One wishes that in a country like America abortion wouldn’t have become so politicized. Such is the legacy of the Christian Right’s viral-like takeover of the GOP—that it displaced the rational spectrum of the party typified by Barry Goldwater conservatives.
Personal liberty is just a rhetorical device, or clever propagandistic phrase, from a (I will say it) religious party that simply cannot accept the notion that the Christian faith (of ancient, outdated notions) no longer dominates lives. No woman or man, for that matter—no sane ones, at any rate—imagines themselves one day having an abortion. But, when one suggests the state should ban abortions because one has heard the whisperings of a cosmic overlord (delusion, anyone?), or more realistically endured the social conditioning of the beliefs of friends, family and neighbors, then a usurpation of personal liberty is underway. Not to mention the fact that a religious belief is being imposed upon an individual without consent.
That is why the above piece of street art is so effective: It cuts the issue right down to its undeniable essence. Beware, though, uttering “Pro-choice because your beliefs don’t belong in my body” to a pro-life religious nut will likely cause a meltdown because logic will have virally corrupted the system, and they will try to exercise the demon, so to speak.
Check out the Michael Bloomberg “Let Them Eat Cake” poster from the last edition of “Street Art Dispatches.”
May 05, 2012 at 2:42 pm, Niraj Desai said:
I love this line… "Beware, though, uttering “Pro-choice because your beliefs don’t belong in my body” to a pro-life religious nut will likely cause a meltdown because logic will have virally corrupted the system, and they will try to exercise the demon, so to speak."
May 05, 2012 at 4:18 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
why do people like yourself try to claim that anyone that disagrees with your opinion lacks logic? Are you not capable of understanding that, perhaps, possibly, just MAYBE, logic may lead others to an opinion not identical to yours?
If you want to state your opinion, you have the right to do that, but don't flatter yourself into believing you've somehow cornered the market on logic and all dissenters are delusional.
May 05, 2012 at 6:57 pm, Joe Shoopack said:
I've never understood why some are so enthusiastic about killing the unborn
May 05, 2012 at 4:13 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
When will people give up this lame line of reasoning? I'm not pro-life, but I am so exhausted with this very tired talking point of "it's my body" etc.
I could use this same argument stating that the house I live in is mine, and your beliefs don't belong in my house.
That's great, but it still doesn't give me the right to physically assault someone, let alone a baby, just because it's within the confines of my home.
Whether or not a fetus is considered living, we can have that debate, but let's debate the facts here. I'm not impressed this kind of teenager-esque bullshit.
May 05, 2012 at 4:32 pm, Erik LittleFin Schwartz said:
We can't fight the GOP with reason and facts, they are immune to them, so instead we must attack the hypocrisy's of their faith for them to listen.
May 05, 2012 at 5:49 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
Erik LittleFin Schwartz dude. grow up. There is no hypocrisy in someone who is pro-life. Immune to reason and facts? What reason and facts are even being mentioned in this graffiti?
I am so sick of this attitude that people like yourself have where they try to claim they are the only side using facts and logic, which is why their side is right.
It's bullshit, dude. It's the most childish / teenager-esque method of framing an argument, and it actually makes you look even more stupid in the process.
May 07, 2012 at 4:34 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Of all people, Jeremy, you should be ideologically synchronous with pro-choice on a purely politico-theoretical level. Shouldn't the individual decide? You elevate the individual above all else, but not on this issue. I suppose that a dividing cellular mass has constitutional rights? At any rate, abortion is not considered in the Constitution, so it's not the province of the federal government, is it? I'm sure you'll probably argue that it is within the province of the federal government somehow.
Is there a wrinkle in your Paulsian thinking? Have you become so integrated with his way views that you have to adopt not only his economic policy, but his social policy as well?
Yes, if we want to have a debate about abortion, then we can, as a country and we do. But, you well know that a majority of pro-lifers hold their line of reasoning because of religion. That's just a fact. Yes, there are secular humanists who are pro-life, but they are a minority. Then, of course, there are secular individuals (who we won't call "humanists") who find the idea and practice of abortion repugnant; but, again, they are a minority. There are even those on the Left who are pro-life, yet again they are in the minority. It goes without say that there are also those on the Right who are secular and pro-life, but, you guessed it… they are in the minority.
