Oh wow…. a very typical successful American political advert.
– Emotional, – To the point, – And completely lacking any sort of context.
Is there an upcoming bill I'm supposed to be angry about? Does it actually do what the advert suggests, that is make abortion illegal or does it do something entirely different. (For example, the health care bill “Death Panels” were about offering end of life counseling, not deciding who lives or dies despite the rhetoric.) Is this an important turning point or just more bureaucratic shuffling? The lack of context here is staggering.
If you're linking of this video part of a discussion on film making techniques, I'm all ears. This is an incredibly effective piece of propaganda, much like the “Daisy” advert of Lyndon B. Johnson. On the other hand, if there's a political point to be made here, colour me unimpressed.
What the Republicans have done is propose that taxpayer money, (a.k.a your money, my money, our money) doesn't find its way in the hands of Planned Parenthood a. The bill doesn't make abortion illegal. What it does is makes it so that if you want to murder your offspring, you gotta do it on your on dime, not my dime.
To even HINT that this is some sort of an assault on women's right is intellectually dishonest. Especially when we're discussing cutting funding to an organization caught giving advice to 14 year olds in sex rings how to avoid law enforcement.
please think before you speak.. murder your child?
Do you really think any woman would ever want to go through an abortion? Do you have any clue what the emotional torture is?
And what if the woman is just not ready to have a child! Then you have ruined two lives, the woman and the childs.. to have an abortion does not equal not having children, often it just means to have them at a later time when the time is more right.
Do not pretend you have the faintest idea what it's like to even consider it, especially when your so carelessly throwing around words like that.
And by the way, it would cost both you and your goverment so much more to have not ready women get bunches of children so you will have to pay for these women getting back on their feet's from suffering trauma and devastation, and it's your money who will pay for these children growing up in neglect and probably end out in all kinds of shit which could have been avoided had they been born at a later time.
Media Matters=No credibility. Its a Soros funded, left wing, waste of bandwidth obsessed solely with shutting down conservative speech on TV and internet. Presenting me with “Evidence” from Media Matters is like presenting me evidence from the mob. It just doesn't hold up.
@Sofia
If a woman is not ready to have a child, then she should not engage in the remarkably specific set of behaviors one is required to complete in order to be rendered pregnant. That, or accept the risks and consequences. That's all I really ask.
That said, the child's life does not have to be ruined, neither does the mother's. There are plenty of loving parents out their ready to adopt.
And why would the government have to pay anybody for anything exactly? I despise entitlement programs. I despise welfare.
There are currently 3 different HR's being made to affect Healthcare/Abortion policy. 1 of which is indeed, to keep public funds out of the matter.
In between the other measures, are for instance the redefinition of rape and forcible rape. So that abortions will be allowed in far less circumstances. These people will then indeed be forced to other measures.
The US government goes overseas to fight and liberate countries, and among praised results: give women in other countries sexual and reproductive freedom. But are being completely hypocritical by taking those rights away from the people at home.
“Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.” — Ayn Rand
Well, reverend, please share with us your sermons on abortion. How do you indoctrinate your flock? (yeah, a happy atheist here. I only preach from the gospels of Adams, Dawkins and Hitchens)
“But a spokesman for the bill’s author, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), says the modifier “forcible” will be dropped so that the exemption covers all forms of rape, as well as cases of incest and the endangerment of the life of the mother.”
Happy?
Wise of the G.O.P ultimately. No reason to get into a fight over a poorly worded phrase when the real goal was never redefinition of rape, but rather cutting off tax money to abortions.
congraturations, you've relocated the abortion debate to your blog. if that was your goal, then as a famous banner said: “mission accomplished”
@shark – that is jilarious. i have been wanting to mix d&d with my political beliefs and now you have helped me to do so.
I'll spare you all a dissertation on *my* views on the subject (hint: they are the correct ones). What I will do is point out a few things:
@ all the pro-choicers here (apparently the majority): do you really think it will be made illegal? Certainly many people would love that to happen, but if the great historical movement from living in caves and whatnot through universal suffrage and the gay rights movement, i'm not sure, even if abortion were made illegal, it would stay illegal for long. @ Arman and the other pro-lifers: you seem upset by this add, and very adamant that the bills in question will not make abortion illegal… yet you seem to greatly desire the illegality of abortion. So, I ask: what's your point? Either advocate for what you want, or don't. it seems like you're sticking up for a bill that doesn't even do what you want.
Arman, considering that the crunched numbers actually come out that tax payers pay, what is it? Less than a cent to cover all those oh-so-awful-money-sucking abortions in the country, it feels disingenuous how much they're raging against it.
The implication is that abortions are a massive economic drain on the economy, when quite frankly, they're not. If you raised the taxes over income over $1,000,000 at just 1% that would undo the damage innumerable times over, for instance. Think conservatives would even consider that? Of course not.
Euler, there is one Hell of a war on the issue. One of the chief problems is availability, for instance. Just a few days ago, the South Dakota legislature began moving to expand the term “justifiable homicide” to include killings designed to prevent harm to a fetus…. in other words suddenly killing an abortion provider becomes justifiable homicide. When you consider that South Dakota only has one abortion clinic, that means only one single person with a gun has to do the deed and suddenly, in the eyes of the law, it would be justifiable.
There was nationwide outrage and backlash and the bill is being modified to exclude doctors that provide abortions, but the point stands.
I've always considered the issue of abortion much simpler then most people like to think it is… the fetus is either a person or it isn't. If the fetus is not a person, than the woman can obviously do with it whatever she wants. If the fetus is a person, then it has all the same rights everyone else has regardless of any other extenuating circumstances. That's it… there is nothing else. Any excuse or reasoning beyond that is all just a red hearing trying to distract from the only question that should be asked… is the fetus a person?
As far as I'm personally concerned, since medical science is consistently making the actual point of birth more and more biologically arbitrary, the moment of conception seems the most reasonable point to say it's a person. I get the argument that the determination should be based on brain activity/ability, but since that's still very poorly understood and damn near impossible to actually test with the fetus still alive, I just can't see that as a viable alternative for now.
I often wonder what pro-life people think about fetsuses that absorb their twins, or twins that get absorbed by the “alpha fetus” and continue existing as a parasite.
That Ayn Rand quote is actually one of the saner things she wrote/said. The notion that people should accept having parenthood suddenly thrust upon them is insane. That people argue this for the sake of something that is essentially a non-human is even more insane.
I still maintain that if pro-life supporters spent 1/10th the effort they put into killing people and proposing bills that will never pass towards providing assistance to single mothers or adoption the abortion statistics in the country would fall much more significantly.
