Revolted.
May 30th 2014, 3:06 pm
#46
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Re: Revolted.
There is of course the option to choose not to terminate and not to raise a child. Many childless couples would welcome the opportunity to adopt a baby that would otherwise end up aborted.
But I don't envy anyone stuck having to make these decisions. Campaigns like this are about educations and provoking debate even if religious faith is part of what drives it. However its not just godbotherers,I know childless couples who are totally against abortion except where the mothers life is threatened simply on the grounds that there are very few babies ever come up for adoption.
But I don't envy anyone stuck having to make these decisions. Campaigns like this are about educations and provoking debate even if religious faith is part of what drives it. However its not just godbotherers,I know childless couples who are totally against abortion except where the mothers life is threatened simply on the grounds that there are very few babies ever come up for adoption.
Certainly a woman has the right to choose to have an unwanted baby and have it adopted. But she also has the choice not to.
She doesn't have to take into account the fact that there are childless couples out there who, for weird reasons known only unto themselves, want someone else's child.
The two issues are unconnected.
Last edited by Novocastrian; May 30th 2014 at 3:09 pm.
May 30th 2014, 3:11 pm
#47
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,023
Re: Revolted.
Presumably they're same-sex couples and so have a good reason to consider taking "someone else's" child.
May 30th 2014, 3:17 pm
#48
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Re: Revolted.
Why am I so slow to reach such obvious conclusions?
May 30th 2014, 5:36 pm
#50
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: SW Ontario
Posts: 19,879
Re: Revolted.
Siouxie,
A quick question. You mentioned the leaflet said something about your local MP, what exactly did it say? I'm taking a guess the MP in question is pro choice, and therefore the leaflet was something along the lines of "This is what <insert name of MP> believes in".
I think people do probably understand what actually happens when you have an abortion, and what the end result may well look like. The problem is, well to me at least, is that people don't want it rubbed in their faces. Ah, but if you don't do that, they don't know, we're educating people. Hmm, perhaps, but I personally don't feel that's the right way to do it. What is? truthful answer, I don't know.
A quick question. You mentioned the leaflet said something about your local MP, what exactly did it say? I'm taking a guess the MP in question is pro choice, and therefore the leaflet was something along the lines of "This is what <insert name of MP> believes in".
Yes, this is exactly what it said.
I wonder who the other candidates in the area are, and wether they sanctioned this advert, one would like to think that political attack ads have not sunk this low.I think people do probably understand what actually happens when you have an abortion, and what the end result may well look like. The problem is, well to me at least, is that people don't want it rubbed in their faces. Ah, but if you don't do that, they don't know, we're educating people. Hmm, perhaps, but I personally don't feel that's the right way to do it. What is? truthful answer, I don't know.
Shock tactics may be fine for adults but they shouldn't potentially subject children to such psychologically damaging imagery.
I find it ludicrous that Canada Post direct mailing regulations state:
Generally, non-mailable matter means any mail that:
contains sexually explicit material unless it is sent in an opaque envelope with the words “ADULT MATERIAL” or similar wording.
NOTE:
Sexually explicit material is defined as images or representations of nudity that are suggestive of sexual activity; images or representations of sexual intercourse, with no context suggesting violence or degradation; or written text that describes sexual acts in a way that is more than purely technical, with no context suggesting violence or degradation.
But they allow a photograph of a 5 month old decapitated, eviscerated, disembowelled and dismembered fetus to be popped into anyones letterbox.contains sexually explicit material unless it is sent in an opaque envelope with the words “ADULT MATERIAL” or similar wording.
NOTE:
Sexually explicit material is defined as images or representations of nudity that are suggestive of sexual activity; images or representations of sexual intercourse, with no context suggesting violence or degradation; or written text that describes sexual acts in a way that is more than purely technical, with no context suggesting violence or degradation.
May 31st 2014, 12:10 am
#51
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,771
Re: Revolted.
Why?
