Imagine that a Great Aunt died, and has left you a very fancy, very old car, that’s worth a lot of money and is very rare. You don’t know a whole lot about cars, and aren’t really all that interested in them. Bottom line: you don’t want the car. So you decide since its your car, and you own it, you can have it wrecked. And so you do.
Now imagine you’re a poor mechanic who dreams of one day owning this car. You neighbor (the person from above) has one, and doesn’t want it. So you go to their house, and make an offer, with your whole life’s savings. But instead of selling it to you, the owner has it wrecked.
How would you feel? Broken hearted? That’s how people who can’t have kids feel when people kill their babies.
Sure it’s your choice, but is it the right one?
30 comments
I'm just gonna put all the problems this would have due to financial strain, custodial rights, personal rights, objectification of people and medical problems during pregnancy to the side for a second and ask one question. Have you adopted an unwanted child? Because if not then shut the FUCK
much better allegory would be car's parts. would you build that car with risks for your livelihood, career, education, health or even life, just so a stranger could get that car (while there are already more unwanted cars than people who want them)?
How the f**k do you know how everyone who can't have children feels, asshole!?!
I highly doubt that anyone would rather wreck a rare and valuable car than sell it. The neighbor will probably just see himself out-bidden by richer people. Which can also cause broken hearts; do you want to abolish capitalism?
Pregnancy and childbirth are a leeettle bit harder than just selling instead of wrecking, ya know. It's more wrecking to the body to go through a pregnancy than having an abortion, so your story is halting. Some women are damaged for life from giving birth; google sphincter rupture and see how "fun" it can be to give birth. One woman dies ever two minutes due to complications from pregnancy and childbirth. So, as long as you're not wrecking the car by driving it into yourself repeatedly, your analogy is definitely halting.
According to your analogy, it's the first person's car because it was willed to that individual. The first person is not obligated to give away his possessions just because his neighbor wants what he has. Just like a woman is not obligated to carry a child to term just because somebody else wants her to.
Imagine that a Great Aunt died, and has left "you a very fancy, very old car, that’s worth a lot of money and is very rare. You don’t know a whole lot about cars, and aren’t really all that interested in them. Bottom line: you don’t want the car. So you decide since its your car, and you own it, you can have it wrecked. And so you do."
That was their choice but a terrible one. I would have sold the car, too the person who wanted it. Win win.
What a lame argument!
You don't junk a rare, expensive car; you sell it. There's millions of gearheads out there that pay top dollar for vintage wheels. Or you can donate it charity or soemthing; I once saw a gorgeous blue 1963 Shelby Mustang that went for about $2 mil. That's just common sense, although asking for common sense from lunatic christians is asking too much. As far the little anti choice screed there, it's ultimately none of your business, nor anyone else's. Deal with it.
I remember a King of the Hill episode, where Cotton Hill instead of giving his Cadillac to Hank who really wanted it he gave it to Dusty Hill (Of ZZ Top) who then proceeded to destroy it. The difference is Cotton Hill is an ass who knew very well that would have broken his son's heart and didn't care.
There are still children that are not adopted, so you fail on that one alone. A baby is not a car, and gestation requires a lot more than just driving a car home. You do not have enough money to make a woman want to risk her own health (and life!) to carry a pregnancy through to give you a baby.
You are treating this subject completely backward: the object is to have a family for every child, NOT to have a child for every family. Do you really think you would go to an orphanage and say "I'll take the next one that's on the list"? No, you want an infant, your race and coloring, who is cute and seems bright. How many unchosen kids have to exist to give you a selection from which to choose? That is sinful (not a word I use often) and completely selfish of you.
1- I watch "Top Gear" and "Wheeler Dealers". The former featuring sub-£10,000 Dacias to £1 million+ Bugatti Veyrons. You FAIL.
2-
image
Edd China, presenter of & mechanic in "Wheeler Dealers" has his own automotive businesses. You FAIL II.
3- Cars =/= Abortion. Use of Bad Analogy. Your argument is invalid . You FAIL III, and have struck out, Fanni-be.
You chose... poorly .
'Here I sit, all broken heartedPaid a penny, amd only farted . '
- Toilet wall graffiti attributed to Anon. X3
To treat a child/foetus as a rare car is a colossal fail in analogy, as though said child/foetus were an adult at birth. To compare abortion and adoption to the workings of a scrapyard and a dealership cheapens pregnancy, gestation and motherhood. Also, commodification of children. Ironically, there will always be those who want to restore wrecked cars.
Apart from the sucking analogy, the point is that emotional blackmail doesn't work. Those people who can't have children would also be sad if you were happily pregnant with twins. The problem líes in them, not in you
“How would you feel? Broken hearted? That’s how people who can’t have kids feel when people kill their babies.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
