Pam lets us know about a new anti-choice organization that's sprouted out of attempts to define fertilized eggs as people.
Apparently the defeat of the Colorado amendment made anti-choicers think it would be a fantastic idea to take their failed state initiative nationwide.
A new pro-life organization, Personhood USA, plans to assist local pro-life groups in different states to put personhood amendments on their states ballot by using the petition process.The 17 States that allow citizens to place constitutional amendments on ballots will be the target states. Personhood USA will also help with opinion petitions to encourage politicians to run personhood amendments in other states. During the Colorado Personhood campaign, organizers were contacted by individuals in many different states with excitement and the desire to start personhood efforts in their own state.
"Praise Jesus! The pro-life tide is rising in America, now is the time for the entire pro-life movement to turn the focus off from permitting murder but attempting to 'regulate' it, to pushing for the recognition of the God given right to life for all innocent persons. Persons are humans beings from the moment of fertilization." Cal Zastrow, Co-Founder of Personhood USA.
Um...yeah. Good luck with all that. Perhaps a creepy video will help...
PUSA Promo (Web) from Endfallow on Vimeo.
Ladies, did you know that your uterus is shaped like AMERICA? Yeah, I didn't either. I'd write more about the pathetic attempts by anti-choicers to limit women's reproductive freedoms, but my Texas is cramping like a mofo.
P.S. This is what a fertilized egg looks like. Yeah.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: New anti-choice organization: Personhood USA.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10380
I love grassroots activism, and I applaud these people for actually trying to do something about things they perceive to be unjust, but COME ON!
This argument seems to be all about definitions, and both sides are pretty unyielding as far as changing their own personal interpretations of the definitions. We're at a stalemate, and I personally don't see how people can think it's okay to mandate these choices so definitely, especially when these definitions seem to really only stem from religion and not reason.
It just frustrates me that people on the right try to make abortion into such a big issue! For the people who are actually getting them done, it's not a political choice. It's not a way of sticking it to the Man or protesting against the religious right.
What they forgot to add was the bottom line:
Warning, terms and conditions may apply. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness only guaranteed if not born female.
Indeed. How long did women have to fight for "personhood"? If we had known that all we had to do was be fetuses all along... how much suggerage would it have saved the rest of us? Arg....
You also forgot… gay, lesbian, bi, Trans, Latino, African-American, and anyone who is not white-male-heterosexual!
Okay, this is stupid.
I'd like to say that I am Pro-choice, AND pro-life. That was a shout out to all the "pro-life" activists who have the nerve to accuse those who support women's rights of being somehow "anti-life".
And by the way, I don't see them protesting the harvesting of chicken eggs for breakfast. Caviar is sacrilege! Heh.
"A person is a person, no matter how small"... Yeah, and a woman who DOESN'T want to spend nine months of her health rearing an unwanted child is a person, *too*.
I agree with you, but I always find this argument kind of flimsy. Animals are not people. Most of the world kills and eats animals on a regular basis, and if you're talking to any religious anti-choicers they're likely to give you the "God put animals on the earth for our sustenance" argument. Animals are not considered the same kind of life as people. The issue is, as you said, that this "personhood" line ignores that women are- yep, persons.
"Animals are not people. "
Some animals ARE people, because people are definitely animals!
"Animals are not considered the same kind of life as people."
Perhaps not. But what is it that makes people, people? Is it not their thoughts, feelings, their personality? These are all qualities lacking in zygotes, embryos, and fetuses until at least 26 weeks gestation - when activity can first be detected in the cerebral cortex. Frankly, it seems like flimsy reasoning to me that one could be considered a person before one has any awareness of any meaningful kind - that given to us by an active cerebral cortex. This is what makes me think about animals - the chickens and cows we put on our dinner plates are more aware, more person-like, than zygotes, embryos, or fetuses. Unless all you care about is DNA, and that just makes no sense at all to me.
Sorry, but I merely presented an argument anti-choicers would give you... why are you ripping me up here and in a comment below to the obvious troll KB?