They cant have kids of their own, have fostered for years, and frankly have realised that kids coming through care have a lot of mostly insurmountable emotion problems stemming from the abuse that put them there. They do their best of course but the emotional attachment is very one sided and that is hard to take. They would like to start with a clean slate,like most parents, presumably to **** up the child themselves like the rest of us.
When you want children so badly and cant have any even with the best medical assistance it's hard to take that anyone would choose to terminate a healthy feotus
Is that selfish? Sure, I guess. More selfish than terminating a feotus that will never reach its potential? I really don't know. As I said, I don't envy those in this situation.
They cant have kids of their own, have fostered for years, and frankly have realised that kids coming through care have a lot of mostly insurmountable emotion problems stemming from the abuse that put them there. They do their best of course but the emotional attachment is very one sided and that is hard to take. They would like to start with a clean slate,like most parents, presumably to **** up the child themselves like the rest of us.
When you want children so badly and cant have any even with the best medical assistance it's hard to take that anyone would choose to terminate a healthy feotus
Is that selfish? Sure, I guess. More selfish than terminating a feotus that will never reach its potential? I really don't know. As I said, I don't envy those in this situation.
Last edited by iaink; May 31st 2014 at 12:21 am.
May 31st 2014, 1:52 am
#52
me/moi
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,539
Re: Revolted.
Why?
They cant have kids of their own, have fostered for years, and frankly have realised that kids coming through care have a lot of mostly insurmountable emotion problems stemming from the abuse that put them there. They do their best of course but the emotional attachment is very one sided and that is hard to take. They would like to start with a clean slate,like most parents, presumably to **** up the child themselves like the rest of us.
When you want children so badly and cant have any even with the best medical assistance it's hard to take that anyone would choose to terminate a healthy feotus
Is that selfish? Sure, I guess. More selfish than terminating a feotus that will never reach its potential? I really don't know. As I said, I don't envy those in this situation.
They cant have kids of their own, have fostered for years, and frankly have realised that kids coming through care have a lot of mostly insurmountable emotion problems stemming from the abuse that put them there. They do their best of course but the emotional attachment is very one sided and that is hard to take. They would like to start with a clean slate,like most parents, presumably to **** up the child themselves like the rest of us.
When you want children so badly and cant have any even with the best medical assistance it's hard to take that anyone would choose to terminate a healthy feotus
Is that selfish? Sure, I guess. More selfish than terminating a feotus that will never reach its potential? I really don't know. As I said, I don't envy those in this situation.
May 31st 2014, 1:54 am
#53
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,875
Re: Revolted.
Has anybody asked where the fathers rights are in this?
May 31st 2014, 2:35 am
#54
Resident Maple Leaf Lush
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,749
Re: Revolted.
Wouldn't it be the case that, if you knew there was a potential human growing inside you and you decided that it was necessary for you to undergo an invasive surgical procedure to prevent it becoming a person, you'd know that's a messy business? You likely wouldn't do that lightly nor be swayed in your decision by any sort of graphic picture. You wouldn't need educating about what was happening to you.
It seems to me that the target of this "education" isn't the person having the abortion but her neighbours; the objective is to demonise the person having the abortion. Look what she done! And so to create, or reinforce, a climate of oppression. I think Siouxie should consider having the MP burned at the stake.
It seems to me that the target of this "education" isn't the person having the abortion but her neighbours; the objective is to demonise the person having the abortion. Look what she done! And so to create, or reinforce, a climate of oppression. I think Siouxie should consider having the MP burned at the stake.
I asked my question as I was pretty sure it wasn't some kind of attack advert an MP was putting out, more that some pro life group was doing the attacking against an MP who is pro choice. If it had been the former then I would have suggested, and would have done so myself, a complaint to the MP, and their party leader, plus letting the local and national papers know what kind of campaign ads this MP has, and adding in a bit of the old "well, that must be the view of the party as a whole vis; Vote for us and you're "good", vote for the others and well, you agree with killing babies" - though the media would likely put that spin on it anyway.
May 31st 2014, 2:43 am
#55
Resident Maple Leaf Lush
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,749
Re: Revolted.
