I have never heard of a GOP war on women ... who comes up with this load of crap?
The only major difference I can see on women's issues is abortion. Many women want to be able to abort their pregnancies citing their desire to do anything they want with their bodies. What they fail to grasp is that an abortion kills an unborn baby and many people see that as murder. Since murder is immoral and illegal, many people favor a women doing whatever she wants to her body as long as it doesn't involve purposely killing the unborn baby.
Yes, many people don't consider the unborn baby to be a person because it isn't developed, cannot live on its own, and lacks mental capacity/awareness. The same standard can be applied to a 2 day old infant that is sleeping or unconscious from illness/injury. And parts of that standard can be applied to adults. So can we rationalize killing those two classes of people?
As usual, people don't want to be responsible for their choices. A women wants to be able to have sex with anyone and execute the baby that results from that action for none other than the fact that she simply doesn't want to carry the baby to full term. Of course the natural extension of this mentality is post birth "abortion" (murder) and sadly some people are advocating for that option. That mentality is bad for society and that is why many people value life and oppose abortion.
Why do i think you're an older white male? Hmmmm -- Well, here's a message for you:
". . . I’ve been prosecuting rape, child abuse and homicide for over a decade and a half, and this is a subject that I happen to know quite a lot about. And I am deeply disturbed by the personhood movement, by the idea that there should be specified exceptions to a blanket criminalization of abortion, and by the fact that the group of mostly men propounding this policy seem to have absolutely no FREAKING idea what they are actually trying to do here. Since I think that my perspective as a prosecutor might be relevant, I intend to provide it." Read further at
And, by the way, there are other issues in the war on women besides THEIR RIGHT TO CHOSE WHAT HAPPENS TO THEIR OWN BODIES, which ain't none of your friggin' business.
Hey, Orlon lint-for-brains ---- are you shopping for sex?
Anonymous - you are factually in error.
We do not require anyone to enable another human being to survive. We don't require organ donations, blood donations, skin graft donations. ANY kind of use of a person's body is entirely by consent. PERIOD.
This includes a woman's uterus, even if it means another man woman or child, or cluster of undifferentiated cells dies. Deal with it - it is the only ethical option, unless you want to be forced at gun point to donate any of the above (blood, organs, skin, bone marrow).
And if you don't understand the difference between the neurological functioning of 2 day old infant, or someone who is sleeping or unconscious, I would suggest strongly you educate yourself on the technical distinction between death as determined by higher brain function and living brain activity.
Because YOU have that information completely and totally wrong.
It is an excellent criteria for determining life versus not-a-life.
You on the other hand appear to be an ignorant mouth breather who doesn't have a lot of higher brain function, alive or not.
We can hope you will remediate your ignorance, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen. It would clearly be a lengthy process.
Women are sexual human beings, just like men. Biology is not destiny, and we should not be forced to be human incubators for any pregnancy. That is tyranny. That is fascism.
But don't be discouraged; men are perfectly capable of carrying a pregnancy to term by implantation into their abdomens. Seriously: http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/
Since you're so keen on it - why don't you volunteer? Or better yet, for real gender equality, why don't we make rapists carry their own babies for a change, instead of forcing women to do so?
Dog gone: “Hey, Orlon lint-for-brains ---- are you shopping for sex?”
Not everyone who is pro-choice is getting abortions. Why are you implying that Orlin is shopping for sex because he supports a woman’s right to their own body, which means having sex with whomever their choose for whatever purpose they choose?
Dog gone: “And if you don't understand the difference between the neurological functioning of 2 day old infant, or someone who is sleeping or unconscious, I would suggest strongly you educate yourself on the technical distinction between death as determined by higher brain function and living brain activity.
Because YOU have that information completely and totally wrong.
It is an excellent criteria for determining life versus not-a-life.”
I certainly hope your use of the word “infant” was a mistake. You’re not arguing that a 2-day newborn is not considered life, are you? You meant “fetus”, right?
NO TS, I meant that the brain function of a 2 day old infant asleep and someone who is sleeping or unconscious is similar to each other. What is dissimilar are the brain waves of an embryo, or at some stages, a fetus.
However, there is a specific type of brain wave that counts, and many others that do not. You can get a similar brain wave measured by an EEG for lime jello to that of the adult male gun nuts who comment here - seriously, look it up.
The kind of brain function used to determine brain death versus not brain dead indicates that embryos are not living human beings in the sense that we use to determine the life or brain death of people. That's because the cellular differentiation required hasn't taken place yet.