I'm friggen pro-choice. Of course these people say nutty shit- that's my point... why give them a flimsy argument that makes pro-choicers sound as if WE don't value life? Clearly we value WOMEN'S lives, and they value a couple of cells strewn together and then vote for the death penalty.
And please- make the arguments you want about personality and feelings denoting life (I agree. Cerebral Cortex all the way)- but a chicken is not a person. Disclaimer: I don't think embryos are people either (that I have to even say it tho- this is the first time I've been on Feministing and felt commenters went crazy-don't-attempt-objectiveness left).
T-Monster: You are seriously over-reacting. I am not "ripping you up", there is nothing mean-spirited or vicious in anything I said to you. I merely offered my take on the argument that you presented - whether or not it is actually your argument does not matter to me. I linked KB to MY comment (not yours), so how this is of any concern to you is beyond me. And please do point out where I said a chicken is a person. Good luck with that, because I didn't. Have a good night!
Yea. Have some condescending much.
Not at all. But clearly you're in the mood to put yourself on the cross, so have at it. I'm done here. Hope you feel better tomorrow.
And by-the-by, I don't think my argument shows a disregard for life at all. I simply don't limit my value for life to things that contain human DNA. But whatev, you're entitled to your opinion.
And by-the-by, I don't think my argument shows a disregard for life at all. I simply don't limit my value for life to things that contain human DNA. Nor do I think that all killing is necessarily evil (I'd have a tough time reconciling my adoration of large carnivores with that one.) I don't think valuing life and accepting some killing as part of life are mutually exclusive. But whatev, you're entitled to your opinion.
"A person is a person, no matter how small".
Y'know, I really get angry every time they co-opt this line. "Dr. Suess" and his wife have made it abundantly clear that they do not support the use of this line by pro-lifers, and that it does not mean what they would like it to mean.
Also, it's a stupid line for their cause anyway. I mean, seriously? One look at a detailed, pictorial, fetal development chart will completely crush any notion that the only difference between a baby and a zygote/embryo/fetus is size.
I Love Love Dr Seuss...so I'm with you in that just utter disdain of his awesome book being used as an arguement for anti-choicers...
I like how they took losing ALL the anti-choice ballot initiatives as a sign that the "pro-life tide is rising."
Okay then.
Notice how they emphasized the word "empower," and had it repeated over and over again by women? I guess this means feminism is so successful that anti-feminist initiatives have to co-opt our language and imagery to try to sell their cause ... for some reason, I don't find that comforting.
Um..I'm pretty sure pre-born babies, are not actually out of the mother's womb yet and are therefore not babies...they are fetuses.
Also, defining "pre-born babies" as humans is extremely problematic not just from the abortion standpoint- what about women's rights to engage in dangerous activities while pregnant (like driving, or anything that could potentially harm the fetus)?
What it needed was a little CG fetus in the womb at the end there going "and ME!" in a voice like the fly/man trapped in the spider web at the end of the original version of "The Fly." That would have won me over for sure!
So if a pregnancy causes a woman to die, can the "pre-born baby" be charged for murder, or at least manslaughter? If they're a person with the same rights, doesn't that also necessitate the same responsibilities and prohibitions (like say...killing)?
Does that mean that pregnant women who drink will be charged with providing alcohol to a minor?
If a pregnant woman smokes pot, will the fetus be charged with possession?
Do women have to report a potential murder every month when they get their period? How exactly do the police go about "collecting evidence" on that one?
Seriously, when does this insanity end? Defining a fetus as fully human with full legal rights opens a huge barrel of worms that I don't think these pro-life groups understand. The legal system would come to a screeching halt if these laws ever passed, as every woman would have to prove every month that she hadn't been pregnant and therefore didn't miscarry (and thus isn't guilty of murder or manslaughter). And that's not even counting how absolutely offensive the legal system would treat women who have fertility problems and have to compound murder accusations with the fact that they just miscarried...again. The stupidity of this train of thought never ceases to amaze me.
P.S. I love the picture of the "pre-born baby." (aka, fertilized egg.) It definitely has its mother's purple color, but I think that circle-line thing must have been inherited from its dad... :P
This comment was fantastic and did a great group of drawing out the slippery slop legislation like this would set out.
