|
|
Post by Nutcase on Jun 3, 2009 19:48:26 GMT -5
Through this link at Pandagon, I found several scanned pages from the 'Justice For All' exhibit guide. This workbook exists to help anti-choicers move from "debate to dialogue" through the use of trickery and talking points. If you don't believe me, read the sample for yourself, paying special attention to the section on "threats that really aren't threats" and - I kid you not - on good "sound bite" responses to common pro-choice arguments. Here, verbatim, is the 'soundbite' section referring to the danger of back-alley abortions: Sound Bites for Showing Concern
* "I think that would be truly tragic."
* "I agree with you. We all mourn needless deaths."
* "I agree with you that if a woman is harmed aborting her own child, that she's just as valuable as the unborn."
Tactic #! Trot Out a Toddler (or someone else)
* Example: Currently, it's very dangerous to open fire on an elementary school playground. Should we make it legal to do this so it's safer?"
* See: Back Alley Abortion: Trot Out the Toddler Responses for more examples.
/end of verbatim copy Incredible. They're even honest about their callousness. "Sound Bites for Showing Concern." "Trot Out the Toddler." You never see shit like this in the materials they prepare for public distribution. Gee, I wonder why not? I have a theory: It's because they honestly don't give a shit about women or children. They care about power. They play rhetorical games and act all coy and disingenuous, despite their knowing there's a major difference between kids on a playground and fetuses, but they care less about people than they do about winning - about power; about headship; about theonomy. I pity the teenagers and young adults who signed up for this "Justice For All" crap, genuinely thinking they could help save lives, only to discover that it's merely a cash-cow for unscrupulous hucksters and a method for inflicting religious law on a secular society. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jun 3, 2009 20:16:49 GMT -5
Nutcase, that right there isn't a theory. It's a fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 3, 2009 20:31:08 GMT -5
Hmm...
I think there's pro-life, and then there's anti-abortion (and therefore anti-choice).
Pro-lifers are actually pro-life. They're the ones who sit at home, complaining about abortions as being needless deaths, but differing on things like contraception (there are pro-lifers who are also pro-contraceptive). There are also pro-lifers who believe they are saving lives by holding signs and protesting. Key word: believe.
Anti-abortionists/Anti-choicers don't give a flying fuck about life, just their party rhetoric, although some of these WOULD believe that they're pro-life. These are the kind of people who would turn their noses up at an orphanage filled with needy kids on their way to protest a woman going to abort her first trimester pregnancy. These are the people who would literally hang a man (or in a recent case, shoot them) for performing any sort of abortions. These are the people who might even shoot dogs for amusement.
The line between the two, I will say, tends to blur often.
By the way, my mother is pro-life, but I'd also say she's simultaneously pro-choice. I don't think she believes the fetus is a "living person" until after a certain point. She also opposes the death penalty and any sort of needless death. On that stance, I agree with her.
Of course, after hearing that there's checks and balances regarding late-term abortions in many states, I'm satisfied with how things are now.
But as for "Justice For All" (How dare they rip off the name from an awesome game), that is DEFINITELY some con-artist bullshit right there. Anti-choice/anti-abortion all the way. They don't care about what's right, they only care about winning, like a anti-gay fundie pulling up bullshit science only because it agrees with his stance, not because it's actually good science or anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jun 3, 2009 20:45:55 GMT -5
I recall a recent argument I had with someone wherein they basically said they'd allow an infant to be born with a debilitating disease that would painfully kill them after a few hours, with zero chance of recovery.
He was definately the anti-abortion type. He was constantly looking down on people for not taking logic courses (can you say, "unwarranted self-importance"?) and he was completely wrapped up in not being wrong. He went so far as to say he was the only one really arguing, but somehow, he was still winning.
Annoying fucking YouTube Troll. Truth be told, I don't think anyone there was "pro-life." The one guy struck me as the type to condone that doctor being shot, or abortion clinics being bombed, because he had actually convinced himself that pro-choicers were all evil & only wanted to kill innocent babies.
|
|
|
|
Post by katz on Jun 3, 2009 20:57:08 GMT -5
This is, flat out, some sick shit. I've waded through gallons of cult literature for papers and this tops a lot of them.
Also, on the topic of pro-contraceptive pro-lifers, apparently there was a massive schism in my university's Christian League after some of their individuals decided to fight abortion by plastering the campus with free condoms and literature on female birth control.
