Welcome to Gaia! ::

I'm not pro-choice, I'm on the fence. It's stuff like this childishness that makes me want to stay there. Whoever made up that signiature image feels very emotional about pro-lifers calling her this, that and the next thing for doing what she believes is her right, and the best decision for her, and all you people can do is point and laugh at it.

Same thing happens in the pro-choice guild with foetuses. They happily treat the subject like nothing; 'It's a clump of cells' etc. and I only think 'That's disgusting. They deserve respect'.

When you've been in a position to consider an abortion, and you've had someone in your face trying to sway your decision, you come back and say they're being too rash, because I for one can't blame them for being that way.

If a pro-lifer had made a similar signiature about pro-choicers having a go at her, would you find it so funny? Oh, wait, no, you don't see 'choicers trying to persuade people to have abortions, do you? (I'm not talking about abortionists, I'm talking about people like us).

Try seeing it from someone else's point of view. As I said, I'm not pro-choice - I'm on the fence - but I can see where the 'choicers are coming from, even if I don't agree with them.

She has a point, but besides that signature, they sure do have a lot of this 'emotional outpouring' going on...

In fact, let's do a structured critique:


Right here we see the first problem. The image is, albeit in an obviously sarcastic way, implying that the following -is- how all Pro-Lifers feel about women.


The creator is assuming that Pro-Lifers think of women who get abortions as whores. True, some do. Some would call a woman who's gotten an abortion a whore. However, the Pro-Life movement as a whole does not deserve to be lumped in with these immature name callers. We prefer to use the term "Prostitute."

But seriously, I do not look down on women who have abortions as "whores" or "sluts" or even as murderers. Because, even though I do believe they have committed a "crime" which is equivalent to murder, they do not know what they are doing, so I forgive them. More than anything else, I feel pity for them, because they have done a horrible thing and don't even know it. And someday it might hit them just what a horrible thing they've done. (Whether they want my pity or not is irrelevant.)

...What? What does trust have to do with getting into debt? I trust that everyone has the capability of getting into debt. Hell, I have the capability, if not the will. Beyond this, however, I trust every woman with her uterus. Which is why I trust them to protect the sancity of their uteruses (Uterii?), by not painting the walls with the blood of innocents.

Assuming, however, that they are saying that a woman who remains pregnant against her will will rack up bills because of the kid, first of all, she did

A grammatical critique: The phrasing makes it sound like the writer is saying "You trust her to get into debt with her credit cards, but not to get into debt with her uterus." Which sounds kind of stupid, as the only way she would conceivably (No pun intended) get into debt with her uterus would be by having and raising a kid.

And seriously, why the hell is "UTERUS" green? Every other accented word is red! Of course, given that the uterus is where the fetus is, and abortion providers charge money... But that only makes sense if a Pro-Lifer had done it.


This implies that the Pro-Life position is "You made the bed now lay in it," or, more appropriately, "If you do the crime, do the time." We do. Not. See. Pregnancy. As. Punishment. At least not most of us. We believe that the fetus is a human being deserving his or her right to life as much as the rest of us do. We do use the argument of, "Well you chose to have sex," but it is not our base argument; It's more a counter of the ridiculous implications by many Pro-Choicers that they did nothing to place the child there. Obviously they don't mean exactly that, but many Pro-Choicers seem to say, "I did everything I could to keep this from happening, so I am not responsible for it."

Look, in the real world, if you do everything you can to keep something from happening but it still happens? That doesn't absolve you of responsibility. And you sure as hell can't just kill it and move on. I'm trying to think of a good example, but there really isn't a real-world example to compare to pregnancy.

Discrimination, I understand. However, as a Pro-Lifer, I want to work at eliminating discrimination of pregnant women. And, in fact, it seems to me that it is more anti-choice to say, "Abortion should be legal because pregnant women are discriminated! Women have to have an abortion so that men will respect them in the workplace!" As Kate has said, it's ridiculous that women should have to have surgery to make them equal to men.

For the second part, I had not heard that pregnant women were more susceptible to murder. Where is that coming from?

Another grammar nit-pick: Everyone has a risk of murder, and everyone is discriminated against by someone. Perhaps they should say -increased- discrimination and risk of murder?


...Huh? This sentence doesn't even make sense to me. What is more than she wants? Increased risk of murder? Really? She didn't want that? It seems like the whole thing makes more sense without this sentence.


A) Rape accounts for only a tiny percentage of abortions. And regardless of that, as I said, pregnancy is not a punishment for sex. Abortion is wrong because the child is a -child,- not because their mother had sex.

