The Terminology Is Grotesque... In My Opinion!

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: beezzer

I've seen a lot of passionate posts from the pro-choicers. Passion for women's rights.

I know the pro-lifers say that Margaret Sanger wanted to kill all black people, but that's not the Margaret Sanger I have been reading about. The Margaret Sanger I know was very passionate about freeing women from the burden of having child after child after child. She saw so many women slowly dying from having 6 or 8 or 10 or more children, living in poverty, sometimes alone. She saw those women who felt their only choices were to keep popping out kids and ruin their health, or take another chink out of their humanity by ending their sexuality altogether, to keep from getting pregnant yet again. She wanted them to be free to be sexual beings, just like the men, without having to live with the fear of pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy. She was first and foremost, a proponent of education and contraception. She looked at abortion as a viable, but last resort. And she was concerned for ANY woman in poverty, not just black women.

And that is the truth as you perceive it.

It's a very emotive issue and it seems both sides are trying to out emotion the other. There is no way in making abortion palatable, no matter how you phrase it. It's a grim business that people don't enter into lightly. The issue still has to be discussed and to some there is no way of describing clinical procedures in emotional language. I'm not sure what type of language you would like people to use. What's worse is seeing members use the issue as tool to bash their political rivals or religious opposites that's also pretty grotesque

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Sure whatever. Deny the fact that you were creating a PC argument while simultaneously complaining about it. If you don't want to be called a conservative because you don't want to make this a political argument, fine, but know this, YOU started it when you brought up PC in your op.

Nice.

"Well I won't kowtow to the PC"
This is the only time I mentioned PC in a few hundred words...

And it was to do with saying "foetal tissue" instead of "baby parts"...

So nowhere did I create a PC argument, Krazy.

I politely asked for no hypnotic bait and switch fallacies...
You're propagating one.


I never said you have to use my terminology.
That would be a PC argument.

I said I won't be using your terminology.
That was a rant.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: beezzer

I've seen a lot of passionate posts from the pro-choicers. Passion for women's rights.

I know the pro-lifers say that Margaret Sanger wanted to kill all black people, but that's not the Margaret Sanger I have been reading about. The Margaret Sanger I know was very passionate about freeing women from the burden of having child after child after child. She saw so many women slowly dying from having 6 or 8 or 10 or more children, living in poverty, sometimes alone. She saw those women who felt their only choices were to keep popping out kids and ruin their health, or take another chink out of their humanity by ending their sexuality altogether, to keep from getting pregnant yet again. She wanted them to be free to be sexual beings, just like the men, without having to live with the fear of pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy. She was first and foremost, a proponent of education and contraception. She looked at abortion as a viable, but last resort. And she was concerned for ANY woman in poverty, not just black women.

And that is the truth as you perceive it.

That women have the right to protect their own health? Yep.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Well now you know how REAL political correctness arguments are formed. People rant about what other people are saying because it offends them. That's all a political correctness argument is. That is your OP. Now, conservatives like to PRETEND that PC arguments are violations of rights, or people telling other people what to say; but that is only a dumb strawman in their heads. It's a trap that you fell for in your OP when you said that you won't kowtow to the PC. There you are offhandedly suggesting that the pro-choice crowd is trying to force you to use these terms that you don't like.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No one is offhandedly suggesting anything...

I specifically said people have argued against the term baby parts and said "no you're wrong it's foetal tissue"...

That is in of itself an attempt to change someone's vocabulary.

Read that part of the OP again, and then you'll understand where I'm coming from.



As for all of this conservative nonsense...
Stop.

It's political baiting and trolling and it's not welcome on ATS.

We don't all fit neatly inside of labelled boxes.

& anyone who knows my post history, like yourself, will know not only am I as far from conservative as some on the far left...
But I'm also not one to fall for any type of nonsense from any political spectrum.

Respectfully speaking!

A structured organization of interdependent molecules comprised of 61% Oxygen, 23% Carbon, 10% Hydrogen, 2.6% Nitrogen, 1.4% Calcium, 1.1% Phosphorus.

i.e. a clump of cells as cleverly referred earlier in the thread.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

All I said above there is that you are falling into a conservative strawman trap involving the definition of political correctness. It's possible to do that without being conservative.

By the way, ever watch South Park? Ever wonder why we don't call veal, tortured baby cow? Well that's why scientists don't want to call fetal tissue "baby parts".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Kindly don't.
I've fallen for no strawman, I've come to my own conclusions, with my own mind, which is dependent on my own moral standpoint.

It's also possible to think for oneself instead of being moulded by sound bites.
That's my labelled box, sir.


& when foetus' become a food source I'll agree with the comparison, is that fair?

I hope this isn't too OT Charlie, but one thing I have noticed in all these abortion threads is that the side that finds this whole process 'grotesque' is the side that realizes the pointlessness in this debate first and bows out of the thread, while the 'tissue' side always has to get the last word in, and then they continue to stroke each others viewpoint for a few more pages.

