generic

Unbranded; without a registered trademark.

Home
queries
Twitter
archives

 

tylercoates: She’s talking about extremist Christians who blow up clinics, right?

tylercoates:

She’s talking about extremist Christians who blow up clinics, right?

(via atsween)

(via atsween)

Death. And Suffering. And other stuff.

squashed: 

generic1: has a very thoughtful post on abortion. He outlines a pro-choice stance, justified by the view that a fetus, while human, isn’t sufficiently developed to suffer enough to raise moral concerns about killing it.

generic1:

By “raise” I think the debate is justified, certainly.

Read More

On Abortion (and Treading Lightly)

generic1:

The rights of the mother outweigh the protections of the fetus.

squashed:

You contrast “rights” with “protections.” Those are two things I don’t know how to weigh against each other.

Read More

(via nickdouglas)

(via nickdouglas)

(via jlamere)

(via jlamere)

clitorisaurus asked
Are you going to continue your argument with fucknoliberals?

If Monty Python taught me anything, it’s that you should stop paying for the 5 minutes. Arguing with fucknoliberals is problematic because he:

  1. doesn’t read the news. By which I mean, he won’t acknowledge the larger political conversation taking place around him (unless it’s convenient). In a discussion with him, there’s no “pro-life movement”, there’s just his position, as if the whole issue were only playing out in his living room. Hence the whole “I’m not pro-life, I’m anti-abortion” thing. I could play along and characterize myself as “not pro-choice, but pro-abortion”. But the whole exercise obscures more than it reveals. At the end of the day, we’re both making common cause with others who share our political goals and there are some conclusions to be drawn there. He’s uninterested.
  2. won’t follow a premise and won’t elaborate. He’ll just basically say “no”. For instance, I’ll draw an equivalence between murder of the born vs. murder of the unborn. Him: “One has nothing to do with the other.” Which, hey, is the pro-choice position! Normally, I’d follow in hot pursuit, but he has a law degree and knows how to build to a logical consequence, so he’s being deliberately obtuse there. It’s like tossing a ball to someone who won’t toss back. And if that person is a professional ball-player, there’s no point in explaining the game of catch. Or maybe he’s like someone who ties their rope to fence post during a game of tug-of-war. They won’t win, but they won’t lose, either. It’s a stalemate that keeps you from conceding too much if things aren’t going your way. Or it could just be laziness. I don’t know.
  3. expects you to comb his archives for clues to his position, rather than state his positions concisely. (He could link to prior posts, as I’m about to do.)

And when you take all those tactics collectively, it paints the picture of someone who doesn’t want a discussion. There are a lot of conservatives on tumblr who want to restrict abortion rights. But the reason I initiated with fucknoliberals is because he presents an interesting avenue for debate: he’s a conservative atheist.

(Real Talk: It’s clear to a lot of us fuckyeahliberals that the abortion controversy isn’t about the metaphysical status of the fetus, but about sex. And that many of those sexual prohibitions are grounded in religious convictions. But his atheism left some wiggle room. And wiggle he did. On sex-ed, anyway.)

But he’s shown little interest in actual argument; he won’t undergird his rebuttals. And reengaging looks like a lot of tedious, heavy lifting. You have to connect every dot, and it’s obvious he knows better. Also, I have some non-tumblr readers who’ve expressed disinterest in that point-by-point thing.

But if this is a specific request, I’ll absolutely take the gloves back up again.

Anti-Choice Doc Aims to Link Reproductive Rights to ‘Black Genocide’

ihatethismess:

The campaign is already having an impact. As the New York Times reported late last month, the overwhelmingly white Georgia Right to Life has spent more than $20,000 erecting 80 billboards around Atlanta that proclaim, “Black children are an endangered species.” The group has created a Web site, Too Many Aborted, with excellent production values, designed to portray legal abortion as a plot against the black community. Meanwhile, according to the Times, the new documentary Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America, which purports to “trace connections among slavery, Nazi-style eugenics, birth control and abortion,” is finding an audience among black organizations nationwide. The Times quoted Markita Eddy, a sophomore at the historically black Morris Brown College, who had turned against abortion rights after seeing the film.

there’s a movie! that’s going to be fun.

(via jlamere) Very good. A+ You can have your tired PETA buttons and your Free Mumia patches. Want to make your politics happen and bust some stigma? Here you go. Suit up. I’m all for one-upping the t-shirt slogan or the trite armband, but damn, girl. For a pro-lifer that’s tantamount to flaunting homocide at the scene of the crime. And it’s one thing to look at the photo, the way we are now. I imagine it’s quite different in person, on the bus or some other public space. Talk about walking the talk. The stages are so clear in my mind: You read the text. She sees you reading the text. You become aware of her seeing you reading the text. She registers the fleeting look on your face, either disgust or approval or respect or astonishment or some emotional mixture. She responds in kind, judging you based on your reaction. And just like that you’ve had a subtle, but substantial political interaction. We usually don’t let ourselves get caught at Step 3 or 4 unless the catalyst is shocking enough to shake the casual viewer from their comfort zone. (“Yeah, yeah. ‘Meat is Murder’ …whatever.”) The mask has to drop for a second. And that’s not even counting the personalities who start a conversation (shudder). Well done. Add it to the list.

(via jlamere)

Very good. A+

You can have your tired PETA buttons and your Free Mumia patches. Want to make your politics happen and bust some stigma? Here you go. Suit up.

I’m all for one-upping the t-shirt slogan or the trite armband, but damn, girl. For a pro-lifer that’s tantamount to flaunting homocide at the scene of the crime.

And it’s one thing to look at the photo, the way we are now. I imagine it’s quite different in person, on the bus or some other public space. Talk about walking the talk. The stages are so clear in my mind:

  1. You read the text.
  2. She sees you reading the text.
  3. You become aware of her seeing you reading the text.
  4. She registers the fleeting look on your face, either disgust or approval or respect or astonishment or some emotional mixture.
  5. She responds in kind, judging you based on your reaction.

And just like that you’ve had a subtle, but substantial political interaction. We usually don’t let ourselves get caught at Step 3 or 4 unless the catalyst is shocking enough to shake the casual viewer from their comfort zone. (“Yeah, yeah. ‘Meat is Murder’ …whatever.”) The mask has to drop for a second. And that’s not even counting the personalities who start a conversation (shudder).

Well done. Add it to the list.

Both mother and son are vocal opponents of abortion, though there’s a curious aspect to the story she’s told in numerous interviews. Pam has repeatedly said that all this happened in the Philippines, where she delivered Tim in 1987. But as a letter to CBS from the Center for Reproductive Rights notes, the Philippines criminalized abortion in 1870. Since 1930, its criminal code governing abortion makes no exception to save the life of the mother and requires prison time for doctors and women involved.

Tim Rutten, Los Angeles Times

It appears that the Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad might be predicated on a lie. Why am I not surprised? You’ve just been given a gift CBS. Take it. Pull the ad.

(via ericmortensen: joyengel)

“A national columnist for CBSSports.com, Gregg Doyel, also objected to the CBS decision to show the ad, specifically because it would air on Super Sunday. “If you’re a sports fan, and I am, that’s the holiest day of the year,” he wrote. “It’s not a day to discuss abortion. For it, against it, I don’t care what you are. On Super Sunday, I don’t care what I am. Feb. 7 is simply not the day to have that discussion.”

“A national columnist for CBSSports.com, Gregg Doyel, also objected to the CBS decision to show the ad, specifically because it would air on Super Sunday.

“If you’re a sports fan, and I am, that’s the holiest day of the year,” he wrote. “It’s not a day to discuss abortion. For it, against it, I don’t care what you are. On Super Sunday, I don’t care what I am. Feb. 7 is simply not the day to have that discussion.”

robot-heart-politics: Antis outside Louisville, KY clinic start wearing fake escort vests - Feministing Anti-choice protesters show up at a clinic wearing vests to look like the regular clinic escorts (people who work for the clinic and are hired specifically to protect patients from people like the ones shown above) in order to confuse patients and get the opportunity to more thoroughly harass women trying to go into the clinic. Ugh.

robot-heart-politics:

Antis outside Louisville, KY clinic start wearing fake escort vests - Feministing

Anti-choice protesters show up at a clinic wearing vests to look like the regular clinic escorts (people who work for the clinic and are hired specifically to protect patients from people like the ones shown above) in order to confuse patients and get the opportunity to more thoroughly harass women trying to go into the clinic. Ugh.

(via tumblrisforfaggots) In my running series of inflammatory political stunts, this is a contender for Best-In-Show. Why does it work? First, on a gimmick level, it fits in your pocket. I would take it as a souvenir if I agreed, and I’d especially take it as a souvenir if I disagreed (“How offensive! Can you fucking believe this shit?”). Why is it inflammatory? Because most women don’t have multiple abortions? Hm. Interesting. Using abortion as a method of birth control creeps most people out. Just saying it’s a method of birth control pisses liberals off—even when it’s quite literally a method of preventing birth. But pretty much everyone is outraged by a woman who carelessly has four abortions. I don’t see why that should be the case. This strikes me as a situation where we pro-choicers are subconsciously agreeing with the pro-life argument. And this card is where we start to pay the price. When pro-lifers say, “It’s a child, not a choice” we disagree with the judgement, but we agree on the distinction. Looking at that stamp of a red fetus, they see a child. When we look at that stamp of a red fetus, we see a choice. Am I right so far? Well then: Is the abortion of a fetus a bad choice? The pro-choice answer: No. Then why should repeat instances of that same choice be objectionable? Why is the cumulative effect of multiple abortions more distasteful than just one instance? I have an answer to that. But my answer, as a pro-choice man, has fuck all to do with the metaphysical status of the fetus and everything to do with the psychological status of the woman. My answer: abortions are traumatizing. After abortion #3, I want to take the woman aside and say “Sweetie, what’s going on here?” and “Do you know about your options for contraception?” and “Is this really how you want to live your life?” If she gave me a level-headed stare and told me to fuck off, I’d comply. Do you understand what I’m saying here? I’d cheerily let her redeem that 7th stamp. But a pro-lifer just sees multiple instances of murder. Most people see a callous slut. What do you see? How do you feel about number 7? Number 27? Most people, while politically pro-choice, are personally pro-life. They don’t like the idea of abortion, and don’t really want to think about it. But they’re uncomfortable dictating the terms of a fairly infrequent event. So when Democrats say, “Abortion should be safe, legal and rare” they’re conceding—maybe even pandering—to the personally pro-life majority. They’re agreeing with the logic behind this card. I’m telling you guys: Abortion rights get eroded long before Bart Stupak or Ben Nelson or the Christian Right ever say a word.

(via tumblrisforfaggots)

In my running series of inflammatory political stunts, this is a contender for Best-In-Show.

Why does it work? First, on a gimmick level, it fits in your pocket. I would take it as a souvenir if I agreed, and I’d especially take it as a souvenir if I disagreed (“How offensive! Can you fucking believe this shit?”).

Why is it inflammatory? Because most women don’t have multiple abortions? Hm. Interesting. Using abortion as a method of birth control creeps most people out. Just saying it’s a method of birth control pisses liberals off—even when it’s quite literally a method of preventing birth. But pretty much everyone is outraged by a woman who carelessly has four abortions.

I don’t see why that should be the case. This strikes me as a situation where we pro-choicers are subconsciously agreeing with the pro-life argument. And this card is where we start to pay the price. When pro-lifers say, “It’s a child, not a choice” we disagree with the judgement, but we agree on the distinction. Looking at that stamp of a red fetus, they see a child. When we look at that stamp of a red fetus, we see a choice. Am I right so far?

Well then: Is the abortion of a fetus a bad choice? The pro-choice answer: No. Then why should repeat instances of that same choice be objectionable? Why is the cumulative effect of multiple abortions more distasteful than just one instance?

I have an answer to that. But my answer, as a pro-choice man, has fuck all to do with the metaphysical status of the fetus and everything to do with the psychological status of the woman. My answer: abortions are traumatizing. After abortion #3, I want to take the woman aside and say “Sweetie, what’s going on here?” and “Do you know about your options for contraception?” and “Is this really how you want to live your life?” If she gave me a level-headed stare and told me to fuck off, I’d comply. Do you understand what I’m saying here? I’d cheerily let her redeem that 7th stamp. But a pro-lifer just sees multiple instances of murder. Most people see a callous slut.

What do you see? How do you feel about number 7? Number 27?

Most people, while politically pro-choice, are personally pro-life. They don’t like the idea of abortion, and don’t really want to think about it. But they’re uncomfortable dictating the terms of a fairly infrequent event. So when Democrats say, “Abortion should be safe, legal and rare” they’re conceding—maybe even pandering—to the personally pro-life majority. They’re agreeing with the logic behind this card.

I’m telling you guys: Abortion rights get eroded long before Bart Stupak or Ben Nelson or the Christian Right ever say a word.