• 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.

Anti-Abortionists target African American history...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mock if cold.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/03/anti-abortionists-target-african-americans

'Johnny Hunter, an African-American pastor and president of the Life Education And Resource Network, a Christian coalition, told a rally in Georgia last month that opposition to abortion is the new civil rights struggle.

"The civil rights activists did not fight to make lynching safe, legal, and rare. They ended it. We must fight to end the ugliest form of racism: abortion," he said. "More black children die every four days from abortion, than the Klu Klux Klan killed in 144 years… All the civil rights gained in education, voting, and equal job opportunities mean nothing to a dead black child."'

Just awesome. No doubt Meus Resistance will explain to us why this is actually an insightful campaign. :lol

Edit: 'Womb lynchings'. smh
 
Wow, they managed to utilize religious fanaticism and misappropriate a history that they could NEVER truly understand.

Awesome.
 

Speevy

Banned
I don't like abortion, but I don't like this guy either. I definitely don't like the Ku Klux Klan.

Hmm.
 

Dresden

Member
I like how he's talking about civil rights people stopping lynchings to the same people whose ancestors were doing the lynchings.
 

Slightly Live

Dirty tag dodger
Put a spin on this. Imagine if a Jewish religious leader was associating abortion with the holocaust or persecution. Just as stupid? Totally.

I can however see how this type of reasoning plays more to the emotions of people. It's quite heavy handed and deceptive.
 

Branduil

Member
Dani said:
Put a spin on this. Imagine if a Jewish religious leader was associating abortion with the holocaust or persecution. Just as stupid? Totally.

I can however see how this type of reasoning plays more to the emotions of people. It's quite heavy handed and deceptive.
Abortion is worse than the holocaust.
 

DanteFox

Member
speculawyer said:
If you think killing a sentient being is the same as aborting a tiny little fetus (something nature often does).
you're right. nature does kill sentient beings often.
 
speculawyer said:
If you think killing a sentient being is the same as aborting a tiny little fetus (something nature often does).

I'm with you, but your argument sucks :lol because, you know, nature kills plenty of sentient beings as well.
 

Branduil

Member
speculawyer said:
If you think killing a sentient being is the same as aborting a tiny little fetus (something nature often does).
I think deliberately killing a human being is as bad as deliberately killing a human being.
 

Shanadeus

Banned
Branduil said:
I think deliberately killing a human being is as bad as deliberately killing a human being.
Even if it's in self-defense?
There are a number of scenarios where deliberately killing a human being isn't quite as bad as deliberately killing another human being.
 

Speevy

Banned
Shanadeus said:
Even if it's in self-defense?
There are a number of scenarios where deliberately killing a human being isn't quite as bad as deliberately killing another human being.


When you were typing this, did you consider the thread you were posting in?
 
WedgeX said:
I kept reading this as Anti-Abolitionists Target African Americans. Darn.

georgemichael_snoopy.jpg
 

Branduil

Member
Shanadeus said:
Even if it's in self-defense?
There are a number of scenarios where deliberately killing a human being isn't quite as bad as deliberately killing another human being.
Okay, I amend my statement. I think deliberately killing another human being for no valid reason relating to self-defense or capital punishment is as bad as deliberately killing another human being for no valid reason relating to self-defense or capital punishment.
 

Gaborn

Member
I usually stay out of these things because the topic really doesn't affect me much, but I'll just say that the key to me has always been viability. If a fetus is at a point where there is a realistic chance it is viable outside of the womb aborting it shouldn't be legal. Other than that? it shouldn't be anyone else's business.
 

Shanadeus

Banned
Branduil said:
Okay, I amend my statement. I think deliberately killing another human being for no valid reason relating to self-defense or capital punishment is as bad as deliberately killing another human being for no valid reason relating to self-defense or capital punishment.
And others might think that deliberately killing another human being for reasons relating to euthanasia is justifiable and right.
I'm not saying that those are my views, but it's just an example of a situation where people think it's okay to deliberately kill an innocent human being.
 

