(no subject)
May. 9th, 2005 12:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselking
Before a crowded waiting area, the pharmacist berated her.
"'You're a murderer. I will not help you kill this baby. I will not have the blood on my hands,'" Doe said. "I tried to explain to her that it's emergency contraceptives, that it's not an abortion pill. She then snatched the form from me, that the prescription was attached to, telling me the paper was full of lies, and she won't be a part of it. I was crying, shaking, upset, so embarrassed. I wanted to run out of the store and hope nobody else could get a good look at me."
"So, did you ever get your emergency contraceptives?" 12 News Senior Investigative Reporter Colleen Henry asked.
"No, I never received that one," Doe said.
"And you became pregnant?" Henry asked.
"I did become pregnant, and I had to terminate the pregnancy. It was very hard. And I didn't want to be what she called me. But that's what I ended up being," Doe said.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 04:49 pm (UTC)Then again these are also the people who condemn homosexuality, when they should in fact realize gay people having sex = no abortions! It's a win-win situation! In fact, they should encourage gay and lesbian sex, because the more people have sex with their own gender, the less they're having it with the other gender, hence less chance of pregnancy, hence less chance of abortion.
*waves a sign saying 'You make my side look stupid. Stop being on my side'*
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 04:57 pm (UTC)Homosexuality is *also* a sin, because it doesn't result in babies. Thus, they're not going to advocate that.
Remember, not having babies is a sin. Your purpose is to be a womb and incubate the next generation, which is composed of people (those without a womb) and wombs. This is what they want, and this is what you support doing when you support "pro-life" causes.
Antra, you are not pro-life, and they are not on your side. You are anti-abortion. There is a very, very large difference.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 05:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 05:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 05:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 05:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 05:41 pm (UTC)What you seem to be suggesting is that since I call myself an athiest, I'm saying "Go Stalin!" since he did some nasty things in the name of athiesm.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 06:05 pm (UTC)Antra is calling herself "pro-life" because she doesn't like abortion, but still believes that women have rights and that abortionists shouldn't be killed.
This is like you calling yourself a Stalinist because you believe that stopping Hitler was correct, but you're not in favour of the purges or the communism or the paranoia or the giant mustache, and you're not too fond of borscht, either.
Or saying you're an islamic fundamentalist because you don't like Israel's policies in Palestine, but you don't believe in the praying or the pillars or the Koran.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 06:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 06:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 07:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 07:07 pm (UTC)"I'm a goth, but I don't like black clothing or being unhappy, just clown makeup!"
"I'm a Trekkie, but the only TRUE Trek is the one with Luke Skywalker and that hairy guy!"
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 07:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 07:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 07:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 07:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 07:54 pm (UTC)I have no problem at all following the distinction that's being made here. Essentially, pro-life and anti-abortion, practically speaking, are not the same thing.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:01 pm (UTC)I agree that it isn't fitting the term (pro-life would work better as a term for those opposed to the death penalty), and anti-abortion does work better, but it would still have the same problem if everyone were to adopt the new term.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:37 pm (UTC)That's as inadequate a definition as someone referring to a person who is pro-choice as being pro-abortion.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:46 pm (UTC)And "chinese hooker" still doesn't rhyme with "dog", either.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:54 pm (UTC)2 Lara said (http://www.livejournal.com/users/theweaselking/726617.html?thread=1176409#t1176409) "That's an inadequate definition, just like this other one."
3. You said (http://www.livejournal.com/users/theweaselking/726617.html?thread=1176665#t1176665) "that definition sucks!"
4. I said (http://www.livejournal.com/users/theweaselking/726617.html?thread=1176921#t1176921) "Yes, that was her point. Your definition is stupid, her example of how stupid it was was an EXAMPLE OF HOW STUPID IT WAS." - and I made a Celebrity Jeopardy reference.
5. You said (http://www.livejournal.com/users/theweaselking/726617.html?thread=1176921#t1176921)"Huh?"
6. And now we are here.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 09:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 10:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 10:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 10:23 pm (UTC)And my point all along has been that your definitions do not cover what the beliefs of each side are. I could use smaller words and shorter sentences if you're still having trouble grasping that.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 09:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 09:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 09:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 10:11 pm (UTC)Well, a single Google search has produced a number of Pro-Life websites that refer to their opposition as "pro-abortion": There's this website. And this one. Or, how about this one? If that's not enough for you, how about this one?
You can find them the same way I did - Google search parameters "pro-life" "pro-abortion".
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 10:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 10:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:17 pm (UTC)There's nothing pro-life about the mainstream "pro-lifers". Most of them are for war and for the death penalty (as well as being meat-eaters). I don't consider that pro-life.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:21 pm (UTC)That's why they are anti-abortion, and nothing else.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:25 pm (UTC)> death or wanting all queers to burn in hell.
Indeed, except that "pro-life" is the self-description of the people who *do* believe all of that.
"Anti-abortion" are people who range from "pro-life" all the way down to Bill Clinton and his position that abortion should be safe, affordable, available, and the absolute last resort.
In the same way, if you say "I'm gay!", people don't think you're happy, and if you say "I'm a Christian scientist" people don't think you're smart.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 07:25 pm (UTC)E.C. is just like taking 10 birth control pills all at once.
E.C. (and birth control) --if you put it in the simplest way possible-- fool your body into thinking it's already pregnant so you won't get pregnant. it's kind of why you can't be carrying a 6 month-old fetus and a 8-month-old fetus at the same time. it doesn't work that way.
it doesn't kill babies.
jeeeze. Quianine, the original emergency contraceptive, was discovered BY A NUN-- like quianine, you can't cause an abortion by using birth control or EC, but you can avoid implantation.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 07:33 pm (UTC)Remember, for a female so-called "person", the point of your existence is to MAKE BABIES.
Preferably man-child.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-09 08:58 pm (UTC)WTF is that woman pharmacist doing working outside of the home anyway? Shouldn't she pregnant and making her man a sandwich while nursing her newborn?