Yes, that is my son, finishing Mario, world 1-1, Sonic 2's Green Hill Zone, and crashing cars in Burnout. You'd have to be a cold-hearted SOB to think this isn't the most awesome thing in the world.
It's always hilarious to me that so many conservatives are adamantly against abortion, calling it murder and an atrocity…and then oppose funding social programs (health care, welfare, etc) that would give (in the case of unplanned teenage pregnancies) the mother and child a much better chance of surviving.
Also, @Arman: I'm hoping you support comprehensive sexual education; otherwise arguing that “they shouldn't have had sex, let them rot” is remarkably cruel considering that so many schools will only teach abstinence, which relies entirely on trusting teenagers not to have sex with each other. Not a very good strategy. Also, I don't know if you actually looked at the MediaMatters link, but it's not just rambling. They have video evidence. That makes it a matter of facts, not left versus right.
I simply don't get what it is about fetuses that religious people find so endearing. They're not “human” in the sense of being intelligent or empathic or having any other traits we admire in humans. They're a low form of life: hard-coded for self-preservation and nothing else. They'd eat their fucking twin without missing a beat. The only thing I can think of is they look kind of a cute, in a creepy alien sort of way. Not sure if that justifies killing abortion doctors, though.
(Probably indecipherable rant incoming) Might I also add why it is only at the moment of conception that blobs of genetic material become human life? I mean, after conception, the embryo is essentially a cell, and most of the important bits of the cell (what will become the embryo's nucleus and nucleolus) are in the egg. If full-grown people that cannot use many of their internal organs (brain-dead people in comas, people who need multiple organs removed for surgery) are still considered human, and embryos are considered human, is it really that far of a jump to call the ovum a person by itself? Does that mean that women commit murder on a monthly basis until they go through menopause? (for the record, I absolutely consider disabled people human, I'm simply pointing out the nebulousness in determining when microscopic lumps of goo achieve sentience)
My expression when I see it's Lisa Edelstein: Hot damn! I love Lisa! She's a fantastic actr-
My expression when I see the coat hanger: WTF?! Damn that is dark…
Is this a serious ad playing on TV? I'm all pro-choice, don't get me wrong, but thats excessive for even my standards. The fact that it even points out the entire GOP as the “bad guys” is just too politically charged.
Media Matters=No credibility. Its a Soros funded, left wing, waste of bandwidth obsessed solely with shutting down conservative speech on TV and internet. Presenting me with “Evidence” from Media Matters is like presenting me evidence from the mob. It just doesn't hold up.
A; if there really are oh so many people out there jumping at the opportunity to adopt, why do we have so many orphanage filled with children then? For that matter, why have the U-countries so many children living on the streets? In China they tend to throw babies in the trash cane for crying out loud.
Sorry, there are way more children ready for adoption all ready now then there are people wanting to adopt, just to make matters worse, people who can't have children by natural means tends to prefer the surgical slightly less natural way so it becomes their own child rather than a adopting child.
B; Sex is a natural thing which is the product of very human drives. Why is it bob constantly make jokes about hot women? Because he likes hot women of cause, I am pretty sure you do to.
Now I am not saying everybody should rush out and have sex right now, that's stupid, because it's really not that big a deal. And I am differently saying that you should always use a condom, not only to ensure not becoming pregnant, but also to avoid all the illness's. And from my standpoint if you deny an sixteen year old to go watch boobies, he will undoubtedly go out of his way to have a look at those boobies, if the parents treats it like it's not big deal and let him have that look on his own, it's just not interesting anymore. In the same way a 21 year old who knows that sex is a natural thing and no big deal is less likely to go out and go wild than a 21 year old who have been denied to even think about it. because these are just integrated drives in our system, there is nothing wrong about it.
Not to mention, Sex is both fun and nice. You should always use protection but I see no reason not to have it. And even with protection, pregnancies can happen.
For those who are stupid enough not the use protection, it is usually those men and women all ready out in trouble you would really not want to have a child.
And even putting any sex issue aside, to just think what to do with that all ready troubled woman who are suddenly pregnant? And then deny her abortion? That's stupid, And you can't just take the child away from her once it's been born unless you have prove she is unstable, and in the end if the woman don't have an option, because she is all ready in trouble, is poor and so on, it is very much your who are going to pay for that child and what ever trouble the child would finding itself in in the future. So on a larger scale, it really is for your own countries sake.
First off, I identify myself as Catholic. I do so more in the vein of the idea behind “catholic”, but that is linguistics. To adress the ad and my understanding of MovieBob putting it here: The ad is moving, well framed, reveals a known/trusted character… basically, it is near perfect. But, it lacks a universal character. Here's what I mean: An assumed ideal is being given form, not an universal one. This is both exalting to the filmmaker and detrimental. Battlestar Galactica, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc…. wouldn't have caught on, if not for translatability of human experience. The advert showcases a wonderfully evocative experience, however it has a particular view to portray. This doesn't withdraw from the artists involved, but sings their praises; although, it does mean a backlash is coming. Risks are, indeed taken – assuming people like me (who think abortion is the height of irresponsibility, or the result of *unspeakable* torture [i.e. regime-endorsed-torture/rape]). The end result is this: abortion seems to fall into two fields: abandonment (I know, I'm Freudian); or indulgence (I know, I'm Freudian): Basically, the issue is case-by-case, but there is an underlying issue of ethics. The two may never meet in person, but they are there. The advert is moving, as well filmed as any S.Korean movie. But, lacks a pithy enough center to lodge either an attack or a defense. It is what it is. And it may be effective at it.
@Arman, no, I'm not. Again, you're looking at 1 bill, not all of the proposed resolutions. This thing is handled from different sides and different angles.
Sadly, you probably never should have mentioned the high-schooler's second fav pseudo-philosopher (Rand). Independance is more intellectualy costly/challenging then (Rant's followers) are willing to go. I'll level my “religion”-faith if Kant is right, also I'll follow phenomenalism is Ponty is more rational. That's how I roll. Bu, when it comes to murder (justified or not) of vegetable, animal, or obviously conscious) I side on eat-them-or consider-them-equal. I don't care if dogs, cats,rats, etc are considered game, I'll eat people (given the chance) I just want a God-damned line drawn. Y/N. Maybe it is my generation. I don't care… I just find it frustrating to identify my general viewpoint on (basically) EVERYTHING since I thought (95) we had been given a voice…
I am just so exstremely tired of all of these abortion discussions all over the net, and they are bassically the same. It's a bunche of guys talking about it. Never do they try to see it from a young pregnant womans perspective.
