29 September 2012

Face Palm

Disclaimer: You're probably going to get pissed off at me.
Disclaimer:  I really don't care all that much. 

I don't really like writing about politics.  I don't like discussing politics unless it's with someone I know very well and I know that they won't try to impress upon me the dire nature of their beliefs.  I like having discussions, not arguments.  All too often topics like politics, religion, sex and so on so forth just become beaten into the ground and result in being topics that nobody in a room wants to touch on.

I understand this.  What I don't understand, however, is total and complete ignorance.

A friend of mine posted this link on Facebook.  Knowing my drastically liberal nature, many of my readers are likely asking themselves, "she has a friend that would post that kind of bullshit?"  Yes.  Yes I do.  It's because I don't judge (tisk tisk).

Just in case you don't quite feel like reading the article, it's more or less about how everyone should be able to speak out about abortion (pro-life agendas, moreover) and that men, too have the right to fight for life.  Sure, I agree with this.  I agree that everyone has a voice in the matter and that when a man and a woman create a child, both parents responsible should have a say in the outcome if abortion is even being discussed (rape, sexual abuse victims, and dead-beat boyfriend scenarios aside).

What I absolutely and positively do not agree with in this article, however, is the sort of language that is used to highlight the differing sides of the argument.  In one side of the ring we have our pro-lifers, fighting strong with Jesus on their side and in the other corner, ding!  The pro-aborts!  Wait.  What?

That's right, kiddos.  'Pro-aborts' is the selected terminology in this particular posting.  Instead of referring to pro-choice as being simply that--pro-choice--they completely bastardize the idea of having the 'right to choose' and turn the phrase to mean that pro-choicers are pro-abortion and that they think that all women should have them!  Granted, this is not the first time that I've heard the term 'pro-abortion' used in place of the much more preferable 'pro-choice' nomenclature, but I think in the context of this posting it just irritated me.
It wasn't only the pro-life side of the argument that used terminology with a negative connotation either.  In a letter highlighted in the post, the author writes 'anti-choice' in place of 'pro-life.'  It's amazing how much one little word can flip the connotation of a phrase.  The way they throw around the word 'gender' in the article pisses me off too.  It's an issue of sex, not gender.  But that's a different blog post entirely.

Honestly, a lot of these pro-life arguments need to get their stories straight.  In reality, if politicians are wanting to make all of these financial cuts to education and healthcare and general comfort of living, what good will that fetus be coming into anyway?  The child could grow up poor, uneducated, living in squalor, but hey--at least someone saved a fetus, right?  We should really be looking to enhance the quality of life, not the quantity of those living it.  This whole men versus women argument is just tiresome.

 Truthfully, the arguments that matter just seem to fall to the wayside and we focus on the preservation of the little things--like embryonic cells without consciousness--instead of funding the institutions that would make life better for the people already up and walking around.

How's that for a pro-life stance?

1 comment:

Adam said...

"Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing."-George Carlin


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...