When talking about the comparisons of the issues of abortion and animal farming + exploitation, it seems that there are two similar sides that we can look at. The similarities between vegan arguments and pro-life arguments, and the similarities between animal exploitation arguments and pro-choice arguments. Similarities between veganism and pro-lifeism: *Both are centered around the idea of respecting life, especially that of the particularly innocent, vulnerable, voiceless, helpless, defenseless etc. *Right to life is present in both. With pro-lifeism, of course the unborn child is being killed so a focus is put on the fact that they have a right to not be killed and to continue their lives, and with veganism, animals get killed and thus a focus is put on them having a right to not be killed and to continue their lives. *Right to not be harmed and bodily autonomy, as well as the right to not be seen as property to be disposed of as one sees fit, is present in both. In an abortion, the child is dismembered with medical tools or sucked apart or poisoned etc. This harms them and takes away their bodily rights as their bodies are being harmed and destroyed. They are considered their parents’ property and they are at the will of their parents. With animal farming/consuming/exploiting, there are many different ways in which the bodies of animals are harmed and they are treated as objects and their bodily rights are taken away as well, whether that be abuse like being beaten over the head in some factory farms, or the stress of being artificially inseminated and having to give birth and being constantly milked, or going through training in circuses etc. They are literally considered the property of farmers and are at the will of those who farm them, train them, or are otherwise considered their owners. *Both point out that if one can't stand to look at gruesome pictures that are the end result of what they are supporting (abortion pictures/slaugtherhouse pictures), then they don't want to be supporting it in the first place. The idea is that if one finds it offensive then you are saying that something you support is offensive...so why are you supporting it? *Both see the genocide that is happening right before our eyes, and understand that it is prejudice and oppression. Both have trouble understanding why after learning our lesson with the past genocides, we still continue with this one. Some on each side make comparisons to the holocaust and slavery/racism as well as sexism. *Both mention that abortion or animal consuming/using aren't necessary, and talk about the other options that one has. For why should we go out of our way to cause all this death and destruction when we don't have to? For abortion, there is adoption (of which you can have open, closed, or semi-open, and they are free to adopt out), safe-haven/safe-surrender/baby-moses laws which let you leave the child at any police station, hospital, or fire department, no questions asked, kinshipcare or guardianshipcare, where you give the child to a family member or close friend to be raised, and this can be long-term or short-term, or a ton of options for help if the woman does think she can be a parent with the right help. That goes into various avenues such as financial, daycare, baby drives, housing, rights for pregnant women at school or in the workplace and things to make it easier like desks that fit the stomachs of pregnant women or set ups for her to work or learn from home etc. There's also talk of artificial wombs. With veganism, there's literally a vegan version of everything. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of edible plants that we have discovered so far and literally a vegan version of everything. If it's possible to make it non-vegan, it's possible to make it vegan. There are tons of vegan options at every store and you can veganize fast food meals as well. Those who are poor can be vegan, as many of us are. There are vegan leathers and soaps and this and that and the other. *Right to rescue is present in both. In the 80s and 90s, the pro-life rescue movement was underway with pro-lifers occupying preborn slaughterhouses to save the women and children inside. There has been a modern resurgence of this lately, led by secular progressive pro-life activists such as in PAAU. Animal rights activists also rescue animals from factory farms and other such things, such as with the recent Smithfield Trial which was a victory for members of DXE who saved a few pigs from slaughter. *Right to continue living so as to continue to use the other rights and choices they would have is present in both. Pro-lifers often talk about how the most important right is the right to life, as all other rights would be meaningless without it as you wouldn't be alive to get to use them. Vegans often point out that animals are here for their own reasons, just like us, to have their own lives and do their own things. They aren't here to be objects for the use of humans. That brings me to a related issue on the reverse... Similarities between non-veganism and pro-choiceism: *Both use a "choice" argument, and forget the victim at hand and their choices, and act like the perpetrator needs to have a choice to harm the victim. With animal using and consuming, they think it has to be the ones partaking in the using or consuming that need to have a choice to do so. Often you'll l hear something like, "It's my choice to eat meat. You can't infringe on other people's choices. If you don't eat meat, that's your own choice, but you can't tell me what to do." With abortion it's the same thing, with the mother getting to choose to take her unborn child to a facility to be dismembered and killed. "It's my choice to get an abortion. You can't infringe on other people's choices. If you wouldn't get an abortion, that's your own choice, but you can't tell me what to do." *Similarly, both use the bodies of those committing the act instead of the bodies of the victims to act like somehow disregarding one's bodily autonomy is the bodily right of another. For abortion, "It's my body, my choice." and sometimes "If it's in my body I can kill it." For animal consuming/wearing, "It's my body, my choice. I get to choose what goes in/on my body." Both actions require harming and killing someone else's body, but only the bodies of the ones doing said harming will ever be paid attention to for these sides. Forgetting the victim and acting like it's the other side that is in the wrong because they are infringing on the rights of those taking away the rights of others is an old way to pass off discrimination. *Both exploit women, those who are pregnant, and the female reproductive system, break up the mother and baby bond, and kill children. The abortion industry and pro-choice movement tell pregnant people that they cannot be mothers in whatever hard situations they are in so they have no other choice but to abort, or that their children are not children but just clumps of cells. This is exploitative and coercive. Abortion pits mother against child, breaking up the mother-baby bond and kills the pregnant person's baby for a profit. Many post-abortive people grieve their dead children afterward and develop PTSD or depression. The dairy, pork, veal, and eggs industries exploit female farm animals by forcing them to get pregnant so that they can produce milk or more animals to farm, stealing their babies so that the milk can go to humans or to kill the babies who are of no use to the egg industry or can become veal, and send the female children back into the same systems their mothers are in. This not only exploits the mothers and kills the children but also breaks up the mother and baby bond. Mothers are known to grieve their children who were taken from them. *Both use overpopulation as an excuse to kill the victims. With abortion, they say that humans are overpopulated and thus we shouldn't have anymore, as well as that since they think the earth is overpopulated, they'll have a horrible life so we might