I am all for equallity between men and women, and I realise this also means that often women have to back off, and the card. “I am a woman therefore I need special understanding or service.” is something that is used to often and needs to go if you really want equality. The world is not only consistent by women supressed by men, but women using their. “Move away I am woman so you don't want to surpress me.” way to often.
That being said, this is a touchy subject, and it's a womens subject. in around 60% of all these abortions cases, the dude who was just as much a part of the pregansie as the woman, are not going to take responsibility. And it's also easy for him to say. “Take an abortion bitch.” or “Do not take the abortion and put the kid up for adoption bitch.”
Any sane woman would never want to do either! And it really isn't a question about wanting, it's about what needs to be done and what is best for everyone.
I am sick of guys saying “Murder the child.” and be preaching about. “Irresponsability.” Don't you think the woman in question knows that she is putting out a life? her own child even? Don't you think she fells the strain? Do you really think any sane woman would ever want an abortion? Don't you think that they wish they had just never been impregnanted in the first place?
And the world is not just black and white! you can't talk issues like this and act like the world is.. it's not! it's a big slur of grey.
And some of you people, I wouldn't normally make such a rude comment, but some of these comments makes me sick.
“Intelligent or empathic” are impossible to discern in embryos, and are pretty subjective anyway. I would have to be against that as a way of determining whether someone's a person or not. I mean… dog's are empathic and moderately intelligent, should they be considered persons? Sociopath's have no empathy… are they not?
And, I would have to be on the side that it is completely unjustified to kill abortion doctors.
@ Smpoza
Ovum are not complete organisms in and of themselves. They lack a complete genetic code and are unable to acquire any more energy then they already contain without being fertilized.
if I may offer some of my experiences? I'm a man and, quite honestly, there's nothing I can do about it. I was born that way, I'll die that way. I have no strange quirk in my genetics or neurological makeup that makes me feel that I should be a woman or anything like that.
To be fair, it's been pointed out to me that I tend to think about things like a woman – on a largely social level, for instance, and that I often use examples that feature relationships (such as “a man and woman in an abusive relationship”).
Right off the bat, there's no perspective I can ever truly have other than a man's. But more than that, there is balance. You're right when you say these are women's issues, but they do involve men.
A few months ago I was talking with a man on the subject of abortion and lamented about how an ex of his had an abortion that he wanted to keep. “That child was a part of me” were his words. I remember where I was about four years ago when I got a call from a girl telling me she had missed her period. We had broken up by then, but it was recent. I was terrified and neither of us were nearly ready to be parents. Yes, I convinced her that if push came to shove an abortion would be a good idea. I was extremely ashamed of myself, but I don't actually blame myself. I did what had to. Thank God it turned out to be a false alarm.
When I was in college, I remember trying to talk to the big feminists on campus about how various issues affected men, and they were completely disinterested. They ALWAYS had time to talk about these issues affected women, but men? Oh no. One of them was the type to say all rapists should be behind bars, no forgiveness, etc. etc. etc. Then a girl was revealed to have falsely accused a man of raping her to hide an affair she had. It came out that the accusation was false, but the feminist didn't let this bother her and remained friendly with that girl. If rape is such a serious crime, shouldn't false accusations of it be considered serious?
These are womens' issues, yes. But they DO have effects on men. I can't apologize for the callousness of all men, but I can say we're not all Arman at least.
To Arman and all the pseudo “pro-lifer” who pretend that they just want to preserve the american taxpayer money from the dirty hands of poor “irresponsible” women…
You lie. I know that you lie Everyone one here knows that you lie And you fucking know that we know that you lie
You lie about everything, including about your motivation.
Because its not about the “life of the unborn”. None of you give a shit about the “life of the unborn”, your aloofness toward the ordeals of women living in the poorest corners of your own country has already denounced and proved that past your lip service toward the “sanctity of life”, you feel nothing but this despicable disdain toward the non-fictional, already born and breathing on their own kids that are not part of you own exiguous social circle.
Its all about sexual freedom. Sexual freedom includes among other things having sex without having to raise unwanted children. And this used to be a privilege for the wealthy and the blue blooded, except that two centuries of ongoing progressism have eroded this privilege, turning it into an universal right, and you just cannot stomach it. You all want to come back to the day when your social class (or at least the social class you identify with) was the only one with access to sexual freedom.
Simone Veil, the former french health minister who was instrumental in making abortion legal in France, told the press that during the debate about the legalization of abortion, most of the opposition did not come from the most conservative politicians, but from those who had the money to provide abortion to their teenage girls or to their very young mistresses. They were for abortion, alright: as long as they were the only one to have access to it.
Yeah, even 40 years ago you were not fooling anyone: it's just that most non sociopathic people are too polite to tel you up front that they know that you are full of it.
Its about sexual freedom, and you want it to be your exclusive dispensation.
So you can go on faking outrage and pretending to be rightous principled men, you can act like wanking with one hand while writting Soros' name with the other was a sign of intellectual and moral superiority, in the end, you know as well as I do that your “love for the life of unborn children” is as fictional as Santa Claus and that you are nothing more than shit-spewing member of the pro-rape tribe.
And my post was very harsh, I know that. But to get my points across in cases like this I need to be harsh, if it makes me appear like a bitch, so be it. At least I made an impression.
Yeas, your right, it will be hard for everyone, and my post was also targeted towards young guys who havn't been through any thing like that, because they just spit out such points that easely. And it honestly is always the same with all these abortions threats, I am always the only woman taking a stand and try and say “What is best for society, what is best for the people? what is best for the pregnant woman?”
Why I am always the only woman present.. I dunno, perhaps it's because write at nerdy movie forums mostly which tends to be dominated by men, perhaps it's because the subject is so touchy that most women don't want to talk about it and I just need to learn how to keep my big mouth shut and stop taking offence.
But it just gets to me right away whenever a dude calls it “Murder” so easely, and don't assume that the pregnant women in question doesn't have similar feelings! That the man in question probably also have it if he has a soul, and every single one who ever had their child aborted had these feelings, unless there were something very wrong in their head.
Yet, most often. It's just something that needs to be done, for everyone sake.
And that money argument is probably the stupidest argument I have ever heard. “I don't wanna pay for her abortion”
Fine! Then your tax money will go to the child she wont be able to raise instead, try and do a math piece and see which one is more expensive and which one will damage your society more on a long term basis.
Also, there is to many people in the world, you can't deny this. We are destroying our planet because we are to many, and there is a million more every year. Will you really put children into the world when you know it's going to be unwanted by pretty much everyone? That because mom and dad wasn't ready the child will suffer all of her or his life.. how heartless is that?
