I'm not exactly sure what the message is here. Maybe there are multiple messages packed inside the one bumper sticker.
I do see that it's from American Life League, which definitely, definitely gets a "no follow" on that link, so, on paper, it's theoretically a pro-life bumper sticker.
First, in that case, the message seems 117 percent hysterical. Is ALL, which doesn't get stains out of laundry, nor teh stupidz out of wingnut thinking, trying to make us believe that a woman from Planned Parenthood is carrying around a butcher knife to do streetside butcher-shop abortions?
Second, is ALL now allied with some Minuteman/Militia group, warning us about "anchor babies"? And, speaking of that, do militia groups themselves support streetside butcher-shop abortions for stinking Mezcan Ill Eagles? Should we ask this of The Stinking Anglo Formerly Known as Danny Goeb™?
Third, is ALL allying with Open Carry Texas, saying that fetus (I'm sorry, unborn gun nuts) should be packing heat inside the womb? After all, that was the schtick of the late (metaphorically and politically), not-so-great Steve Stockman. I guess it would be harder to pull that M-16 out of a stubborn pro-lifer's uterus than about anything else, just on bulk, compared to an actual unborn gun nut.
Fourth, is ALL lining up with the neocons? "Women, if you have to have sex, make sure it's not with a Mooslim!" Speaking of, what do neocon pro-lifers think? Dunno what the Arabic is for "anchor baby," but I'll bet Pam Geller does.
Fifth, does the woman have a husband who's an executive at Raytheon? "Anchor baby" is perfectly fine if you're giving birth to a bouncing baby defense contractor whose daddy actually makes anchors. It's kind of OK if your husband is active duty in the military; just don't expect fiscal conservatives to pay the military hubby, or baby-bearing military wife, enough salary for the best in child rearing.
Yep, that's your typical preborn baby smoking a bong made out of an automatic pistol. Now, if you're Steve Stockman, how do you tell if that's a real gun that baby's packing, or just a devil's tool of that devil drug, marijuana?
Toughie, isn't it?
So, ALL, why are you trying to confuse your loyal, humble, wingnut followers?
11 comments:
Despite their moralistic rhetoric, pro-life is a hate group. How else would you characterize people who think a woman is just a "womb," the fleshy outer covering for the all-important fetus?
That said, this bumper sticker is a hoot.
From what I've seen there are plenty of wing-nuts on both sides. & but I will give it to the Pro-Choice infanticide crowd they might be extreme but they are at least philosophically consistent.
"the Pro-Choice infanticide crowd"
And once again our dialogue gets drowned out by the sound of people patting themselves on the back.
I might have been unsubtle with my rhetoric in my first post, but I really think someone has a perspective problem if he thinks there's no difference between a fetus inside mommy's tummy and an infant. I have two kids of my own, so I think I'm pretty well qualified to assert that no woman should have to undergo pregnancy and childbirth unless she really wants to.
If lesser evils are all we have left, oh well. I'd rather give women the choice over whether they have kids than force them to become parents if they're not ready.
Words have meaning, especially legal words when talking about crimes. Also, btw, the "Pro-Choice" crowd believe it is a private decision of a woman to make instead of the government; it has nothing to do with whether or not they "approve" of abortion. And, of course, abortion within the first trimester is legal
and is a constitutional right.
Infanticide: The murder or killing of an infant soon after its birth. The fact of the birth distinguishes this act from “foeticide” or “procuring abortion,” which terms denote the destruction of the jirlus in the womb.
Black's Law Dictionary
Sure RockheadedMama we have legal definitions but they have evolved if the underlying principles were arbitrarily biased and not consistent.
We could simply adjust it to the unlawful killing of a infant person after it's birth. Babies and some infants aren't technically psychological persons.
& before people start thinking they know my position I'm neither Pro-Life nor Pro-Choice.
I'm in the same general neighborhood as Simon on this issue. Probably don't totally peg into the pro-choice hole.
That said, I've never seen a pro-choice bumper sticker like this, or close, hence my blogging about it!
mrhambre I'm well aware of the differences, as do the PC infanticide supporters. They are just consistently using the arguments that involve the full moral standing of psychological persons.
& my hybrid position opposes both PC & PL as inconsistent. IMO parents are morally obligated to duty of care for their offspring whether that care comes from the body or from care outside their body.
A right to bodily sovereignty isn’t a moral right not to be held morally responsible for wrongs done to moral person/innocent aggressors who are themselves impinging on the offenders bodily sovereignty by actions taken by the body's owner.
It’s rather a right not have your body used against your will.
I'm NOT PL in that I wouldn't force a woman to have the child. It's still her choice.
But like other neglect cases leading to death, a consensual sex parent has the choice to provide that care, or face a custodial sentence in line with other duty of care cases that lead to the death of the offspring.
Oh & in many cases bumper sticker like comments are usually just parrot trolling from people who don't understand the issues anyway.
So worthy of comment and condemnation.
Simon,
The distinction between abortion and infanticide (as RH Mama pointed out) is that infanticide is the killing of an infant child, whereas abortion prevents a child from being born in the first place.
I think anti-choicers like to make it seem like fetuses are babies already, or that they're developing somewhere in the ether instead of inside a female human's body.
mrhambre That is the old Acorn is not a tree argument which is fundamentally flawed. Both the acorn and the tree are just different developmental stages of that tree species; fundamentally they are the same thing.
For humans birth doesn't bring about some fundamental ontological change for our species.
Nor does being separate from the mother now make the organism somehow fundamentally an individual. It isn't like a crocodile hatchling caring for itself; a new born is so care dependent it's degree of dependence is still extreme even when born.
& if you think our fundamental nature is as person a baby isn't a person either. BTW we aren't persons as adults either but that is another argument.
& No I'm not for anti-choice as to bodily sovereignty, but I am anti- choice in regard to casually creating moral persons only to kill them on arbitrary whims. If you have a right to do that infanticide is definitely on the table.
"I am anti- choice in regard to casually creating moral persons only to kill them on arbitrary whims."
But the point is they haven't been created yet. They're still developing inside the body of the mother. The woman isn't just a vague environment the being lives in until it moves on to other environments like cribs and cradles. We don't know her situation in terms of physical and emotional health, employment, housing, and degree of support from family and friends. You're ignoring quite a bit of context by focusing on her as just a womb. She should be making the decision about whether it's the best time to finish creating this moral person.
If your ethical analysis doesn't balance the rights of the "moral person" who hasn't even developed the ability to feel pain against those of the moral person who is carrying the gestating fetus, it's missing something important.
Post a Comment