Here's my issue: There are a lot of objectively smart people working behind campaigns like this. Do they not understand how this process works? That because Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision, overturning it involves getting a supreme court ruling to overturn it, or a constitutional amendment. Any state amendments like this would be immediately challenged and simply not upheld.
It breaks my heart that the money that goes into these campaigns could truly be used to combat a culture of death--gun violence, the death penalty, juvenile crime, genocide abroad--and yet it gets caught up in campaigns like this that are all (very weird) style and no substance.
I've been trying to sort out where my beliefs come from on this issue recently, and I've realized that I simply cannot vote for a candidate who refuse to be pro-life only as it concerns a fetus. We have poverty, unemployment, and violence in this country; unwanted babies who would be born with a ban on abortion would emerge into a hellish world where no one could adequately care for them. I don't understand why religious groups can't just do this to be "pro life." I have a crazy aunt who votes solely against abortion, but I'll be damned if the lady didn't once take in a woman she convinced not to have an abortion and help her get back on her feet. If one person can do it, and stop focusing on the legal issues of abortion, I think more can. Safe, legal, and RARE--why can't we all just agree on this?
(My thoughts continue on, but I don't have the energy. Everyone, great comments, let's keep the dialogue going!)
The pro-birthers are so blinded by this imagined "right to life" that they believe there's nothing more to life than not being dead.
I have never understood how those who identify as "pro-life" reconcile their beliefs with support for the death penalty. Maybe I've always skipped over this in the past--but I now see it is about "innocent" life. Hmmm.
Don't spend too much time worry about "innocence" - they don't. If they did, they'd be the biggest anti-war hippies ever, because we all know you can't have a war without killing innocent civilians.
Also, it is fun watching pro-lifers tangle with the idea that a fetus can neither be innocent nor guilty - since it lacks that pesky ability to act with intent. I have yet to get an answer out of one about this - usually they just flat-out deny that this matters. Our laws, however, definitely say it does.
Children are innocent. Once you reach puberty, and certainly once you have sex, "innocence" disappears. Thank Augustine for criminalizing sex, and thank the Victorians for fetishizing childhood.
innocent isnt a term that just BELONGS to children under a certain age. i know plenty and see plenty of little shit head kids running around wreaking havoc. i don't think you're innocent anymore once you gain an understanding of "right" and "wrong" and do "wrong" things repeatedly. i grew up in a rural community where kids were torturing animals and even killing them by various methods. therefore i do not believe "innocent" just belongs to anyone.
I want to know what happened to "created equal." Did they rewrite the Declaration of Independence and forget to notify the rest of us?
Did they rewrite the Declaration of Independence and forget that anything living inside and off of a woman isn't all that independent?
The funniest thing about this propaganda was its old-timey appeal! LOL @ the 50s-style countdown and "classic" spool-fed film quality. Smacks of tradition, doesn't it? Though why anyone would be nostalgic for the social climate of the 50s...
Empowering "pre-born" babies necessarily disempowers women. How can the "and me" chorus of women at the end of this ad be persons if their rights are appropriated by a diploid cell after a sex act? Some personhood. IMHO, being a "person" does not mean being a person-shaped receptacle for sperm or a vaguely humanoid fetus-transport-and-delivery device.
My favorite thing about the phrase "pre-born baby" is this: What does it mean if you buy a chicken "pre-cooked"? If they really came pre-born, no one would ever have to have an abortion.
Good point, I never even thought about that! I just thought they were being hip, arty and pretentious...
now i'm going to start referring to those of us who do not inhabit the womb "postborn." omg it's so postborn of me to be typing comments to a blog entry, amirite?
Any use of the term "pre-born" in seriousness always makes me feel nauseous, because it speaks of an ideology that is too easily linked ton one where all fertile women are functionally classified as "pre-pregnant".
But hey, if fetuses are the unborn, that makes the rest of us the undead! Isn't that fun? MMMMM ... BRAAAAAINS... ;)
As a huge fan of the zombie genre, I give your comment major thumbs up. :D
Actually, there was a Washington Post article a few years ago encouraging all women to think of themselves as "pre-pregnant" in order to avoid ingesting alcohol, sushi, and other things that might be harmful to a fetus before she realizes she's pregnant... sickening, but some in the world already think of us as "pre-pregnant".