Orlon lint for brains, I don't think it is a freedom for women to be selling their bodies for sex, just as I don't think it is a freedom for men to do so either. It demeans and dehumanizes both, and treats human sexuality as a commodity when it is not. That is not something gender specific, or age specific; it is true for all of us.
It is said by Ed, Ms. O'Neill (in the clip) and LOTS of other people that the single biggest mistake that Romney's campaign, and the GOP, made was to allow, co-opt or find common cause (it is impossible to know what Romney actually believes about anything other than money--he wantz all of it) with the JHWHfaction of the ReiKKKwing (approximately 100%--within a margin of error of, well, 0--KKKristianist Fundamentalist Asshats and the lickspittle politicians that kowtow to them).
But y'know what? It's not the pols, stupid it's the lack of GUNZ that been keepin' teh ladeez under teh MAN'S thumb--and that's a fact, JACK!!
If only more women had teh gunz! They wouldn't need no steenkeen laws or lawmakers to help them with their problems.
You got raped*? blow that mofo away!
Man gets more money than you for the same work? blow that mofo away!
Man doesn't want to watch the "Bridget Jones" series with you? Blow that mofo away.
Man criticized your tunafish/badada chip casserole? BLOW THAT MOFO AWAYYYYYYY!!
Gunz don't make teh galz, gunz make teh galz be paid attention!
I know that moronz like Pauliewingnutz and the Mittmoroniunswillard FUCKINGLOOOOOOOOZERZ are wantin' to have 'em a nice, shiny new amendment againzt Ickymansbuttsex bein' legal** and prolly another one about life beginning at the erection.
But what would they do if teh ladeez said, "Hey, jerkoff, I got me a SECOND AMENDMENT SOLUTION! Getcher pryin eyes out from under my skirt, or I'll blow your junk off! HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAH!!"?
There, now I feel better!***
* Legitimate rape that is. Wives, girlfriends, provocatively dressed sluts, those stupid enough to accept free drinks and the like? They WANTED IT!
** Icky ladeezonlysecks they don't seem to have a problem with.
*** I regret having to do so, but I suppose that for a certain sub-set of Mikeb302000's regular detractors and assorted idjits wit teh gunz, I need to make clear that the foregoing is snark. It is bothersome, but the same people that know that Rushbo is "only kidding, he's a kidder, he's an entertainer"--when calling women sluts or implying that black athletes (and presidents) are being held to a lower standard of behavior and performance than white males--seem to be completely ignorant of the entire mechanism of sarcasm when it is employed by others.
"I have never heard of a GOP war on women ... who comes up with this load of crap?"
Your political party, asshole.
If you haven't heard about it (mind you I'm not saying whether you agree or disagree with their "battel strategy"--your subsequent paragraph's indicate that you're a Field Grade shithead, firmly placing yourself in that delusional "Right to life (telling women what to do)" camp) then you've been living WAY the hell off the grid, dude.
BTW, moron, there is, as yet (and I hope, never) a law on the books that actually defines abortion, a medical procedure, as murder. You need to know wtf you're talking about if you're going to make comments like, " What they fail to grasp is that an abortion kills an unborn baby and many people see that as murder.", cuz, buddy, you're wrong.
Mikeb302000:
Congratulations. I see you've turned the corner from just getting the indignorami of the gunzloonz set to comment here to attracting the "Operation (Intimidate women at reproductive health facilities) Rescue" types. Their arguments are different in terms, but just as fucking dishonest, selfish, self righteous and inidgnorant.
Depending on the development of that tissue, I call it giving women the same rights that every human being has in every other situation -- which is the right NOT to have their bodies subordinated against their will.
That is why we don't allow anyone to take your blood for a transfusion - even if it would save the life of a newborn baby - without your consent. Or take a kidney, a lung, part of your liver, your bone marrow, or a skin graft either. No one has the right to force a woman to make her body available for a developing clump of cells against her will, or an infant, a child, or another adult either. It is that simple, that elemental.
Now if you are all that worried about it being murder, why don't you go offer to be the gestational host instead?
I'm guessing that given that choice, you will let that clump of cells go away without continuing to differentiate every damned time. Because consistently men are willing to force women to do something they COULD do, but are unwilling to do.
Dog Gone, you're showing your inability to sort out the probable from the remotely possible. Could a man be pregnant? Yes, but only with extreme and continual medical intervention. It's certainly not the natural way, and in this case, natural is exactly the right word. You love to get caught up in wild speculation that fails to address the main point.
I don't know who the sockpuppet writing the above comment might be. But, assuming it's someone who came here because of your stance on firearms ownership, it's interesting to note that he/she is all for restricting a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body when her actions don't affect the commentors life--as opposed to say, shooting someone who has nothing to do with your owning a gun. Knowi'msayin?
That's right, the most opinionated men who spout off against abortion are generally in favor of the extreme interpretation of the castle doctrine and capital punishment.
I'm generally in favor of choice with regard to abortion. Third trimester abortions should be limited to situations of medical necessity, but not many abortions happen during that trimester, so I don't see the need for a law. (A lot like some other rare events...) I weakly favor the death penalty, but the much more important things to be reformed about our criminal justice system are our drug laws and what we do with non-violent criminals. My position on the castle doctrine you know well.
War on Women - requiring medically inaccurate information on breast cancer be given to women, allowing doctors to lie to women about their medical condition if the doctor opposes abortion and thinks a woman might want one, repealing equal pay laws, redefining rape as only violent acts which would make non-consensual rape-drug sex not rape...........the list of things that are anti-women is too lengthy to post here.
If you don't get that is a culture war on women, you're stupid, and very badly informed as well. We're mad as hell and we're not going to vote for anyone who supports it........and there are enough of us to make a difference. We've got political muscle, and we're going to be flexing it more not less.
I feel someone here is feeling slightly slighted, if you'll forgive that obtuse pun- and yet, at the end of the day, you are allowed to walk home from your job, eat, sleep, and shit in peace, because you live in a first world country, which is a luxury most people don't have. You want to bitch about how there is a war on women? Go to a third world country and offer to trade places with any women there- she'll take you up in a heartbeat. Enjoy what you have instead of complaining about what you don't.
In addition- "Requiring medically inaccurate information on breast cancer to be given to women" is a serious allegation. Cite me your sources. "Allowing doctors to lie to women... woman might want one (abortion)" this is because certain states view abortion as murder. Therefore, the doctor is obligated to try to talk a woman out of it, the same way a psychologist is allowed to lie to a patient if he believes the consequences of not doing so would result in the death of another human being.
No, I'm talking about a doctor LYING to a woman about her health, about her pregnancy, about anything. Has fuck all to do with abortion being legal or murder. NO DOCTOR should be allowed to LIE to women about the medical facts of their case for any reason whatsoever - and THAT is what is at issue. Abortions are legal, and no doctor should be allowed to LIE in order to force his or her opinion or belief on a woman.
And no woman should have to go in front of their employer to get approval for contraception, for any reason.
Every single race in the 2012 election, Republicans lost, often significantly, votes from women. Women are more consistent in going to the polls than men, and there are more of us. We count, and we are not going to tolerate Republican policies, not on compensation, not on reproduction.
And NO, doctors are not REQUIRED to talk women out of having an abortion, but they can if it conflicts with their beliefs.
Would you want a doctor to lie and even let you die, if it conflicted with his belief, or do you want a doctor to be honest with you about medical information, and trust you to make a decision for your own body and health?
No Orlon - while this woman does deserve a defense, drug addiction is an illness.
Had she been given the resources, she could have decided if she was going to have an abortion or not, and also had a better chance to get off drugs as well. Instead of spending the money we waste on incarceration, we should be spending it on health care for a much better result.
This is no reflection of any war on women, this is a drug abuse tragedy. Portugal has done an excellent job for far less money in reducing the incidence of drug abuse in their country. We should do the same, which would stop people like this from being in situations like this.
Or would you just prefer to shoot them both Lint-for-brains?
In other words darling DG, you don't think this woman has a right to ingest what she wants. As usual, you want to control people and things to your liking. I guess this means you don't think a woman should be able to make a mutual, voluntary exchange for sex is she wants to.
I'm not puritanical at all. There are severe health consequences to people from using meth; there is no safe way to use it, it is simply poison. More to the point however is that it frequently results in causing violence to others, making it a choice that doesn't only affect the consumer. I am not in the slightest degree a puritan; it is an ethical decision that sex for sale is demeaning and dehumanizing. Apparently you've never taken an ethics class Lint for Brains? You seem to know so little about the topic. I was fortunate to study ethics with a professor who not only had a PhD in the subject, but who was the resident ethicist for one of the largest chains of hospitals in our area, affiliated with the U of MN, where he also served on panels ruling on the ethics of research projects.
I was pleased to run into him again some dozen years later, while clearing up an error on my transcript - he remembered me despite having had a LOT of students in the interim. Apparently he found me a complex and original thinker, one of the compliments which gave me the most pleasure that I have ever received.
a commenter wrote: "Therefore, the doctor is obligated to try to talk a woman out of it, the same way a psychologist is allowed to lie to a patient if he believes the consequences of not doing so would result in the death of another human being."
This is not uniform as a law, it simply allows as an act of conscience a doctor can lie, not he or she must lie.
Let us take a comparable analogy. A man walks into a doctors office with prostate cancer of a variety that can be cured by stem cell therapy. The doctor he has gone to is morally opposed to stem cell therapy, so he lies to his patient, and the patient continues untreated until his cancer has progressed sufficiently that the stem cell therapy is no longer useful, so he doesn't get the stem cell therapy -- and he dies.
Is THAT ok with you? Because that is what Arizona passed for women, that doctors could lie about your condition, or withhold information about your health if a doctor had a difference of opinion with what he thought might be the patient's choice. They take that choice away from women for themselves.
Or let's try that other conscience legislation that has been proposed by right wing nuts repeatedly - letting pharmacists impose their religious views on your treatment. You have an illness, you need treatment, your doctor prescribes it ---and you can't get it because the pharmacist, without seeing your file, without discussing it with you, decides he or she won't provide it to you. Does THAT work for you any better? This is right wing expansion of government into your life in the most intrusive way possible.
It is wrong, it makes us less free, it is bad -- and it legislates medical malpractice as legal.
It is war on women, because they damn well won't make it apply to men in similar 'conscience' situations.
Ah, we have a rare moment of agreement, Dog Gone. I argue that a business should be allowed to sell all kinds of things, so long as the contents are correctly labelled. A doctor who lies or who gives incomplete information through negligence is selling a false product, and given the fact that doctors deal with human lives, that cannot be tolerated.
And yet that is precisely what has been done in Arizona and is contemplated by other Republican legislatures.
Therefore - war on women, and just one of the many reasons women voted out and down conservatives from Romney on down the ballots.
So you apparently are agreeing with the assertion made by MikeB that there were good reasons women voted against the conservatives - and will continue to do so, until or unless Republicans repudiate their platform - the whole platform.
So you say, Dog Gone. Perhaps you could provide some evidence for this heartwarming little tale? Nevertheless, the position that many of us take--namely, that we have the right to do with ourselves as we choose, into which I include prostitution, drug use, and suicide--is ethically valid. You may disagree with the premises, but that doesn't mean that we're logically wrong.
Harming oneself or others, deliberately, is unethical under a variety of reasoning, including the utilitarian one.
Freedom is not properly self-destructive; self-destructive behavior is more properly the jurisdiction and domain of public health.
You know too little apparently about what actually is and is not ethical --- but that would be consistent with your other areas of scholarly ignorance. You clearly do not appear to have taken a college level course in ethics or philosophy of any substance or value.
So NOW do you understand why right wing legislators, anti-abortion fanatics, are perceived BY women as waging culture war ON women?
The only way they can win is to lie. They and their ideology fail to value women, they are oblivious to science and facts.
Sadly, the right doesn't appear to have learned a thing from this; they're still anti-abortion fanatics, they are unrepentant about their rape attitudes, and they continue to try to undermine equal pay for equal work by women.
All of those things are WRONG. They are not only bad for over half of the population, they are bad for the whole country - when women do well, cultures and economies do well. These things are the opposite of women doing well.
I'm well aware that your view of ethics comes straight out of Thomas Hobbes. Or is it the Inquisition? Your view is that we have to control people for their own benefit. That's only a step away from burning them at the stake to save their souls. I believe that we must allow people to make their own choices.
I note also that you have yet to provide any evidence for your claim to be the pet student of an ethics professor. But you do make a lot of claims...
I have never heard of a GOP war on women ... who comes up with this load of crap?
ReplyDeleteThe only major difference I can see on women's issues is abortion. Many women want to be able to abort their pregnancies citing their desire to do anything they want with their bodies. What they fail to grasp is that an abortion kills an unborn baby and many people see that as murder. Since murder is immoral and illegal, many people favor a women doing whatever she wants to her body as long as it doesn't involve purposely killing the unborn baby.
Yes, many people don't consider the unborn baby to be a person because it isn't developed, cannot live on its own, and lacks mental capacity/awareness. The same standard can be applied to a 2 day old infant that is sleeping or unconscious from illness/injury. And parts of that standard can be applied to adults. So can we rationalize killing those two classes of people?
As usual, people don't want to be responsible for their choices. A women wants to be able to have sex with anyone and execute the baby that results from that action for none other than the fact that she simply doesn't want to carry the baby to full term. Of course the natural extension of this mentality is post birth "abortion" (murder) and sadly some people are advocating for that option. That mentality is bad for society and that is why many people value life and oppose abortion.
Why do i think you're an older white male? Hmmmm -- Well, here's a message for you:
Delete". . . I’ve been prosecuting rape, child abuse and homicide for over a decade and a half, and this is a subject that I happen to know quite a lot about. And I am deeply disturbed by the personhood movement, by the idea that there should be specified exceptions to a blanket criminalization of abortion, and by the fact that the group of mostly men propounding this policy seem to have absolutely no FREAKING idea what they are actually trying to do here. Since I think that my perspective as a prosecutor might be relevant, I intend to provide it." Read further at
http://thedeadauthorsclub.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/fetal-personhood-and-criminalizing-abortion-a-prosecutors-perspective/
And, by the way, there are other issues in the war on women besides THEIR RIGHT TO CHOSE WHAT HAPPENS TO THEIR OWN BODIES, which ain't none of your friggin' business.
Leslie, do you agree that women should have the right to sell their bodies through a mutual, voluntary transaction for sex?
Deleteorlin sellers
Hey, Orlon lint-for-brains ---- are you shopping for sex?
DeleteAnonymous - you are factually in error.
We do not require anyone to enable another human being to survive. We don't require organ donations, blood donations, skin graft donations. ANY kind of use of a person's body is entirely by consent. PERIOD.
This includes a woman's uterus, even if it means another man woman or child, or cluster of undifferentiated cells dies. Deal with it - it is the only ethical option, unless you want to be forced at gun point to donate any of the above (blood, organs, skin, bone marrow).
And if you don't understand the difference between the neurological functioning of 2 day old infant, or someone who is sleeping or unconscious, I would suggest strongly you educate yourself on the technical distinction between death as determined by higher brain function and living brain activity.
Because YOU have that information completely and totally wrong.
It is an excellent criteria for determining life versus not-a-life.
You on the other hand appear to be an ignorant mouth breather who doesn't have a lot of higher brain function, alive or not.
We can hope you will remediate your ignorance, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen. It would clearly be a lengthy process.
Women are sexual human beings, just like men. Biology is not destiny, and we should not be forced to be human incubators for any pregnancy. That is tyranny. That is fascism.
But don't be discouraged; men are perfectly capable of carrying a pregnancy to term by implantation into their abdomens.
Seriously:
http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/
Since you're so keen on it - why don't you volunteer? Or better yet, for real gender equality, why don't we make rapists carry their own babies for a change, instead of forcing women to do so?
DeleteDog gone: “Hey, Orlon lint-for-brains ---- are you shopping for sex?”
Not everyone who is pro-choice is getting abortions. Why are you implying that Orlin is shopping for sex because he supports a woman’s right to their own body, which means having sex with whomever their choose for whatever purpose they choose?
Dog gone: “And if you don't understand the difference between the neurological functioning of 2 day old infant, or someone who is sleeping or unconscious, I would suggest strongly you educate yourself on the technical distinction between death as determined by higher brain function and living brain activity.
Because YOU have that information completely and totally wrong.
It is an excellent criteria for determining life versus not-a-life.”
I certainly hope your use of the word “infant” was a mistake. You’re not arguing that a 2-day newborn is not considered life, are you? You meant “fetus”, right?
My dearest Dog Gone seems unwilling to answer the question posed.
Deleteorlin sellers
NO TS, I meant that the brain function of a 2 day old infant asleep and someone who is sleeping or unconscious is similar to each other. What is dissimilar are the brain waves of an embryo, or at some stages, a fetus.
DeleteHowever, there is a specific type of brain wave that counts, and many others that do not. You can get a similar brain wave measured by an EEG for lime jello to that of the adult male gun nuts who comment here - seriously, look it up.
The kind of brain function used to determine brain death versus not brain dead indicates that embryos are not living human beings in the sense that we use to determine the life or brain death of people. That's because the cellular differentiation required hasn't taken place yet.
Orlon lint for brains, I don't think it is a freedom for women to be selling their bodies for sex, just as I don't think it is a freedom for men to do so either. It demeans and dehumanizes both, and treats human sexuality as a commodity when it is not. That is not something gender specific, or age specific; it is true for all of us.
As always, for Dog Gone, things that she approves can be legal.
DeleteIt is said by Ed, Ms. O'Neill (in the clip) and LOTS of other people that the single biggest mistake that Romney's campaign, and the GOP, made was to allow, co-opt or find common cause (it is impossible to know what Romney actually believes about anything other than money--he wantz all of it) with the JHWHfaction of the ReiKKKwing (approximately 100%--within a margin of error of, well, 0--KKKristianist Fundamentalist Asshats and the lickspittle politicians that kowtow to them).
ReplyDeleteBut y'know what? It's not the pols, stupid it's the lack of GUNZ that been keepin' teh ladeez under teh MAN'S thumb--and that's a fact, JACK!!
If only more women had teh gunz! They wouldn't need no steenkeen laws or lawmakers to help them with their problems.
You got raped*? blow that mofo away!
Man gets more money than you for the same work? blow that mofo away!
Man doesn't want to watch the "Bridget Jones" series with you? Blow that mofo away.
Man criticized your tunafish/badada chip casserole? BLOW THAT MOFO AWAYYYYYYY!!
Gunz don't make teh galz, gunz make teh galz be paid attention!
I know that moronz like Pauliewingnutz and the Mittmoroniunswillard FUCKINGLOOOOOOOOZERZ are wantin' to have 'em a nice, shiny new amendment againzt Ickymansbuttsex bein' legal** and prolly another one about life beginning at the erection.
But what would they do if teh ladeez said, "Hey, jerkoff, I got me a SECOND AMENDMENT SOLUTION! Getcher pryin eyes out from under my skirt, or I'll blow your junk off! HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAH!!"?
There, now I feel better!***
* Legitimate rape that is. Wives, girlfriends, provocatively dressed sluts, those stupid enough to accept free drinks and the like? They WANTED IT!
** Icky ladeezonlysecks they don't seem to have a problem with.
*** I regret having to do so, but I suppose that for a certain sub-set of Mikeb302000's regular detractors and assorted idjits wit teh gunz, I need to make clear that the foregoing is snark. It is bothersome, but the same people that know that Rushbo is "only kidding, he's a kidder, he's an entertainer"--when calling women sluts or implying that black athletes (and presidents) are being held to a lower standard of behavior and performance than white males--seem to be completely ignorant of the entire mechanism of sarcasm when it is employed by others.
"I have never heard of a GOP war on women ... who comes up with this load of crap?"
ReplyDeleteYour political party, asshole.
If you haven't heard about it (mind you I'm not saying whether you agree or disagree with their "battel strategy"--your subsequent paragraph's indicate that you're a Field Grade shithead, firmly placing yourself in that delusional "Right to life (telling women what to do)" camp) then you've been living WAY the hell off the grid, dude.
BTW, moron, there is, as yet (and I hope, never) a law on the books that actually defines abortion, a medical procedure, as murder. You need to know wtf you're talking about if you're going to make comments like, " What they fail to grasp is that an abortion kills an unborn baby and many people see that as murder.", cuz, buddy, you're wrong.
Mikeb302000:
Congratulations. I see you've turned the corner from just getting the indignorami of the gunzloonz set to comment here to attracting the "Operation (Intimidate women at reproductive health facilities) Rescue" types. Their arguments are different in terms, but just as fucking dishonest, selfish, self righteous and inidgnorant.
"What they fail to grasp is that an abortion kills an unborn baby and many people see that as murder.", cuz, buddy, you're wrong."
DeleteDC - many people do indeed feel that abortion is murder. How was the commentor wrong in stating that?
What exactly is that called when you intentionally stop a beating heart?
Deleteorlin selleres
Depending on the development of that tissue, I call it giving women the same rights that every human being has in every other situation -- which is the right NOT to have their bodies subordinated against their will.
DeleteThat is why we don't allow anyone to take your blood for a transfusion - even if it would save the life of a newborn baby - without your consent. Or take a kidney, a lung, part of your liver, your bone marrow, or a skin graft either. No one has the right to force a woman to make her body available for a developing clump of cells against her will, or an infant, a child, or another adult either. It is that simple, that elemental.
Now if you are all that worried about it being murder, why don't you go offer to be the gestational host instead?
I'm guessing that given that choice, you will let that clump of cells go away without continuing to differentiate every damned time. Because consistently men are willing to force women to do something they COULD do, but are unwilling to do.
Dog Gone, you're showing your inability to sort out the probable from the remotely possible. Could a man be pregnant? Yes, but only with extreme and continual medical intervention. It's certainly not the natural way, and in this case, natural is exactly the right word. You love to get caught up in wild speculation that fails to address the main point.
DeleteMikeb302000:
ReplyDeleteI don't know who the sockpuppet writing the above comment might be. But, assuming it's someone who came here because of your stance on firearms ownership, it's interesting to note that he/she is all for restricting a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body when her actions don't affect the commentors life--as opposed to say, shooting someone who has nothing to do with your owning a gun. Knowi'msayin?
That's right, the most opinionated men who spout off against abortion are generally in favor of the extreme interpretation of the castle doctrine and capital punishment.
DeleteI'm generally in favor of choice with regard to abortion. Third trimester abortions should be limited to situations of medical necessity, but not many abortions happen during that trimester, so I don't see the need for a law. (A lot like some other rare events...) I weakly favor the death penalty, but the much more important things to be reformed about our criminal justice system are our drug laws and what we do with non-violent criminals. My position on the castle doctrine you know well.
DeleteWar on Women - requiring medically inaccurate information on breast cancer be given to women, allowing doctors to lie to women about their medical condition if the doctor opposes abortion and thinks a woman might want one, repealing equal pay laws, redefining rape as only violent acts which would make non-consensual rape-drug sex not rape...........the list of things that are anti-women is too lengthy to post here.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't get that is a culture war on women, you're stupid, and very badly informed as well. We're mad as hell and we're not going to vote for anyone who supports it........and there are enough of us to make a difference. We've got political muscle, and we're going to be flexing it more not less.
I feel someone here is feeling slightly slighted, if you'll forgive that obtuse pun- and yet, at the end of the day, you are allowed to walk home from your job, eat, sleep, and shit in peace, because you live in a first world country, which is a luxury most people don't have. You want to bitch about how there is a war on women? Go to a third world country and offer to trade places with any women there- she'll take you up in a heartbeat. Enjoy what you have instead of complaining about what you don't.
DeleteIn addition- "Requiring medically inaccurate information on breast cancer to be given to women" is a serious allegation. Cite me your sources. "Allowing doctors to lie to women... woman might want one (abortion)" this is because certain states view abortion as murder. Therefore, the doctor is obligated to try to talk a woman out of it, the same way a psychologist is allowed to lie to a patient if he believes the consequences of not doing so would result in the death of another human being.
Mark, What the hell does the fact that there are worse countries have to do with anything?
DeleteLook at the requirements of the following states to supply medically inaccurate breast cancer info:
Deletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/abortion-breast-cancer-new-hampshire-_n_1345771.html
which is NOT unique to New Hampshire.
http://reproductiverights.org/en/document/yet-another-anti-abortion-scare-tactic-false-claims-of-breast-cancer-risk
No, I'm talking about a doctor LYING to a woman about her health, about her pregnancy, about anything. Has fuck all to do with abortion being legal or murder. NO DOCTOR should be allowed to LIE to women about the medical facts of their case for any reason whatsoever - and THAT is what is at issue. Abortions are legal, and no doctor should be allowed to LIE in order to force his or her opinion or belief on a woman.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/03/08/arizona-senate-passes-bill-to-let-doctors-lie-to-women-to-prevent-abortions
And no woman should have to go in front of their employer to get approval for contraception, for any reason.
Every single race in the 2012 election, Republicans lost, often significantly, votes from women. Women are more consistent in going to the polls than men, and there are more of us. We count, and we are not going to tolerate Republican policies, not on compensation, not on reproduction.
And NO, doctors are not REQUIRED to talk women out of having an abortion, but they can if it conflicts with their beliefs.
DeleteWould you want a doctor to lie and even let you die, if it conflicted with his belief, or do you want a doctor to be honest with you about medical information, and trust you to make a decision for your own body and health?
For a great post about what is wrong with the antiabortion arguments from an ex pro-lifer go here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html
Wonderful article on Patheos.
Deletehttp://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/11/this-is-consequence-of-waging-culture.html
DeleteNo Orlon - while this woman does deserve a defense, drug addiction is an illness.
ReplyDeleteHad she been given the resources, she could have decided if she was going to have an abortion or not, and also had a better chance to get off drugs as well. Instead of spending the money we waste on incarceration, we should be spending it on health care for a much better result.
This is no reflection of any war on women, this is a drug abuse tragedy. Portugal has done an excellent job for far less money in reducing the incidence of drug abuse in their country. We should do the same, which would stop people like this from being in situations like this.
Or would you just prefer to shoot them both Lint-for-brains?
In other words darling DG, you don't think this woman has a right to ingest what she wants. As usual, you want to control people and things to your liking.
ReplyDeleteI guess this means you don't think a woman should be able to make a mutual, voluntary exchange for sex is she wants to.
You are a puritan of the worst sort, dear.
your bestest friend
orlin sellers
I'm not puritanical at all. There are severe health consequences to people from using meth; there is no safe way to use it, it is simply poison. More to the point however is that it frequently results in causing violence to others, making it a choice that doesn't only affect the consumer.
ReplyDeleteI am not in the slightest degree a puritan; it is an ethical decision that sex for sale is demeaning and dehumanizing. Apparently you've never taken an ethics class Lint for Brains? You seem to know so little about the topic. I was fortunate to study ethics with a professor who not only had a PhD in the subject, but who was the resident ethicist for one of the largest chains of hospitals in our area, affiliated with the U of MN, where he also served on panels ruling on the ethics of research projects.
I was pleased to run into him again some dozen years later, while clearing up an error on my transcript - he remembered me despite having had a LOT of students in the interim. Apparently he found me a complex and original thinker, one of the compliments which gave me the most pleasure that I have ever received.
a commenter wrote:
ReplyDelete"Therefore, the doctor is obligated to try to talk a woman out of it, the same way a psychologist is allowed to lie to a patient if he believes the consequences of not doing so would result in the death of another human being."
This is not uniform as a law, it simply allows as an act of conscience a doctor can lie, not he or she must lie.
Let us take a comparable analogy. A man walks into a doctors office with prostate cancer of a variety that can be cured by stem cell therapy. The doctor he has gone to is morally opposed to stem cell therapy, so he lies to his patient, and the patient continues untreated until his cancer has progressed sufficiently that the stem cell therapy is no longer useful, so he doesn't get the stem cell therapy -- and he dies.
Is THAT ok with you? Because that is what Arizona passed for women, that doctors could lie about your condition, or withhold information about your health if a doctor had a difference of opinion with what he thought might be the patient's choice. They take that choice away from women for themselves.
Or let's try that other conscience legislation that has been proposed by right wing nuts repeatedly - letting pharmacists impose their religious views on your treatment. You have an illness, you need treatment, your doctor prescribes it ---and you can't get it because the pharmacist, without seeing your file, without discussing it with you, decides he or she won't provide it to you. Does THAT work for you any better? This is right wing expansion of government into your life in the most intrusive way possible.
It is wrong, it makes us less free, it is bad -- and it legislates medical malpractice as legal.
It is war on women, because they damn well won't make it apply to men in similar 'conscience' situations.
Ah, we have a rare moment of agreement, Dog Gone. I argue that a business should be allowed to sell all kinds of things, so long as the contents are correctly labelled. A doctor who lies or who gives incomplete information through negligence is selling a false product, and given the fact that doctors deal with human lives, that cannot be tolerated.
DeleteAnd yet that is precisely what has been done in Arizona and is contemplated by other Republican legislatures.
DeleteTherefore - war on women, and just one of the many reasons women voted out and down conservatives from Romney on down the ballots.
So you apparently are agreeing with the assertion made by MikeB that there were good reasons women voted against the conservatives - and will continue to do so, until or unless Republicans repudiate their platform - the whole platform.
So you say, Dog Gone. Perhaps you could provide some evidence for this heartwarming little tale? Nevertheless, the position that many of us take--namely, that we have the right to do with ourselves as we choose, into which I include prostitution, drug use, and suicide--is ethically valid. You may disagree with the premises, but that doesn't mean that we're logically wrong.
ReplyDeleteActually - it does.
ReplyDeleteHarming oneself or others, deliberately, is unethical under a variety of reasoning, including the utilitarian one.
Freedom is not properly self-destructive; self-destructive behavior is more properly the jurisdiction and domain of public health.
You know too little apparently about what actually is and is not ethical --- but that would be consistent with your other areas of scholarly ignorance. You clearly do not appear to have taken a college level course in ethics or philosophy of any substance or value.
So NOW do you understand why right wing legislators, anti-abortion fanatics, are perceived BY women as waging culture war ON women?
ReplyDeleteThe only way they can win is to lie. They and their ideology fail to value women, they are oblivious to science and facts.
Sadly, the right doesn't appear to have learned a thing from this; they're still anti-abortion fanatics, they are unrepentant about their rape attitudes, and they continue to try to undermine equal pay for equal work by women.
All of those things are WRONG. They are not only bad for over half of the population, they are bad for the whole country - when women do well, cultures and economies do well. These things are the opposite of women doing well.
I'll agree that there's a two column war on personal liberty, one prong being the Democans and the other the Republicrats.
DeleteI'm well aware that your view of ethics comes straight out of Thomas Hobbes. Or is it the Inquisition? Your view is that we have to control people for their own benefit. That's only a step away from burning them at the stake to save their souls. I believe that we must allow people to make their own choices.
ReplyDeleteI note also that you have yet to provide any evidence for your claim to be the pet student of an ethics professor. But you do make a lot of claims...