Yep. She has every right to advise women who want it about her experience, but no matter how you frame it, it's hypocritical to say "I made the wrong choice so no one else should get to choose."
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
After threats, wife of anti-abortion GOP lawmaker goes public about own abortion
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
Yep. She has every right to advise women who want it about her experience, but no matter how you frame it, it's hypocritical to say "I made the wrong choice so no one else should get to choose."
CornBurrito
Member
Should former smokers not be allowed to want to ban smoking?
I guess I just completely disagree with this way of thinking. If someone fucks up, I can't find anything wrong with them wanting to ensure others don't fuck up the same way they did.
Necromanti
Member
I, too, would like to see something like dismemberment abortions becoming unnecessary. So why don't they campaign for cheap and convenient access to birth control, and an avenue for women to get counseling and receive safe abortions early on before the fetus develops further?
Is "reframing terminology" aneuphemismreframing terminology for "propaganda"?
Ha! I wouldn't call it propaganda exactly, since it's less about spreading particular information and more about using precise terminology to cause an argument to be framed in a particular way. I think the quintessential example of the GOP doing this is "death tax." It's not a curb on dynastic wealth transfers from one generation to the next, it's literally taxing people for the privilege of dying! Really brilliant.
The key to this is both being good at coming up with catchy phrases, and being good at getting your whole team to use them. The GOP has historically been pretty good at both.
Yep.
CornBurrito
Member
Por que no los dos?
It's more wonderful adventures in connotation smuggling and semantic nonsense, as usual. Pretty much 80% of the Republican platform and it's Jenga tower of dogwhistles is at this point.
Is "reframing terminology" aneuphemismreframing terminology for "propaganda"?
Recursive terminology, my one weakness!! ~swoons~
I'm just facepalming over the direction this thread took. Apparently the "pro-life" people have successfully used reframing terminology to hijack a big part of this discussion. Abortion should be legal within some constraints, and the method of abortion is determined by medical professionals whose job it is to consider all parts involved, not the layman that "think it sounds awful".
This is some ridiculous stuff going on here.
Good for the former smoker who saw reason just like I'm sure there are pro-lifers who say good for the woman who had the abortion who saw reason. Absolutely they are allowed to think that way, but wrong or right it's hypocritical.
For your analogy to work, the case would have to be "I think smoking is really healthy and good for you. It helped my life, but I think it should be banned". See where the logic is disjointed? It's a poor strawman you created.
So you think it would be best that someone who is that callous should be given a baby again their desires?
Because maybe if you have to crush the skull and chop up the body parts maybe it's time to reconsider if it's too late to have an abortion? Sounds like a human to me at that point.
I don't get what you're trying to say, but the feeling is clearly mutual.
Karsticles
Member
Fetuses aren't human? They're not even the same species as us now?
Ohh I see. So the most important thing is shape.
You're ok with a dead fetus, just as long as it's not recognizable?
perfectchaos007
Member
liberals reframe things too ya know. Equating pro choice to "Womens rights" is an oversimplification of a complex issue.
I don't even know which party changed global warming to climate change, but thats another example of re-framing.
I don't even know which party changed global warming to climate change, but thats another example of re-framing.
Lol when did I say that? My comment was a criticism of 2nd trimester abortions, mate.
Fuck that train of thought. Pregnancy and kids can destroy people. It's one of the hardest things you can do. One of the only things I can't think of where "nah, I don't want it" is the best decision you can make if you aren't prepared to handle it mentally, financially, and in a stable environments
Forcing people to go through with it only to harm themselves and eventually their children because they are truly incapable of handling it is callous and without empathy. Even moreso if the person saying this has gotten an abortion and have lived their lives without the struggle of Parenting when they weren't ready or had it forced upon them
Anyways I love it when stories like this come out. Sure she is allowed to change her mind over the years, but it reeks of the same hypocrisy that people against gay rights have after they change tune once they find their kid is gay.
"Climate change" is more descriptive tho. "Global warming" is accurate in regard to global average, but nobody really experiences global averages. "Climate change" captures that a global rise in average temperature can manifest in very different ways in different locations: eg falling temperature, changing water level, drought, wind and storm patterns, etc. The problem is all those myriad different expressions, not that it's a little bit warmer.
cpp_is_king
Member
I'm pro choice, but at least try to understand where people are coming from. You say "Pregnancy and kids can destroy people". Their thought is "What the fuck are you talking about? Abortion literally destroys people". If you honestly believed deep down in your core that abortion was literally the same as putting a gun to your kid's head and pulling the trigger, you would be pro life too.