Which, oddly enough, is my stance. I'm pro-choice, but I'd love to see a day when birth control and medical treatments have evolved to the point where abortions aren't outlawed but rather are unneeded.
|
|
Panthera
Full Member
Here kitty kitty...
Posts: 229
|
Post by Panthera on Jun 3, 2009 21:08:22 GMT -5
I recall a recent argument I had with someone wherein they basically said they'd allow an infant to be born with a debilitating disease that would painfully kill them after a few hours, with zero chance of recovery. I've known a handful of guys who took it even farther, and outright stated that they would force a woman to carry to term, even if doing so would kill her, because the woman isn't as important as the fetus. Of course, they were all hyper-misogynistic assholes, and sociopathic to boot... One threatened to feed his girlfriend's dogs to his python if she ever disagreed with him; another one controlled his girlfriend's activities right down to who she was allowed to talk to online, and the third guy... Well, the third guy wrote and got off on graphic ephebophillic torture porn and "porn" that consists of adult women being slapped, punched, kicked, suffocated/half-drowned, and just basically dehumanized to the point of outright abuse, talked to my roommate about wanting to have sex with young teenage girls, talked to me about wanting to make women have sex with dogs, and who spent a lot of time going on and on about the things he would make his future wife do, including walking around wearing nothing but a dog collar and rubbing his feet while naked. He was also a member of an LJ group whose motto is "Women exist to serve and breed," and was violently anti-choice, and anti-women's-rights period... |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jun 3, 2009 21:21:19 GMT -5
What's the e-word mean?
(Yes, I Googled it. Amazingly, I got nothing.)
Also, it sounds like you know some fucked-up guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Jun 3, 2009 22:09:50 GMT -5
He was also a member of an LJ group whose motto is "Women exist to serve and breed," and was violently anti-choice, and anti-women's-rights period...  Do you remember the name of the LJ group? I feel like doing some trolling and quote mining.... WHAT. NOT THE SAME THING!!  |
|
Panthera
Full Member
Here kitty kitty...
Posts: 229
|
Post by Panthera on Jun 3, 2009 22:12:49 GMT -5
What's the e-word mean? (Yes, I Googled it. Amazingly, I got nothing.) Ephebophilia = attraction to teenagers, IIRC (as opposed to pedophilia, which is an attraction to prepubescent children.) I'm probably butchering the spelling, though. Knew, actually. I'm happily free of the lot of them (well, mostly, anyway... that last guy still cyber-stalks me.) He was also a member of an LJ group whose motto is "Women exist to serve and breed," and was violently anti-choice, and anti-women's-rights period... Do you remember the name of the LJ group? I feel like doing some trolling and quote mining.... Unfortunately, I don't remember their name off-hand, though I could probably dig them up if I had half a mind to, assuming it still exists and hasn't been nuked by LiveJournal... You wouldn't get much out of the comm, though - believe me, I've tried. It's locked up tighter than a nun's chastity belt. |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Jun 3, 2009 22:21:02 GMT -5
locked up tighter than a nun's chastity belt. *guffaw* Exalt! I can't say anything on topic without getting far too venomous for these forums, so I wont. |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jun 3, 2009 22:23:25 GMT -5
I recall a recent argument I had with someone wherein they basically said they'd allow an infant to be born with a debilitating disease that would painfully kill them after a few hours, with zero chance of recovery. I've known a handful of guys who took it even farther, and outright stated that they would force a woman to carry to term, even if doing so would kill her, because the woman isn't as important as the fetus. Of course, they were all hyper-misogynistic assholes, and sociopathic to boot... One threatened to feed his girlfriend's dogs to his python if she ever disagreed with him; another one controlled his girlfriend's activities right down to who she was allowed to talk to online, and the third guy... Well, the third guy wrote and got off on graphic ephebophillic torture porn and "porn" that consists of adult women being slapped, punched, kicked, suffocated/half-drowned, and just basically dehumanized to the point of outright abuse, talked to my roommate about wanting to have sex with young teenage girls, talked to me about wanting to make women have sex with dogs, and who spent a lot of time going on and on about the things he would make his future wife do, including walking around wearing nothing but a dog collar and rubbing his feet while naked. He was also a member of an LJ group whose motto is "Women exist to serve and breed," and was violently anti-choice, and anti-women's-rights period... It's a good thing I've never met a man like this, because he would have been dead in less than a few hours. |
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on Jun 3, 2009 22:31:59 GMT -5
