asking it. If you took the time to respond to one of these statements, perhaps I could see why you fail to grasp what I'm saying. Since you don't, I can only repeat myself:

The term does not accurately reflect the pro-choice platform and to associate the term with a platform it does not represent is dishonest. I don't care what point you're trying to make if you have to do it dishonestly.

I don't care what some pro-choice advocate wants to call himself, but taking umbrage of being called "pro-abortion" when you are arguing for the legal recognition and preservation of abortion is a bit thin-skinned.

They are also arguing for the legal recognition and preservation of having the child as well. But you seem to ignore this aspect of "pro-choice", which is the problem.

If you are going to argue against an idea and want to be successful in that endevour you cannot just ignore parts of that idea that don't fit in with your argument simply because it is convient.
 
2006-01-29 03:21:06 PM  
Just call them "pro-coathanger-uterus-rippers" and call it even. It's about as accurate.
 
2006-01-29 03:25:41 PM  
Spoofman_v2.0: The term does not accurately reflect the pro-choice platform and to associate the term with a platform it does not represent is dishonest. I don't care what point you're trying to make if you have to do it dishonestly... They are also arguing for the legal recognition and preservation of having the child as well. But you seem to ignore this aspect of "pro-choice", which is the problem.

I do believe most of the "pro-life" crowd is in favor of adoption. What separates the two sides is the availability of abortion, pure and simple. And I am not arguing over what to call the various proponents, but I use the term "pro-choice" usually. I simply want to know what is wrong with abortion that the term "pro-abortion" is offensive to some on the pro-choice side of the fence. Answer that question.
 
2006-01-29 03:27:35 PM  
Or, perhaps it's easier to read Digitalstrange's post above. At least he knows when to call a spade a spade.
 
2006-01-29 03:31:41 PM  
I simply want to know what is wrong with abortion that the term "pro-abortion" is offensive to some on the pro-choice side of the fence. Answer that question.

Because it's inaccurate, used in a pejorative fashion and is a calculated attempt to define the discussion improperly?
 
2006-01-29 03:32:16 PM  
Nabb1 [TotalFark]

I do believe most of the "pro-life" crowd is in favor of adoption. What separates the two sides is the availability of abortion, pure and simple. And I am not arguing over what to call the various proponents, but I use the term "pro-choice" usually. I simply want to know what is wrong with abortion that the term "pro-abortion" is offensive to some on the pro-choice side of the fence. Answer that question.

I have already answered the question no less than 5 times. The fact of the matter is, there is no pro-abortion camp.

There is an illusion at work here. We have the pro-lifers that say "No one should have an abortion". And then the pro-choices, who are arguing against them. It is natural to assume that two people arguing a point are taking opposite sides, but that would only be true if there were only two sides, which there are not.

The opposite to "No one should have an abortion" is "Everyone should have an abortion". People that believe this could and should accurrately be referred to as pro-abortion. But there doesn't appear to be a large group of people lobbying for this platform. There is a vaccuum, so instead people accuse the pro-choice people of being these pro-abortion people when actually pro-choice would be the neutral third option should an actual pro-abortion party exist.

Pro-abortion does not accurately reflect pro-choice because that is not the only option they support. I can't make this any clearer.
 
2006-01-29 03:33:09 PM  
Nabb1 [TotalFark]

Or, perhaps it's easier to read Digitalstrange's post above. At least he knows when to call a spade a spade.

I did and I responded accordingly.
 
2006-01-29 03:33:34 PM  
Abogadro:

That's an evasive answer to a straightforward question.
 
2006-01-29 03:36:25 PM  
That's an evasive answer to a straightforward question.

How the hell is that evasive? Those are the reasons. It's not that complicated. If you want to call people "pro-abortion rights," I doubt anyone would object. There is a difference in being in favor of a procedure and being in favor of public policy that allows that procedure to happen at the discretion of individuals and their doctors. If you can't understand that you are being disingenuous or willfully obtuse.
 
2006-01-29 03:38:03 PM  
Spoofman_v2.0: Pro-abortion does not accurately reflect pro-choice because that is not the only option they support.