Dali

Member
Using black history? Pfffftttt.

I think holding up a picture of Tebow and saying "youz gone get paid!" would be more effective.
 

~Devil Trigger~

In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Branduil said:
I think deliberately killing a human being is as bad as deliberately killing a human being.
and thats pretty much where the divide is and can never get resolved.

I dont think a fetus/zygote/embryo is a human being.

and thats where the thread ends.
 

LosDaddie

Banned
Not surprising

Conservatives have been using the "Pro-Choice = Pro-Slavery" argument for years now. This new talking point is just a variation of that.
 
LosDaddie said:
Not surprising

Conservatives have been using the "Pro-Choice = Pro-Slavery" argument for years now. This new talking point is just a variation of that.

What's funny is that the equation makes much more sense the other way around "Pro-Life = Pro-Slavery".
 

Gaborn

Member
CharlieDigital said:
What's funny is that the equation makes much more sense the other way around "Pro-Life = Pro-Slavery".

Depending on how you used your rhetoric you could make the case either way.

From a pro-life perspective I'd say: Live free or die (by definition "free" meaning not enslaved)

From, a pro-choice perspective I'd say: Anti-Choice = Pro-slavery (since slaves don't get to make decisions typically)

But as I said I don't want to get into it.
 

DanteFox

Member
If: fetuses are people, then abortion is depriving them of their right to life. In that case, if you are pro-choice you might as well be pro-choice about other things involving human rights such as slavery.
 
Gaborn said:
But as I said I don't want to get into it.

Uh...no.

Without the legal right to terminate unwanted pregnancies (and I agree with you on criteria), you keep poor, undereducated women (and I would expand this to say all women) in their place because they are constrained by their education and their children. It's no coincidence that there is a strong correlation between economic success, IQ, education, and a lower number of offspring and having children later in life.

By removing choice, you keep the women -- if they're already from a lower economic class -- on welfare, food stamps, and you keep them from having one more choice to change the course of their lives. You add another hurdle for young teenagers who become pregnant by removing their ability to choose.

In a sense, denying women a right to choose is an act designed to keep women in their place. Specifically, with regards to black women, there is an analogue to slavery in that it creates a class of people who are dependent on others for survival, people who cannot compete for jobs because they lack the education and resources, people who cannot hope to attain because of the burden of caring for children before they've completed high school or college.
 
captmcblack said:
Wow, they managed to utilize religious fanaticism and misappropriate a history that they could NEVER truly understand.

Is this in relation to your preconceived notion of anti-abortionists being white? Because if so...

Johnny Hunter, an African-American pastor

If this is talking about how modern Americans (black, white, or anything in between) could never truly understand what it's like to be a slave, then carry on.

CharlieDigital said:
In a sense, denying women a right to choose is an act designed to keep women in their place. Specifically, with regards to black women, there is an analogue to slavery in that it creates a class of people who are dependent on others for survival, people who cannot compete for jobs because they lack the education and resources, people who cannot hope to attain because of the burden of caring for children before they've completed high school or college.

Well, abortions only make it easier for poor people to fuck with "diminished" consequences. I think it's a bit presumptuous to say "Well, she can't get an abortion, she's gonna get knocked up" as if their own action (or inaction) has no part in the matter. It's not like pregnancies are some sort of airborne virus that people have no way of preventing outside of abortions. But hell, if you talk to some people on this site, they figure that if you're poor, you're fucked anyway in this country. And to assume that people could and should keep their legs closed if they want to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is apparently so ghastly that I am a monster for even thinking it. (I know, I'm making broad swipes, but it's more fun!)

