Sometimes it's a wonder that feminists believe the crap they spew about so-cons and faith, because it can be so easily debunked. Here are some dumb posts from Bread n Roses, the Canadian feminist message board.
Debra writes:
I am pro life. I am pro a woman getting to choose what she does with her life.
Yeah, and I'm pro-choice: women can choose not to get pregnant by not having sex.
This kind of rhetorical garbage tries to run away from the real issue. When people pro-claim they are "pro-life", they mean they favour the right to life of an unborn child. Trying to run away from that commonly-understood definition is disingenuous.
Is abortion murder? depends on who is framing the question.
Yeah, no objective morality. It all depends. Like: are you a human being? Well it depends.
And if abortion is murder why do so many anti abortionists believe in the rape and incest circumstance is it less of a life then?
I couldn't agree more. But the pro-life movement in Canada tends to be fairly consistent: all unborns are equal.
If the answer is that it is for compassionate grounds then where is there compassion for the women who can't afford another child?
Is that worth sacrificing a life? Heck, I can see that from a "pro-life with exceptions" crowd.
If it is a case of god created the life and no one for any reason can take it, well great the anti abortionists can have children for god and the rest of us can make our own decisions.
Lovely. Don't answer the question about the nature of who is human, and let those who are non-believers make up their own definitions.
What STUPID CRAP!
skadl writes:
If I'm going to revert to arguments from "nature," I look at history, women's history in every society known to us, and I see women in many circumstances in every society willing to risk their own lives, often to defy public authority, to obtain abortions. I think that that drive is a powerful animal drive, as powerful as the drive to bear children. We never have stopped it, and we never will.
Right, so the "drive to kill" is what determines what is or is not murder?
What STUPID CRAP!
The argument "from nature" has to do with WHO A HUMAN IS, NOT WHAT DRIVES PEOPLE TO KILL.
There are scientific arguments as well -- most fertilized eggs abort spontaneously anyway, eg. But a lot of the scientific arguments strike me as logic-chopping.
Young born babies die of all kinds of biological anomalies. Should we be allowed to kill them as well.
What STUPID CRAP!
If a foetus can survive independently, then it is a child and should not be killed. If not, abortion is not murder.
Why not the day before? What is so special about a fetus' ABILITY to survive that makes the one unable to survive intrinsically less valuable?
Legally, my life began the day I was born and has always been dated from then. I say we keep things that way.
Your life in the social world began that day. That doesn't mean that's when it began.
Brebis Noire wrote:
Well, from a certain point of view, God is the ultimate murderer.
Murder occurs when one human being kills another innocent human being. God OWNS US. He has every right to take life.
Babies can and do die, both in utero and at birth.
Yeah, but the difference is that when they die in utero, it's of natural causes.
And the mums who lend their bodies and then invest time and care in those babies
"Lend". Like oh, what a big "bother" to have a baby. It's not a gift-- it's a favour, you understand?
I still think the pro-choice movement has to claim some kind of moral higher ground on this.
It does not matter how you frame it, abortion is the taking of a human life. As long as this is uppermost in people's minds, the pro-abortion movement will never have the moral higher ground.
Lagatta wrote:
If those pro-lifers were really concerned about saving maternal and infant lives, there is so much that could be done with relatively rudimentary means in some of the poorest countries, as the Guardian article I posted (in "Life from a feminist view").
As if one precludes the other. But then, she doesn't care about fetal rights, does she?
But I think they are really interested in control over women and punishing us for our sexuality.
Oh right, like pro-lifers women are looking to have someone control them.
They are so morally blind, so narrow-minded, they truly cannot fathom that pro-lifers care about unborn children. Their hearts are so cold to the life of the unborn child, that they rationalize that there must be an ulterior motive to all those pro-lifers gathering on Parliament Hill every May.
I suspect it's possibly a defense mechanism. Because if they admitted there might be some basis for caring for the unborn child for his own sake, that it might chip away at their ideological stance on abortion.
Check out the Big Blue Wave Message Board