Got half way through comments and had to take a Batman break. But anyway:
In the case of rape, or the other tragedies of course abortion should be available, however in today's society where protection is readily available, if you end up getting pregnant through an “accident” (I don't like that term but it was the only one I could think of), you're pretty stupid.
Maybe you should be allowed an abortion within the first three months as Bob has wisely mentioned, but I'd rather it'd be on your own pence (or dime) than mine. I'm stupid enough on my own, why should I have to suffer for your stupidity as well?
As for the advert, from a neutral perspective it did a good shock strategy, but when you think about it, it's like equating removing the death penalty to letting murderers free without punishment, or not going to a strip club to being gay.
@Nixou and dkh try not to personally attack people, even if you may have good points. many may agree with you, but yes, they are too polite to say it… that's probably because it shouldn't be said. True that perhaps many people feel as you have described, but to presume that nobody actually believes in the pro-life cause for its own merits is going too far…
@Sofie I'd be careful with the whole “the children will get raised unwanted and will suffer” argument. There are many cases of people (anybody think of a high profile NFL player) who are very success and happy despite being nearly aborted. To assume that every child born unplanned will be unhappy and poor, is really feeding into a bad stereotype…. so rich white teenagers whos parents can afford Nannies don't get have abortions. My point is you shouldn't be so categorical about all this stuff. True, extra children are a “drain” on society, but also, some of those children could be future presidents, artists, or bloggers. I just don't think that's a good argument to be using. Also, you claim that NO woman has an abortion without feeling guilt and sadness. Again, I'm sure people could dig up newspaper articles or testimonials proving just the opposite. Sure, most woman feel as you would, but that doesn't mean *all*.
@ Gavin The whole “not on my dime” thing is also kind of faulty. You live in a quasi-socialistic society. You pay for plenty of stuff. When a criminal is tried, convicted, and sentenced, you pay for all that. a LOT of money. Even though it's “his” crime. Clearly, the criminal was engaging in really stupid behavior – and you're paying for it. Should it be illegal for tax money to be spent on police? its just a part of being a member of the body politic, yes?
I know the world is not black and white, I know each and every case is extremly different and there is no catogerising nor right or wrong regarding this issue which is why it's so hard.
Yeas, I am very harsh and very rude when it comes to this issue, I have to, otherwise my points will never have a change of coming across, I will just be miss Indecisive in the corner saying “Well I think it's sort of like that but not always, it's also like this but not really, I guess I think.”
And no, I am not that person. I need to make a firm starting point and then elaborate later. It's the only way for me to deal with this issue and getting heard.
Yeas it's extremely harsh and I can come across as a reversed Sarah Palin, but hey, three people have responded to me which means they have taken my words into consideration. That is a victory for me.
The problem is that you're arguing ad consequentiam here. If taken as a given that the fetus is a person, then every other extenuating factor is moot. The fetus has a right to live, and the mother's situation, no matter how dire, doesn't in any way change that. (and obviously, if taken as a given that the fetus is not a person, the mother's situation is still moot because she can do whatever she wants anyway)
I appreciate the imposable situations and choices a woman must go through during an unexpected pregnancy. I do. No one should ever have to go through that. And hopefully one day medical science will bring us to a point where that sort of situation is virtually unheard of. However, this is in fact a very black and white issue. The fetus is either a person or it isn't, and that's in no way effected by what the consequences of that are.
Wow, I've been given a lot to respond to. Fun, fun fun. Apologize if I don't get everyone. Gonna try my best.
@Mark.
I am sticking up for a bill that does what I want. It ends taxpayer funded abortion, so it scratches two of my itches per say. The first being that it cuts spending, the other being that it no longer makes me a financial tool of abortion. I don't have to help fund something I hate anymore. I'll take what I can get.
And I'm not upset at this ad for being pro-abortion. Everyone has a right to make their opinions known. I'm upset about this ad for BLATANTLY lying about the purpose of the bill.
@dkh
The government has no business funding planned parenthood. I oppose giving a SINGLE penny to that cause.
And when our government is BANKRUPT, its time to start questioning how tax money gets spent. 75 million now no longer to planned parent hood, and instead going to pay down our debt, is a considerable amount of money. And no, we're not raising taxes. You people have taken enough.
@Smpoza.
I'm often puzzled by the reaction abstinence gets from a lot of people considering that when applied it guarantees that no pregnancy will occur.
I recall my sex ed class, and I recall being explained by the educator that in reality, I was nothing more than a wild dog who couldn't possibly be expected to control my urges, and that regardless of whatever discipline I might have learned through the years it was inevitable that I'd fornicate with the first woman willing to take her clothes off for me.
I rejected that. I am a man, not an animal. I make choices. I live with the consequences of those choices.
@Nick
I don't respect the source.
@Rob
The author of the law that included the phrase you found objectionable has dropped the phrase. Figured you'd be more relieved.
at the same time, the Democrat's attempt to make this into a semantical argument failed. Woohoo.
@Nixou….ooooh, boy.
I'm not lying. I do believe what I believe, genuinely just as you likely believe what you believe genuinely.
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
Wouldn't you consider the title of the post commentary?
Nitpicking aside, that is a very visually strong commercial that delivers the message both efficiently and effectively.
LikeLike
Y'know what? You're right. Consider that fixed.
LikeLike
Lisa Edelstein's performance is pretty good too.
LikeLike
Oh wow…. a very typical successful American political advert.
– Emotional,
– To the point,
– And completely lacking any sort of context.
Is there an upcoming bill I'm supposed to be angry about? Does it actually do what the advert suggests, that is make abortion illegal or does it do something entirely different. (For example, the health care bill “Death Panels” were about offering end of life counseling, not deciding who lives or dies despite the rhetoric.) Is this an important turning point or just more bureaucratic shuffling? The lack of context here is staggering.
If you're linking of this video part of a discussion on film making techniques, I'm all ears. This is an incredibly effective piece of propaganda, much like the “Daisy” advert of Lyndon B. Johnson. On the other hand, if there's a political point to be made here, colour me unimpressed.
LikeLike
This entire commercial is a bald faced lie.
What the Republicans have done is propose that taxpayer money, (a.k.a your money, my money, our money) doesn't find its way in the hands of Planned Parenthood a. The bill doesn't make abortion illegal. What it does is makes it so that if you want to murder your offspring, you gotta do it on your on dime, not my dime.
To even HINT that this is some sort of an assault on women's right is intellectually dishonest. Especially when we're discussing cutting funding to an organization caught giving advice to 14 year olds in sex rings how to avoid law enforcement.
Short version: This is Bullshit!
