Caylee Anthony-if your pro choice, you should be pro murder.

[Milly-Molly-Mandy]

http://itsalmostnaptime.blogspot.com/20 ... thony.html

This blogger equates abortion to the same thing as murdering your two year old.

I wish I was clever enough to reply. Leaving it to you all!

[debrand]

Because if Casey Anthony had decided that a baby was inconvenient to her lifestyle just a couple of years earlier, made an appointment, paid a doctor several hundred dollars to kill her daughter, then gotten up the next night, put on her sexiest outfit, and danced and drank away the night and posted photos of it on facebook, stating that she had 'no regrets', the majority of Americans would not bat an eye. Many, in fact, would applaud her, and call her strong, resilient, an amazing woman.

At age two, Caylee Anthony's death was nothing more than an extremely late-term abortion.

No one would have called the manipulative, dishonest Casey Anthony a woman of strength. Comparing a two year old to a first trimester embryo seems callous to me.

[Effie]

"What other women do with their own bodies - and the bodies of the children they shouldn't be forced to carry - is their personal right."

I just felt like addressing this certain statement. To kill a 2-year-old has nothing to do with a woman's body. To kill a 2 month old embryo has everything to do with a woman's body. A 2 month old embryo can't survive outside of the woman's stomach, neither could a 3 month old fetus. However the 2 year-old definitely can. So I do not see the correlation there.

Let's go further to "bodies of the children they shouldn't be forced to carry". It's not right to do harm to a living creature. An embryo isn't yet a living creature since it can't survive outside of the woman's stomach. That means it's sort of a parasite living on another human being. So there's definitely a difference.

[fundiefan]

It never fails to twist my mind like a pretzel when I read the ridiculous conclusions people reach. How does the mind go there? One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

[BlackHawk]

She seems pretty good at random crappy conclusions. Another one of hers is that 9-11 is the result of Ishmael. What?

I also want to point out that by her logic we shouldn't even try murderers because abortion happens and is legal... so we shouldn't care cause everyone who kills is just performing an abortion...

Ahh it burns....

[debrand]

This is one of the comments

It also does not seem logical to complain about the injustice of it all when the overwhelming majority don't give a rip about any of the other injustices that plague the world on a daily basis.

This isn't the first time that I have read this type of argument. How can you care about X when Y is happening in the world? It's as if the commentor doesn't comprehend that humans can be interested and outraged about more than one subject at the time.

I've always viewed this arguement as a way to shut down dissenting opinions. "You are upset poverty in your neighborhood. Well, how dare you care about that instead of poverty in Africa?" or "How dare you care about poverty in Africa when you don't care about poverty in India." It shuts down conversation in threads because the other person has to defend the fact that they do indeed care about social issues.

[Stickers]

Actually, I see the Casey Anthony case as an example of why forcing someone to become a mother is never a good thing. Casey didn't seem to have an issue with carrying the pregnancy to full term, but she waned to give the baby up for adoption, and her family didn't support her in that and pressured her to keep the baby.

[demgirl]

That is literally in the top 5 stupidest things I have ever read.

[notsocommon]

I've always viewed this arguement as a way to shut down dissenting opinions. "You are upset poverty in your neighborhood. Well, how dare you care about that instead of poverty in Africa?" or "How dare you care about poverty in Africa when you don't care about poverty in India." It shuts down conversation in threads because the other person has to defend the fact that they do indeed care about social issues.

I saw this just last night on Anderson Cooper's FB page. It was FULL of people basically saying "Screw African children, our US kids need help!" The comments were disgusting.....and you KNOW that not a one of them actually care about US children and actively vote against them.

 

[slickcat79]

I thought this was a great follow-up from "Missy" in the comments:

If our wombs were transparent, there would be no legalized abortion anywhere.

The first part is obviously meant to be an emotional appeal. If those hussies could just see their little "babies" they would never have an abortion. Never mind that, even with a "transparent womb", you would have a really hard time seeing an embryo for several weeks. It would also take awhile to look like anything you could "bond" with, and even longer for you to be able to tell the difference between your "baby" and a pig/cow/gorilla/other mammal fetus. Then she follows up with the idea that transparent wombs would disallow legal abortion, which is a totally different issue. The people making the laws are very rarely the ones making the choice about having an abortion, so why would they care about seeing the inside of someone else's uterus?

Another commenter:

One word...ADOPTION! If you don't want your baby/child, there is someone else DYING to care for him or her!

No. I'm sorry, but no. I love the idea of adoption. I have a cousin who was adopted as a baby, and I can't imagine life in my family without her. But adoption is not always a viable choice. There are roughly half a million children in foster care in the US, plus millions more around the world who don't have loving families. Many of them will suffer and even die from neglect. So where are all these other people who are "dying" to take care of them? Oh, right. They're on a waiting list for a healthy white infant :roll: And of course, not all adoptive families are like that by any means, but the idea that there are "no unwanted children" in the world withers in the face of the children who live every day knowing that no one wants them.

Not all the comments agree with Missy. I actually thought this one was lovely in comparison to most of the others:

I think God uses all events and human choices--good and bad--for His glory, even if we don't understand it. Even if it's murder. Even if it's abortion. I know you have strong feelings about the topic of abortion (that's an understatement) and I only hope that someday you have an opportunity to work with and minister to women who are considering abortion or who've had an abortion. I hope you get to know them and know their stories and understand who they are...even if you disagree with their choices. And I hope you never, ever have to hold the hand of your daughter or family member or friend after she's been assaulted and has to decide whether to take a little pill to force a period after her rape kit is complete--which would technically be ending a potential pregnancy. I hope you never have to hold the hand of your daughter or family member or friend as her life and her baby's life slip away because the pregnancy was too much for either body to handle. I hope you never have to hold the hand of a daughter or family member or friend who is agonizing over whether to abort her twins, whose brains are outside of their skulls and will die, and/or in order to save her own life, especially as she weighs whether sacrificing her own life to carry her babies to term is considered a sacrifice or suicide or murder...or all three. And if you're ever in that position, I hope you're able to overcome your preconceived notions about women who choose abortion and hold her hand if she decides to abort and feel her very real and very palpable grief as she cries in your arms. And I hope you can be there for her and really listen with your heart when she shares with you that by having an abortion, she can spend the rest of her life repenting, instead of fearing that by letting herself die, she's committing suicide and murder--with no chance to repent because she's dead. The real world goes so far beyond your blog, Missy. Yes, there are women who have abortions out of convenience and women who murder their children out of convenience. And there are also many, many women who experience real agony and grief when it's all said and done. Those of us who work with these women (and you'd be surprisd how many of them are married, not girls shacking up or out having casual sex) don't always agree with their choices but we can embrace them exactly as they are in all of their human imperfection--and that is a reflection of God in this human life.

But Missy and her godly friends don't care about those people. Those cases are "only a fraction" of abortions performed, so they don't matter. I doubt they've ever even spoken to someone who had an abortion; I know I wouldn't admit to one around these people. But somehow they know those women's motivations and emotions about their experiences, and have decided that they are victims of "our culture of death".

I will co-sign that as one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

*edited to add a qualifier

[slickcat79]

I saw this just last night on Anderson Cooper's FB page. It was FULL of people basically saying "Screw African children, our US kids need help!" The comments were disgusting.....and you KNOW that not a one of them actually care about US children and actively vote against them.

 

I saw so much of this attitude on different boards after the Haiti earthquake. There were people who were actually claiming that unemployed americans were just as bad-off as haitian earthquake victims. So stupid. It made me so angry and sick I couldn't even respond. And considering the nature of the board I was reading, I'm sure most of those people would identify as christians...somehow I'm pretty sure that's not what Jesus would do.

[Alecto]

What she is saying reminds me of a Christian apocolyptic book I read in the 90's where it was legal to "abort" your child up until they were 3 years old, and it was a woman's choice, men had no say. The story mostly revolved around a man trying to rescue his kid from this place. I wish I could remember the name of it. The book was awful.

[FlorenceHamilton]

You know, truly, these folks can stick it up their azzes.

If you are pro-capital punishment or think there is any reason to make war, then you are pro-murder.

This debate becomes beyond stupid.

[JesusFightClub]

No one would have called the manipulative, dishonest Casey Anthony a woman of strength. Comparing a two year old to a first trimester embryo seems callous to me.

The last part of your quote where it would be ok to kill a two year old is a variant on Prof Peter Singer's argument on same. He is a utilitarian. My thoughts on this will be highly unpopular so not too profitable to go there, but she did not make it up.

[debrand]

The last part of your quote where it would be ok to kill a two year old is a variant on Prof Peter Singer's argument on same. He is a utilitarian. My thoughts on this will be highly unpopular so not too profitable to go there, but she did not make it up.

Wasn't his argument that under certain circumstances, parents could euthanize a toddler? The child would have to be severely impaired, not just handicapped ? Maybe I am confusing him with another person. Or maybe I've participated in one too many online discussions so I might be getting various posters views confused with his opinions.

[Petunia117]

Many, in fact, would applaud her, and call her strong, resilient, an amazing woman.

I don't really get the assumption that pro-choice people LOVE abortions and the women that have them. Philosophically, I'm against abortion (though legally, I don't believe that I have the right to legislate what a woman does with her body). It's a position that has changed for me now that I have children. I think adoption can almost always be a viable option, and that abortions are often done out of fear (not enough money, public stigma, lack of support). Because I think many women make the choice for those reasons, I certainly don't think they are strong, resilient, or amazing. I think it's often a very sad choice, and one that women usually aren't happy to make. If anything, I think playing to someone's emotions and convincing them to carry a baby they wanted to get rid of just ensures something like this will happen. Casey wanted an abortion and her mom said no. Well, that worked out well...

[luckylibrarian]

Not all the comments agree with Missy. I actually thought this one was lovely:

I actually found this comment to be offensive. I have a huge problem with the idea that a woman who chooses an abortion for any of the reasons listed still has to spend the rest of her life repenting. It sounds like the woman was basing her decision on the weight of the sin - whichever was a lesser sin was the option she would choose. That isn't a good way to make a decision about your health. I'll give the commenter credit for recognizing that women have a variety of reasons for choosing abortion and most, if not all, experience grief over the choice, but she is still approaching the issue of abortion from a fundie perspective. She also apparently believes that girls who are "shacking up" or out having casual sex deserve all of the scorn and judgment. All I hear from this woman is sin, sin, imperfection, repent, judgment, etc. She's just as judgmental as the blogger, but she hides it in nicer language. There is still a "married women and better than single women" tone in her comment.

[slickcat79]

I actually found this comment to be offensive. I have a huge problem with the idea that a woman who chooses an abortion for any of the reasons listed still has to spend the rest of her life repenting. It sounds like the woman was basing her decision on the weight of the sin - whichever was a lesser sin was the option she would choose. That isn't a good way to make a decision about your health. I'll give the commenter credit for recognizing that women have a variety of reasons for choosing abortion and most, if not all, experience grief over the choice, but she is still approaching the issue of abortion from a fundie perspective. She also apparently believes that girls who are "shacking up" or out having casual sex deserve all of the scorn and judgment. All I hear from this woman is sin, sin, imperfection, repent, judgment, etc. She's just as judgmental as the blogger, but she hides it in nicer language. There is still a "married women and better than single women" tone in her comment.

Agreed that no woman who chooses abortion should feel a need to repent, but I got the impression that she was speaking about a specific person that she actually knew. That particular woman can't help feeling guilty at that time, and although I think she shouldn't, it would take more than other people's opinions to change how she feels. Assuming she was talking about the woman who was going to abort her (wanted) twins because of their health complications, she wasn't basing the decision on greater/lesser sin; it was based on the fact that her fetuses were not going to survive.

Yes, she is not pro-choice, and there is an undercurrent of shaming going on, but I was impressed by the compassion that she felt for people making a difficult decision. It's well above what Missy and her cohorts are willing to see and feel. I thought that commenter might actually have a chance of getting through to them, but of course I was wrong. I don't share her worldview, but I didn't find it offensive...especially compared to the rest of the comments on that entry.

[JesusFightClub]

Wasn't his argument that under certain circumstances, parents could euthanize a toddler? The child would have to be severely impaired, not just handicapped ? Maybe I am confusing him with another person. Or maybe I've participated in one too many online discussions so I might be getting various posters views confused with his opinions.

debrand, yes that was it in essence but he also makes the same essential argument that the fact of the baby being in or out of the womb, viable or not, is irrelevant. Which imo is an important point...

[demgirl]

I going to go out on a limb and say that I do not approve of euthanizing toddlers.

[Squeaky]

I thought this was a great follow-up from "Missy" in the comments:

The first part is obviously meant to be an emotional appeal. If those hussies could just see their little "babies" they would never have an abortion. Never mind that, even with a "transparent womb", you would have a really hard time seeing an embryo for several weeks. It would also take awhile to look like anything you could "bond" with, and even longer for you to be able to tell the difference between your "baby" and a pig/cow/gorilla/other mammal fetus. Then she follows up with the idea that transparent wombs would disallow legal abortion, which is a totally different issue. The people making the laws are very rarely the ones making the choice about having an abortion, so why would they care about seeing the inside of someone else's uterus?

I bet transparent wombs would have exactly the opposite effect, since embryos are microscopic up until 6 or 7 weeks (and many abortions happen before then), and then they're blobs, and then lizard creatures with tails, and by the time they really look like babies you're past the stage where you can abort anyway. I think some people who feel bad about aborting are imagining perfectly formed tiny babies, and if they could see the sack of cells that an embryo really is in those stages, they'd feel a lot less bad.

Also, has anyone else here read "The Girls Who Went Away" about the mostly teenage mothers in the 50s-70s who were forced to give up babies for adoption before abortion was legal?

[JesusFightClub]

I going to go out on a limb and say that I do not approve of euthanizing toddlers.

demgirl, it wouldn't precisely be my first choice either. But this one gets the banhammer dropped on me too often to go into details. Even FJ might be less than tolerant.

[formergothardite]

I going to go out on a limb and say that I do not approve of euthanizing toddlers.

This. And I'm one of those folks who has a severly disabled toddler that I guess some people would be cool with killing off. I don't know JFC's views on this, but I have heard people in the past say things like that. That people who have special needs children should just be able to kill them because they will never be productive members of society.

[JesusFightClub]

sorry formergothardite if that was painful for you! I'm gonnae have to fess up, I agree with Singer and go slightly further than he does on this issue. But it has nothing to do with productiveness and I honestly don't want to hurt anyone's feelings so I shall shut up except to say for me it is to do with pain and a couple of other issues, not just being severely disabled which, I'm not a Nazi and...actually it's never good if you have to point that out, is it? Maybe digging a deeper hole here but it's so not about disability in that way and I wish your wee one nothing but the best in life.

[Austin]

I going to go out on a limb and say that I do not approve of euthanizing toddlers.

+1

I have seen this argument used over and over, that pro-choicers really can't figure out where the line is and that if you're willing to "kill" a 6-week gestation fetus, you should be willing to kill a toddler. It's the old slippery slope thing. Which is really a sucky argument. Saying the few crazies out there that think euthanizing toddlers in a good idea represent all prochoice people is like saying that Hitler's views represent everyone in right-wing politics. Both statements are entirely false and betray a stupidity on the part of the speaker.

Sorry for breaking Godwin's law - usually try not to do that!