as well not allow them to exist so as to spare them a life in the overpopulated world. With animal consuming/using, they say that animals are overpopulated so we need to kill them so that their overpopulation doesn't get in the way. *Both use things such as pain, sentience, intelligence, size, looks, and ability to contribute to society as a way to belittle the victims and excuse killing and harming. They say that those who have yet to be born can't feel pain, aren't conscious, aren't intelligent, are so small, and that that therefore makes them lesser than us and so we can kill them. They say that those of other species can't feel pain (the classic "fish don't feel pain" myth for example), aren't conscious, aren't intelligent, animals like insects are so small, and that that therefore makes them lesser than us and so we can kill them. Both of these not only are incorrect *at the very least* for some of those who have yet to be born and some animals, but also forget that there are many born humans, such as infants and other children and those along the wide spectrum of disabilities and diseases who also fall in those categories, yet they understand then that those things don't matter at all. How can you argue that if one isn't intelligent, they can be killed, if you understand that a born human who is mentally challenged needs even more protection than the average person? It's a might makes right attitude as well. "I'm bigger than you/smarter than you etc., so since I can kill you because you have less abilities than me, I should be allowed to have that choice." Discriminating against a group based off of their abilities, or Ableism, is another classic way to pass off discrimination, and is closely tied to eugenics. It has been said that you have to look at someone's differences and act like that makes you better, in order to get people to successfully oppress a group. For the unborn it's dehumanizing, for other animals it's speciesism. *Both use the arguments that these things have been happening for so long/are natural, and that people will still do them even if it's outlawed. Abortion is ancient so women will still find a way to do it they say. Animal eating is ancient and what we need to be doing they say. God put animals on earth for us to use they say. God aborts babies all the time they say. *Both try to brush off the act by talking about the fact that it is legal, as if somehow something being legal therefore makes it ok, or that somehow you shouldn’t advocate for the other side as if things can’t change from legal to illegal. *Both try to find ways to defend at least some abortion or animal killing/harming. With abortion they say "well it's ok if it's below a certain amount of weeks/well it's ok if she was raped/well it's ok if the child has a disability etc." With animal killing they usually go for the ones labeled "humane" "organic" "grass fed" “cage free" “free rage" without realizing the problems with these, or they point to specific animals. Or they'll just say "I wouldn't eat a dog but a pig is different." *Ultimately, both look at the differences we have from these groups rather than our similarities and use that as a way to exert power and control over them and "other" them to the point of death, dismemberment, and exploitation.
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Taking Back Bodily Autonomy
I have always been SUPER pro-bodily-autonomy/integrity and freedom of choice. My main philosophy in life has always been that you should be able to do whatever you want, whatsoever, as long as it doesn't hurt another body besides your own. This is exactly why I am against abortion. Bodily autonomy/integrity is why most pro-lifers are against abortion. If there wasn't another body that was being threatened or we didn't care about the body being threatened, we wouldn't be pro-life and there wouldn't be a problem. We'd say "Yeah sure violate and kill the unborn's body, it's not like I care what others do to bodies that aren't their own!" Get a hysterectomy, sure, but there is no greater threat to bodily autonomy than abortion. The right to bodily autonomy fits so much better with the pro-life side.
The thing about pro-choicers is that they don't really understand bodily autonomy. They think it's absolute (they seem to forget the "as long as you don't hurt another body" part of it, and there are many situations in which it is not absolute, such as helmet or other safety laws, drugs being illegal, or illegal in certain circumstances such as for those under a certain age, being taken away on a 5150 and forced in a mental hospital and watched to make sure you don't kill yourself, someone can't neglect their child and refuse to feed it because they don't want to use their arms to give it food (Refusing your child nutrients and survival because you don't want your uterus to go to this is basically the same. Children also have the right to not be neglected, and depriving the child of resources it needs to live, even if it wasn't wanted or planned or is an "inconvenience", is still neglect and still wrong) or kill or hurt their child if they wrapped themselves around your leg for instance and you can't get them off without doing so, and various other circumstances (regardless of whether or not you agree with them, they exist legally)), they think right to life can never come before it (right to life comes before at least most things as it is the ultimate threat against someone (and if you're an Atheist like me, you should really believe in it, as life is ALL we have, and without life, all other rights are meaningless as we wouldn't be alive to be able to use them, and this is why they put life first in "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", and it's almost like a lot of them don't even think right to life is a thing, because if bodily autonomy always exists in the context of "even if someone dies" as so many of them like to argue, then you can go around killing people an excuse it by saying "Well it was my body doing the killing so you can't do anything about it because bodily autonomy" ), when talking about abortion, they act like the only thing to bodily autonomy is whether or not you allow someone to use your organs (there's much more which I'll explain), and they think forget about the unborn's bodily autonomy because the woman's autonomy is the only thing we should really care about etc.
Now essentially bodily autonomy has a few different things to it (and no not all of them are legal.) It means you can do whatever you want to or with your body (get tattoos or piercings or body mods, take drugs, be a stripper or prostitute, have sex whatever way you want it however much you want it with whomever you want (unless they are underage or someone else non-consenting) refuse to shave or wear makeup etc.), no one can do anything to your body without consent or invade the personal space of your body (think of rape, molestation, inflicting pain or injury, even just touching someone without them wanting you to etc.), and yeah having control over your organs is part of it, but the main thing is that no one can hurt or kill your body without consent (this is actually sort of related to right to life as someone being killed means their body was killed and hurt to the utmost extreme, so they aren't even mutually exclusive in the first place). You get to be in charge of your body, and no one else can ever hurt it (unless you're into that sort of thing and it's completely consensual ).
Of course according to science, the unborn is another individual living human being and different body than the mother. The unborn's bodily autonomy is the one being threatened here as the act in question is abortion and the unborn is the one being aborted, not the woman. Abortion is forcing death (and various things with the various types, such as dismemberment which is also obviously a great threat to bodily autonomy) on it without it consenting and having a choice in the matter. That is the biggest threat to bodily autonomy.
