August 7th, 2013
July 3rd, 2012
goandannouce:

After-Birth Abortion: Justifying Infanticide
If a child is born and the same circumstances are present, so it is argued, then the mother should be legally justified to have the newborn child sedated and allowed to die. This, of course, is simply “infanticide” under another name. But the researchers claim that the better expression to use, the more exact title is that of “post-natal abortion.”…The new proposal suggests that if such children were not killed before birth, they could be killed after birth. If we allow that, we have returned to the barbarism of ancient pagan Rome and of recent Nazism
Direct consequence of abortion and its root, the culture of death.

OK…. little information for you.1. “So it is argued” - is not true. It was put forward by anti-choice (though I like to argue they’re ultimately pro-choice - see Point 8 below) philosophy post-graduates in Cambridge, UK (yeah, heard and read about this years ago, well done for picking up on it now.) who were writing a deliberately imflammatory piece of propaganda using the well-known “spiral argument” (critical thinking 101) in order to create a debate. Instead they seem to have created a bit of an outcry in Britain, which died down because of how stupid it was, and has now created a panicked standard for anti-choice bigots to stand behind.2. The difference between babies and fetus’s is that in the first (and second - even third) trimester, the fetus is just that. In fact, it’s not even a fetus for the first 12 or so weeks. It’s a zygote. It is not a sentient being. It is not a baby, technically. (You want the fetus, then you can call it a baby, because you’re emotionally attached. If you don’t want the fetus, then it is a fetus. Either way, it is still biologically, technically and physically a fetus.) Therefore, first trimester abortions are NOT infanticide. In fact, “infant” is the term used after a baby that has learned to sit up by itself. (Several months old)Therefore the difference between abortion and murder is dependant on whether or not the baby has been born. That will never ever change. 
After all, I could extend the philosophical argument you have found. It’s just as likely: once the parents have failed to raise their rat bastard into a model citizen, they should be able to abort their child to save from further public embarassment and expense. This would be called "Primary School Abortion", "Secondary School Abortion" and "High School Abortion", depending on its age.3. Mothers that have been forced to keep the pregnancy are not going to kill the baby they give birth to. They may well dump it on a doorstep, or give it away or even bring it up to hate itself, but they will not kill it.
4. Mothers that “weren’t sure” usually have decided to keep or give up the baby by the time it’s born.5. Mothers that are pregnant the full 9 months have usually picked out names and socks for the baby they are giving birth to. They will not be killing it because they suddenly decided “actually, my pay cheque has been cut”6.  The article you found was written by philosophy students as an experimental piece. And if they believed it themselves, they were fucking lunatics.7. Anybody - pro-choice, pro-life or anti-choice -  who thinks that what they are “proposing” (which they weren’t, if anything they were proselytising), “post-natal abortion”, is actually going to happen has a screw loose, frankly.
(8. Just a P.S: note that they say, “if the baby were not killed before birth” - i.e. if abortion is not legal and available, THEN the post-natal killing would commence. Seems like a solid argument for available abortion now, don’t you think? And maybe decent sex education for everyone? And widely available and affordable contraception? And oh, I don’t know, proper healthcare so that people don’t have to worry what will happen to them and their babies when they’re born? Your country fucking stinks. STFU.)

goandannouce:

After-Birth Abortion: Justifying Infanticide

If a child is born and the same circumstances are present, so it is argued, then the mother should be legally justified to have the newborn child sedated and allowed to die. This, of course, is simply “infanticide” under another name. But the researchers claim that the better expression to use, the more exact title is that of “post-natal abortion.”…The new proposal suggests that if such children were not killed before birth, they could be killed after birth. If we allow that, we have returned to the barbarism of ancient pagan Rome and of recent Nazism

Direct consequence of abortion and its root, the culture of death.

OK…. little information for you.

1. “So it is argued” - is not true. It was put forward by anti-choice (though I like to argue they’re ultimately pro-choice - see Point 8 below) philosophy post-graduates in Cambridge, UK (yeah, heard and read about this years ago, well done for picking up on it now.) who were writing a deliberately imflammatory piece of propaganda using the well-known “spiral argument” (critical thinking 101) in order to create a debate. Instead they seem to have created a bit of an outcry in Britain, which died down because of how stupid it was, and has now created a panicked standard for anti-choice bigots to stand behind.

