I was going to write about how much I heart Maureen Dowd and want her book for Christmas, but I got a little sidetracked trying to get banned from The (To Borrow A Phrase) Tiny wiener Buffet.
I am currently digging The Legend of Johnny Cash, an album I bought Wednesday while not buying holiday(eat it COBAGS!) presents.
As an added benefit for those who prefer to stay away from buffets, here is the exchange that has got me seriously worked up. I am almost as mad as when I peed on the ceiling and etc of the Blue Lamp's bathroom.
1. Too bad that we are forbidden from teaching proper condom use in sex education in public schools. If men used condoms without shame then there wouldn't be a need for most abortions, I'd bet. That doesn't mean that I agree at all with pro-lifers, just that we should step up to the plate, men, and admit that it takes a penis to inseminate someone. If every woman magically got pregnant every time she 'opened her legs' there'd be babies everywhere.
What you are truly objecting to, by objecting to abortion, is a woman's ability to make a moral decision. Clearly, you all seem to think that you know exactly how all women should act in any situation. However, given the juvenile nature of the prior comments and the post itself, I would hesitate to let make a moral decision involving a jellyfish, let alone a human life.
comment by Chuckles Wednesday, December 21, 2005 @ 2:58 pm
2. Dear Chuckles,
Like you, Margaret Sanger believed that promoting birth control would stop abortions, she was wrong.
Pretty ironic, don't ya think?
comment by canuck Wednesday, December 21, 2005 @ 3:50 pm
3. Actually, that is more coincidental than ironic, but whatever. During the Clinton years, teen pregnancy rates declined, most likely due to the promotion of proper forms of birth control, as opposed to oh so successful abstinence style. If you had actually read my comment, canuck, you would notice that I said most abortions. If repressed people like you felt no shame in buying condoms or using them, the world would be a better place. I must admit that I get a little embarrassed when I buy condoms, but that is part of the life of a responsible sexually active man.
My main point stands and as you took no shots at it, I guess that canuck feels the same way about morality and abortion. Clearly, canuck feels as I do. I don't claim to be able to dictate morality and neither does he. I congratulate canuck for taking a boldly progressive stance and proclaiming that he is pro-choice and for keeping his mouth shut when it comes to someone elseÂs decisions in life. Bravo!
comment by Chuckles Thursday, December 22, 2005 @ 8:24 am
That doesn't mean that I agree at all with pro-lifers, just that we should step up to the plate, men, and admit that it takes a penis to inseminate someone.
No argument there. But I think you may have missed the point of the post to make a rather cliched point.
What you are truly objecting to, by objecting to abortion, is a woman's ability to make a moral decision.
No, the point of the post was that abortion, whether your for it or against it, is not a decision that should be taken as lightly as purchasing clothing.
Say, do you think I should be trusted to make any moral decision?
Why can't I summarily execute someone caught knocking off a grocery store? I'm not trusted with that moral decision. And that is good.
Although many people on both sides of the fence differ on when life begins, abortion is killing a human life. Do you think there ought to be at least some legal limitation? Or does it all fall into one of your clever catch-all phrases?
comment by Cranky Thursday, December 22, 2005 @ 9:28 am
5. Dear Chuckles,
Wow, you're wrong on every point about me. Congrats!
Ms. Sanger believed that if women were allowed birth control, they would not have to get abortions. I find it ironic that she was ever so ever wrong about that. Women didnÂt stop abortions after being given birth control, at all. I am a supporter of birth control, big fan of it. No problem buying it. I just found amazing that a woman who, at her time, pushed for the use of birth control to prevent abortions, did no such thing . Instead, women use birth control incorrectly, are still getting pregnant, and instead of taking responsibility (and guys too) they are doing what Ms. Sanger said would stop.
I am pro-life. I do not believe a women has the right to kill an unborn child just cause that baby can not fight back -well, they do try to fight back, while being sucked into a vacuum and into a garbage bag, but really, who can win against a vacuum. So, Mr. Chuckles, you can take your congrats and shove it. I would never want the likes of someone you, who thinks murdering a baby is okay, giving me a congrats for thinking I believe in same thing. Ick. Now I feel dirty and must go shower.
comment by canuck Thursday, December 22, 2005 @ 9:29 am
6. Cranky say: No, the point of the post was that abortion, whether your for it or against it, is not a decision that should be taken as lightly as purchasing clothing.
What in all of creation makes you think any woman anywhere takes abortion lightly? After all the flak a person takes just getting into a clinic, what makes you think she would just say, yeah, screw that little bastard, it'll just screw up my partying! You still have not refuted my point. You are making a declaration that your(notice the possessive) morality is better than anyone who might even consider an abortion. Your(still possessive) statement that people do have flippant(look it up) attitudes toward abortion states that their attitudes are foolish and yours are serious and well-grounded because you regard the issue as serious.
Condoms are, if used correctly, 99% effective in preventing pregnancy and without birth control roughly 80% of copulations(that means sex, children) will produce a pregnancy. If abortion kills a baby, as cranky says, then aren't condoms also killing babies by preventing 79.2 babies being conceived in 100 copulations? Why are condoms acceptable? They prevent the baby from even having a chance of being conceived! Holy crap! It is preventative abortion! Just like Bush and his preventative wars!
In all honesty, cranky, I would not trust you with any moral decision. However, that is a personal opinion and not based on any empirical evidence. Given the anonymous nature of the internet, I give you the benefit of doubt.
Canuck, on the other hand, clearly you went to a far superior high school than I did. Sex Ed at my high school consisted of telling us the methods of birth control but there were no props of even pictures of any birth control technique other than Norplant and abstinence. Man, if only I had actually seen a condom before college and known how to use one and not been ashamed to buy one, my girlfriend would not have had to get a morning after pill. We drove around for hours to find a pharmacy that would give us a prescription and it tore me up inside with the decision. Sure, I loved her and I would have raised any child, but I would never have been able to provide for that baby like I could now. So go point your fucking fingers at someone else, you pathetic schmuck. That decision was the hardest one I was ever a part of so go fuck yourself, get pregnant and then see what you would do, you sad sack of shit.
comment by Chuckles Thursday, December 22, 2005 @ 7:40 pm
Great, so let's go with these ideas. There are hundreds of clinical patients who need a kidney. Anyone with two kidneys can consider giving one of them to someone else. The surgey is challenging, but done frequently. The same is true for platelets and bone marrow. When should I sign up our friends?
Without transplants, many of my patients have died. (And sadly, some have rejected the transplants and passed on, too. However, those numbers have been smaller).
While we are on it, is he an organ donor too?
Thus, the issue gets down to personal freedom, doesn't it?
I, as a woman have the right to determine what will share my body and organs with me. I am not required to give life, nor am I required to bring life to fruition through the use of my body. This is no differnt than not sharing a kidney.
Without spending any time on it, what about the killing in Iraq? Do our friends write their Congressperson and state that no money should be used for weapons of killing? Are they deeply offended by this? Do they support the efforts of folks like Ghandi who brought a nation to peace without violence?
I don't think abortion (and this is just my personal view) has anything to do with morality. It's been carved that way because church goers are some of the least educated people out there and they are easy to hook. If you want to change something, slap a moral value on it. People can relate to it because they have beliefs and an opinion. It's like assholes, everyone has one. Thus, you can grab a large number of the people quickly.
To be fair, I do note that the Jewish faith does state in writing when the so called "life begins" of embryos. Thus, why most Jews support abortion. What is most ironic, to quote our friends, Catholics who deeply oppose it are the highest users of abortion services in the US. So, is it really a moral value issue at the basic root?
The basic issue with anti-abortionists, I believe, is a deep hatred of woman and their support of the patriarchy. Anti-abortionists know it is the one true thing that women control: life. Without woman, life cannot continue. Men can control it all, but they cannot control pregnancy.
Given such, women who support anti-abortion arguments are women who hate themselves. It's very sad. They are the key to the future of abortion in the US, not men. Men have nothing to do with the issue and frankly, they need to remain out of it. Unfortunately, patriarchy gives them the power and the anti-abortion women fufill it.