Now trust me, I get that the woman has autonomy too and she might not want to be pregnant and share her body with the unborn. Talking about the unborn's right to bodily autonomy and right to life DOES NOT mean we think little of the woman's right to bodily autonomy (remember I'm a super liberal and radical feminist, super pro-bodily rights type, so don't use that stupid "they all just hate women and want to take away their bodily autonomy" misconception on me). I am female, I live with thinking about what it is like to be pregnant all the time, BUT abortion is still a greater threat to bodily autonomy. Someone hurting or killing someone else's body is obviously a greater threat than someone using someone else's organ to stay alive. Also the unborn has two violations pushed on them (right to life and bodily autonomy) vs. the woman's one.
Abortion being the greater threat to bodily autonomy is true even more so for various reasons. It is completely innocent in the matter, it could not have consented or chosen to be there, and it is already there before a woman can find out she is pregnant or an abortion can take place. It did not "take over the woman's uterus without consent" as it could never have consented to that, and comparisons like that imply intent, but it never could have made a conscious decision to do something like that or even be aware of what it was doing. Just like newborns and toddlers can't be held responsible for certain actions because they couldn't have consented to it or realized what they were doing (from needing to be fed down to more serious things like accidentally hurting someone) the unborn is purely innocent. It can't consent to being killed either, just like infants outside of the womb couldn't consent to being killed so since it's not legal to do that, it doesn't make sense to allow someone to do it to the unborn (other examples of how bodily autonomy still applies to those who aren't aware to be able to consent either way is how women who have passed out can't consent to having sex, so doing that to her is rape, or sleepwalkers can't consent to sleepwalking, yet they also can't consent to being killed). Usually people know that things like circumcision or piercing a baby's ears are against it's bodily autonomy, yet some of them do a 180 when it comes to abortion. Those aborting specifically decide to do so and DID consent and make a conscious decision. The abortion is a direct an conscious action on someone. The unborn being there was there by the actions of the woman and man, or in case of rape man and woman's body. It happens to be using her uterus because that is how science works and the only home it has. Once again, it didn't "force itself into her and take her uterus hostage." Other analogies I've heard are ones like you can't drag an unconscious person into your home and then shoot them because you want them to leave *or something like that*, and extensions of that.
Want of womb empty is definitely not an adequate excuse to literally, purposefully, consciously, and actively kill someone who already happens to be there and by natural circumstances made by other people/bodies, especially those who are the ones wanting to kill them, and without their own consent to be there or a conscious choice made, who is the most innocent out of anyone innocent ever. Anyone for bodily autonomy should be pro-life above all else. No one is saying they should get more rights, we're just saying give them actual equal rights, which pro-choicers don't seem to understand. Someone's rights to their own body stops where another's begins, and we know that that is at conception.
Also I never liked the "kidney transplant" type of analogies. Abortion is different than refusing to give someone an organ or something like that as that hasn't already happened and when someone gives an organ, part of them is gone forever and put into someone else, whereas with the unborn, it is only using the woman's uterus and only for 9 months and she gets to keep it in her, and it is already there and happening by the time she finds out, and she will have it back to herself in months. Also, one might say that if a parent were the one to make their child's organ non-functioning, they should be obligated to give them theirs, or if someone already had an organ transplant, they shouldn't be allowed to take it back (which is actually an actual thing. You can't take it back once they are already using the organ, let alone take tools to dismember and kill them, and the unborn is already using the organ) and anyone can also refuse to take an organ, and if they don't they agree and make a conscious decision to take someone's organ, but the unborn can't refuse to use the uterus, and like I said before didn't make the choice to use it in the first place, and then there is the difference between actively killing and letting die, but even beyond all of that, I'm sure even the most pro-choice people still think very poorly of those who just flat out refuse to give someone an organ if they really need it.
The thing about pro-choicers is that they don't really understand bodily autonomy. They think it's absolute (they seem to forget the "as long as you don't hurt another body" part of it, and there are many situations in which it is not absolute, such as helmet or other safety laws, drugs being illegal, or illegal in certain circumstances such as for those under a certain age, being taken away on a 5150 and forced in a mental hospital and watched to make sure you don't kill yourself, someone can't neglect their child and refuse to feed it because they don't want to use their arms to give it food (Refusing your child nutrients and survival because you don't want your uterus to go to this is basically the same. Children also have the right to not be neglected, and depriving the child of resources it needs to live, even if it wasn't wanted or planned or is an "inconvenience", is still neglect and still wrong) or kill or hurt their child if they wrapped themselves around your leg for instance and you can't get them off without doing so, and various other circumstances (regardless of whether or not you agree with them, they exist legally)), they think right to life can never come before it (right to life comes before at least most things as it is the ultimate threat against someone (and if you're an Atheist like me, you should really believe in it, as life is ALL we have, and without life, all other rights are meaningless as we wouldn't be alive to be able to use them, and this is why they put life first in "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", and it's almost like a lot of them don't even think right to life is a thing, because if bodily autonomy always exists in the context of "even if someone dies" as so many of them like to argue, then you can go around killing people an excuse it by saying "Well it was my body doing the killing so you can't do anything about it because bodily autonomy" ), when talking about abortion, they act like the only thing to bodily autonomy is whether or not you allow someone to use your organs (there's much more which I'll explain), and they think forget about the unborn's bodily autonomy because the woman's autonomy is the only thing we should really care about etc.
Now essentially bodily autonomy has a few different things to it (and no not all of them are legal.) It means you can do whatever you want to or with your body (get tattoos or piercings or body mods, take drugs, be a stripper or prostitute, have sex whatever way you want it however much you want it with whomever you want (unless they are underage or someone else non-consenting) refuse to shave or wear makeup etc.), no one can do anything to your body without consent or invade the personal space of your body (think of rape, molestation, inflicting pain or injury, even just touching someone without them wanting you to etc.), and yeah having control over your organs is part of it, but the main thing is that no one can hurt or kill your body without consent (this is actually sort of related to right to life as someone being killed means their body was killed and hurt to the utmost extreme, so they aren't even mutually exclusive in the first place). You get to be in charge of your body, and no one else can ever hurt it (unless you're into that sort of thing and it's completely consensual ).
Of course according to science, the unborn is another individual living human being and different body than the mother. The unborn's bodily autonomy is the one being threatened here as the act in question is abortion and the unborn is the one being aborted, not the woman. Abortion is forcing death (and various things with the various types, such as dismemberment which is also obviously a great threat to bodily autonomy) on it without it consenting and having a choice in the matter. That is the biggest threat to bodily autonomy.