2. The difference between babies and fetus’s is that in the first (and second - even third) trimester, the fetus is just that. In fact, it’s not even a fetus for the first 12 or so weeks. It’s a zygote. It is not a sentient being. It is not a baby, technically. (You want the fetus, then you can call it a baby, because you’re emotionally attached. If you don’t want the fetus, then it is a fetus. Either way, it is still biologically, technically and physically a fetus.) 
Therefore, first trimester abortions are NOT infanticide. In fact, “infant” is the term used after a baby that has learned to sit up by itself. (Several months old)

Therefore the difference between abortion and murder is dependant on whether or not the baby has been born. That will never ever change. 


After all, I could extend the philosophical argument you have found. It’s just as likely: once the parents have failed to raise their rat bastard into a model citizen, they should be able to abort their child to save from further public embarassment and expense. This would be called "Primary School Abortion", "Secondary School Abortion" and "High School Abortion", depending on its age.

3. Mothers that have been forced to keep the pregnancy are not going to kill the baby they give birth to. They may well dump it on a doorstep, or give it away or even bring it up to hate itself, but they will not kill it.

4. Mothers that “weren’t sure” usually have decided to keep or give up the baby by the time it’s born.

5. Mothers that are pregnant the full 9 months have usually picked out names and socks for the baby they are giving birth to. They will not be killing it because they suddenly decided “actually, my pay cheque has been cut”

6.  The article you found was written by philosophy students as an experimental piece. And if they believed it themselves, they were fucking lunatics.

7. Anybody - pro-choice, pro-life or anti-choice -  who thinks that what they are “proposing” (which they weren’t, if anything they were proselytising), “post-natal abortion”, is actually going to happen has a screw loose, frankly.

(8. Just a P.S: note that they say, “if the baby were not killed before birth” - i.e. if abortion is not legal and available, THEN the post-natal killing would commence. Seems like a solid argument for available abortion now, don’t you think? And maybe decent sex education for everyone? And widely available and affordable contraception? And oh, I don’t know, proper healthcare so that people don’t have to worry what will happen to them and their babies when they’re born? Your country fucking stinks. STFU.)

June 23rd, 2012

The Abortion Diaries: real stories from real women

plannedparenthood:

Photobucket

The Abortion Diaries, a short documentary featuring 12 women who speak candidly about their experience with abortion, is now available online in its entirety

April 24th, 2012

It looks like, once again, Planned Parenthood is the target of a hidden-camera, actor-with-fake-questions sting operation. This time, instead of the good oldpimps-n-hos routine, it’ssex-selective abortion:

According to Planned Parenthood spokesperson Chloe Cooney, clinics in at least 11 states have reported two dozen or more “hoax visits” over the past several weeks, in which a woman walks into a clinic, claims to be pregnant and asks a particular pattern of provocative questions about sex-selective abortions, such as how soon she can find out the gender of the fetus, by what means and whether she can schedule an abortion if she’s having a girl.

Subtle! The anti-choice crowd’s big new thing is that, in the words of National Right to Life president Carol Tobias, “the real war on women” is that “roughly half” of abortions “are performed on unborn girls.” Since roughly half of pregnancies are girls, that makes a general sort of statistical sense, though since the vast, overwhelming majority of abortions are performed long before sex can be determined, it’s absolutely beside the point when it comes to a war on women. But that claim is the new shiny toy of the right’s attempts to distract us from the very real war on women they’re waging, so coming up with a video suggesting that Planned Parenthood staff would advocate specifically aborting girls is just the sort of thing they’d think would be a major victory.  

The best bet is that this sting attempt is the work of Live Action, this sort of thing being that group’sraison d’etre. However:

Kate Bryan, a spokesperson for Live Action, would not confirm whether the group was behind the newest Planned Parenthood sting. “As you can understand, Live Action does not comment on any investigations until after public release,” she said.

Translation: As you can understand, Live Action will not comment on this until we’ve established whether our footage will allow us to edit together a sufficiently misleading video. If so, we’ll release that sucker far and wide. If not, we’ll never admit it was us.

Even though Planned Parenthood has blown the whistle before any misleading videos can be released, and even though the media should have learned by now exactly how full of lies videos from Live Action and other James O’Keefe imitators are, Planned Parenthood needs our help fighting off this kind of attack. Click here to donate to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on Act Blue.

*sigh*

February 28th, 2012

“‘Arietty’ and ‘The Lorax’ are propaganda films”

And for the record, Fox News, Arietty is based on the 1952 classic by English author Mary Norton called The Borrowers. Just STFU, will you? Or watch Princess Mononoke and THEN complain about the green, anti-industrialist messages.