Sickening.
What is said and done in the name of Jesus, in the name of God- it's sickening.
I'm so tired of ignorant, misogynist communities that would put an embryo's rights before a woman.
Every sperm is not sacred.
These asses push for something so ridiculous,
and meanwhile, women die from illegal abortions all over the planet.
Aren't women person's too?
Aint I a human?
Aarg
Am I the only one who thinks a fetus is just a parasite?
Eh ... technically, a parasite is one species living off of another species. But we can say that the relationship between an embryo/fetus and the woman who carries it is parasite-like. :)
a embryo is technically a parasite since it requires the woman(or man as the case may be) to carry and support all of it's needs such as oxygen, nutrition, shelter. and yes that is always what i've considered a embryo to be. i don't wish to have one living off of me till a long time from now if at all. besides i know if one did happen to me, i would either have to drop out of college or possibly hand it over to it's grandma to help raise it.
Yami, I'm going to have to stick to my biological training here. "Technically" an embryo is NOT a parasite. But it's behavior is analagous; it can be said to be parasite-like.
Actually, technically it's more like a graft than a parasite. At least a parasite is its own organism; a fetus is not!
My Texas is cramping like a mofo... Hahaha!
Dear me though, when will this "definition" madness end?
I totally cracked up when I heard someone was going to spend money trying to pass this in Colorado. Ha ha, they LOST!
I'm sorry, I have no idea what a "pre-born baby" is. These made up terms and definitions are intended to be blurry and confusing. As soon as a sperm meets the egg is that a "pre-born baby"? Silly me, I always thought the scientific term was zygote. If the people in this video are so concerned about a "culture of death" then I hope they are also working hard to protest the Iraq war and certainly not supporting politicians who are pro-war. I also hope they support environmental standards to reduce the toxins in our environment that cause cancer and disease. I would respect pro-lifers a little more if they ever actually picked up a genuine science book and used valid terminology.
an egg (like, the breakfast kind), is not a chicken. not even if it's fertilized. how is this not clear?
was i the only one that was a little creeped out by the "we will not rest until all 50 states recognize"... it was like they were declaring war on us
Mariella, they did declare war upon the United States decades ago. So far, they are losing, but we have to keep standing firm against them.
Look at the way the name is presented: it almost resembles the font/logo of Planned Parenthood.
This personhood argument really frightens me.
If we took these people at their word, they believe that the US government is complicit in a domestic genocide that kills millions every year.
I genuinely don't see how someone could believe that and recognize the legitimacy of the US government, or be a patriot.
Please, please, please stop with the 'this is what a fertilized egg looks like, those silly people trying to protect that' argument! By implying that something that doesn't look human can not be human and not therefore not subject to legal protection, you run into some logic problems when you are talking about something that does look human.
Oh, I don't think so, nestra. The appearance of a fertilized egg is just meant to illustrate exactly how insane it is to call it a person. Appearance isn't everything, but it is a component. Really, shouldn't even the most basic definition of a person include a person-like physique? There are definitely other arguments for keeping abortion legal - the most important will always be women and their rights as people. But that doesn't mean we can't point out what a ridiculous extreme position the other side has taken.
I think the point is that the "doesn't look human to me" argument is a dangerous position for anyone. We can say that for any number of reasons a zygote or fetus does not meet the criteria for "legal person" but when we reduce our position to "we obviously it doesn't look like a human, therefore it isn't a human, duh" we are painting ourselves into a corner. First, because this position is no more defensible than is their assertion that a soul enters the picture from the moment of conception; second, because this argument is reminiscent of other oppressive lines of argumentation. In our very recent past, disabled persons were considered less human by virtue of their looks or behaviour. People with different anatomical structures are routinely denigrated and discriminated against based on their physical appearance. We could easily draw a parallel between the "well, children who have ichthyosis do not look as human as do other children" and "well, that fetus doesn't look human to me." It's not that the fetus does look human, but that we should be cautious about how we define "human."