Now trust me, I get that the woman has autonomy too and she might not want to be pregnant and share her body with the unborn. Talking about the unborn's right to bodily autonomy and right to life DOES NOT mean we think little of the woman's right to bodily autonomy (remember I'm a super liberal and radical feminist, super pro-bodily rights type, so don't use that stupid "they all just hate women and want to take away their bodily autonomy" misconception on me). I am female, I live with thinking about what it is like to be pregnant all the time, BUT abortion is still a greater threat to bodily autonomy. Someone hurting or killing someone else's body is obviously a greater threat than someone using someone else's organ to stay alive. Also the unborn has two violations pushed on them (right to life and bodily autonomy) vs. the woman's one.
Abortion being the greater threat to bodily autonomy is true even more so for various reasons. It is completely innocent in the matter, it could not have consented or chosen to be there, and it is already there before a woman can find out she is pregnant or an abortion can take place. It did not "take over the woman's uterus without consent" as it could never have consented to that, and comparisons like that imply intent, but it never could have made a conscious decision to do something like that or even be aware of what it was doing. Just like newborns and toddlers can't be held responsible for certain actions because they couldn't have consented to it or realized what they were doing (from needing to be fed down to more serious things like accidentally hurting someone) the unborn is purely innocent. It can't consent to being killed either, just like infants outside of the womb couldn't consent to being killed so since it's not legal to do that, it doesn't make sense to allow someone to do it to the unborn (other examples of how bodily autonomy still applies to those who aren't aware to be able to consent either way is how women who have passed out can't consent to having sex, so doing that to her is rape, or sleepwalkers can't consent to sleepwalking, yet they also can't consent to being killed). Usually people know that things like circumcision or piercing a baby's ears are against it's bodily autonomy, yet some of them do a 180 when it comes to abortion. Those aborting specifically decide to do so and DID consent and make a conscious decision. The abortion is a direct an conscious action on someone. The unborn being there was there by the actions of the woman and man, or in case of rape man and woman's body. It happens to be using her uterus because that is how science works and the only home it has. Once again, it didn't "force itself into her and take her uterus hostage." Other analogies I've heard are ones like you can't drag an unconscious person into your home and then shoot them because you want them to leave *or something like that*, and extensions of that.
Want of womb empty is definitely not an adequate excuse to literally, purposefully, consciously, and actively kill someone who already happens to be there and by natural circumstances made by other people/bodies, especially those who are the ones wanting to kill them, and without their own consent to be there or a conscious choice made, who is the most innocent out of anyone innocent ever. Anyone for bodily autonomy should be pro-life above all else. No one is saying they should get more rights, we're just saying give them actual equal rights, which pro-choicers don't seem to understand. Someone's rights to their own body stops where another's begins, and we know that that is at conception.
Also I never liked the "kidney transplant" type of analogies. Abortion is different than refusing to give someone an organ or something like that as that hasn't already happened and when someone gives an organ, part of them is gone forever and put into someone else, whereas with the unborn, it is only using the woman's uterus and only for 9 months and she gets to keep it in her, and it is already there and happening by the time she finds out, and she will have it back to herself in months. Also, one might say that if a parent were the one to make their child's organ non-functioning, they should be obligated to give them theirs, or if someone already had an organ transplant, they shouldn't be allowed to take it back (which is actually an actual thing. You can't take it back once they are already using the organ, let alone take tools to dismember and kill them, and the unborn is already using the organ) and anyone can also refuse to take an organ, and if they don't they agree and make a conscious decision to take someone's organ, but the unborn can't refuse to use the uterus, and like I said before didn't make the choice to use it in the first place, and then there is the difference between actively killing and letting die, but even beyond all of that, I'm sure even the most pro-choice people still think very poorly of those who just flat out refuse to give someone an organ if they really need it.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Vegetarian/Vegan/Animal rights activist pro-choicers
There are a few groups for vegans and vegetarians who are pro-life. The facebook group Vegans Against Abortion and the facebook page Vegetarian and Pro-Life
One of the things that annoys me the most is how incredibly inconsistent and hypocritical people can be. Take, for example, the vegetarian or vegan animal rights types of people (well in this one instance coming up). I am of course one myself, so it bugs me all the more when you know a lot of them are pro-choice. It is incredibly hypocritical to support the rights of animals (who definitely aren't people) and say that they should have equal rights to us and the right to life and to not have to be hurt or killed or messed with, yet the unborn don't get these rights, especially if they say it's because they "aren't people." Well newsflash, animals you protect against other people denying their rights, usually with the argument as well that they aren't people, OBVIOUSLY AREN'T PEOPLE!!! Yet you say that that doesn't matter of course, because they still deserve rights. Trust me, I believe this as well, so why double back and use the same arguments you have to fight against when it comes to animal rights, while trying to deny the rights of the unborn? The unborn at least are more "persons" than animals are, and science already tells us that they are human beings. This is just one of the many examples of liberals using the same argument they fight against in support of the denying of the rights of the unborn. It astounds me that they don't notice themselves spewing out the same talking points conservatives give on a number of issues. Someone should really go through all the arguments liberal pro-choicers use for their pro-choice stance with those that conservatives use for denying rights to people of different races, women, homosexuals, and whoever else, as well as gun rights, refusing universal healthcare, war, and whatever else you can think of.
One of the reasons people are the veggie/animal rights types is because they want the innocent to be safe and ok and have rights. If it's not you, you don't get to kill it or hurt it. There is nothing more innocent than the unborn. Even more so than animals.
Then of course you have these types who also tend to advocate for not killing/chopping down plants and destroying them and the ecosystem as little as possible (the environmentalist/tree-hugger/save the rainforest types, and I am that too of course), and you REALLY can't advocate for that and then turn around and not give a damn about the unborn, especially if you recognize that of course even plants are alive/life yet you think fetuses aren't.
Then you'll have the pro-choice liberals (pretty much all of the pro-choice liberals) who say "well if they were really so pro-life, they'd be vegetarians, or vegans, or pro-peace" and it's like YES!!! I'm always saying that! Vegans and vegetarians and people who are pro-peace should be pro-life, and vice versa, as those fit together. If I ever bring this up, they tend to shut up because they now realize they have made the point that being pro-life fits in with all these liberal things, without meaning to. It's hypocritical to say "Well if you're really so pro-life" or "Well then you should also be (insert whatever liberal thing) " and then exclude yourself and people who are already liberal from that and be pro-choice, or then say that everyone should be pro-choice. Think about what would happen if pro-lifers did all the things liberals said they should do if they were really so pro-life (and of course I agree that they should be all those things): THEY'D BE LIBERAL!!!! Yes, that's right! You would have successfully turned them liberal and they would now be liberal pro-lifers, who you then would probably say should be pro-choice. You don't care about consistency, you just want everyone to be exactly like you. Everyone knows that this issue is hypocritical on all sides, they just don't want to know it with their own side. I actually always thought that especially vegetarians and vegans should be pro-life, and if you do eat meat, then you aren't as hypocritical and perhaps you get a teensy bit of a pass because you already don't really care about the innocent or animals or rights anyway (no offense meat eaters.)
I even came across this picture recently, which all the more made me think of how hypocritical pro-choice animal rights activists are. I love that they are doing this for the animals, I do advocate for thinking animals are equal to humans, but they (that is the pro-choice people who think like this) are labeling those who can't be considered human as non-human persons, yet those who can, don't get the right to be called persons? COME ON!!! I really hope whoever made this and all who agree with it realize how hypocritical and stupid it would then be to label the unborn as not persons and dehumanize them or deny their rights. I'll say this again: They are at the very least, more "persons" than animals are.
One of the things that annoys me the most is how incredibly inconsistent and hypocritical people can be. Take, for example, the vegetarian or vegan animal rights types of people (well in this one instance coming up). I am of course one myself, so it bugs me all the more when you know a lot of them are pro-choice. It is incredibly hypocritical to support the rights of animals (who definitely aren't people) and say that they should have equal rights to us and the right to life and to not have to be hurt or killed or messed with, yet the unborn don't get these rights, especially if they say it's because they "aren't people." Well newsflash, animals you protect against other people denying their rights, usually with the argument as well that they aren't people, OBVIOUSLY AREN'T PEOPLE!!! Yet you say that that doesn't matter of course, because they still deserve rights. Trust me, I believe this as well, so why double back and use the same arguments you have to fight against when it comes to animal rights, while trying to deny the rights of the unborn? The unborn at least are more "persons" than animals are, and science already tells us that they are human beings. This is just one of the many examples of liberals using the same argument they fight against in support of the denying of the rights of the unborn. It astounds me that they don't notice themselves spewing out the same talking points conservatives give on a number of issues. Someone should really go through all the arguments liberal pro-choicers use for their pro-choice stance with those that conservatives use for denying rights to people of different races, women, homosexuals, and whoever else, as well as gun rights, refusing universal healthcare, war, and whatever else you can think of.
One of the reasons people are the veggie/animal rights types is because they want the innocent to be safe and ok and have rights. If it's not you, you don't get to kill it or hurt it. There is nothing more innocent than the unborn. Even more so than animals.
Then of course you have these types who also tend to advocate for not killing/chopping down plants and destroying them and the ecosystem as little as possible (the environmentalist/tree-hugger/save the rainforest types, and I am that too of course), and you REALLY can't advocate for that and then turn around and not give a damn about the unborn, especially if you recognize that of course even plants are alive/life yet you think fetuses aren't.
Then you'll have the pro-choice liberals (pretty much all of the pro-choice liberals) who say "well if they were really so pro-life, they'd be vegetarians, or vegans, or pro-peace" and it's like YES!!! I'm always saying that! Vegans and vegetarians and people who are pro-peace should be pro-life, and vice versa, as those fit together. If I ever bring this up, they tend to shut up because they now realize they have made the point that being pro-life fits in with all these liberal things, without meaning to. It's hypocritical to say "Well if you're really so pro-life" or "Well then you should also be (insert whatever liberal thing) " and then exclude yourself and people who are already liberal from that and be pro-choice, or then say that everyone should be pro-choice. Think about what would happen if pro-lifers did all the things liberals said they should do if they were really so pro-life (and of course I agree that they should be all those things): THEY'D BE LIBERAL!!!! Yes, that's right! You would have successfully turned them liberal and they would now be liberal pro-lifers, who you then would probably say should be pro-choice. You don't care about consistency, you just want everyone to be exactly like you. Everyone knows that this issue is hypocritical on all sides, they just don't want to know it with their own side. I actually always thought that especially vegetarians and vegans should be pro-life, and if you do eat meat, then you aren't as hypocritical and perhaps you get a teensy bit of a pass because you already don't really care about the innocent or animals or rights anyway (no offense meat eaters.)
I even came across this picture recently, which all the more made me think of how hypocritical pro-choice animal rights activists are. I love that they are doing this for the animals, I do advocate for thinking animals are equal to humans, but they (that is the pro-choice people who think like this) are labeling those who can't be considered human as non-human persons, yet those who can, don't get the right to be called persons? COME ON!!! I really hope whoever made this and all who agree with it realize how hypocritical and stupid it would then be to label the unborn as not persons and dehumanize them or deny their rights. I'll say this again: They are at the very least, more "persons" than animals are.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
This is my story
I have always been very liberal (that's the American Liberal. I have heard that in other countries it means the opposite of what it means here). I realized I was when I was about 13 and started asking what words like "democrat" and "republican" meant, so from then on I realized my ideals fully fit on the liberal/left/whatever you want to call it side. I always thought the fact that we have parties, and especially the two party system, was stupid though but I always knew I did have values that fully fit in with liberal. When I say very liberal, I mean a mixture of all the liberals, like a full on mix of Communist, Socialist, Anarchist, Hippie, Green, Peace and Love, Democrat, with punk rock ethics as well and whatever else there is that is left. It's hard for me to choose just one since I fit in with all, so I usually just say liberal. If it weren't for the fact that I'm really into grunge and totally want to live in Seattle (the grunge holy-land), I would probably find a Hippie commune to live on.
I have always been very Feminist. I have always known I was a Feminist. I remember reading that Kathleen Hanna got into feminism when she was 9 or something, and thinking that was odd because I seemed to have always been into it, though of course we come from different times, so maybe I lucked out by growing up in the post-riot grrrl 90s, but then again the 70s was very Feminist as well. I think my first feminist memory was when I was 3 and I hated that people apparently can hit boys but not girls, because that isn't equal. I knew it was silly to say women couldn't take it, and it was silly to say men could. Those are just old-fashioned gender ideals that say that women are fragile and men are tough, and both are wrong. It goes by a human by human basis. We really shouldn't be hitting anyone, and it should be equal. When I said very Feminist, I mean I call myself a radical feminist because I know that feminism can't have anything to do with being a man hater so those who say that's what that means are wrong, and anything radical just means you support it more than just having a general sense that it is right and want to actually figure it out and fix it. You can't have radical equality that leans on one side. There is a difference between women's rights and feminism. Feminism incorporates women's rights but is about equality of the sexes. You can be for women's rights and not a feminist though, if you don't want equality of the sexes, and only care about women's rights. Those are more like the man-hater radicals that people confuse with feminists. Another misconception of feminism is that you have to be an activist and protesting all the time. You can sit on your lazy but and have a general sense that the sexes should be treated equally without picketing. That's a regular feminist. Those of us that actually want to see social change in the world are radicals.
I am very Atheist. I would say that even though I was never raised as an Atheist, I was always an Atheist. I realized I was one around 7th grade. My whole mom's side of the family is Mormon, and we did go to Mormon church when I was young, but luckily we stopped either when I was 6 or 7 (I don't remember exactly, but I know this because in the Mormon faith, you get baptized when you turn 8, and my brother is a little over 2 years older than me, and he was baptized, so we were attending church then, so I would have been almost 6, and then we stopped by the time I was 8, so I wasn't baptized (thank goodness)) My mother say she wishes she would have kept religion in our lives longer for the family type of stuff and that we missed out on some things, but I am so thankful for the fact that she didn't, as it would be SO much harder to come out as an Atheist. I'm SO glad she stopped taking us to church when I was still young enough to not know what was going on. I never bought the stuff at all, though when I was in my trying to find myself period, I did perhaps pray to god, like "help me find (whatever item I had lost) and I'll do whatever" and I think once I said I was a Christian when someone asked because I didn't know what else to say, but I honestly never believed any of it. It was just me playing monkey see monkey do and being afraid to come out in a world that looks down upon Atheist people. For that I say I was always an Atheist. Also, when I say very Atheist, I mean I don't think there ever is a possibility that there ever is, was, or will be a god or gods, so in other words, I'd probably be considered a Gnostic Atheist, and I think most Atheists are Agnostic Atheists. I don't bash people for their beliefs though. I think religion is an evil and definitely want it to go away, but the people aren't necessarily and I know what it's like to have them push their beliefs on me so I try not to stoop to that level.
I have always been very Pro-Life. Well, as long as I knew what abortion was. When I say very pro-life, I mean I have always been iffy on the life of the mother exception, but I have never accepted any other exception. I think I was 14 when I asked my mom what abortion meant because I had heard the word a few times, and didn't know. Right away I knew I was against it, and this wasn't so long after finding out how very Liberal I am, so since it seems like it was right up the Conservative side's alley, I assumed it was something conservative deadbeat dads created so that they wouldn't have to take care of their responsibilities and to keep women down. Being the feminist I am, and being a woman myself, I assumed it was something only ever used against women and women would never choose to do it, though now I know even more of how it's bad to assume women would never do anything bad to their children, I mean you even have women drowning their infants, but coming from a woman's perspective, I can't imagine any woman ever being ok with this. I also can't imagine parents ever being ok with this. Chalk it up to me never imagining that I could do it as a female, so being naive to the fact that other women could do it.
I knew being fine with people choosing to kill, dehumanizing, and denying rights was totally a conservative thing. I created all these liberal and feminist ideals against abortion, and then I started hearing my mom and brother and others say that pro-life was a conservative thing and pro-choice was a liberal thing, so naturally I thought they were joking because it makes absolutely no sense. Then as time went on, I started to realize that there was that stereotype that conservative religious types were pro-life and liberal feminist types were pro-choice, and perhaps the majorities may be like this currently, but that makes no sense, and I never let the stereotypes stop me from being who I am and believing what I believe. I always knew that it's just as hypocritical to be for animal rights/vegetarian/vegan, pro-peace/anti-war, pro-universal healthcare, anti-gun, environmentalist/tree-hugger type etc. and to be for people choosing to kill their offspring as it is to be a pro-war, gun-toting, animal hunting, anti-universal healthcare type who actually cares about life and rights with the unborn.
I knew it was something to use womanhood and women's bodies and so men could back out of actually taking care of their children, and so they could use them for sex and then get rid of the problem if they got pregnant so they could just do it all over again. Though now I know women choose it because they feel like they have no other choice, yet men do do that all the time and also pressure them into it and make them feel like it's their responsibility because they are the mothers, but then other men are wronged and regret lost fatherhood like the women who regret their abortions. The pro-choice side lets bad guys get away with it and good guys hurt from it. I knew that the whole "it's the woman's choice" thing was old-fashioned gender stereotypes that say that the woman has to choose and it has to be all on the woman, the one who is the mother, the one who gets pregnant, so everything about babies has to be on her because that's women's work. That is OBVIOUSLY sexist and leads to the world we have now where men think that they have to say that the woman should deal with it because she is the woman and they will support whatever choice because it's her choice because she is the mother, and the women think that they have to deal with all of this and decide all these things because they are the women, the ones who get pregnant, the mothers who have to deal with baby stuff because that's a woman's job. I don't necessarily blame them though, because they have been wronged by society. Tons of really sweet guys are tricked into thinking they are great feminist men by telling the woman it's her choice and she has to deal with it. Tons of really great girls are tricked into thinking they have to carry the whole world on their shoulders just because they are women, or have to be pro-choice because their fellow feminist friends tell them they have to. I actually wrote a bunch of liberal, feminist, pro-life lyrics not long after finding out about abortion, and stuck them in a book of other lyrics, hidden, because I didn't want to admit that there was such a thing. I think I'll turn them into pro-life riot grrrl songs.
I have always been these things because I am not the type to go through phases or change that much. Really you should only change if you come across info that proves you were wrong, or if your tastes honestly change, like if you suddenly like one flavor of icecream more than your previous favorite. Neither of those things tend to happen to me. My beliefs have stayed the same, though perhaps a few tweaks here and there with new information, but essentially I'm the same person I always was, though actually my beliefs are stronger than they ever were. I have always been more strong-willed and don't tend to give in to peer pressure. I was always one to think rebellion and conformity are stupid and you should always just be yourself. It may be and has been a long and hard road finding out that what makes sense isn't in the norm right now, but I never let that stop me. I hate it when people choose sides based on what other people who also happen to be like that think or say or do (I hate that so many pro-choicers are pro-choice or at least don't like pro-lifers or the pro-life thing because of the crazy radical conservative religious types saying stupid things or bombing abortion clinics. Trust us, they are only a fringe group, much like how everyone labels feminists as man-haters yet only a small percentage of people who consider themselves feminist actually are, or like how the WBC is only made up of 40 members yet they get all the attention and give Christianity a really bad name), or just because it is labelled as what people of your side are supposed to think. Everyone should realize that this issue is switched on all sides.
Oh and I'm really, really in love with music, especially rock and roll, especially all that is Grunge, Alternative rock, Riot Grrrl, the 90s, Seattle, and Generation X. I tend to say that a lot. I say "all that is" because not only do I love the music, but also all the stylistic things, and the vibes of it. I love tattoos, piercings, log hair (I LOOOVE long haired dudes!), goatees, loose-fitting clothing, crazy colored hair, flannel shirts, band shirts, ripped jeans, Doc Martens boots, or really all dirty boots, Converse All Stars, shorts with longjohns, the whole entire Kinderwhore look, those cool black rayon mini dresses with the little flowers on them that you can usually find by typing in 90s grunge on ebay, and the whole entire laidback, down to earth, let your hair down vibe of the 90s. All of that, but especially the music, is my main stuff. My life, my love, my passion. I even have another blog on here called The Grunge Pit. So yeah, I'm always saying I'm like the alternative feminist punk type who usually gets pigeonholed as working the front desk at Planned Parenthood or something, yet pro-life, because sometimes stereotypes are false. I'm hoping that with this blog, I can help people realize the side of the liberal, feminist, atheist, cool pro-lifer. Usually you have pro-life organizations that cater to only liberals, only feminists, or only atheists, but I'm always thinking there should be something to tie in all of that, because since they tend to only do one of those, they are non-denominational with the other things and let everyone join in as long as they are pro-life and that one thing, and thus you might have people on pages for Feminists For Life who may be conservative or religious, or people on pages for Democrats For Life of America who may be religious or not Feminist, or people on pages for Secular Pro-Life who may be conservative or not Feminist, so why not make my own blog talking about all of these things? I hope I can connect this world too and give people resources for their needs within these types of things.
I have always been very Feminist. I have always known I was a Feminist. I remember reading that Kathleen Hanna got into feminism when she was 9 or something, and thinking that was odd because I seemed to have always been into it, though of course we come from different times, so maybe I lucked out by growing up in the post-riot grrrl 90s, but then again the 70s was very Feminist as well. I think my first feminist memory was when I was 3 and I hated that people apparently can hit boys but not girls, because that isn't equal. I knew it was silly to say women couldn't take it, and it was silly to say men could. Those are just old-fashioned gender ideals that say that women are fragile and men are tough, and both are wrong. It goes by a human by human basis. We really shouldn't be hitting anyone, and it should be equal. When I said very Feminist, I mean I call myself a radical feminist because I know that feminism can't have anything to do with being a man hater so those who say that's what that means are wrong, and anything radical just means you support it more than just having a general sense that it is right and want to actually figure it out and fix it. You can't have radical equality that leans on one side. There is a difference between women's rights and feminism. Feminism incorporates women's rights but is about equality of the sexes. You can be for women's rights and not a feminist though, if you don't want equality of the sexes, and only care about women's rights. Those are more like the man-hater radicals that people confuse with feminists. Another misconception of feminism is that you have to be an activist and protesting all the time. You can sit on your lazy but and have a general sense that the sexes should be treated equally without picketing. That's a regular feminist. Those of us that actually want to see social change in the world are radicals.
I am very Atheist. I would say that even though I was never raised as an Atheist, I was always an Atheist. I realized I was one around 7th grade. My whole mom's side of the family is Mormon, and we did go to Mormon church when I was young, but luckily we stopped either when I was 6 or 7 (I don't remember exactly, but I know this because in the Mormon faith, you get baptized when you turn 8, and my brother is a little over 2 years older than me, and he was baptized, so we were attending church then, so I would have been almost 6, and then we stopped by the time I was 8, so I wasn't baptized (thank goodness)) My mother say she wishes she would have kept religion in our lives longer for the family type of stuff and that we missed out on some things, but I am so thankful for the fact that she didn't, as it would be SO much harder to come out as an Atheist. I'm SO glad she stopped taking us to church when I was still young enough to not know what was going on. I never bought the stuff at all, though when I was in my trying to find myself period, I did perhaps pray to god, like "help me find (whatever item I had lost) and I'll do whatever" and I think once I said I was a Christian when someone asked because I didn't know what else to say, but I honestly never believed any of it. It was just me playing monkey see monkey do and being afraid to come out in a world that looks down upon Atheist people. For that I say I was always an Atheist. Also, when I say very Atheist, I mean I don't think there ever is a possibility that there ever is, was, or will be a god or gods, so in other words, I'd probably be considered a Gnostic Atheist, and I think most Atheists are Agnostic Atheists. I don't bash people for their beliefs though. I think religion is an evil and definitely want it to go away, but the people aren't necessarily and I know what it's like to have them push their beliefs on me so I try not to stoop to that level.