We need to get some numbers for this discussion. I agree with your entire statement, but we ought to be good smart liberals and get some facts in here. I will look up in my biomedical ethics textbook from school and some other books for basic stats and stuff about abortion. Then we can get back to the funny.
Yes, we need the numbers and I can easily do them. It was just more for us on here, because the meat morons have banned me and I felt the need to say something in a safe and supportive enviroment. I wanted to just talk from my heart and some basic knowledge. I spoke only from my heart because I am tired of fighting over abortion with MEN!
For me, more than anything, its the fear I have for the future of medicine and women. The 1960s had full hospital units of botched abortions. You can take abortion away and do what you want to do, but it won't stop women from wanting to control their bodies. Having met Sarah Weddington, the lawyer for Roe, she put it simply:
Pregnancy is fundamental to women's live. Period. End of argument.
The more facts that other smart people have, the better able they are to combat the plague of zombies that are trying to return us all to the puritan lifestyle, gay, straight, whatever. These people hate America and the freedom it represents.
And I am not being flippant, it is true. Abortion and other civil rights are freedoms that should be available to all humans and are thus garaunteed by our consitution. Anyone who would speak otherwise is thus an enemy of freedom and thus a terrorist, to use a Bushie turn of phrase.
9/11 was not the first act of terrorism on American soil, there were the embassy bombings, Oklahoma City, the Unabomber, and every abortion/planned parenthood clinic bombed, burned or hassled. The same goes for the murder, harm or intimidation of abortion doctors and their clients. These are all acts of vile enforcement of an old, useless way of life.
Preaching to the choir feels good today.
I was searching for stuff on "make money work at home" and came accross your post on Sex Rights for Everyone!. I can now see why I landed here.
If you'd like to check out my website at http://bradfordmoore.com I'd love to have you as my guest.
Yes, it is I, Canuck. (There was a reason you left your URL.)
You talked about abortion not being flippant, yet adorable girlfriend just proved how flippant women like her feel about abortion, a kidney = a baby.
Anyway, I realize there no "changing" minds when women like her 1. don't believe abortion is immoral and 2.feel their only control in life is being able to kill an unborn child, sad. Unlike her, I feel very lucky to be a woman in this day in age. There is so much I can do and become. And I don't feel I need to prove my "control" by killing a baby I have helped create.
Chuckles, you wrote about how all the freedoms in this country are being taken away by people who are pro-life, people who are all for freedoms -even the unborn. your side has taken it upon themselves to leave out the freedoms of the unborn. is it the "out of sight, out of mind," that has you fooled?
You also said taking your girlfriend to get that pill was the hardest thing you ever had to do, good. At least this shows you have a conscience.
As for adorable girlfriend, there is no hope for her. She feels no remorse for killing the unborn and, unfortunately, feels as though her only "control" in this world is being able to abort children. I pity her.
Anyway, that's my say.
Seeing as you've been so kind as to troll SeanS's blog while he's been away, I feel I must return the favor and post meaningless, thoughtless, and downright dumb comments in your comments section of every entry. Please enjoy!
"3 Bans in place, 3,045,562,368,902,179 conservodouche sites to go"
You can count that high? I guess there are educated liberals out there.
Unlike conservative jerks, we allow for freedom of speech. We actually believe in an equal and just society. Not bombing people because they are differnt than us and then denying women the right to do with their bodies as they please. Thus, we aren't hypocrites like conservative douchewads.
Hey Canuck, I feel sorry for you that you want to control me. I quote: "there is no changing women like her". Maybe if you appreciated your body and the ability to be able to have an abortion, regardless of whether you choose to exercise that option, you wouldn't need to come over here and continue the patriarchy.
I also never stated a baby equals a kidney. I enjoy when unelighted people make incorrect assumptions and then try to insult me as an excuse for their ignorance. I would try to explain it to you but having a conversation with someone like yourself would require me to teach you how to read and write.
adorable girl, yeaaaah. i'm trying to control you. uh-huh. that's exactly what that entire post was about. (insert sarcasm)
you keep bringing up the word patriarchy. as if women who stand up against abortion aren't thinking for themselves. what you fail to see is, we are thinking for ourselves, we just aren't thinking only ABOUT ourselves. we are thinking of the baby we produced. honestly, what are you so threatened by? with all your comments, you still keep coming back to this fear of, if you can't kill the baby inside you this makes you somehow less of a woman. i feel sad for this. i feel sad that you actually believe this. being a woman today is wonderful. there isn't anything we CAN'T do. i don't believe that just because someone says i can kill my unborn child makes me feel any more of a woman. i am sorry you believe it does.
i hope one day you can look around you and see just how wonderful being a woman truly is -even without being able to kill an unborn child legally. there are too many options a woman has should she get pregnant out of wedlock, in an affair, early in life -or whatever. killing the baby should not be one of them.
i'm sure you'll come back with the same retort. how women like me hate women (when that is clearly not true). how only women who believe in abortion are the superior ones, because women who believe in life are some how under a man's spell. so, go ahead. state your fears all over again. we all know that's exactly what they are. fears.
ps. and i'll get right on that learning to read and write.
Actually, canuck, your basic fallacy is that you deny that you want to control another woman's right to live her life the way she chooses. By removing the option of abortion, you are forcing all women to have children that may be against their will.
If you don't think abortions are moral or good or whatever, then DON'T HAVE ONE.
It is that simple. I don't want to own a car, so I haven't bought one. Unlike you, I don't run around telling/screaming/demanding that everyone in the country give up their cars. You do. You are trying to force your religious beliefs on the entire country.
The point AG was making about the kidney was that many people die every year from a lack of organ donations. Given that a person can survive with only one kidney, why haven't you given away one of yours? Do you make regular blood donations? Are you an organ donor on your driver's license? By your arguments, anyone that does not give up one of their kidneys, or bone marrow, blood or platelets clearly does not believe in saving every life at any cost. This is yet another logical fallacy of your argument
Oh and germcool? You'll be getting yours real soon.
Ahhh...Takes me back to the good old "Delphi/About.com forums" days...
Chuckles, why do you do this to yourself? Come to my place for a helping of sweet Arabian pie...
By removing the option of abortion, you are forcing all women to have children that may be against their will.
good lord, i have never heard such nonsense. they way you act you would think all women were forced to have sex JUST to have babies -and we both know that ain't true.
I don't want to own a car, so I haven't bought one.
If you don't want to have children either 1. don't have sex or 2. use protection properly. it's that easy. (and don't give me crap about rape. we are talking about two consenting adults)
You are trying to force your religious beliefs on the entire country.
Newsflash, a whole country believes murder is wrong. Murder has nothing to do with religious beliefs. But that is the problem,isn't it. You people don't actually believe you are killing a baby. Instead you say things like, having a baby is like buying a car.
About the whole AG analogy -it doesn't hold water. Forcing someone to give up a kidney is NOT the same as two adults having sex and the result is a baby. Apples and oranges. We are not talking about saving ALL lives and ALL costs. We are talking about responsibility and those who will use any excuse to dodge it.
Side note: I am an organ donor and I have tried many times to give blood, however, I don't weigh enough.
Anyway, even I realize this conversation is a stalemate. I am willing to accept the consequences of my actions and believe killing a baby in the womb is wrong. You do not. I am sorry I could not make you see any different. (Poor AG, she'll forever think people with different options are trying to control her.)
I enjoy the comedy. Keep it coming!
Love to teh and Chuckles!
P.S. It's not a baby if it doesn't have a CNS. Biologically, it's not life.
You did not deny that it was a religious issue, canuck, and I am thus left with the assertion that you believe the foolish position of demagogues and zealots that have no medical or scientific training.
I am once again forced to admit that one can not have a reasoned argument or discussion when one side of the argument does not use reason. As AG correctly states, a central nervous system is necessary for life of a multicellular and complex nature. Furthermore, the so called partial birth abortion process is only used in less than 10 percent of all abortions, according to my biomedical ethics textbook, the reference for which I shall post later.
I would like to point out that I do feel that personal responsibility is extremely important and fading in our society. However, I also see this argument and the religious aspects of it as an attempt to remove a person's responsiblity by removing access to birth control. They do this by preventing sex education and research into new technology and even vaccines for women. See Dan Savage's column on these subjects over at the Onion's AV Club.
Post a Comment