Again, the only differences between pro-life and pro-choice camps comes on the abortion issue (excepting, of course, hard-line Catholics who support the Church's position on birth control). The pro-choice argument favors abortion as another option. Again, this is all arguing semantics. If you are uncomfortable with being associated with abortion, that's fine. It's absolutely barbaric, and it should make people uncomfortable. Some people are just okay with allowing the barbarity to continue, among other less barbaric options, of course.
 
2006-01-29 03:40:24 PM  
Or, they separate law and public policy from emotional digressions.
 
2006-01-29 03:40:32 PM  
Abogadro: If you can't understand that you are being disingenuous or willfully obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse. I've made my position clear. And I understand the difference between being in favor of preserving the right to allow the procedure and advocating the procedure itself. What I want to know, however, is what is it about abortion that would make a person who advocates it as an option not want to be perceived as being in favor of it. No one has addressed that issue yet.
 
2006-01-29 03:43:00 PM  
No one has addressed that issue yet.

Yes they have, you just don't want to accept it as a valid basis for doing so which is your perogative but just makes you look silly and makes clear that you aren't really interested in the answer.
 
2006-01-29 03:46:22 PM  
Nabb1 [TotalFark]

I've made my position clear. And I understand the difference between being in favor of preserving the right to allow the procedure and advocating the procedure itself.

FINALLY! Since you've said it yourself you really can't feign not understanding it.

being in favor of preserving the right to allow the procedure = Pro-choice

advocating the procedure itself = Pro-abortion.

Since you have said yourself that being in favor of preserving the right to allow the procedure != advocating the procedure itself then you MUST agree that pro-choice also != pro-abortion.

QED
 
2006-01-29 03:49:15 PM  
Abagadro: Yes they have, you just don't want to accept it as a valid basis for doing so which is your perogative but just makes you look silly and makes clear that you aren't really interested in the answer.

No, I have gotten a series of non-responsive answers that address the motives of the person using the term "pro-abortion." I want to know whay abortion has a negative connotation to it that one would not want to be perceived as being in favor of it. I can accept all of the other arguments put forward, but that leaves the final question unanswered.
 
2006-01-29 03:51:34 PM  
Spoofman_v2.0: What is wrong with abortion? Is there a stigma to it? Come on, you are playing a game. I am asking a straightforward question here.
 
2006-01-29 03:54:54 PM  
Spoofman_v2.0: Since you have said yourself that being in favor of preserving the right to allow the procedure != advocating the procedure itself then you MUST agree that pro-choice also != pro-abortion.

No argument here. What's wrong with being "pro-abortion"? What's so offensive about that label.

For example, I think many drugs, such as marijuana, ought to be decriminalized and regulated. But, I think drug abuse is bad, just like alcohol abuse. So, I would say calling me "pro-drugs" is inaccurate, but I am willing to admit that I find drug abuse distasteful. So, along those lines, tell me what it is about abortion that a pro-choice person does not like as to not want to be called "pro-abortion."
 
2006-01-29 04:03:34 PM  
Nabb1 [TotalFark]

Spoofman_v2.0: What is wrong with abortion? Is there a stigma to it? Come on, you are playing a game. I am asking a straightforward question here.

A question that has nothing to with the current argument. The point I was making had nothing to do with abortion specifically. It was about a type of logical fallacy known as a straw man. The lables involved could have been about anything with my argument remaining the same. It just so happens that it was about abortion this time. Since you have conceded the point (in your next statement) I will answer the question. Yes there is a stigma to it. Any situation where the abortion of a birth becomes a viable option is a sad one in my eyes. I'm sure a followup question would be if abortion is so sad, then why support it as an option? The answer to this is that making it illegal has been shown only to make the situation even worse.

No argument here.

WTF do you mean "No arguments here?" The only thing I have been saying is pro-choice != pro-abortion and you've been arguing with me since I said it. If you have no argument with that statement, then why did you open your mouth to begin with?

What's wrong with being "pro-abortion"? What's so offensive about that label.