That video doesn't show a fertilized egg. It shows a naked white baby in the fetal position. But the point of that video was to put personhood amendments like the one in Colorado on other state ballots, which would call for fertilized eggs to be recognized as legal persons. I think that was the point of posting a picture of a zygote.
I think it was in the comments in another thread (I believe on this site) that someone pointed out whether the term pre-born made any sense grammatically. They used the example that when you use 'pre' before a verb, it means that the verb has already been performed (pre-paid, pre-cooked, pre-made etc). They are using it as if it was before a noun (pre-school, pre-war etc). When you think about it in that sense, their word use is quite funny!
I never thought about it that way. That makes me giggle to no end!
What they really mean is "pre-birth". But I'm perfectly content to point and snicker about pre-cooked chickens while they go on saying it the wrong way ;)
That was mine, actually. B-) But it's true: pre-sliced bread is bread that has already been sliced, pre-washed jeans are jeans that have already been washed, a pre-heated oven is an oven that has already been heated, and a pre-born baby is ... ?
But you have to remember, these are also the people who will twist the language into all manner of improbably contortions just to get the terms "pro" and "abortion" into close proximity. "I'm not pro-abortion," I'll insist, "I'm pro-choice -- please call me that." And in response I'll be called "pro-abortion-choice", with the deliberate intent to suggest that that's the only choice I support. Or the Willkes' suggestion, "pro-choice to kill".
That's why I call them "pro-liars". They are liars, and there is no truth in them.
I'm so impressed with the witty and logical arguments I'm reading here; I feel strengthened by them. You're all goddesses in my book--thank you.
Okay in the words of my little sister O. M. G. this is ridiculous...does anyone find it ironic that they speak of putting the decision (choice) back into the people's hands to protect these "pre-born" babies...btw I'm a pre-graduated teacher but they won't let me teach...
what they are basically saying is that people can choose as long as they choose what they want...but if anyone disagrees with their righteousness(but then again who would argue I guess once a woman gets pregnant she has fulfilled her personhood, and therefor should be glad, no matter her age, her health, or desire to be a parent, because all women want children...right?) then they are corrupt...
oh and the woman holding the baby at the end...was it me or did she look uncomfortable...
This is what I've been trying to say all along! I'm not having an abortion, I'd just like my "pre-born baby" removed from my uterus. If it can't survive on it's own, well that just sounds like a personal problem.
That being said, this seems like the perfect opportunity to mention my grassroots effort to institute the celebration of Conception Days instead of Birthdays. Obviously because life begins at conception.
LOL! It's not abortion, it's "early birth!"
Shouldn't that be pre-birth?
A town in Russia had a Conception Day like a year ago in order to boost the population. And anyone who gave birth exactly 9 months after Conception Day got a tax break or something. Of course, that's not how reproduction works.
P.S. If they're going to demand rights, the least they could do is demand actual rights. The pursuit of happiness is not a guaranteed right. It's life, liberty, and property that are guaranteed rights. Except the right to life, liberty, or property are only guaranteed to those persons born or naturalized in the United States. Which, if my thinking is logical, "pre-born" persons would not qualify under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
the defenseless...
the voiceless...
the central nervous system-less...
the defenseless...
the voiceless...
the central nervous system-less...
i wonder how they feel about ivf? if a fertilized egg is a person, couldn't that be considered unlawful imprisonment? kidnapping? torture?
It makes me very angry to hear people going on and on about activist or corrupt judges. Judges have to use the law they have in making their decisions. They are more bound to the law of the land than the rest of the country. Boo.
I agree, Destra. BOO, Personhood USA, you FAIL!
My thing is, is that there are so many other things that to be activist about. What about poverty? What about conservation of wildlife? What about real murder and crime? How come these things matter less, but an unborn child is the most important thing? My anger really spiked when they kept calling it murder. They use that word all to lightly. They are comparing it to evil acts as heinous as slipping drugs into someone's blood stream and as violent as killing someone with a pick-ax. Abortions come nowhere near this violent. It's comparing apples to oranges.