If it had been delivered in an envelope or with a cover stating that it was unsuitable for children then I would not be so annoyed/angry/upset about this. The fact that any child could have gone to get the mail and seen it is what horrifies me.
Shock tactics may be fine for adults but they shouldn't potentially subject children to such psychologically damaging imagery.
I find it ludicrous that Canada Post direct mailing regulations state:
Shock tactics may be fine for adults but they shouldn't potentially subject children to such psychologically damaging imagery.
I find it ludicrous that Canada Post direct mailing regulations state:
Generally, non-mailable matter means any mail that:
contains sexually explicit material unless it is sent in an opaque envelope with the words “ADULT MATERIAL” or similar wording.
NOTE:
Sexually explicit material is defined as images or representations of nudity that are suggestive of sexual activity; images or representations of sexual intercourse, with no context suggesting violence or degradation; or written text that describes sexual acts in a way that is more than purely technical, with no context suggesting violence or degradation.
But they allow a photograph of a 5 month old decapitated, eviscerated, disembowelled and dismembered fetus to be popped into anyones letterbox.contains sexually explicit material unless it is sent in an opaque envelope with the words “ADULT MATERIAL” or similar wording.
NOTE:
Sexually explicit material is defined as images or representations of nudity that are suggestive of sexual activity; images or representations of sexual intercourse, with no context suggesting violence or degradation; or written text that describes sexual acts in a way that is more than purely technical, with no context suggesting violence or degradation.
Perhaps a complaint to Canada Post as well, for allowing this, as I'd say it violates their regulations.
I too would have been horrified if my son had picked up the leaflet, likely he'd not know what it is, but if he asked, well, what does one say. Oh, the pro lifers would be going on about it opening up debate and showing the child what an abortion is all about,and thus "educating" them. Yeah, right, you're going to have that discussion with a four year old, who really just wants to go back in house and play with his train set? Kids aren't being allowed to be kids long enough as it is, having them exposed to this type of thing isn't on at all.
May 31st 2014, 3:12 am
#57
Resident Maple Leaf Lush
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,749
Re: Revolted.
True, not a great turn of phrase, certainly no pun intended by it.
Bonus points if the rabbit happens to be their kids' pet rabbit. Sorry, a tad childish and gruesome.
Bonus points if the rabbit happens to be their kids' pet rabbit. Sorry, a tad childish and gruesome.
May 31st 2014, 3:19 am
#58
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,771
Re: Revolted.
Im not a godbotherer, but my philosophy in life is that love is better than hate and when you are in a bad situation, its best to focus on any positives that you can take from it. I dont think it wise to force children into a world where the parents are not emotionally or financially ready to raise them, and I certainly would not force my views on anyone.
But on the other hand there are many people out there who would welcome that opportunity to raise a child and for whatever reason cannot have their own, so in this otherwise bad situation why not try and find a positive outcome.
To be honest Ive no idea how often the choice of giving an unwanted child up for adoption comes up, but it perhaps not something that most people in the situation are likely to take on board unless someone points it out to them, after all they are coming at it from the perspective of being pregnant and not wanting to have a child, rather than being childless and wishing above all else that they could get pregnant.
Last edited by iaink; May 31st 2014 at 3:39 am.
May 31st 2014, 3:26 am
#59
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Re: Revolted.
The mother has rights, its ultimately their decision. Its just not something that most people in that situation are likely to take on board unless someone points it out to them.
My philosophy in life is that when you are in a bad situation, its best to focus on any positives that you can take from it.
My philosophy in life is that when you are in a bad situation, its best to focus on any positives that you can take from it.
May 31st 2014, 3:50 am
#60
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,771
Re: Revolted.
I am certainly not in the mindless catholic school of anti-abortionists, they really wind me up. There are undoubtedly circumstances where termination is the lesser of two evils, and that right for the woman to choose is perfectly correct, but it should be the most informed choice possible, and you cant have that if the reality is sanitized for the sake of more palatable public consumption.
Last edited by iaink; May 31st 2014 at 3:52 am.
