Hello friends! thanks for joining me and Nicole for this episode of the Fetal Position podcast! In episode 34, we discuss the top 10 absolute worst pro-life arguments/tactics. The relevant links are at the bottom, and for more details about each point… I guess you’re gonna have to listen to the show! 😉
9: :Women can die (or be hurt) from a legal abortion”
8: “Abortion is wrong because it hurts the economy”
7: “Because the bible/God says (this depends on who your audience is)”
6: “You’re pro-choice on abortion but not schools, health care, gun ownership taxes, etc”
5: “I’m more pro-life than you because I am in favor of universal health care, etc”
4: Condemning women who have had abortions.
– Saying things like “that woman deserved to die during the abortion” or “i’m glad she killed herself after the abortion”
3: “What if your mother had aborted you?” or “You should have been aborted!”
2: “Progress towards protecting life from abortion is ‘compromising’”
1: “You might have just aborted the next Beethoven/Einstein/Washington
Here’s the link to DANK PRO-LIFE MEMES, and if you enjoyed this or thought it was absolutely terrible, let me know in the comments below, on the facebook page, private facebook group, twitter, or by email (FetalPositionPodcast@gmail.com). Thanks so much for reading/listening!
This was the paper I read during episode 5 of the podcast. I moved it here because it made sense to be a part of this website, and because I’m trying to phase out my old blog and much of that content here. This was the one of the longest research projects I did during my undergrad bioethics class, under the advisement of biology professor Dr. Amy McMillan and philosophy professor, Dr. Jason Grinnell. It has been highly edited in order to be submitted to Ball State’s Undergrad Philosophy Journal… but, unfortunately by the time it was submitted, I no longer qualified as an undergraduate. And so, here it is.
On my website! I guess that’s almost as good, right? 😛
Most of us would do anything to help our children have the best future possible. We would make sure they had the best prenatal environment, the best diet and be sent to the best schools, all so that they could have the best possible future opportunities. But what would we do if we could, before they were born, alter our child’s genes in order to guarantee that advantage? The choice of genetically engineering our children is rapidly becoming a scientific reality, and we are faced with the question: If we are able to safely engineer a child at the genetic level… should we?
Genetic engineering is a topic that is greeted with a combination of curiosity, skepticism and apprehension. Those in favor of genetic engineering have been accused of “playing God”, whereas those opposed have been characterized as being against scientific progress. Many people view genetic engineering as something confined to the domain of science fiction; something so far in the future that it needn’t be worried about. However, with the advance of modern technology, this attitude towards genetic engineering is not only misguided, but can be dangerous.
Nearly every advance in technology comes with unanswered questions, and genetic engineering is no different. What should we do? What will happen if we make certain decisions? How will our decisions affect society? If we have the ability to do it safely, is it ethically permissible to genetically engineer our children? Is there an ethical difference between genetic enhancement and genetic therapy? As people living in the time where genetic engineering is a real possibility, it is vital that we address the bioethical issues surrounding this controversial topic. If we procrastinate in this area and do not address these issues before they come up, we will inevitably make poor decisions that could have been avoided. Like many advancements in science and technology, genetics provides us with an opportunity to be good stewards with what we have. But it also offers us a unique opportunity as well; “… we can begin to determine not simply who will live and who will die, but what all those who live in the future will be like” (Harris & Burley, 2004) Read the rest of this entry »
Remember when you were in 5th grade and someone called you a doodoo brain knuckle head? You couldn’t think of a witty response right off the bat, so you pulled out ol’ faithful:
I know you are but what am I? I’m rubber you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!
Man, what a comeback, right? What were they going to say after that? Something dumb like, “no! … YOU’RE GLUE and I’M RUBBER, stupid!” So lame!
It got a little more complicated once you emerged out of elementary school, but not much. If someone called you a loser in middle school, you just pointed out that they sit with the nerds in lunch. And in high school, if someone mocked you for your glasses, you mocked them for their shoes.
This “I know you are but what am I?” response apparently never gets old, because even the 2 primary candidates for the highest office in one of the the most powerful countries in the world embrace it in the same way that those jerks in middle school did. I hate to say that I expect it from them, but it’s true. They are not promoting anything close to reasonable discourse about issues, but that’s not entirely their fault. Some of it is, but not all of it.
People, the voters, gets bored when they talk about the issues. They’d rather hear quips and personal attacks, instead of substantive critiques or solutions. As evidence of this, just look at your facebook newsfeed. If it’s anything like mine, people who otherwise don’t care about political issues, share memes of one-line zingers. They share short videos of Trump threatening to send Clinton to jail. A short list of the dirty things that Trump has said. It’s a profoundly shallow form of political engagement that most people should be ashamed of. Just a snarky meme with no substance.
I’d like to encourage you to raise your level of political engagement.
After writing this and scheduling it to be released several days after I wrote it, someone took the same idea and made it into a video meme. It’s gold. lol
Click here to watch it.
Everyone has likely seen this image.
It is a pretty famous image of a single person standing in a crowd of people, being the only person refusing to salute someone in the distance. You’ll often see this person being held up as a true hero by everyone in political thought. ‘The left’, ‘the right’, and everyone in between use it to show the virtues of standing up against something you find immoral, even if you’re the only one doing it.
It is important that we recognize that standing up against something isn’t inherently moral or immoral; it all depends on what we’re rebelling against. We can all agree that if we’re standing up against senseless genocide, it is noble. And one of the beautiful things about this country is that we have the liberty to stand up against something that we deem unfit for compliance, and not be thrown in jail.
One of the most important aspects about our freedom of speech/association is that we have the right do refuse to comply with an authoritarian government, but this right is being eroded away.
According to many on the political right (which includes many conservatives and republicans), you simply do not have the right to stand up against the authoritarianism if this means you are doing something they may not like. Many conservatives and republicans have proposed jail time for those who have exercised their first amendment right to burn the flag or to remain seated during the national anthem. And these same conservatives/republicans will berate democrats/progressives for using the exact same tactics for their own pet issues.
According to those on the political left (which includes democrats/liberals and progressives), you simply do not have the right to stand up against authoritarianism if this means you are doing something they do not like. Something you say can easily be classified as “hate speech” if it offends someone. Many progressives want to pass laws that would legalize using your tax dollars to fund abortion procedures. And these same democrats/progressives will berate conservatives/republicans for using the exact same tactics for their own pet issues.
These examples are not exhaustive, obviously.
Both the right and the left are treading dangerously close to being selectively totalitarian, while expressing disdain for those on the “other team”.
The key lesson is this.
If you do not agree with someone’s actions, they still have the right to burn the flag, say what they want, stay seated during the anthem, or refuse to pay for abortions. We have that right, guaranteed to us by the constitution.
I may not agree with your behavior, but respect for our natural and constitutional rights forces me to protect your right to do these things.
Please do not be selectively authoritarian.
Hey everyone! Today’s episode feels a little all-over-the-place, but I guess that’ll happen from time to time. This episode is about some feedback from last episode, a petition to stop abortion at The Human Coalition, some commentary from some other podcasts, and the important things we ought to consider regarding birth control and contraception.