Another fact, as mentioned in this article, is that even though amongst those might be pro-choice, it doesn't necessarily follow that they would like to see abortions being performed left and right. It's a complex issues.
Ultimately, if America decides that abortions should be illegal, it should not because a religion deems it so. The Christian faith, which occupies the majority of the pro-life movement (begun after Barry Goldwater's lost in 1964 and accelerated during the Reagan years) should not force their religion on people.
May 07, 2012 at 5:28 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
It isn't about whether or not you're pro-life or pro-choice. I'm not someone all that concerned with the opinions of others, I'm concerned with the method they used to come to the conclusion they came to.
Seeing childish points like this where it's all 'my body my right' is just bullshit. They try to frame the argument that those that feel a fetus is a living thing are disrespecting the rights of women, which is more horse shit. Pregnancy affects men almost every bit as much as women, anyone that thinks otherwise has their head completely up their ass.
Pro-lifers view a fetus aborted in the womb the same way they view a baby being assaulted in a crib. I don't know which side of the coin I fall on with regard to this issue, I really don't, but we have a duty at the very least to correctly assess and understand a dissenter's viewpoint.
I have a SERIOUS problem with people that try to distort their opponent's point of view in an attempt to marginalize it. People like that should be punched in the face. Repeatedly. If your argument is in fact correct, it should be good enough to withstand and overpower your opponent's objections on it's own merit, which pro-choice proponents have shown over and over they are not capable of doing with signs exactly like this.
May 07, 2012 at 6:37 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Jeremy Arthur Vandelay
I understand but I disagree. I think the street art above does cut right to religious right's logic. Too bad you're letting your emotions obscure it. The issue does, in fact (as I noted above) boil down to the Christian religion, which occupies the single largest majority of the pro-life crowd, attempting to impose its moral system on the country. That fact is implicit in the street art, and you fail to address it, so I have to re-emphasize the point.
If you have some problem with the street art because of its position, well then I would direct you to the fact that the religious right originally framed the abortion issue as "Pro-Life" in its 1973 Roe v. Wade case, as if one must either support life or not. Where is your incredulity over that provocative hyphenate, Jeremy?
As to "I have a SERIOUS problem with people that try to distort their opponent's point of view in an attempt to marginalize it": I would say that you have done just that—distorted the message's intent in order to marginalize it. No?
I think if we agree on any one thing, it's that this issue is complex.
May 05, 2012 at 4:40 pm, Jennifer Romanelli said:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150810735690141&set=a.471003920140.252473.520925140&type=1&theater
May 05, 2012 at 5:55 pm, Eddy James said:
There are some intellectuals that endorse killing of healthy babies for economic reasons. Tell me people draw a line in the sand there…please…
May 05, 2012 at 6:10 pm, Aunti Kristan Kincade said:
J. Vandelay still obviously does not get it. He has no more right to insist that I be pregnant against my will than I have the right to insist that he have surgery (like being neutered) against his will. His body. His choices. MY BODY…. MY CHOICES Jeremy so your argument is invalid. BTW, I look forward to the day when all these men who want to force women to be pregnant can themselves be forced to be pregnant against their wills. Idiots.
May 06, 2012 at 4:30 pm, Jamie Hannah said:
I am a mother. I have carried a child in my womb twice. I am successfully(I hope) raising both of these kids to be wonderful human beings. I do not believe that anyone has the right to tell my daughter that she must choose the same path I did. Not even myself. I certainly do not believe a man who cannot know what it feels like to have your child move from within should be able to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her own body.
You are correct, Mr. Vandelay, saying "it's my body" is like saying "it's my house". Uh, dude, what's wrong with that? Everyone needs their own place, their own possessions and to be able to make their own decisions. Without those things aren't we really living under Soviet communism? Even the Bible supports freewill.
May 25, 2012 at 4:56 pm, Street Art Dispatches: Fuck Austerity | Death and Taxes said:
[...] stencil is nothing spectacular, but sometimes street art demands simplicity.Check out the “Pro-Choice because your beliefs don’t belong in my body” poster from the last edition of “Street Art Dispatches.” /**/ /**/ window.fbAsyncInit = [...]