What's kind of ironic about the situation is that the Republican party supports the pro-life movement, but if abortion was really outlawed (which repealing Roe v. Wade wouldn't do, it would just make certain states abortion states and certain states non-abortion states, like gay marriage) there would be a growth in lower class children, who would more than likely vote Democrat. Republicans are voting for losing control of power and Democrats are encouraging the "murder" of their future base. HAS THE WORLD GONE TOPSY TURVY?
 

Gaborn

Member
CharlieDigital said:
Uh...no.

Without the legal right to terminate unwanted pregnancies (and I agree with you on criteria), you keep poor, undereducated women (and I would expand this to say all women) in their place because they are constrained by their education and their children. It's no coincidence that there is a strong correlation between economic success, IQ, education, and a lower number of offspring and having children later in life.

By removing choice, you keep the women -- if they're already from a lower economic class -- on welfare, food stamps, and you keep them from having one more choice to change the course of their lives. You add another hurdle for young teenagers who become pregnant by removing their ability to choose.

In a sense, denying women a right to choose is an act designed to keep women in their place. Specifically, with regards to black women, there is an analogue to slavery in that it creates a class of people who are dependent on others for survival, people who cannot compete for jobs because they lack the education and resources, people who cannot hope to attain because of the burden of caring for children before they've completed high school or college.

Now, see, this is what I was trying to avoid. :lol :lol :lol :lol

All I'm saying is that purely from a rhetorical stand point you can make the case superficially either way.

With that said, I do agree with all of your points and I'll just add that people DO need to become more educated about birth control methods and why it is important to use them.
 
teddyboi said:
Abortion is wrong unless raped or medically unfit to have children. It's selfish, irresponsible and wrong.

Now you've done it.

*grandpasimpson.gif*

Shanadeus said:
I must add that it's also okay if the child to be born has some sort of disability or other undesirable traits. Or if the pregnant person don't want to care for a child at that point.
Otherwise I agree with you.

So basically, you would outlaw abortions for fun? :lol
 

Shanadeus

Banned
teddyboi said:
Abortion is wrong unless raped or medically unfit to have children. It's selfish, irresponsible and wrong.
I must add that it's also okay if the child to be born has some sort of disability or other undesirable traits. Or if the pregnant person don't want to care for a child at that point.
Otherwise I agree with you.
 

KevinCow

Banned
That's... what? I really can't even begin to grasp his logic. Abortion is racism because a lot of black people do it? What the fuck.
 

otake

Doesn't know that "You" is used in both the singular and plural
KevinCow said:
That's... what? I really can't even begin to grasp his logic. Abortion is racism because a lot of people do it? What the fuck.


It's kind of like abortion is evil, racism is evil therefore abortion = racism. :D

<----- pro-choice, by the by.
 
Skiptastic said:
...as if their own action (or inaction) has no part in the matter. It's not like pregnancies are some sort of airborne virus that people have no way of preventing outside of abortions.

Sex ed has a lot to do with this. Have you noticed a pattern? Conservatives also happen to be against comprehensive sex ed. When I was in high school, we had a very comprehensive curriculum covering STDs, female menstrual biology, different methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies (spermicides, condoms, spermicides+condoms, female condoms, the sponge, the pill, etc. and how each method compared); in other words, we were equipped with the information and education to make the right decision.

If you talk to your average teenager, I think you'd be surprised at their understanding of how women get pregnant, how they think you can prevent conception (i.e. Mountain Dew), and other BS. Many kids simply don't know any better. What is even more disturbing is that their parents don't impart any information to children who are not exposed to comprehensive sex ed because, more than likely, the parents have no idea how reproductive biology works! It's a cycle of misinformation and ignorance.

What's kind of ironic about the situation is that the Republican party supports the pro-life movement, but if abortion was really outlawed (which repealing Roe v. Wade wouldn't do, it would just make certain states abortion states and certain states non-abortion states, like gay marriage) there would be a growth in lower class children, who would more than likely vote Democrat. Republicans are voting for losing control of power and Democrats are encouraging the "murder" of their future base. HAS THE WORLD GONE TOPSY TURVY?