LikeLike
Especially when we're discussing cutting funding to an organization caught giving advice to 14 year olds in sex rings how to avoid law enforcement.
Oh, you mean in those blatantly faked videos?
LikeLike
@Arman
please think before you speak.. murder your child?
Do you really think any woman would ever want to go through an abortion? Do you have any clue what the emotional torture is?
And what if the woman is just not ready to have a child! Then you have ruined two lives, the woman and the childs.. to have an abortion does not equal not having children, often it just means to have them at a later time when the time is more right.
Do not pretend you have the faintest idea what it's like to even consider it, especially when your so carelessly throwing around words like that.
And by the way, it would cost both you and your goverment so much more to have not ready women get bunches of children so you will have to pay for these women getting back on their feet's from suffering trauma and devastation, and it's your money who will pay for these children growing up in neglect and probably end out in all kinds of shit which could have been avoided had they been born at a later time.
Think about that will you?
LikeLike
@Nick
Media Matters=No credibility. Its a Soros funded, left wing, waste of bandwidth obsessed solely with shutting down conservative speech on TV and internet. Presenting me with “Evidence” from Media Matters is like presenting me evidence from the mob. It just doesn't hold up.
@Sofia
If a woman is not ready to have a child, then she should not engage in the remarkably specific set of behaviors one is required to complete in order to be rendered pregnant. That, or accept the risks and consequences. That's all I really ask.
That said, the child's life does not have to be ruined, neither does the mother's. There are plenty of loving parents out their ready to adopt.
And why would the government have to pay anybody for anything exactly? I despise entitlement programs. I despise welfare.
LikeLike
There are currently 3 different HR's being made to affect Healthcare/Abortion policy. 1 of which is indeed, to keep public funds out of the matter.
In between the other measures, are for instance the redefinition of rape and forcible rape. So that abortions will be allowed in far less circumstances. These people will then indeed be forced to other measures.
The US government goes overseas to fight and liberate countries, and among praised results: give women in other countries sexual and reproductive freedom.
But are being completely hypocritical by taking those rights away from the people at home.
LikeLike
For my “libertarian” readers:
“Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”
— Ayn Rand
LikeLike
Oh cry me a river, Cuddy. always with the goddamn coathanger excuse, excusing what is basically last resort birth control for the apathetic woman.
LikeLike
Because Republicans are Chaotic Stupid.
LikeLike
Well, reverend, please share with us your sermons on abortion. How do you indoctrinate your flock?
(yeah, a happy atheist here. I only preach from the gospels of Adams, Dawkins and Hitchens)
LikeLike
@rob.
From Politico
“But a spokesman for the bill’s author, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), says the modifier “forcible” will be dropped so that the exemption covers all forms of rape, as well as cases of incest and the endangerment of the life of the mother.”
Happy?
Wise of the G.O.P ultimately. No reason to get into a fight over a poorly worded phrase when the real goal was never redefinition of rape, but rather cutting off tax money to abortions.
LikeLike
bob,
congraturations, you've relocated the abortion debate to your blog. if that was your goal, then as a famous banner said: “mission accomplished”
@shark – that is jilarious. i have been wanting to mix d&d with my political beliefs and now you have helped me to do so.
I'll spare you all a dissertation on *my* views on the subject (hint: they are the correct ones). What I will do is point out a few things:
@ all the pro-choicers here (apparently the majority): do you really think it will be made illegal? Certainly many people would love that to happen, but if the great historical movement from living in caves and whatnot through universal suffrage and the gay rights movement, i'm not sure, even if abortion were made illegal, it would stay illegal for long.
@ Arman and the other pro-lifers: you seem upset by this add, and very adamant that the bills in question will not make abortion illegal… yet you seem to greatly desire the illegality of abortion. So, I ask: what's your point? Either advocate for what you want, or don't. it seems like you're sticking up for a bill that doesn't even do what you want.
LikeLike
First response: HOLY FUCK!!!!
When it comes to the abortion issue, I'm indifferent. Being a 17-year-old whose never had a girlfriend, this doesn't really affect my life.
LikeLike
Arman, considering that the crunched numbers actually come out that tax payers pay, what is it? Less than a cent to cover all those oh-so-awful-money-sucking abortions in the country, it feels disingenuous how much they're raging against it.
The implication is that abortions are a massive economic drain on the economy, when quite frankly, they're not. If you raised the taxes over income over $1,000,000 at just 1% that would undo the damage innumerable times over, for instance. Think conservatives would even consider that? Of course not.
Euler, there is one Hell of a war on the issue. One of the chief problems is availability, for instance. Just a few days ago, the South Dakota legislature began moving to expand the term “justifiable homicide” to include killings designed to prevent harm to a fetus…. in other words suddenly killing an abortion provider becomes justifiable homicide. When you consider that South Dakota only has one abortion clinic, that means only one single person with a gun has to do the deed and suddenly, in the eyes of the law, it would be justifiable.
There was nationwide outrage and backlash and the bill is being modified to exclude doctors that provide abortions, but the point stands.
LikeLike
Lass than a cent per taxpayer, that is.
LikeLike
I've always considered the issue of abortion much simpler then most people like to think it is… the fetus is either a person or it isn't. If the fetus is not a person, than the woman can obviously do with it whatever she wants. If the fetus is a person, then it has all the same rights everyone else has regardless of any other extenuating circumstances. That's it… there is nothing else. Any excuse or reasoning beyond that is all just a red hearing trying to distract from the only question that should be asked… is the fetus a person?
As far as I'm personally concerned, since medical science is consistently making the actual point of birth more and more biologically arbitrary, the moment of conception seems the most reasonable point to say it's a person. I get the argument that the determination should be based on brain activity/ability, but since that's still very poorly understood and damn near impossible to actually test with the fetus still alive, I just can't see that as a viable alternative for now.
LikeLike
@ Bob
Ya know, the more I learn about Ayn Rand and her writings, the more I think she was a bit of a crazy bitch.
LikeLike
I often wonder what pro-life people think about fetsuses that absorb their twins, or twins that get absorbed by the “alpha fetus” and continue existing as a parasite.
LikeLike
That Ayn Rand quote is actually one of the saner things she wrote/said. The notion that people should accept having parenthood suddenly thrust upon them is insane. That people argue this for the sake of something that is essentially a non-human is even more insane.
LikeLike
I still maintain that if pro-life supporters spent 1/10th the effort they put into killing people and proposing bills that will never pass towards providing assistance to single mothers or adoption the abortion statistics in the country would fall much more significantly.
LikeLike
Coat hangers…
Rape…
Incest…
If abortion where only an act of desperation, I am sure the rate of terminated pregnancies would be one-twentieth what it is now, if not less.
