Racist Pro-Life Billboard

Post Reply New Topic

Guess this is how genocide occurs, first step is dehumanize the people you want to kill so you no longer have any moral qualms about killing people.

This is your personal preference, while I've met quite a few people who feel differently. We once had a poll here about it and a surprising number of people answered that they would have preferred to not be born.


You're doing the same. Some people consider their life not worth living and they are just as entitled to feel this way as you are.

Meat is murder - The Smiths



So why is the bill board racist?





quote from some other thread:

child: "mummy, whos my daddy"
mum: "oh, your father is the man who brutally raped me, sweetheart"

_________________________

Playing devil's advocate since 1894

A fetus is after 11th week in gestational age - at this time it makes breathing motions for lung development (not respiration) and it's not until 25 weeks of gestation that there is brain wave activity. Prior to the 11th week of gestation it is not a fetus and prior to 25th week gestation there is no brain activity - not a person. Thus the vast majority of abortions are not carried out on people by your own words.

When it comes to cases in which a continued pregnancy would put the life or health of one or both at a high risk;
Who wins the fight - mother or unborn embryo/fetus/baby?


Birth control is refusing a child the right to live just the same as abortion - so anyone who practices family planning, who chooses not to raise a child when they are not ready to is being irresponsible too? How about people who can't take responsibility such as children or people who are severely disabled?

You would honestly want a child to suffer, seriously?! So a mother is in an abusive relationship, you think it's morally acceptable for a women to have a child knowing fine well that child may face the same physical and sexual abuse as she does? A child will be born with a condition that dooms them to a short life full of pain, that child should have to suffer, it's not okay for a mother to prevent that suffering? It's a mothers responsibility not to knowingly make her child suffer - the idea that she should is disgusting.

A mother gets to decide to not have children, it is her responsibility not to have children she can't care for, she is not ready for, she cannot support - that is not evading her responsibility.

Can you prove it isn't sentient? Just cause it is unable to run around and talk yet, doesn't mean it is not sentient.



Well it wasn't the fetus's choice for the woman and the man to have sex either. Short of committing suicide it needs to stay in the womb until it is ready to leave in order so it can live.



Funny because you are treating a baby as property and then have the gall to lecture us about slavery?



Yes it is.





If you don't want the child after birth there is something called adoption, generally infants are adopted rather quickly.



So you're okay with killing children then even if they are toddlers because they are still extremely dependent on others.



Uh we're not talking someone physically/mentally/emotionally using someone for kicks. A child has no choice as to whose womb they are developing in the man and the woman made the choice to have sex. The child is not responsible for what the parents did.

Oh, I said to myself, don't post a response to this thread, but I just can't seem to help myself.

Tensu:

A few things for you to consider:

1. It is interesting that you would want to live as, and subject children to, a life of physical illness and pain caused by HIV, starvation, and death before the age of 5. As a mother, I can tell you I would do anything in my power to prevent a child of mine from having to go through any such thing - and if my circumstances meant that abortion was the only way I could prevent that kind of suffering for my child, then that is what I would do to protect my child. I find your position to be very selfish. The pain and suffering of thousands of children to uphold your moralistic viewpoint? Charming.

2. It is also interesting that you are implying that this comes down to the woman's choice - ie it is her choice to get pregnant. Considering the prevalence of sexual assualt against women, I cannot comprehend your argument. A woman does not have to choose to have sex to get pregnant.

3. You also argue that it is as much up to the father as it is the mother. Well, unfortunately, the father is not the one who has his body hijacked for 9 months. The father can walk away (or run away, as the case may be). The impact an uplanned / unwanted pregnancy has on the father cannot be compared to the impact on the mother (physically, emotionally, socially, and financially).

4. I find the vehemence with with pro-lifers push their arguments to be disconcerting. If you notice, those in favour of a woman's CHOICE are not trying to force abortions on women who do not want to have abortions; instead, they are supporting a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to continue a pregnancy. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, want to take away a woman's right to choose. Pro-lifers want to dictate what women can and cannot do with their bodies.

5. My personal viewpoint on the matter is this - given my current situation (age, education, employment, financial stability, health, etc.), I would not choose to abort an accidental pregnancy. But I would never try to force this decision on anyone else. That is what is often lost (or ignored) in these arguments - pro-choicers are not necessarily people who would have abortions themselves. But they certainly do not think that their moral standpoint is superior to others'.

I numbered my points above in case you choose to respond to this message. That way, you could respond to ALL of the points I have raised. I notice you seem to conveniently ignore some statements/arguments raised by others.

@ cave_canem It's difficult not to get pulled-in

Very good points you raised here, especially this one;
"I notice you seem to conveniently ignore some statements/arguments raised by others" not meaning to stir things up.

Although I would say it's more Anti-choice than Pro-life, that is something that always urked me about the whole issue, the term 'Pro-life' always implied those on the opposition were Anti-life which of course we're not, in fact I think both sides are equally in praise and in celebration of life but just from different points of view. I think the whole argument itself boils down to which is more important; life as a state different to that of inanimate objects, or life as something you live, or a case of 'a life v's quality of life for all involved'.

Another characteristic of life is growth. Since a baby is growing inside a woman's body, that's another reason I consider it a life. This is the difference between sperm and an embyro/fetus. People can say "Well plants also grow", but it's not just the logic that should be taken into consideration but the context as well. I think it's very intellectually lazy to only take the logic into account cuz without context you can make all types of absurd premises which are still logically valid such as the Earth being flat.

Guaranteed opportunity does not lead to guaranteed outcome. Nice misrepresentation of my position, it doesn't boil down to me being a sadistic bastard who wants the child to suffer . Everyone should be guaranteed the right to live, but that doesn't guarantee their quality of life one way or the other. I think it's even more disgusting that a baby is denied the right to live altogether because of someone else's speculation of that baby's quality of life. I've suffered abuse as a kid and still struggle with depression and anxiety issues but I'm sure as hell happy I have the opportunity to live and learn.

@ cave_canem

There have been instances where a baby born of a mother whom has HIV doesn't have HIV.

Most women with HIV can protect their baby from becoming infected during pregnancy. Proper pre-natal treatment can reduce the risk that an HIV-positive mother will pass the virus to her child to less than 1 percent. The only way these special treatments can be provided is if the health care professionals know the mother is living with HIV. Treatment is most effective when started early in pregnancy. HIV-positive moms should not breastfeed their babies because HIV is sometimes passed this way.
http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/women ... ts/aid.htm

So apparently a child of a mother whom has AIDs can be born without having the HIV virus.

Really? That's your rebuttal? I was using the HIV/starvation/death by 5 example because I was quoting Tensu. And, you obviously missed my point. Also, how a woman in africa who can't provide food for her family would have access to this type of health care is beyond me. Anyway...

Also, I notice you ignored my other 4 points (and given that you ignored the jist of my first point, I'd say you ignored all 5).

Way to go. You're no steps closer to convincing anyone that you're right.

The billboard is talking about African Americans whom live in the United States where access to proper medical treatment is probably at any hospital.

I wasn't making a point between sperm and embryo/fetus.
I see however you've not addressed either points I made;
By your definition the vast majority of abortions are not carried out on people by your own words.
Who wins the fight - mother or unborn embryo/fetus/baby?


Again, no babies are involved in this discussion.

ALL birth control prevents the possibility of a child being born - it is preventing a life in the same way as abortion.

It's not a misrepresentation of your position, and yeah, because I totally want to go round murdering babies.
Your position is that it is not the mothers responsibility to care for her child, she shouldn't have the right as a mother to prevent bringing a child into the world where it may suffer. A mother should ALWAYS do all she can to prevent her children facing neglect or abuse - that may mean not wanting to have children to begin with, that's her right....the rights of a non-existent child shouldn't even come into it! You however are against the idea of a woman choosing not to have a baby.

We can speculate that you leave a child alone with a pack of matches it may burn itself to death, but it's only speculation so it's totally okay to do that and it's the child's choice and right to end their own life by burning themselves to death, they are responsible for their actions and parents obviously don't have any rights over preventing harm to their child.

Last edited by Bloodheart on 27 Feb 2011, 10:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

So why did Tensu start talking about starving orphans in africa with HIV who will die before the age of 5? Tensu is arguing against abortion, btw.

In case it wasn't evident, this thread has morphed into a discussion regarding abortion in general.

If you have an issue with talking about the starving, HIV-positive orphans in Africa who will die before the age of 5 who should be born because... well, just because, then take it up with Tensu.

PS - No one has yet to address my 5 points...

Funny because 40 days is a lot less than 25 weeks.



Depending on the situation and the specifics it is possible for them to do an emergency C-Section and save both.



Uh generally unless the father is also a kid the same age or younger, that would fall under statuatory rape in which case someone should be heading to jail.



Uh if the mother is in such a relationship break it off, and then get a restraining order and then insure you get sole custody of the child and child support.





She shouldn't have put herself in the situation of having sex, just like the guy shouldn't have either.

Source.


That is true, but that's not what I'm asking - who takes priority; mother or baby.


Also true, but that's not what I'm asking, if a person is a child or severely disabled is it still their responsibility?
Is anyone who practices birth control just as irresponsible?


A possibility, but that's not what I'm asking, if a mother is in such a relationship and the child would be at risk is it not her responsibility to protect that child by not having that child to begin with? Women don't choose to be in abusive relationships, if it was as easy as breaking it off and getting a restraining order than there would be no such thing as domestic violence, no women would ever face physical or sexual abuse from a partner, neither would their children - sorry to break it to you, but the world isn't like that.


People have sex DUN DUN DUN - so no one should have sex unless they want a child? YOU may be okay with having sex just for procreation but that doesn't mean everyone is the same, birth control and abortion exists to prevent unwanted babies so that couples can use family planning to decide when they want to have children, when they are ready to care for children.

As pointed out by cave_canem not all women choose to have sex - children, severely disabled, abuse victims, rape victims.
Why do they have to be responsible for someone else having sex with them?

The Billboard implies African Americans live a dangerous life and the womb is a more dangerous place for African Americans. Statistics show that African Americans make the choice for abortion more than Hispanics and Hispanics more than whites.

Restricting the issue and the danger of the welfare of the unborn child to the race that makes the choice the most is racist in the sense that it does not pass judgement on the danger that the unborn faces among races that make the choice for the other two-thirds of abortions. By using the same logic the womb would be the most dangerous place for Hispanics. It makes the Anti-Abortion issue an African American issue instead of an American issue.

Without using a racial tone they could use the same logic in promoting the idea that the womb in America is the most dangerous place for Americans. A common pro-life statement is Abortion is the number one killer in America, so why not extend it to all American wombs?