Hmm... I think there's pro-life, and then there's anti-abortion (and therefore anti-choice). Pro-lifers are actually pro-life. They're the ones who sit at home, complaining about abortions as being needless deaths, but differing on things like contraception (there are pro-lifers who are also pro-contraceptive). There are also pro-lifers who believe they are saving lives by holding signs and protesting. Key word: believe. Anti-abortionists/Anti-choicers don't give a flying fuck about life, just their party rhetoric, although some of these WOULD believe that they're pro-life. These are the kind of people who would turn their noses up at an orphanage filled with needy kids on their way to protest a woman going to abort her first trimester pregnancy. These are the people who would literally hang a man (or in a recent case, shoot them) for performing any sort of abortions. These are the people who might even shoot dogs for amusement. The line between the two, I will say, tends to blur often. By the way, my mother is pro-life, but I'd also say she's simultaneously pro-choice. I don't think she believes the fetus is a "living person" until after a certain point. She also opposes the death penalty and any sort of needless death. On that stance, I agree with her. Of course, after hearing that there's checks and balances regarding late-term abortions in many states, I'm satisfied with how things are now. But as for "Justice For All" (How dare they rip off the name from an awesome game), that is DEFINITELY some con-artist bullshit right there. Anti-choice/anti-abortion all the way. They don't care about what's right, they only care about winning, like a anti-gay fundie pulling up bullshit science only because it agrees with his stance, not because it's actually good science or anything. I honestly don’t think there’s such a thing as an anti-choice pro-lifer. A person can oppose abortion for herself while at the same time conceding it should be legal for everyone else. She can even work on social change – better health care, more accurate and positive information about living with a disability, more effective social programs, and wider distribution of effective contraceptives. She can do these things in the belief that potential life is worth preserving – perhaps even just as worth preserving as actual life. But when she – and I’m talking here about a generic “pro-lifer” as opposed to about any specific individual – passes from working on positive social change that would create a climate where all human life is valued to one where negative legal consequences are attached to personal medical choices, then she ceases to be a pro-lifer and falls squarely into the category of a panty-sniffing anti-abortion activist who believes pregnancy is an appropriate “consequence” for women who dare to have sex. She can claim all she likes that she thinks life is a precious gift, but she really doesn’t; she thinks it’s an appropriate punishment for girls and women who dare exercise sexual agency. And for rape victims, because they wore revealing clothes/went to a party/took a ride home with a date etc., etc., etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Jun 3, 2009 22:43:07 GMT -5
I've known a handful of guys who took it even farther, and outright stated that they would force a woman to carry to term, even if doing so would kill her, because the woman isn't as important as the fetus. Of course, they were all hyper-misogynistic assholes, and sociopathic to boot... One threatened to feed his girlfriend's dogs to his python if she ever disagreed with him; another one controlled his girlfriend's activities right down to who she was allowed to talk to online, and the third guy... Well, the third guy wrote and got off on graphic ephebophillic torture porn and "porn" that consists of adult women being slapped, punched, kicked, suffocated/half-drowned, and just basically dehumanized to the point of outright abuse, talked to my roommate about wanting to have sex with young teenage girls, talked to me about wanting to make women have sex with dogs, and who spent a lot of time going on and on about the things he would make his future wife do, including walking around wearing nothing but a dog collar and rubbing his feet while naked. He was also a member of an LJ group whose motto is "Women exist to serve and breed," and was violently anti-choice, and anti-women's-rights period... It's a good thing I've never met a man like this, because he would have been dead in less than a few hours. Seriously? A few hours? You're rather boring. A good death should be at least seventy, bare minimum. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jun 3, 2009 23:08:31 GMT -5
It's a good thing I've never met a man like this, because he would have been dead in less than a few hours. Seriously? A few hours? You're rather boring. A good death should be at least seventy, bare minimum. You're both wrong. I'd get that person off the face of the earth in the fastest manner possible. Every breath they take is a precious waste of the rest of our oxygen. Also, I second the exalting for the chastity belt remark. |
|
|
|
Post by Hades on Jun 3, 2009 23:40:22 GMT -5
I recall a recent argument I had with someone wherein they basically said they'd allow an infant to be born with a debilitating disease that would painfully kill them after a few hours, with zero chance of recovery. I always encourage assholes like that to watch the documentary "The Boy Whose Skin Fell Off" Would they have the fucking gall to look someone like Jonny Kennedy (the boy from the documentary) in the eyes and tell him he's wrong when he says he wished his mother had aborted him? Sadly, I'm cynical enough to think they would. |
|
Do you remember the name of the LJ group? I feel like doing some trolling and quote mining....