LikeLike
@ Joseph Valencia
I hadn't really thought about that before… I suppose since it's a natural biological phenomena that just happens, it's really a non issue.
@ Joseph Valencia again
How is it “essentially a non-human”? It's genetically and biologically human… what else should matter?
@ Kent
I would completely agree.
LikeLike
Why bother keeping that little bundle of unintended consequences?
Well for me, it was so I could teach him this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FtOfzdrJ7I
Yes, that is my son, finishing Mario, world 1-1, Sonic 2's Green Hill Zone, and crashing cars in Burnout. You'd have to be a cold-hearted SOB to think this isn't the most awesome thing in the world.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
It's always hilarious to me that so many conservatives are adamantly against abortion, calling it murder and an atrocity…and then oppose funding social programs (health care, welfare, etc) that would give (in the case of unplanned teenage pregnancies) the mother and child a much better chance of surviving.
Also, @Arman:
I'm hoping you support comprehensive sexual education; otherwise arguing that “they shouldn't have had sex, let them rot” is remarkably cruel considering that so many schools will only teach abstinence, which relies entirely on trusting teenagers not to have sex with each other. Not a very good strategy. Also, I don't know if you actually looked at the MediaMatters link, but it's not just rambling. They have video evidence. That makes it a matter of facts, not left versus right.
LikeLike
@TheAlmightyNarf
I simply don't get what it is about fetuses that religious people find so endearing. They're not “human” in the sense of being intelligent or empathic or having any other traits we admire in humans. They're a low form of life: hard-coded for self-preservation and nothing else. They'd eat their fucking twin without missing a beat. The only thing I can think of is they look kind of a cute, in a creepy alien sort of way. Not sure if that justifies killing abortion doctors, though.
LikeLike
(Probably indecipherable rant incoming)
Might I also add why it is only at the moment of conception that blobs of genetic material become human life? I mean, after conception, the embryo is essentially a cell, and most of the important bits of the cell (what will become the embryo's nucleus and nucleolus) are in the egg. If full-grown people that cannot use many of their internal organs (brain-dead people in comas, people who need multiple organs removed for surgery) are still considered human, and embryos are considered human, is it really that far of a jump to call the ovum a person by itself? Does that mean that women commit murder on a monthly basis until they go through menopause?
(for the record, I absolutely consider disabled people human, I'm simply pointing out the nebulousness in determining when microscopic lumps of goo achieve sentience)
LikeLike
My expression when I see it's Lisa Edelstein: Hot damn! I love Lisa! She's a fantastic actr-
My expression when I see the coat hanger: WTF?! Damn that is dark…
Is this a serious ad playing on TV? I'm all pro-choice, don't get me wrong, but thats excessive for even my standards. The fact that it even points out the entire GOP as the “bad guys” is just too politically charged.
Still, damn…
LikeLike
This is why I follow the Lemmy Kilmister school of polotics. I.E. I hate it.
LikeLike
*reads through comments*
America sure is weird.
LikeLike
Media Matters=No credibility. Its a Soros funded, left wing, waste of bandwidth obsessed solely with shutting down conservative speech on TV and internet. Presenting me with “Evidence” from Media Matters is like presenting me evidence from the mob. It just doesn't hold up.
Ah, ad hominem attacks, right on schedule.
*reads through comments*
America sure is weird.
Agreed.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
@Arman
A; if there really are oh so many people out there jumping at the opportunity to adopt, why do we have so many orphanage filled with children then? For that matter, why have the U-countries so many children living on the streets? In China they tend to throw babies in the trash cane for crying out loud.
Sorry, there are way more children ready for adoption all ready now then there are people wanting to adopt, just to make matters worse, people who can't have children by natural means tends to prefer the surgical slightly less natural way so it becomes their own child rather than a adopting child.
B; Sex is a natural thing which is the product of very human drives. Why is it bob constantly make jokes about hot women? Because he likes hot women of cause, I am pretty sure you do to.
Now I am not saying everybody should rush out and have sex right now, that's stupid, because it's really not that big a deal. And I am differently saying that you should always use a condom, not only to ensure not becoming pregnant, but also to avoid all the illness's.
And from my standpoint if you deny an sixteen year old to go watch boobies, he will undoubtedly go out of his way to have a look at those boobies, if the parents treats it like it's not big deal and let him have that look on his own, it's just not interesting anymore.
In the same way a 21 year old who knows that sex is a natural thing and no big deal is less likely to go out and go wild than a 21 year old who have been denied to even think about it. because these are just integrated drives in our system, there is nothing wrong about it.
Not to mention, Sex is both fun and nice. You should always use protection but I see no reason not to have it.
And even with protection, pregnancies can happen.
For those who are stupid enough not the use protection, it is usually those men and women all ready out in trouble you would really not want to have a child.
And even putting any sex issue aside, to just think what to do with that all ready troubled woman who are suddenly pregnant? And then deny her abortion? That's stupid, And you can't just take the child away from her once it's been born unless you have prove she is unstable, and in the end if the woman don't have an option, because she is all ready in trouble, is poor and so on, it is very much your who are going to pay for that child and what ever trouble the child would finding itself in in the future. So on a larger scale, it really is for your own countries sake.
LikeLike
First off, I identify myself as Catholic. I do so more in the vein of the idea behind “catholic”, but that is linguistics.
To adress the ad and my understanding of MovieBob putting it here: The ad is moving, well framed, reveals a known/trusted character… basically, it is near perfect. But, it lacks a universal character. Here's what I mean: An assumed ideal is being given form, not an universal one. This is both exalting to the filmmaker and detrimental. Battlestar Galactica, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc…. wouldn't have caught on, if not for translatability of human experience. The advert showcases a wonderfully evocative experience, however it has a particular view to portray.
This doesn't withdraw from the artists involved, but sings their praises; although, it does mean a backlash is coming. Risks are, indeed taken – assuming people like me (who think abortion is the height of irresponsibility, or the result of *unspeakable* torture [i.e. regime-endorsed-torture/rape]).
The end result is this: abortion seems to fall into two fields: abandonment (I know, I'm Freudian); or indulgence (I know, I'm Freudian): Basically, the issue is case-by-case, but there is an underlying issue of ethics. The two may never meet in person, but they are there. The advert is moving, as well filmed as any S.Korean movie. But, lacks a pithy enough center to lodge either an attack or a defense. It is what it is. And it may be effective at it.
LikeLike
@Arman, no, I'm not. Again, you're looking at 1 bill, not all of the proposed resolutions. This thing is handled from different sides and different angles.
LikeLike
Sadly, you probably never should have mentioned the high-schooler's second fav pseudo-philosopher (Rand).
Independance is more intellectualy costly/challenging then (Rant's followers) are willing to go. I'll level my “religion”-faith if Kant is right, also I'll follow phenomenalism is Ponty is more rational. That's how I roll. Bu, when it comes to murder (justified or not) of vegetable, animal, or obviously conscious) I side on eat-them-or consider-them-equal. I don't care if dogs, cats,rats, etc are considered game, I'll eat people (given the chance) I just want a God-damned line drawn. Y/N. Maybe it is my generation. I don't care… I just find it frustrating to identify my general viewpoint on (basically) EVERYTHING since I thought (95) we had been given a voice…
LikeLike
You know people.
I am just so exstremely tired of all of these abortion discussions all over the net, and they are bassically the same. It's a bunche of guys talking about it. Never do they try to see it from a young pregnant womans perspective.
I am all for equallity between men and women, and I realise this also means that often women have to back off, and the card. “I am a woman therefore I need special understanding or service.” is something that is used to often and needs to go if you really want equality. The world is not only consistent by women supressed by men, but women using their. “Move away I am woman so you don't want to surpress me.” way to often.
That being said, this is a touchy subject, and it's a womens subject. in around 60% of all these abortions cases, the dude who was just as much a part of the pregansie as the woman, are not going to take responsibility. And it's also easy for him to say. “Take an abortion bitch.” or “Do not take the abortion and put the kid up for adoption bitch.”
Any sane woman would never want to do either! And it really isn't a question about wanting, it's about what needs to be done and what is best for everyone.
I am sick of guys saying “Murder the child.” and be preaching about. “Irresponsability.” Don't you think the woman in question knows that she is putting out a life? her own child even? Don't you think she fells the strain? Do you really think any sane woman would ever want an abortion? Don't you think that they wish they had just never been impregnanted in the first place?
And the world is not just black and white! you can't talk issues like this and act like the world is.. it's not! it's a big slur of grey.
And some of you people, I wouldn't normally make such a rude comment, but some of these comments makes me sick.
LikeLike
@ Joseph Valencia
“Intelligent or empathic” are impossible to discern in embryos, and are pretty subjective anyway. I would have to be against that as a way of determining whether someone's a person or not. I mean… dog's are empathic and moderately intelligent, should they be considered persons? Sociopath's have no empathy… are they not?
And, I would have to be on the side that it is completely unjustified to kill abortion doctors.
@ Smpoza
Ovum are not complete organisms in and of themselves. They lack a complete genetic code and are unable to acquire any more energy then they already contain without being fertilized.
LikeLike
Sofie,
if I may offer some of my experiences? I'm a man and, quite honestly, there's nothing I can do about it. I was born that way, I'll die that way. I have no strange quirk in my genetics or neurological makeup that makes me feel that I should be a woman or anything like that.
To be fair, it's been pointed out to me that I tend to think about things like a woman – on a largely social level, for instance, and that I often use examples that feature relationships (such as “a man and woman in an abusive relationship”).
Right off the bat, there's no perspective I can ever truly have other than a man's. But more than that, there is balance. You're right when you say these are women's issues, but they do involve men.
A few months ago I was talking with a man on the subject of abortion and lamented about how an ex of his had an abortion that he wanted to keep. “That child was a part of me” were his words. I remember where I was about four years ago when I got a call from a girl telling me she had missed her period. We had broken up by then, but it was recent. I was terrified and neither of us were nearly ready to be parents. Yes, I convinced her that if push came to shove an abortion would be a good idea. I was extremely ashamed of myself, but I don't actually blame myself. I did what had to. Thank God it turned out to be a false alarm.
When I was in college, I remember trying to talk to the big feminists on campus about how various issues affected men, and they were completely disinterested. They ALWAYS had time to talk about these issues affected women, but men? Oh no. One of them was the type to say all rapists should be behind bars, no forgiveness, etc. etc. etc. Then a girl was revealed to have falsely accused a man of raping her to hide an affair she had. It came out that the accusation was false, but the feminist didn't let this bother her and remained friendly with that girl. If rape is such a serious crime, shouldn't false accusations of it be considered serious?
These are womens' issues, yes. But they DO have effects on men. I can't apologize for the callousness of all men, but I can say we're not all Arman at least.
LikeLike
To Arman and all the pseudo “pro-lifer” who pretend that they just want to preserve the american taxpayer money from the dirty hands of poor “irresponsible” women…
You lie.
I know that you lie
Everyone one here knows that you lie
And you fucking know that we know that you lie
You lie about everything, including about your motivation.
Because its not about the “life of the unborn”. None of you give a shit about the “life of the unborn”, your aloofness toward the ordeals of women living in the poorest corners of your own country has already denounced and proved that past your lip service toward the “sanctity of life”, you feel nothing but this despicable disdain toward the non-fictional, already born and breathing on their own kids that are not part of you own exiguous social circle.
Its all about sexual freedom.
Sexual freedom includes among other things having sex without having to raise unwanted children. And this used to be a privilege for the wealthy and the blue blooded, except that two centuries of ongoing progressism have eroded this privilege, turning it into an universal right, and you just cannot stomach it. You all want to come back to the day when your social class (or at least the social class you identify with) was the only one with access to sexual freedom.
Simone Veil, the former french health minister who was instrumental in making abortion legal in France, told the press that during the debate about the legalization of abortion, most of the opposition did not come from the most conservative politicians, but from those who had the money to provide abortion to their teenage girls or to their very young mistresses. They were for abortion, alright: as long as they were the only one to have access to it.
Yeah, even 40 years ago you were not fooling anyone: it's just that most non sociopathic people are too polite to tel you up front that they know that you are full of it.
Its about sexual freedom, and you want it to be your exclusive dispensation.
So you can go on faking outrage and pretending to be rightous principled men, you can act like wanking with one hand while writting Soros' name with the other was a sign of intellectual and moral superiority, in the end, you know as well as I do that your “love for the life of unborn children” is as fictional as Santa Claus and that you are nothing more than shit-spewing member of the pro-rape tribe.
LikeLike
@Dkh
I agree with you. I totally do.
And my post was very harsh, I know that. But to get my points across in cases like this I need to be harsh, if it makes me appear like a bitch, so be it. At least I made an impression.
Yeas, your right, it will be hard for everyone, and my post was also targeted towards young guys who havn't been through any thing like that, because they just spit out such points that easely. And it honestly is always the same with all these abortions threats, I am always the only woman taking a stand and try and say “What is best for society, what is best for the people? what is best for the pregnant woman?”