B) So the child should die because the mother was stupid/forgetful/lazy, and didn't bother to read up on the drug they are taking?

I'm watching Scrubs right now which made me wonder; Would this argument work for a doctor? "Oh, I forgot that aspirin kills people with asthma. My bad! I'm not responsible for that."

C) Why is condoms plural? Are multiple condoms being used? I thought that increased the chance of ripping one. Maybe I'm confused. But either way, again, the child should not be punished because of a slip up or a twist of fate.


For one thing, I don't believe that Plan B is alright because it can cause a spontaneous abortion. However, I'd rather it be legal than abortion be legal.

Second, the solution should be to make it more accessible, not leave abortion legal.

And it's not a medicine. It's a drug. There's a difference. Medicine heals people. Plan B, whether it kills someone or not, certainly isn't healing anyone.

Lastly, as Zin noted, "prescription" is spelled wrong.


Also doesn't make sense. Is the writer saying that Plan B is legal, and we think that should be enough? Because personally I think that's too much. And even if it's not, just because the woman doesn't have access to a legal way of preventing pregnancy does not mean that she has the right to KILL HER CHILD. Anyone feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record? Because I do.


As divine implied brilliantly, what a wonderful way to put having children.

And, again, perhaps we should work more on pregnancy and birth, by young, single, working, student, etc. mothers being an acceptable thing, rather than allowing them to kill and make the problem "go away."


And to close it all off, all Pro-Lifers are misogynists. Wonderful. An argument easily countered by the fact that, oh, at least half of the Pro-Lifers I know are women, and I know more Pro-Life men who absolutely respect women in everything than I do Pro-Choice men who absolutely respect women. I mean, to put it to you straight, who do you think is more likely to respect the fact that a woman doesn't want to have sex, and wait for her? By this, I mean as opposed to bothering her about it until she gives in, rather than outright raping her. I'm not saying that all Pro-Choice men are going to be on the one end, and all Pro-Life men on the other, but which side do you think is more likely to be that way? The one where they are okay with you killing anything that is created? Or the one where they believe that life is sacred, and should be protected?

(And I chose "There is no disagree option" just because the phrasing amused me. whee )

A corollary:

Unless I'm mistaken, all drugs that interact with birth control are prescription-only, except for St. John's Wort. (Which I believe should be prescription-only. stare )

This means that if a woman taking hormonal birth control (specifically, a regimen with estradiol) ends up also taking a drug that lessens its efficacy, and was never reminded of this interaction,

1. The prescribing physician failed to inform her, and

2. The pharmacist failed to inform her.

Both put themselves at risk for a malpractice lawsuit.

I've never heard of an occurance, but I can see someone suing for the cost of an abortion if they were not told of the interaction.

If you forget a fact that could change your life something like a week after you were told, well, you need to be on yet another drug because your memory is shot to hell.

So there goes their little argument that women can "forget" that a drug interaction could result in pregnancy. 4laugh

I think spending an entire thread having a go about something made by someone already debunked, is rather disturbing. Don't you have better things to discuss?

I didn't see this before! whee That's just wrog, too bad your friend stopped you. If they're young, they're raising a baby, why should they deserve nasty looks?

I love your post, lymelady, but reading it made my mouth open. They were that bad? Is the I.Am and lymelady thread still there?

I respect your thoughts, but I disagree considering the time that sig came out and who made it. I understand exactly where they're coming from. It's not like I was born pro-life, or I live in a bubble that consists of church and my pro-life friends. Heck, my family is for the most part pro-choice. I'd never be able to tell them my career plans. But the person who made this KNEW that's not what all pro-life people think, and by saying, "Be pro-woman. Be pro-choice," it is lumping us all together as people who are anti-woman.

Also, big misconception about Plan B is that it only prevents fertilization. If you believe life should be protected from conception, it's as bad as abortion. If not, no problem. It's not an abortion because it prevents pregnancy, but, if it fails to keep conception from happening, it prevents pregnancy by making it so the uterus lining thins...basically induces a period...thus making implantation almost impossible. I say almost because it doesn't always work.

If you believe life should be protected from conception, then EC rids the body of conceived humans and therefore is as bad as abortion. If you believe life should be protected later on, then EC rids the body of conceived humans but not human beings so it's all good...or else you don't know that EC functions in a way that makes a uterus inhospitable to a blastocyst.

Anyway, that's what people get upset over with Plan B. It's a form of EC that does prevent implantation of an already developing human.

P.S. Lorysa: We weren't saints either, but yeah. It wasn't such a fun time. I think that thread still exists somewhere, but I'm exhausted from the flight so I won't go look it up. I like being healthy.