why it's ok to kill babies.
this week, a group of activists began an agressive anti-choice advertising campaign in our fair hamlet. they've rented advertising space on billboards, buses, and are making the rounds downtown in large utility trucks displaying large photos of blood-soaked aborted fetuses. underneath the picture is simply the word "choice". it's disturbing, and it's everywhere you look.
it's a powerful message. and ballsy. call yourselves pro-life, not because you are (see war, famine, abstinence education) but because it implies that the other guys aren't. then show everyone the ugly side of abortion. well, isn't there an ugly side to everything, even romance? most people aren't against open heart surgery, but that doesn't mean we want to watch one go by while we're outside eating sesame chicken on a beautiful summer's day. what these people don't understand is that when it comes to abortion, it is all linked to your perspective. you can't change people's world view, thus, you can't change people's minds about abortion. i, for one, am an atheist. i consider humans, apes, and insects to be equal creatures of different levels of intelligence. therefore, i do not accept the notion that human life is more sacred than, say, ann coulter's.
what sets things apart, however, is the emotional impact. take puppies for example. you buy a puppy when it is very young, nurture it, watch it grow, and then it dies. for some people (a lot of people) the emotional impact of the death of a pet can be devastating. but no one has a problem with canine abortions. nobody talks about the sanctity of the lives of pooches. and when someone you don't know dies, what do you feel? it's ok, you can admit it. nothing. zip. zilch. maybe a bit of sympathy for those dealing with the loss, but that's it. does that mean that person's life is less sacred than your mother's? nope.
the point: a person is only a person when they have interacted with other people and had some kind of impact on the lives of others. granted, one might say that when a woman becomes pregnant, a bond is immediately established between her and her unborn child. there are, however, many women for whom this is not the case. they are not cold, unfeeling bitches, they just are lacking whatever it is that makes someone maternal. these women should have abortions.
if we start forcing women who should not become parents to endure pregnancy (furthering her resentment of her impending motherhood, and by extension, the child) the result will be incredibly fucked up kids who will most likely grow to become gangsters, murderers, or at least generally horrible people, thus having a negative impact on the lives around them. we terminated 40 million pregnancies last year and we still can't feed everyone on the planet. children are being abandoned, killed and thrown into dumpsters, abused, and all the while our president is telling us to just not have sex. shyeah.
all these activist have succeeded in doing is moving my lunch break from the fountain in penn square to my desk. i've seen the horrors, and i still choose choice.
i just don't want to see it.
it's a powerful message. and ballsy. call yourselves pro-life, not because you are (see war, famine, abstinence education) but because it implies that the other guys aren't. then show everyone the ugly side of abortion. well, isn't there an ugly side to everything, even romance? most people aren't against open heart surgery, but that doesn't mean we want to watch one go by while we're outside eating sesame chicken on a beautiful summer's day. what these people don't understand is that when it comes to abortion, it is all linked to your perspective. you can't change people's world view, thus, you can't change people's minds about abortion. i, for one, am an atheist. i consider humans, apes, and insects to be equal creatures of different levels of intelligence. therefore, i do not accept the notion that human life is more sacred than, say, ann coulter's.
what sets things apart, however, is the emotional impact. take puppies for example. you buy a puppy when it is very young, nurture it, watch it grow, and then it dies. for some people (a lot of people) the emotional impact of the death of a pet can be devastating. but no one has a problem with canine abortions. nobody talks about the sanctity of the lives of pooches. and when someone you don't know dies, what do you feel? it's ok, you can admit it. nothing. zip. zilch. maybe a bit of sympathy for those dealing with the loss, but that's it. does that mean that person's life is less sacred than your mother's? nope.
the point: a person is only a person when they have interacted with other people and had some kind of impact on the lives of others. granted, one might say that when a woman becomes pregnant, a bond is immediately established between her and her unborn child. there are, however, many women for whom this is not the case. they are not cold, unfeeling bitches, they just are lacking whatever it is that makes someone maternal. these women should have abortions.
if we start forcing women who should not become parents to endure pregnancy (furthering her resentment of her impending motherhood, and by extension, the child) the result will be incredibly fucked up kids who will most likely grow to become gangsters, murderers, or at least generally horrible people, thus having a negative impact on the lives around them. we terminated 40 million pregnancies last year and we still can't feed everyone on the planet. children are being abandoned, killed and thrown into dumpsters, abused, and all the while our president is telling us to just not have sex. shyeah.
all these activist have succeeded in doing is moving my lunch break from the fountain in penn square to my desk. i've seen the horrors, and i still choose choice.
i just don't want to see it.
3 Comments:
Right on, brother.
And what about the little kids who see those ghastly images? Again, these people would better serve humanity by focusing on children that are already alive.
word.
oh, we'll be there. fair warning.
Post a Comment
<< Home