I think this happens because deep down they know how wrong this is, but through re-enforcing each others opinions they are able to continue rationalizing their paradigm.

I am sure I will now be told how 'immature' this is and that I need to 'educate' myself.

Don't bother because I will not be back to read it.

originally posted by: theMediator
We also say eggs instead of unborn chicken matter.

Collateral damage, insurgents, rebels, Palestine...those are words with moral dilemma.
I don't see no dilemma with other people's abortion because it isn't my life and not my damn body.

But it is a life and a body, that gets destroyed and mutilated, because a selfish person, decided their wants were more important.

Pretty pathetic in my book, but I wouldn't decide this for another.

If it were me, I would never do such a thing.

a reply to: stosh64

Can't say I've noticed it Stosh, I usually bow out before the end because things become repetitive. imo.

Each new thread can bring a new angle, but after a while they dive headfirst into whether it should be a choice or not.
No ones minds will be changed on that so I try to find another thread to stimulate the mind.


I don't think anything is off topic in a rant... Not as far as I know anyways.

originally posted by: beezzer
I wonder why those that are for abortion are countering this thread?

It's just terminology, right?

We are all free to call it what it is, right?

You can say, "clump of cells".

We can say, "Baby killer".

The truth is with the perception of the act.

You all, who want this, look at it with dispassion.

Our perception of the act is something entirely different.

"baby killer " is exactly what they are, and what abortions do.

They kill babies, by the millions, and act like it is nothing to get uppity about.


Disgusting IMHO.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

And we love you too, Charlie. We won't all agree on everything all time, and that's okay. It's what makes the world interesting.

And makes ATS amazing, who wants to agree all the time?

We wouldn't ever learn anything like that.

People who do not believe women should have the option of terminating a pregnancy at will are standing on the dock and arguing about whether or not a ship that's already sailed over the horizon should be untied from its moorings.

People who see no moral distinction between terminating a pregnancy and drowning a two week old infant in a bucket are going to be perpetually appalled.

This is why I prefer a good Bigfoot or UFO discussion.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: beezzer

I've seen a lot of passionate posts from the pro-choicers. Passion for women's rights.

I know the pro-lifers say that Margaret Sanger wanted to kill all black people, but that's not the Margaret Sanger I have been reading about. The Margaret Sanger I know was very passionate about freeing women from the burden of having child after child after child. She saw so many women slowly dying from having 6 or 8 or 10 or more children, living in poverty, sometimes alone. She saw those women who felt their only choices were to keep popping out kids and ruin their health, or take another chink out of their humanity by ending their sexuality altogether, to keep from getting pregnant yet again. She wanted them to be free to be sexual beings, just like the men, without having to live with the fear of pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy. She was first and foremost, a proponent of education and contraception. She looked at abortion as a viable, but last resort. And she was concerned for ANY woman in poverty, not just black women.

Um no good man is free to just go around having random sex.

Good men want good women, you know low mileage.

Not today's women that have had dozens of past partners.

Only the losers want those types, and those same losers get them pregnant and run off, while the woman can't understand why it happened again.

a reply to: johnwick

I'm not necessarily just talking about single women. I'm also talking about married women. Back in Margaret Sanger's day, it was primarily married women who were having so many children that their health was deteriorating.

originally posted by: theMediator
We also say eggs instead of unborn chicken matter.

Collateral damage, insurgents, rebels, Palestine...those are words with moral dilemma.
I don't see no dilemma with other people's abortion because it isn't my life and not my damn body.

Except an egg for most of us is unfertilized, so it isn't and can't be unborn. There is no potential for life there.

Now, maybe if we were talking about balut ...



That is clearly unborn duck matter.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Your problem is with people speaking clinically about these terms? That's like getting mad because a scientist called a dog a canine.

Go up to next expectant woman you see and ask her how her fetal tissue is doing and when she expects her clump of cells to be born.

Not even my OB talked about our son that way when he was less than 10 weeks on.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: beezzer

I've seen a lot of passionate posts from the pro-choicers. Passion for women's rights.

I know the pro-lifers say that Margaret Sanger wanted to kill all black people, but that's not the Margaret Sanger I have been reading about. The Margaret Sanger I know was very passionate about freeing women from the burden of having child after child after child. She saw so many women slowly dying from having 6 or 8 or 10 or more children, living in poverty, sometimes alone. She saw those women who felt their only choices were to keep popping out kids and ruin their health, or take another chink out of their humanity by ending their sexuality altogether, to keep from getting pregnant yet again. She wanted them to be free to be sexual beings, just like the men, without having to live with the fear of pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy. She was first and foremost, a proponent of education and contraception. She looked at abortion as a viable, but last resort. And she was concerned for ANY woman in poverty, not just black women.

And that is the truth as you perceive it.

That women have the right to protect their own health? Yep.

At the expense of the life of another human.

Why don't men get the right to murder to " protect their health "?

What a bs argument.