Because pro-abortion, as I have already said, means "Everyone should have abortions". This is of course not a viable course of action for the human race. Additionally the offense of a statement has more to do with the intentions of who is saying it than anything else.
 
2006-01-29 04:05:23 PM  
I'm sure a followup question would be if abortion is so sad, then why support it as an option? The answer to this is that making it illegal has been shown only to make the situation even worse.

As an addendum, I also believe that just because I am personally opposed to abortion (not that it matters, being male and all I haven't the rights to decide on such matters)I do not believe, in this case, that everyone else should be made to legally comply with that belief.
 
2006-01-29 04:07:21 PM  
Come on, you are playing a game.

Furthermore, I'm not the one playing the game. I have stayed on point the entire time. A point with you supposedly had no problems with despite you contradicting me at every turn. You, however, had tried to make this about something it is not, have avoided my points and ignore the answers to your own questions. It is you that has been playing the game.
 
2006-01-29 04:17:44 PM  
Spoofman_v2.0: If you have no argument with that statement, then why did you open your mouth to begin with?

Because I was being cheeky.

And yes, I conceded the point for the sake of argument, though I don't think the term "pro-abortion" is meant to be as wide-ranging as you framed it (i.e. "The opposite to 'No one should have an abortion' is 'Everyone should have an abortion'. People that believe this could and should accurrately be referred to as pro-abortion." I would consider the term to mean someone who believes that abortion should be a legally-protected right.) My argument was trying to mine an explanation for a negative association with the act of abortion that would make the term "pro-abortion" offensive. If someone is going to support a legal right to something that they find personally offensive, I can respect that, but that person had better be able to articulate what it is about the act that is offensive, and why one would continue to support it just the same. It took you over an hour to tell me that you found the practice with which you personally disagree. Why is it you disagree with it?
 
2006-01-29 04:35:19 PM  
Nabb1

It took you over an hour to tell me that you found the practice with which you personally disagree. Why is it you disagree with it?

No, it didn't take me over an hour for me to tell you that I disagree with it personally. It took you over an hour to say "No argument here" to what was essentially my original statement.

Normally I have no problem stating why my opinions, but since you decided to be cheeky and waste an hour of my time on something you have no argument with, I'm done here.
 
2006-01-29 04:41:54 PM  
Spoofman_v2.0:

No, when I said "no argument here" it was to the particular statement I quoted. You won't tell me why you don't like abortion, and if you feel like I've "wasted" an hour of your time, I'm sorry, but I sort of consider time wasting to be Fark's rasion d'etre, especially on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
 
2006-01-29 04:57:27 PM  
There is no better way to protest government action than to eat chili.
 
2006-01-29 05:22:32 PM  
I want to know whay abortion has a negative connotation to it that one would not want to be perceived as being in favor of it.

Well that is a different question that the one you originally asked but it is still the same answer. For me, it isn't that it has a negative connotation, it is that it is used to generate a negative connotation (which I alluded to in my Weeners) to suggest that pro-choice people just loooooove to see abortions. It's pejorative (rather than descriptive) and simplistic. You'd object just as much if I characterized you as "pro-back-alley abortions" or "pro-forced procreation" for your particular stance and doing so would be just as stupid. Language is important so why not be accurate? It's an inaccurate term. You want to use it as some silly bludgeon to try to get people to admit they are uncomfortable about abortions which doesn't change anything about the debate in public policy terms.

Personally I don't care if someone has an abortion or not, but I do care if it is legal. So you can call me "ambivalent-abortion" if you must, but it still doesn't make me "pro-abortion" no matter how much you want it to in order to justify your own opinion.

This has gone green so will rapidly go to hell, so I'm outta here, but wanted to provide an answer to your question.
 
2006-01-29 05:23:07 PM  
alluded to in my Weeners

Doh!
 
2006-01-29 05:43:33 PM  
Pro-life, pro-choice, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, anti-choice; however you want to word it in the way to sound more right than your opposition. The terms are all bullshiat. It's for or against legal abortion rights that's the issue. By which there are many shades. Few are absolutely for or against.
 
Displayed 50 of 404 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report