|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:32 pm
Lorysa 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? They were actually quite worse. I still remember Mipsy's "The Pro-life Guild: Because we can't get laid." They were bored so they just read over the guild and tore us into little pieces like the ravenous beasts that many of them make themselves out to be. Many problems began after Peer was booted and then Talon. They were not happy about that, at all. Oh, wait. The Emissary program. The guild's good willed yet sad attempt to bridge the gap between ideologies by sending reps. from both sides into the other guilds. I'll never forget Nethilia's lovely post: "This Guild's Ideology is Not up for Debate" It was long, here was the summary: "Kp606, shut the ******** up." They are primitive in their tactics. They actually have the upper hand because, you know, Abortion is legal, but you wouldn't know it. The tactics they result to undermine us as people, the very same people (predominantly women) that they try to "defend". sweatdrop
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:52 pm
lymelady 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.
And I think I saw that thread, Kp. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:10 pm
See, and they say they never appeal to emotion.
This signature is basically telling me that I think women are whores if they get pregnant and want to get an abortion, and I don't like being told what to think. See, "Whores" is the wrong word. "Whores" has a connotation that I don't really like. It makes it seem like sex is wrong (which it isn't), or that women who like sex are wrong (which they friggin' aren't), and that's not something that I agree with at all.
I have to say, it's a very confrontational signature. It makes me want to try and defend myself, and that's exactly what the choicers like to do. Confront, try to convert, calmly suck them in with words like "choice" and "freedom", when really it's just small talk to give women the right to kill their children.
At least they're not all this bad. As we all know in this hurr guild. <3333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:01 pm
Scribblemouse The writer next refers to Pro-Life (or merely people who refer to themselves as Pro-Life; I'm not 100% sure whether all Pro-Lifers share this sentiment) that rape is not an excuse for abortion, so it's irrelevent. Same goes for whether the woman has used protection, as I have seen many people - who call themselves Pro-Life - state that it's the woman's fault for getting pregnant, and ignore the fact that contraception can fail; pregnancy would not be directly her fault, as such. On this point, contraception is known to be able to fail. That is a variable known before sex; Contraception is not 100%, and just because you used contraception and tried your hardest not to become pregnant does not mean that you are not responsible for the pregnancy if you do become pregnant. Frankly, whether you used contraception or not, the pregnancy occurred because you had sex, not because the baby fairy came in the night and magically made you pregnant. Again, this does not mean that pregnancy is a punishment. But it is a responsibility, and the result of your actions. Quote: Then there's Plan B, which seems to be a touchy subject. As far as I can tell, since I haven't heard the term in the UK so much, it's a pill taken to prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation and thickening the cervical mucus, reducing sperm viability and penetration (actually, now that I've described it, I don't see what the fuss is about, since it seems to merely stop sperm, but I digress). From what I have read, Plan B is a preventative that does not seem to be based on harming an already-fertilised egg, although I may have misunderstood the information - so if anyone wants to correct me, feel free (as in all of this little essay). Anyway, although this is a contraceptive and would prevent any unwanted preganncy, it's not easily available and anyone not desiring to become pregnant have no easy access. Even so, if these people become pregnant, they can be told the same as above; that it's their own fault, that they're [insert derogative here], and that they should suck up and deal with the consequences, even though they tried their best to prevent such consequences. The main thing is to prevent ovulation, yes. But if the egg is already fertilized, it will keep the egg from implanting, which causes a spontaneous abortion. If you do not believe that the embryo is a person until it implants, this isn't a problem, which is why many Pro-Lifers are big supporters of Plan B. However, if you believe that life and "person-hood" begin at conception, than it is a problem. Quote: Well, that's what I was thinking when I read the signiature. I can understand where they're coming from, although they could have put it in a less hysterical way (I don't quite understand the reason for capitalising certain words much, other than to present them as main points and/or to make it stand out instead of looking like a block of text). What I want to know is how you can understand where they are coming from and defend them, but not us? confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:04 pm
And my biggest problem with the banner is that it isn't just an emotional outpouring. An emotional outpouring is what you do in your journal, livejournal, whatever. But a banner is an advertisement. And this is false advertisement, because it equates "Pro-Woman" to "Pro-Choice." Which, of course, equates "Anti-Woman" to "Pro-Life."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:47 am
I.Am Scribblemouse The writer next refers to Pro-Life (or merely people who refer to themselves as Pro-Life; I'm not 100% sure whether all Pro-Lifers share this sentiment) that rape is not an excuse for abortion, so it's irrelevent. Same goes for whether the woman has used protection, as I have seen many people - who call themselves Pro-Life - state that it's the woman's fault for getting pregnant, and ignore the fact that contraception can fail; pregnancy would not be directly her fault, as such. On this point, contraception is known to be able to fail. That is a variable known before sex; Contraception is not 100%, and just because you used contraception and tried your hardest not to become pregnant does not mean that you are not responsible for the pregnancy if you do become pregnant. Frankly, whether you used contraception or not, the pregnancy occurred because you had sex, not because the baby fairy came in the night and magically made you pregnant. Again, this does not mean that pregnancy is a punishment. But it is a responsibility, and the result of your actions. Quote: Then there's Plan B, which seems to be a touchy subject. As far as I can tell, since I haven't heard the term in the UK so much, it's a pill taken to prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation and thickening the cervical mucus, reducing sperm viability and penetration (actually, now that I've described it, I don't see what the fuss is about, since it seems to merely stop sperm, but I digress). From what I have read, Plan B is a preventative that does not seem to be based on harming an already-fertilised egg, although I may have misunderstood the information - so if anyone wants to correct me, feel free (as in all of this little essay). Anyway, although this is a contraceptive and would prevent any unwanted preganncy, it's not easily available and anyone not desiring to become pregnant have no easy access. Even so, if these people become pregnant, they can be told the same as above; that it's their own fault, that they're [insert derogative here], and that they should suck up and deal with the consequences, even though they tried their best to prevent such consequences. The main thing is to prevent ovulation, yes. But if the egg is already fertilized, it will keep the egg from implanting, which causes a spontaneous abortion. If you do not believe that the embryo is a person until it implants, this isn't a problem, which is why many Pro-Lifers are big supporters of Plan B. However, if you believe that life and "person-hood" begin at conception, than it is a problem. Quote: Well, that's what I was thinking when I read the signiature. I can understand where they're coming from, although they could have put it in a less hysterical way (I don't quite understand the reason for capitalising certain words much, other than to present them as main points and/or to make it stand out instead of looking like a block of text). What I want to know is how you can understand where they are coming from and defend them, but not us? confused I don't believe personhood starts at contraception. I don't have much of an idea of what stage of life I could point at and say ' Now it's a person' though. I don't have anything against Plan B, because I see it as a method of safe contraception, and that's fine in my book. I don't think it stopping a fertilised egg from implanting is the same as abortion, since I don't believe a fertilised egg is the same as a foetus. I haven't been in a position to defend any Pro-Lifers as of yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:57 am
Quote: If you do not believe that the embryo is a person until it implants, this isn't a problem, which is why many Pro-Lifers are big supporters of Plan B. However, if you believe that life and "person-hood" begin at conception, than it is a problem. Meaning, he's not saying you have to be opposed to Plan B. He's explaining why some people are. Personally, I don't like Plan B. I don't believe there's an objective point where personhood can start, but there is an objective point where human life starts, and that's conception. A blastocyst looks nothing like a human, but it still is a separate human life. Referring to it as a fertilized egg is sort of misleading, because it isn't a fertilized egg anymore, and a fertilized egg is different because it's not a separate human life yet. It will be soon, it just isn't yet. It actually doesn't stay a fertilized egg very long, but I digress, the biologist within is being a**l. I don't think it will ever be illegal, but part of the reason I'm not persuing a medical career is because I don't want to have to take part in what I believe is killing a human being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:36 am
Yeah, exactly. I wasn't saying you had to agree with me, I was saying why I and others do not agree with Plan B.
And that's exactly my point. You always take the Pro-Choice side, and you always defend Pro-Choicers. I understand that you feel like you're giving voice to the under-represented, but it'd be nice to see an example of you seeing -both- sides. confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:37 pm
I.Am Yeah, exactly. I wasn't saying you had to agree with me, I was saying why I and others do not agree with Plan B. And that's exactly my point. You always take the Pro-Choice side, and you always defend Pro-Choicers. I understand that you feel like you're giving voice to the under-represented, but it'd be nice to see an example of you seeing -both- sides. confused I would feel like I was preaching to the choir, really. I'm not sure what I could say about the Pro-Life side, in this instance, that would add anything of value - you would already know about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:42 pm
you could start by agreeing once in a while.
As for the beginning of life, I've been over this before. I believe the idea of life starting at conception is accurate only because it's at that point that the cells cease to be merely information bearing cells and begin to divide and grow on their own. It's the difference between having blueprints and breaking ground on building something. Once a project like that is started in the real world, if it's halted after ground is broken, the common term for such a halt is that the construction was 'aborted.' It's logical to assume the same about the growth of a human being.
Once cells combine, then begin to divide, which happens at conception and before the cell attaches to the wall, you have human life separate from that of the mother's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:55 pm
@Mindcandy: However, you yourself were once a Pro-Lifer who believed that life does not begin until the fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall. And it is fully acceptable to believe that. If you want to argue your point on whether that is the truth or not, please start another thread, as this thread is about the banner, and we don't need to go off any further down that tangent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:09 pm
I was misinformed about when cell division began. I was taught in high school that the division started AFTER the cell attached to the uterine wall, but yeah, I did digress a bit.
This whole topic is way off track though, and i really don't think I'm to blame for that.
soooooooo... banners anybody?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:23 am
MiNdCaNdY I was misinformed about when cell division began. I was taught in high school that the division started AFTER the cell attached to the uterine wall, but yeah, I did digress a bit. This whole topic is way off track though, and i really don't think I'm to blame for that. soooooooo... banners anybody? *ponders* Haven't seen any good banners in general, although I have seen one with a writing ninja which is kinda cute, but that's probably going off on a totally different tangent . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:15 am
Scribblemouse MiNdCaNdY I was misinformed about when cell division began. I was taught in high school that the division started AFTER the cell attached to the uterine wall, but yeah, I did digress a bit. This whole topic is way off track though, and i really don't think I'm to blame for that. soooooooo... banners anybody? *ponders* Haven't seen any good banners in general, although I have seen one with a writing ninja which is kinda cute, but that's probably going off on a totally different tangent . . . Oooh those are cute! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:17 am
i love the last one, but i can see it causing some problems.
the other two, while cute and amusing, don't really bring our point across so well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