I have always been very Pro-Life. Well, as long as I knew what abortion was. When I say very pro-life, I mean I have always been iffy on the life of the mother exception, but I have never accepted any other exception. I think I was 14 when I asked my mom what abortion meant because I had heard the word a few times, and didn't know. Right away I knew I was against it, and this wasn't so long after finding out how very Liberal I am, so since it seems like it was right up the Conservative side's alley, I assumed it was something conservative deadbeat dads created so that they wouldn't have to take care of their responsibilities and to keep women down. Being the feminist I am, and being a woman myself, I assumed it was something only ever used against women and women would never choose to do it, though now I know even more of how it's bad to assume women would never do anything bad to their children, I mean you even have women drowning their infants, but coming from a woman's perspective, I can't imagine any woman ever being ok with this. I also can't imagine parents ever being ok with this. Chalk it up to me never imagining that I could do it as a female, so being naive to the fact that other women could do it.
I knew being fine with people choosing to kill, dehumanizing, and denying rights was totally a conservative thing. I created all these liberal and feminist ideals against abortion, and then I started hearing my mom and brother and others say that pro-life was a conservative thing and pro-choice was a liberal thing, so naturally I thought they were joking because it makes absolutely no sense. Then as time went on, I started to realize that there was that stereotype that conservative religious types were pro-life and liberal feminist types were pro-choice, and perhaps the majorities may be like this currently, but that makes no sense, and I never let the stereotypes stop me from being who I am and believing what I believe. I always knew that it's just as hypocritical to be for animal rights/vegetarian/vegan, pro-peace/anti-war, pro-universal healthcare, anti-gun, environmentalist/tree-hugger type etc. and to be for people choosing to kill their offspring as it is to be a pro-war, gun-toting, animal hunting, anti-universal healthcare type who actually cares about life and rights with the unborn.
I knew it was something to use womanhood and women's bodies and so men could back out of actually taking care of their children, and so they could use them for sex and then get rid of the problem if they got pregnant so they could just do it all over again. Though now I know women choose it because they feel like they have no other choice, yet men do do that all the time and also pressure them into it and make them feel like it's their responsibility because they are the mothers, but then other men are wronged and regret lost fatherhood like the women who regret their abortions. The pro-choice side lets bad guys get away with it and good guys hurt from it. I knew that the whole "it's the woman's choice" thing was old-fashioned gender stereotypes that say that the woman has to choose and it has to be all on the woman, the one who is the mother, the one who gets pregnant, so everything about babies has to be on her because that's women's work. That is OBVIOUSLY sexist and leads to the world we have now where men think that they have to say that the woman should deal with it because she is the woman and they will support whatever choice because it's her choice because she is the mother, and the women think that they have to deal with all of this and decide all these things because they are the women, the ones who get pregnant, the mothers who have to deal with baby stuff because that's a woman's job. I don't necessarily blame them though, because they have been wronged by society. Tons of really sweet guys are tricked into thinking they are great feminist men by telling the woman it's her choice and she has to deal with it. Tons of really great girls are tricked into thinking they have to carry the whole world on their shoulders just because they are women, or have to be pro-choice because their fellow feminist friends tell them they have to. I actually wrote a bunch of liberal, feminist, pro-life lyrics not long after finding out about abortion, and stuck them in a book of other lyrics, hidden, because I didn't want to admit that there was such a thing. I think I'll turn them into pro-life riot grrrl songs.
I have always been these things because I am not the type to go through phases or change that much. Really you should only change if you come across info that proves you were wrong, or if your tastes honestly change, like if you suddenly like one flavor of icecream more than your previous favorite. Neither of those things tend to happen to me. My beliefs have stayed the same, though perhaps a few tweaks here and there with new information, but essentially I'm the same person I always was, though actually my beliefs are stronger than they ever were. I have always been more strong-willed and don't tend to give in to peer pressure. I was always one to think rebellion and conformity are stupid and you should always just be yourself. It may be and has been a long and hard road finding out that what makes sense isn't in the norm right now, but I never let that stop me. I hate it when people choose sides based on what other people who also happen to be like that think or say or do (I hate that so many pro-choicers are pro-choice or at least don't like pro-lifers or the pro-life thing because of the crazy radical conservative religious types saying stupid things or bombing abortion clinics. Trust us, they are only a fringe group, much like how everyone labels feminists as man-haters yet only a small percentage of people who consider themselves feminist actually are, or like how the WBC is only made up of 40 members yet they get all the attention and give Christianity a really bad name), or just because it is labelled as what people of your side are supposed to think. Everyone should realize that this issue is switched on all sides.
Oh and I'm really, really in love with music, especially rock and roll, especially all that is Grunge, Alternative rock, Riot Grrrl, the 90s, Seattle, and Generation X. I tend to say that a lot. I say "all that is" because not only do I love the music, but also all the stylistic things, and the vibes of it. I love tattoos, piercings, log hair (I LOOOVE long haired dudes!), goatees, loose-fitting clothing, crazy colored hair, flannel shirts, band shirts, ripped jeans, Doc Martens boots, or really all dirty boots, Converse All Stars, shorts with longjohns, the whole entire Kinderwhore look, those cool black rayon mini dresses with the little flowers on them that you can usually find by typing in 90s grunge on ebay, and the whole entire laidback, down to earth, let your hair down vibe of the 90s. All of that, but especially the music, is my main stuff. My life, my love, my passion. I even have another blog on here called The Grunge Pit. So yeah, I'm always saying I'm like the alternative feminist punk type who usually gets pigeonholed as working the front desk at Planned Parenthood or something, yet pro-life, because sometimes stereotypes are false. I'm hoping that with this blog, I can help people realize the side of the liberal, feminist, atheist, cool pro-lifer. Usually you have pro-life organizations that cater to only liberals, only feminists, or only atheists, but I'm always thinking there should be something to tie in all of that, because since they tend to only do one of those, they are non-denominational with the other things and let everyone join in as long as they are pro-life and that one thing, and thus you might have people on pages for Feminists For Life who may be conservative or religious, or people on pages for Democrats For Life of America who may be religious or not Feminist, or people on pages for Secular Pro-Life who may be conservative or not Feminist, so why not make my own blog talking about all of these things? I hope I can connect this world too and give people resources for their needs within these types of things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)