"Now, while pro-lifers are becoming incensed and begging the couple not to abort, pro-choicers are becoming incensed and wanting the couple to be shot. Reading more closely what the couple writes, I've come to agree this is a pro-life stunt. A pro-choicer, unless a real sicko, would not go into this sort of detail about the 16-week development of the baby she may abort..."
Yes, obviously it's a stunt. I'm amazed that bloggers are willing to drive traffic to such things....
November 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
I voted "get an abortion." Clearly these people shouldn't be raising a kid.
I don't think they should be shot, however. They should retroactively abort themselves.
Actually, though, I think they should have the kid, adopt it out to a couple that really wants a kid, and then they should both jump off a bridge.
But really, I don't give a shit.
The pro choice supporters are always angry when human life becomes reverenced more than their rights to kill parasites.
How dare that couple make light of a clump of cells. Fetch my smelling salts, for I, too, wish to join the pro-choice brigade in feigning indignation over this stunt.
Yeah, because a pro-death person like Amy Richards could never be that vile and callous in public, like in the pages of the NY Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07EED6113BF93BA25754C0A9629C8B63
Scam?
Or just another example of what "democratizing the internet" is doing to our society?
If only we could blame those crazy mainstream media people! But in this case? The "media" appears to be us.
Oh, and this lovely from the Editor's Note:
"Editors' Note: July 28, 2004, Wednesday The Lives column in The Times Magazine on July 18 gave a first-person account of the experience of Amy Richards, who had been pregnant with triplets and decided to abort two of the fetuses. Ms. Richards, who told her story to a freelance Times Magazine contributor, Amy Barrett, discussed her anxiety about having triplets, the procedure to terminate two of the pregnancies and the healthy baby she eventually delivered; she expressed no regret about her decision. The column identified Ms. Richards as a freelancer at the time of her pregnancy but should have also disclosed that she is an abortion rights advocate who has worked with Planned Parenthood, as well as a co-founder of a feminist organization, the Third Wave Foundation, which has financed abortions. That background, which would have shed light on her mind-set, was incorporated in an early draft, but it was omitted when an editor condensed the article."
It does seem like a pro-life stunt. Wish the couple the best; they seem to be vulnerable to miscarriage; hopefully it won't happen this time.
(There's no way they are aborting their child.)
15 minutes doesn't buy as much fame in the Internet Age.
It's so hard to be an abortion enthusiast.
I broke up with my one post-divorce fling because she gave me that "a fetus is a clump of cells" bullshit.
Kicking her to the curb seemed like The Macho Response.
It came across to me as a scam -- I had the sense that the couple (are they really a couple?) were trying to mimic the way a pro-choicer thinks about a baby. And they got it wrong.
I don't get the outrage.
* Say it's a pro-life stunt. I assume that the intent would be to draw attention to the developing child, get people emotionally invested in it, get people thinking about his or her development and how that makes him/her human.
- So, if you're anti-abortion, other than perhaps the callowness of making a stunt out of something you see as serious, why's there a big problem?
- So, if you're an abortion supporter(I refuse to call it choice, for reasons I've explained in other posts), you shouldn't be outraged unless thinking about or having others think about the developing child bothers you. And if it bothers you, maybe you should re-think your stance.
* Say it's a pro-abortion stunt: I don't really understand how that would work, and no one seems to say that it is.
* Say that they're really doing this and it's not a stunt (doubtful, but still):
- I would get pro-lifers being upset, obviously, they shouldn't be considering abortion at all from the pro-life perspective, particularly so callously.
- But, if you're an abortion supporter, what's the big deal? If it's just a clump of cells, then it's just a clump of cells. Why should it matter why they choose to make the choice they do, if the fetus is not a person? If you're not willing to impose your morality on someone else (a standard I think is silly when applied here- pretty much all of civilized society is imposing morality on others, particularly when, as here, it hurts an innocent- do you similarly refuse to object to stealing or child abuse?), why are you willing to impose your morality on them here?
An exceptionally silly dispute, through and through. AA's final sentence is spot on.
- Lyssa
I think it is just a scam and it is not necessarily pro choice or pro life (although it could be either or not).
Post a Comment