"Reek" is a weird word to pick when discussing people who soften their stance on homosexuality... Isn't people softening their stances on homosexuality the outcome you want?
Do you have any relevant knowledge about the issue, and not just "oh, it sounds really bad"? You are not in a position to judge any of this. You have no idea what sizes we're talking about, you have no idea of how much the pro-lifers are exploiting anthropomorphism to help their cause. "Sounds like a human to me at that point" carries no medical relevance, and while the technique is not pleasant, it is that way for a ton of medical reasons. Your reaction to the technique does not in any way lessen those reasons.
Dash_Riprock
Member
It is, but it always sucks when they don't change their tune unless it impacts them directly. If only people realized their prejudices through research and logic, and not just because a friend/family member is now something they hate.
The size and shape of the fetus has nothing to do with why abortion is legal. The government can't force you to use your body or its parts to keep someone alive. It can't make you donate a lung or give blood and it can't force you to use your body to keep a fetus alive.
I just want to stress how completely non-human a fetus is at this point, and how monumentally far away it is from being able to be self-sustained. I am so sad to see the way people let their feelings of "oh, that sounds bad" influence what they think of a medical procedure.
Well that because we're affected by oour own morality. Even loads of pro choice people find the practice distasteful, but they believe in the right to choose what you do with your body.
Are you?
Can medicine definitely state when "human" life begins? Can you? I sure can't, and frankly, it's outside of the realm of medical science.
Thankfully we have more legal protections than "what God says" when it comes to the realm of medical science.
Why do you have to bring god into this? This has nothing to do with god and everything to do with when you personally think a human being becomes a human being, and if it's morally wrong to kill said human being if it is wholly dependent on another, developed human.
"Women's rights" is not a reframing because it's not used interchangeably with "pro-choice." Arguably "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are both reframings, but on the other hand they're used to describe positions actually held by the people using them so it seems legit.
This change seems totally reasonable though. Climate change doesn't only consist of a unidirectional constant increase in temperature, so "global warming" wasn't really broad enough. If it's a reframing, it's not one that draws in emotional affect and negative connotations.
There are definitely examples of liberals doing this, though I can't think of one off the top of my head. But conservatives tend to be much better at it.
IrishNinja
Member
i'm sure you took my meaning, but i enjoyed this moment of sophistry all the same!
abortion & the right for women to choose (not the state) is a literal cornerstone of women's rights...that's not an oversimplification, that's a tenet
global warming is synonymous with climate change, the latter is a term meant to help those who respond to science as a political narrative and say things like "but it's cold outside!"
these are particularly poor choices of "reframing"...also, cyan handled that better
Alcoremortis
Member
It doesn't matter when human life begins. That's not part of the argument. Anyone who says that a fetus is not alive or not human doesn't do this discussion any good and muddies the issue into pure philosophy. Fetuses are alive, they are human. It's not religion, it's just biology and not part of the discussion.
The question is whether or not women should be allowed to make their own medical decisions. We as a society have decided that the government should not have the power to force individuals to sacrifice their health and well-being for the good of another.
We don't force people to give up their kidneys to keep other humans alive. Not even if they signed a consent form and then changed their mind later. Not even if the other human is a child. Not even if the donor is dead. We shouldn't force women to keep another human alive simply because they engaged in sexual activity. Maybe someday medical science will be at the point where we can safely remove a fetus and give it it's own doctor who can find a new body host for it. Maybe these pro-life advocates will step up and volunteer.
perfectchaos007
Member
Nah, its still more complex than simply womens rights. At some point during the pregnancy, near 8 months or 9 months in, that "fetus" could live outside the womb even if was delivered prematurely. And I believe at that point, the little human has rights too. And giving women the option to terminate it at that point, when the mother's life isn't at risk, seems irresponsible and should be a violation of that near fully formed baby's rights.
I am a human life for every reason and phylosophy.
My sister is a human life for every reason and phylosophy.
Lets say our other parents are dead and I need a blood transfusion or organ transfusion and I will die and she is the only avaliable person. There is NOTHING saying "you NEED to give blood or an organ in a life or death situation if you don't want to". She will not be charged for any crime if she lets me die. It is her body, her choice of what she does to it.
And yet, there are lots of places that if I was a fetus, she could go to jail if she choose to not give me body fluids
CornBurrito
Member
"Aborting was the worst decision I ever made" translates to "really healthy and good for you, it helped my life"??