Why I am always the only woman present.. I dunno, perhaps it's because write at nerdy movie forums mostly which tends to be dominated by men, perhaps it's because the subject is so touchy that most women don't want to talk about it and I just need to learn how to keep my big mouth shut and stop taking offence.
But it just gets to me right away whenever a dude calls it “Murder” so easely, and don't assume that the pregnant women in question doesn't have similar feelings! That the man in question probably also have it if he has a soul, and every single one who ever had their child aborted had these feelings, unless there were something very wrong in their head.
Yet, most often. It's just something that needs to be done, for everyone sake.
And that money argument is probably the stupidest argument I have ever heard. “I don't wanna pay for her abortion”
Fine! Then your tax money will go to the child she wont be able to raise instead, try and do a math piece and see which one is more expensive and which one will damage your society more on a long term basis.
Also, there is to many people in the world, you can't deny this. We are destroying our planet because we are to many, and there is a million more every year. Will you really put children into the world when you know it's going to be unwanted by pretty much everyone? That because mom and dad wasn't ready the child will suffer all of her or his life.. how heartless is that?
LikeLike
Got half way through comments and had to take a Batman break. But anyway:
In the case of rape, or the other tragedies of course abortion should be available, however in today's society where protection is readily available, if you end up getting pregnant through an “accident” (I don't like that term but it was the only one I could think of), you're pretty stupid.
Maybe you should be allowed an abortion within the first three months as Bob has wisely mentioned, but I'd rather it'd be on your own pence (or dime) than mine. I'm stupid enough on my own, why should I have to suffer for your stupidity as well?
As for the advert, from a neutral perspective it did a good shock strategy, but when you think about it, it's like equating removing the death penalty to letting murderers free without punishment, or not going to a strip club to being gay.
There is room for middle ground Cuddy!
LikeLike
wow, this certainly has grown since my last post.
@Nixou and dkh
try not to personally attack people, even if you may have good points. many may agree with you, but yes, they are too polite to say it… that's probably because it shouldn't be said.
True that perhaps many people feel as you have described, but to presume that nobody actually believes in the pro-life cause for its own merits is going too far…
@Sofie
I'd be careful with the whole “the children will get raised unwanted and will suffer” argument. There are many cases of people (anybody think of a high profile NFL player) who are very success and happy despite being nearly aborted. To assume that every child born unplanned will be unhappy and poor, is really feeding into a bad stereotype…. so rich white teenagers whos parents can afford Nannies don't get have abortions. My point is you shouldn't be so categorical about all this stuff. True, extra children are a “drain” on society, but also, some of those children could be future presidents, artists, or bloggers. I just don't think that's a good argument to be using.
Also, you claim that NO woman has an abortion without feeling guilt and sadness. Again, I'm sure people could dig up newspaper articles or testimonials proving just the opposite. Sure, most woman feel as you would, but that doesn't mean *all*.
@ Gavin
The whole “not on my dime” thing is also kind of faulty. You live in a quasi-socialistic society. You pay for plenty of stuff. When a criminal is tried, convicted, and sentenced, you pay for all that. a LOT of money. Even though it's “his” crime. Clearly, the criminal was engaging in really stupid behavior – and you're paying for it. Should it be illegal for tax money to be spent on police? its just a part of being a member of the body politic, yes?
LikeLike
@Mark
I'm not.
I know the world is not black and white, I know each and every case is extremly different and there is no catogerising nor right or wrong regarding this issue which is why it's so hard.
Yeas, I am very harsh and very rude when it comes to this issue, I have to, otherwise my points will never have a change of coming across, I will just be miss Indecisive in the corner saying “Well I think it's sort of like that but not always, it's also like this but not really, I guess I think.”
And no, I am not that person. I need to make a firm starting point and then elaborate later. It's the only way for me to deal with this issue and getting heard.
Yeas it's extremely harsh and I can come across as a reversed Sarah Palin, but hey, three people have responded to me which means they have taken my words into consideration. That is a victory for me.
Let it not be said that I can't argue my case.
LikeLike
Mark wrote:
but to presume that nobody actually believes in the pro-life cause for its own merits is going too far
—
That's precisely why I started with «To Arman and all the PSEUDO “pro-lifer”»
LikeLike
@ Sofie Liv Pedersen
The problem is that you're arguing ad consequentiam here. If taken as a given that the fetus is a person, then every other extenuating factor is moot. The fetus has a right to live, and the mother's situation, no matter how dire, doesn't in any way change that. (and obviously, if taken as a given that the fetus is not a person, the mother's situation is still moot because she can do whatever she wants anyway)
I appreciate the imposable situations and choices a woman must go through during an unexpected pregnancy. I do. No one should ever have to go through that. And hopefully one day medical science will bring us to a point where that sort of situation is virtually unheard of. However, this is in fact a very black and white issue. The fetus is either a person or it isn't, and that's in no way effected by what the consequences of that are.
LikeLike
Wow, I've been given a lot to respond to. Fun, fun fun. Apologize if I don't get everyone. Gonna try my best.
@Mark.
I am sticking up for a bill that does what I want. It ends taxpayer funded abortion, so it scratches two of my itches per say. The first being that it cuts spending, the other being that it no longer makes me a financial tool of abortion. I don't have to help fund something I hate anymore. I'll take what I can get.
And I'm not upset at this ad for being pro-abortion. Everyone has a right to make their opinions known. I'm upset about this ad for BLATANTLY lying about the purpose of the bill.
@dkh
The government has no business funding planned parenthood. I oppose giving a SINGLE penny to that cause.
And when our government is BANKRUPT, its time to start questioning how tax money gets spent. 75 million now no longer to planned parent hood, and instead going to pay down our debt, is a considerable amount of money. And no, we're not raising taxes. You people have taken enough.
@Smpoza.
I'm often puzzled by the reaction abstinence gets from a lot of people considering that when applied it guarantees that no pregnancy will occur.
I recall my sex ed class, and I recall being explained by the educator that in reality, I was nothing more than a wild dog who couldn't possibly be expected to control my urges, and that regardless of whatever discipline I might have learned through the years it was inevitable that I'd fornicate with the first woman willing to take her clothes off for me.
I rejected that. I am a man, not an animal. I make choices. I live with the consequences of those choices.
@Nick
I don't respect the source.
@Rob
The author of the law that included the phrase you found objectionable has dropped the phrase. Figured you'd be more relieved.
at the same time, the Democrat's attempt to make this into a semantical argument failed. Woohoo.
@Nixou….ooooh, boy.
I'm not lying. I do believe what I believe, genuinely just as you likely believe what you believe genuinely.
Sorry if I missed anyone.
LikeLike