Redefining Bulimia?

I wouldn't feel bad about buying into the story until the very end (as long as you DID stop buying into the story).

Yes, I guess it was relatively well written, in that it kind of sounded like any other coherent newspaper article.

But, I'm not so sure about the commonality of the language, which in turn says something critical about the effectiveness (reality) of the satire.

The language is quite similar, however, to much of the rhetoric provided by many pro-lifers.

While the story does re-emphasize the stance of many anti-abortionists, it does not tell anything over and above what we already know about the debate, nor does the point provide any new firepower for those fighting for this point of view.

I listen closely to the ideas of (rational) anti-abortionists, because even though I am pro-choice, I think that it is wrong to have an abortion. I am open-minded about hearing why someone thinks abortions should be outlawed, because I truly think most of their opinions are valid.

But...

Frankly, the comparison between bulimia and abortion does not hold much water. As I have said, I think that women should (usually) not have abortions. Likewise, I think that women should not be bulimic.

So far, I agree with the author of the story.

But, last time I checked, no one is attempting to make it illegal for women to continually "eat and then vomit." Now, my girlfriend used to suffer from bulimia, and naturally it made me very sad and upset. But, in conjunction with the previously-mentioned piece of satire, I think it is her God-given [sic] right to exhibit these sorts of eating and digestive habits, regardless of how abhorrent they may seem.

There are many arguments one could make for this view, including the old, "It hurts no one but herself," which - I might add - is probably not overly effective. But, for me, when talking about bulimia or abortion (and let's just throw in homosexuality), it is all about human rights.

Also, is this story trying to say that bulimia is dangerous to women, and so is abortion? Or simply that being bulimic is morally/ethically questionable just as is abortion?

Former: Abortion, while in many cases amounting to emotional distress, often is for the safety of the mother-to-be.

Latter: Something that is morally/ethically questionable to YOU (e.g. Christians, Republicans, or anyone else pro-zygote) does not qualify it as something which should be disallowed in the courts. For a long time, a MAJORITY of people in power thought that women and blacks shouldn't have the right to vote. Many of us have learned from this idiocy and realized that the protection of human rights actually means something.

There are many so-called terrible things that humans do that are not against the law. Amazingly, this is one of the great things about our country. In the USA, people are allowed to be different, without having to worry about constant persecution from closed-minded bigots.

Now, there are other issues at hand when discussing the legalities of abortion. But, the one at hand deals with a women's right to make a decision about her own body that may appear erroneous to many.

In these instances (bulimia, abortion) and many others, it may be that preventative measures, not legal ones, should be instantiated to decrease the numbers of both events.

The object of satire isn't abortion at all. It's clearly gay rights. When the APA removed homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM, it angered many on the religious right.

I read it the same way Jim did. I don't see any connection with abortion rights, but with gay rights.