And corrupt judges my ass. I don't think they ever read Roe v. Wade, which was found in favor because illegal abortions were dangerous, not because they considered the life of the child. It was the right of the women. Which is what I ask my pro-life friends sometimes. Do you know what lengths some women are willing to go to to abort their child? Back-alley surgeries, wire coat hangers, even knives and candles! Making abortion illegal won't make it disappear. After all, murder, rape, and speeding are all illegal yet people keep doing it.
Sorry. Preaching to the choir.
To all the ladies,
here is what a "pro life" woman justify her reason against abortions and yet support the death penalty, wars, et al.
"Murder" is revealed in the Scriptures (Bible) as the willful, deliberate shedding of innocent blood. Now, from that definition, we can rightly judge what is indeed murder. Capital punishment? No, the blood shed is not innocent. Soldiers at war and police officers? No, because God, in Romans, Chapter 13, authorizes human government to protect innocent life from the great evil present in the world. Soldiers and police officers of integrity only kill to accomplish the mission of protecting innocent life, in which they act as ministers of God to protect the innocent. Any unintentional or accidental killing is not deliberate and is not murder. Termination of pregancy because of danger to the life of the mother, or rape? No, because the situation (as in rape) was not the choice of the mother (not deliberate), or in the case of saving the life of the mother, not willful in the sense that it was something she "wanted" to do. Abortion as a means of birth control or convenience? Sounds like the willful, deliberate shedding of innocent blood to me. Wonder what it sounds like to God?
So, in her logic, the "innocent" life that was lost in Iraq, be they the soldiers or iraqis are okay and not wrong given, that the president goal was to protect the innocent, the Iraqis that will perish at saddam's hand and millions of innocent americans that would die if saddam use his WMD against america.
the death penalty is okay, because the criminal is not innocent. Companies that emit polluction are not wrong, because their purpose is not to kill but to get rid of waste. However, to regulate these pollucting companies is to intervene in god's plan, given that they are in the position they are by god.
I'm sorry, but as soon as you begin a sentence with "Praise Jesus!" or saying that you are quoting Scripture there is a 90% chance that i will perceive everything you say as bullshit. My mom taught me from a young age how to de-value the Bible, because like it or not there is no proof that it was written by the Hand of God, and don't tell me that the Bible says so. Just like you can't use a word in a definition of itself, you can't say the Bible was written by God because the Bible says so.
The circa 1950 style of this video made me immeditely think of the oppression of women, and how these people wants us to shut up and get back in the kitchen where they can't here us complain about being pregnent.
My uterus does not look like America, in fact it doesn't even look like Canada. These people wouldn't put a uterus of actaul shape in their video because they are scared of the Almighty Uterus.
i know that Personhood USA wants to put the issue of personhood on the ballot, but i can tell you now that this issue will effect people who will have no say. Young girls who have to choose between either a child or school are not old enough to vote, and this is who the personhood of fertilized embryos is effecting.
Oh, and they need to get their lips off the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident."
Those words belong to Martin Luther King Jr. ... and Ani DiFranco.
Here is the question for the day:
When your mom was pregnant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus?
KB, your question is insulting to our intelligence. And if you had bothered to read the previous comments, you would see that I addressed why I consider the answer to your question irrelevant here (or if the link doesn't work, it's my reply to T. Monster, near the top of the comments.)
This isn't about species or anything else this is about a woman having control over her own body period. This is about not being forced to have a child that isn't wanted or that can't be taken care of.
You can ask that question and think that you are making a great point, but no one disputes the species of whatever, but you are missing the point that we are making entirely. So think yourself clever and think that you have stumped those of us who are pro-choice if it makes you feel better. You haven't changed our minds because this isn't about species or what have you. This is about whether or not a woman should have complete autonomy when it comes to her body and life.
I'm glad that my mother was in a place in her life that she decided she wanted children when she had me, but that doesn't mean that I believe she should have been forced to have me if she was not in that place or if circumstances had been different. My mother chose to get pregnant and she chose to have me. Not everyone gets the choice to get pregnant, but everyone should get the choice to decide if she should have a baby or not. Being pro-choice is not about forcing abortions, but it is about making sure that the woman who is having to make this decision has all the choices.
Now for your other "question" the icons of the mudflap ladies flipping off the world. That is about reclaiming and reappropriation; taking something that men have used to marginalize and denegrate women, and turning it back on them by having the image change and flip them and the world off...at least that is what it means to me, but it has been discussed at length several times, so if you want an answer for that then search the archives.
The twin mudflapesque silhouettes that are at the top of your home page appear to be giving the one finger salute, flipping the bird....
Is that what you intended or am I misinterpreting the icons.
Even if their not flipping the bird, the idealistic shape of their female forms is communicating a message that this is the thing to be attained.
It seems to 'objectify' the female form. Does it not?
yor bro ken
“Comments Policy
We view Feministing as a platform for not only discussion among feminists and allies, but for reaching (rational, not hateful) people who may not agree with every word we write. However, we require that discussion in comments should be respectful and be directed toward the ideas and argument, not the person. All comments with hate speech, personal attacks, or offensive language will be deleted.
I was just perusing your home page and listed under regular features is:
http://feministing.com/friday-feminist-fuck-you/”
I believe a Unites States Supreme Court Justice once said, “If free speech is anything it is the right to be offended.”
But this is your web site and I am an univited visitor, but I presume, welcome guest.
So could you define ‘offensive language’ for me please? I do not want to violate your
rules, and if possible, I do not want to offend anyone.
yor bro ken
KBHVAC,
What if my mother was a muslim, live on top of a huge oil field, and is located in a middle eastern country, like Iraq? Would it be reasonable than for my mother to abort me since she will die anyways due to the bombing by the Prolife president of a foreign country?
Remember, there is no chance that my mother would survive the "liberation" of murdering her with an uraniam bomb. No chance what so ever, when the Prolife president decided to bomb my mother mud hut. None, nada, zip. Would you than be okay with an abortion, given that there is a 100% that she will die from a "pro life" bomb?
KBHVAC,
What if my mother was a muslim, live on top of a huge oil field, and is located in a middle eastern country, like Iraq? Would it be reasonable than for my mother to abort me since she will die anyways due to the bombing by the Prolife president of a foreign country?
Remember, there is no chance that my mother would survive the "liberation" of murdering her with an uraniam bomb. No chance what so ever, when the Prolife president decided to bomb my mother mud hut. None, nada, zip. Would you than be okay with an abortion, given that there is a 100% that she will die from a "pro life" bomb?
kbhvac said:
November 11, 2008 9:27 PM[0+|0-] lgrf4evr
Forgive me, please.
What does 'muslim' have to do with what species of embryo/fetus was present in your mothers womb when she was pregnant with you or where she lived or who is the president?
There is only one race of people on this planet. We are all members of the human race.
I make no distinctions by gender, ethnicity, nationality, religious preference, or sexual preference.
We are all people.
I will answer your questions, if you will answer only one of mine.
yor bro ken
Will, a lot of people do not consider a muslim a "human being."(whisper)
You see there are many "prolife" people out there who said that they are just "colleteral damages" which means that they are just some damages and not human being that die.
therefore, my question, do you agree that a muslim is a human being and not colleteral damages, as the "pro life" president said?
Being a muslim have everything to do with your arguement. See, even the president and his fellower do not consider certain groups of people human beings.
thus, it is okay to genocide them though bombs because they are not human being but damages.
there are people out there thinks it is okay to kill someone just because they are damages, and not human beings.
are you consisted with your belief? Do you oppose the war.
who knows how many muslim einstein lives had been lost because Pro Life people thought that they were not human being but damages.
November 11, 2008 9:27 PM[0+|0-] lgrf4evr said:
Forgive me, please.
What does 'muslim' have to do with what species of embryo/fetus was present in your mothers womb when she was pregnant with you or where she lived or who is the president?
There is only one race of people on this planet. We are all members of the human race.
I make no distinctions by gender, ethnicity, nationality, religious preference, or sexual preference.
We are all people.
yor bro ken
November 11, 2008 9:27 PM[0+|0-] lgrf4evr
I will answer your questions, if you will answer only one of mine.
yor bro ken