CornBurrito
Member
Does secular philosophy have no say in this?
Where is the line draw from a secular standpoint? When is a fetus not "human" in the sense that termination is not equivalent to murder? Any time before birth, down to the second? As soon as the fetus is viable outside the womb?
Though my guess is that you still wouldn't be fine with an abortion being performed 1 minute before birth.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Well, Republicans clearly see them as two different things, since I never see them rushing to change any gun laws whenever the latter happens.
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
The amount of people shaming this woman is despicable.
She is not responsible for her husband's actions. She is the victim here.
Being married to a Republican doesn't nullify being a victim.
She is not responsible for her husband's actions. She is the victim here.
Being married to a Republican doesn't nullify being a victim.
SolidChamp
Banned
Yeah what the fuck?! I'm pro-choice and all that...but I had NO IDEA that this was a thing. Disturbing shit. Wish I could go back to not knowing that terminology.
Link
The Autumn Wind
The Republican propaganda machine is damn effective. I'll give them that.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Show me a woman that wants to abort an 8 month old fetus that's perfectly healthy. What do you take them for?
As mentioned in several threads canada has no restriction and women aren't standing in line to kill their fully grown kicking babies.
Gentleman Jack
Member
It's a pretty transparent attempt at evoking exactly this response, one easily countered by a much more greusome history we don't have to imagine because it really happened to women who had no other choice before Roe v Wade. It's a grim algebra but I'd rather have the balance tipped towards fetuses disposed of in a medically sound way that preserves the woman's life rather than a system where both the fetus is disposed of and there's a high probability of the pregnant woman dying of infection or hemorrhage.
IrishNinja
Member
i imagine it's not for women
freethoughtbubble
Member
Pro-choice here. I just want to say I appreciate you asking these kind of questions and that I ponder them too, although I can't say with much conviction where I would draw the line. The closest I've come is the moment when the fetus can feel pain or distress... but how could anyone ever hope to measure something like that? For me, personally, the question isn't one of personhood, it's a question of suffering.
I also want to add that I fully expect someone in this thread to answer your last question in the affirmative. I want to preemptively state that that person disgusts me.
cpp_is_king
Member
Can't argue with that, I'm a big supporter of gun control myself. Not sure what's going on in their heads there.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
prenatal EEG
Yeah gee that sure is a convenient excuse, lol:
"I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway because I needed it. But I don't want you to do it because the Bible says its a Bad Thing."
it doesn't
There is a somewhat similar case from that site:
Read it some more, and weep.
Yeah, same here. Being Catholic dismemberment abortion does disturb me but I still am pro-choice due to safety concerns and the fact it's not my body, so not my business.
Secular option is "when the brain is made you can say it is a life". That is the standard used for most pro-abortion laws and 99% of the abortions happens before that
First, this example you are saying is RIDICULOUSLY rare. Like "Every time the Halley comet appears in the sky at the same time of a 2d Metroid release" rare.
(21 weeks being a little bit more than 4 months... you are saying more than the double of that)
The BIG POINT of an abortion is not suffer the months of problems related to the pregnancy for a kid you don't want.
THAT BEING SAD, working on your crazy terms :
I am 100% in favor of "mother's body, mother's choice".
If was in the USA, I would say that "as soon as the baby don't need the womb" it is probably easier to the mother agree to deliver and send to adoption .... but in my country I am perfectly fine saying that killing the baby is perfectly fine alternative to what is in this kid's future
CornBurrito
Member
Secular option is "when the brain is made you can say it is a life". That is the standard used for most pro-abortion laws and 99% of the abortions happens before that
First, this example you are saying is RIDICULOUSLY rare. Like "Every time the Halley comet appears in the sky at the same time of a 2d Metroid release" rare.
(21 weeks being a little bit more than 4 months... you are saying more than the double of that)
The BIG POINT of an abortion is not suffer the months of problems related to the pregnancy for a kid you don't want.
THAT BEING SAD, working on your crazy terms :
I am 100% in favor of "mother's body, mother's choice".
If was in the USA, I would say that "as soon as the baby don't need the womb" it is probably easier to the mother agree to deliver and send to adoption .... but in my country I am perfectly fine saying that killing the baby is perfectly fine alternative to what is in this kid's future
1. Why is that the secular option exactly?
2. Rarity doesn't matter in philosophy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked