When I see a tree, I see a helpless, cared about plant that can be helped. When I see a baby, I see a helpless, cared about person that can be helped. When I think more about a tree, I think of a helpless, cared about plant that can be helped. When I think more about a baby, I think of something that can potentially ruin multiple people's lives. Most people seeing this picture don't think much of it, and that's the decieving side of the picture. The bias is towards anti-abortion, and it feeds on the audience's ignorance to persuade against abortion. Devices like the one used in this picture are used in many other ways and is sometimes a subversion of ideals for many, a very effective and sneaky devise. Is there a name for it?
The picture assumes a tree is most analogous to a fetus. That is biased, since some would consider a fetus to be more like a tree seed: unborn and not truly alive. I think it is a silly attempt to draw people towards anti-abortion by guilting folks into thinking they cared more about trees than people.
Don't they? So we should kill people who ruin people's lives? Parents ruin their teenagers lives therefore we should kill them.
I don't think we should kill our parents, just make then their children's slaves, make them make food for their children, pay for things, and worst of all be they're lifetime consultant. But really, that's the debate of abortion, how valuable is the fetus' life. If you value a fetus' life to a regular person than you would be against abortion. I haven't formed an opinion on the matter yet, it's very complicated, and sensitive. Some lady did come to our school, probably illegal, and showed us pictures of dead fetuses, and for that I'm leaning on the pro-choice side.
It is clearly leveled at those very liberal people who save water by not flushing until the toilet is full (joke) and who fully support abortion. Most of those people do not think that an unborn child (at certain or all stages) is a real person, hence their support of abortion. So to that extent, the picture is biased by ignoring the opposition's beliefs.
personally, i'm pro abortion, think of it this: a poor family, fairly malnourished due to poverty. Making them have there child is unfair, on the child more than anything, as they will not be truly living. only existing. This can actually be prevented more so though, as if many were given condoms and other safe-sex tools there would be less need for this sort of discussion, personally it is each parents choice if they keep it or not. Which should be based on the quality of life the child would have.
Why would a family who can't afford a condom risk having a child? Isn't that on them for not planning things out?
condoms are relatively cheep, as they stop the need for abortions (most of the time) and that would cost more, so its easier to make them cheep. But i'm not sure what that was aimed at... so i cant agree/disagree
Let me rephrase: You said that if people were given more safe-sex tools such as condoms, there would be less of a need for this discussion. If condoms must be given to certain people, then that must mean they cannot afford them. If some people who want to have sex cannot afford condoms, why would they risk having a child or an abortion? If they do, that is their fault, isn't it?
so basically, poor people dont have a right to have safe sex? its not fair that if you have money, you dont need to worry about getting pregnant, all should get the same treatment, free condoms and other methods would help such things, and lower STDs in the long run. The cost of giving away condoms would be more than saved in the profit from not needing to have abortions (for the NHS and government, i know america doesnt have that system yet though) so it is economically safer and morally better than an abortion.
The analogy stated is just that people are doing more to save trees then unborn human beings. When it says pretend I am a tree it means to try and save me like you do other unconscience yet living things. While we have a bunch of tree huggers around no one is paying attention to the aborted children.
this enough people for you? and just because less people fight against something doesn't make it worth less (not worthless). Just means more people agree with it, i dont see why that should be used as a slogan "you people are all ok with this, dont be"
I think the poster is suggesting, not that supporting trees and the environment is bad, but that supporting pro-life is more important. The pro-lifers who created the poster dont seem to be for or against the environment. They are just targeting their pro-life message at environmentalists. This is a clever choice on the pro-lifers part, because environmentalists are [generally] democrats, and democrats are [generally] pro-abortion. The poster strikes right at the groups they are trying to persuade- environmentalist pro-abortionists, and, more importantly, environmentalists who are undecided on the issue of abortion. On the other hand, I probably misunderstood your post. Sorry, Moran.
yeah i ment more about how the other guy said more people care about trees than stopping abortions, i was saying that doesnt mean its less of an argument, just means more are ok with it. you shouldnt change peoples mind by using outside forces like trees... only facts
Thinking it out, the only disagreement "pro-choice" and "pro-life" contradict is at what point that baby becomes a "life". Since it is a gradual change, and not on immediate jump from fetus to baby, and no relatively great change appears between the last moment of unborn and born, the most significant change at any one moment an nunborn baby ever experiences is the moment of fertilization. Sperm + Egg = baby. The moment the egg is fertilized it is potentially a human. Comparing this to a tree seed is inaccurate. Tree seeds equate more closely to polar bodies. Things I thought were odd, legally in the U.S. were (1.) if you murder a pregnant woman, federal law dictates this as a murder plus infanticide and (2.) it's illegal to destroy the eggs of a Bald Eagle. The egg of a Bald Eagle will become an Eagle, and a fertilized human egg will become a human, and if it isn't a human already at the moment it has 46 (47/48/49/50) chromosomes, what is it? I'm not really set on this, because how can I know when a human is a human? For safety though, I go with the biggest sudden change, fertilization.