If you were merely snarking as to how some religious assholes treat reproductive rights, you might consider that about half of gun owners agree with your position. Attacking them doesn't really help your case.
I wouldn't call the OP "attacking gun owners" since I think it's clearly not suggesting that any of those things are reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, although I can see how you might take it that way. I thought it worked well to take the anti-abortion requirements and apply them in a different situation to clearly show how fucking nuts you'd have to be take any of them seriously.
I agree entirely that the proposed restrictions on abortion are offensive, stupid and morally corrupt. The problem with this comparison is that there isn't a strong correlation between gun ownership and reproductive choice. About half of liberals own guns, too, and most libertarians.
The comparison to intrusiveness and violence works well enough, but the social targeting isn't very precise.
Other than churches, a comparison to cars and drunk drivers might work better.
The problem with this comparison is that there isn't a strong correlation between gun ownership and reproductive choice.
Whereas I don't think there really needs to be for this image to be effective in making its point.
Other than churches, a comparison to cars and drunk drivers might work better.
It might! Churches might make it even stronger, since advocating restrictions on abortion is pretty much an exclusively religious position, but that also might confuse the message - there's a risk of hitting "but people SHOULDN'T be allowed to go to the WRONG church" thinking.
Cars work, but there's no constitutional right to drive a car, and you lose a bit because pretty much nobody thinks automobiles and drivers should be completely unregulated.
So, yeah. There's a bunch of ways this image *could* work. I just think it *does* work in the way that the person who made it (who wasn't me, in case that wasn't clear) intended.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-05-20 04:15 pm (UTC)If you were merely snarking as to how some religious assholes treat reproductive rights, you might consider that about half of gun owners agree with your position. Attacking them doesn't really help your case.
I wouldn't call the OP "attacking gun owners" since I think it's clearly not suggesting that any of those things are reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, although I can see how you might take it that way. I thought it worked well to take the anti-abortion requirements and apply them in a different situation to clearly show how fucking nuts you'd have to be take any of them seriously.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-05-20 04:23 pm (UTC)The comparison to intrusiveness and violence works well enough, but the social targeting isn't very precise.
Other than churches, a comparison to cars and drunk drivers might work better.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-05-20 04:37 pm (UTC)Whereas I don't think there really needs to be for this image to be effective in making its point.
Other than churches, a comparison to cars and drunk drivers might work better.
It might! Churches might make it even stronger, since advocating restrictions on abortion is pretty much an exclusively religious position, but that also might confuse the message - there's a risk of hitting "but people SHOULDN'T be allowed to go to the WRONG church" thinking.
Cars work, but there's no constitutional right to drive a car, and you lose a bit because pretty much nobody thinks automobiles and drivers should be completely unregulated.
So, yeah. There's a bunch of ways this image *could* work. I just think it *does* work in the way that the person who made it (who wasn't me, in case that wasn't clear) intended.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-05-20 04:44 pm (UTC)Given the proclivities of certain clergy, shouldn't they all be registered?
Shouldn't sermons have a waiting period to allow both cooling off and fact checking?
Shouldn't all church attendees be shown the numbers of people killed by religion, and graphic images of the carnage caused by jihad and crusades?
Not sure where an ultrasound fits in, but I'm sure we can find a way.