Your fundamental flaw in your thinking is that they'll vote at all. You can suppress these people by gerrymandering or other actions that prevent these people from voting. But more than likely, many of these people simply never vote either because they don't know how the process works, they are so downtrodden that they don't feel that they can make a change, they are bullied and discouraged from voting via threats, or they don't know how to even register to vote.

And again, it comes back to "family values" and the role of women. By removing a choice, black or white, you're creating a hurdle for a woman's independence, educational, and financial attainment.
 
CharlieDigital said:
Sex ed has a lot to do with this. Have you noticed a pattern? Conservatives also happen to be against comprehensive sex ed. When I was in high school, we had a very comprehensive curriculum covering STDs, female menstrual biology, different methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies (spermicides, condoms, spermicides+condoms, female condoms, the sponge, the pill, etc.); in other words, we were equipped with the information and education to make the right decision.

If you talk to your average teenager, I think you'd be surprised at their understanding of how women get pregnant, how they think you can prevent conception (i.e. Mountain Dew), and other BS. Many kids simply don't know any better.

Kids being this dumb worries me more than some pastor comparing abortion to slavery.

I went to a school where we had comprehensive sex ed, but really, all they had to do was show me the STD pictures and I was like "OMG I'm never having sex!"

CharlieDigital said:
Your fundamental flaw in your thinking is that they'll vote at all. You can suppress these people by gerrymandering or other actions that prevent these people from voting. But more than likely, many of these people simply never vote either because they don't know how the process works, they are so downtrodden that they don't feel that they can make a change, they are bullied and discouraged from voting via threats, or they don't know how to even register to vote.

Come on, I mean, I'm jaded about politics too, but thinking that millions of unwanted children wouldn't make a difference in politics is naive. You have that many kids, not enough jobs, unemployment soars, discontent grows...something's got to give. There is only so long a political establishment can ignore the masses before there is either concession or revolution, take your pick.
 
Skiptastic said:
Kids being this dumb worries me more than some pastor comparing abortion to slavery.

But it's true: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/fooddrink/a/mountain_dew.htm

And again, more importantly, kids need to understand reproductive biology and if they're not getting this information in school, more than likely (unless their parents are OBGYNs), they are not getting it at home either.

I think they need to change the course naming from "Sex Education" to "Reproductive Biology". Maybe that will ease the resistance to teaching this stuff.

Skiptastic said:
Come on, I mean, I'm jaded about politics too, but thinking that millions of unwanted children wouldn't make a difference in politics is naive. You have that many kids, not enough jobs, unemployment soars, discontent grows...something's got to give. There is only so long a political establishment can ignore the masses before there is either concessions or revolution, take your pick.

Consider for yourself the number of people who vote as a percentage of the people who are eligible to vote: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html

Then consider the relationship between socioeconomic factors and likeliness to vote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout

The most important socioeconomic factor in voter turnout is education. The more educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to vote, even when controlled for other factors such as income and class that are closely associated with education level. Income has some effect independently: wealthier people are more likely to vote, regardless of their educational background.​

So in a historic election year, less than 60% of the eligible voting population cast a vote.
 

Ionas

Member
CharlieDigital said:
And again, it comes back to "family values" and the role of women. By removing a choice, black or white, you're creating a hurdle for a woman's independence, educational, and financial attainment.
This is undoubtedly true, and is something that most pro-lifers really need to recognize. You should also recognize, however, that the same could be said concerning infanticide, which we keep illegal because we regard infants as human beings.

Bringing us back to the apparently unresolvable crux of the issue...
 

DanteFox

Member
CharlieDigital said:
You're really ignoring the real issue. all you're really saying is that pregnancy is unfair to women, therefore getting rid of the option to terminate it is akin to slavery. The real issue is the personhood of the fetus, and the right to life that would logically follow from personhood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom