Sane conversation about abortion

1159 posts / 0 new

Comments

Very FUCKING funny, 76, but it still does not address anything as to the issues here, it is merely unintelligable bullshit. Your attempts at insult are crap and prove you only have a demented phallic fixation.

Again, no one can address a direct question, when the answer might prove contradicting to their already stated position.

OH, and I know what position phallus likes. Are you hungry little guy?

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote bullpucky:

Your claiming that the child having an abortion wouold solve the problem is ludicrous.

Are you saying that forcing a 9-year-old child to endure a pregnancy all the way to term would not be ludicrous, but worse, a cruelty beyond all reason? Or do you think forcing motherhood on a 9-year-old girl would not be ludicrous, but worse, a crime against childhood?

Your hierarchy of the ludicrous certainly needs adjustment. How about putting the child first, rather than your screwy sense of fetal entitlement?

What's the matter with you? Do you have children? Have you ever raised a daughter? Do you have any concept of the burden of trauma and shame such a situation would mean for a child?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Is that telling, or not, Ulysses? Here, on the one hand, you have a child of 9 years, who was raped and impregnated by her father, violated in her bodily integrity, her trust, and her right to live her life as a child; and on the other hand, you have a fetus at 4.5 months, and Kerry doubts the victim status of the child!

Come on, Zenzoe. You really just have to ignore everything that I've said to keep up with that same old pretension--and, once again, 'victimhood triumph' accusation. Yet, not one word coming from you or anyone else on this board how to handle the father that raped this 9 year old. Not one. Just kill her offspring as the 'solution'--without, at any point, addressing who has personal responsibility in this issue.

Just like, as DRC wants to 'rehabilitate' the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer (instead of punish for him wrongdoing as a personal responsibility that the 'choices of conscience' would requires and as what many of us still believe that 'personal responsibility' needs to accompany 'individual choices' in a well-operating society)--supposedly, to 'understand their motives' and, certainly, not be 'uncivilized' and 'barbaric' in addressing their actions. yet, typical to the irrationality (and real ignorance) that this 'victimhood triumph' posturing contains, not offer one comment of how D_NATURED would handle a child just about to be born 'if the mother wants it' in as 'uncivilized' and 'barbaric' description as D_NATURED can offer. Not to mention the other point that, if 'rehabilitation' in efforts to 'understand their motives' is what you liberal 'victimhood triumph' posturers are all about, what would you do with one who murders a late-stage abortions? You have offered not one word on how that should be handled. 'Rehabilitation' in order to 'understand their motives'? My attempts to start a dialectic around this issue has constantly been met with a rather communal (tag-team type) attempt to undermine and accuse my position (of course, by labelling it 'libertarian') without one time addressing my points--that I think my questions bring out...

And, again, in 'victimhood triumph' fashion, not say one way or the other if this choice of what 'the mother wants' (any adult mother--not just a raped 9 year old) represents a free choice in any way--in other words, not one based on any reason that any one else has to agree to (which the 'unalienable right' of free choice' would mean to me--and, by the way, judging from the oral arguments of Roe vs. Wade, would also mean to the courts that decided this)--but, instead, on this very issue of elective abortions, offer up just about every abusive, dire, and 'non-free choice' excuse as your reasoning for 'elective abortions'--which, by far, has nothing to do with a great, great majority of all induced abortions (which are done, as the law allows by free choice--up until the state can intervene on the fetus's behalf--not what 'dire situation was involved' or what 'the doctor helped decide'--but, 'free choice'). You really do have to ignore a lot to keep up with that same bullshit, Zenzoe. And, of course, your hero, Ulysses, doesn't have to say a thing one way or the other--other than accuse me of being sociopathic and psychopathic for recognizing that every one has 'selfish' perspectives (as 'free choice' allows --even those who claim a 'selfless cause'--not, by the way, to be confused with the 'selfishness as in disregarding others' as the liberals like to constantly accuse--this still does take 'personal responsibility' at least in considering other's rights if imposed upon)....

Now, let's consider this issue of 'choice' for that 9-year old a bit more here. Can we do that? Actually, think on this a bit. If that 9 year old has carried this pregnancy all the way to term, what does that say about that 9 year old's ability to 'choose'--especially, as an adult should be allowed to do when faced in a situation of pregnancy when there is no fetal right to contend with--and 'choose freely'? After all, if an adult carried the fetus all the way to term, and, then, for no other reason than 'she wanted to', decided to abort the child, I also would have a problem with how she 'freely chooses'--and would wonder what has adjusted her 'choice' now if she hadn't chosen to abort before being this late in her pregnancy. You see, unlike what you liberal 'victimhood triumph' believers want to posture with, I don't get 'personal responsibility' off the hook in the issue of any pregnancy. Be responsible enough to make that decision when the fetus has no capacity to live outside of your womb--otherwise, be responsible enough to deal with the fetus if you have waited so long to make what this issue of elective abortions is really all about--a free choice. And, when there is a fetus able to come out alive on its own, there already exists that responsibility that no longer is a 'free choice'--otherwise offered the mother when that fetus cannot come out alive on its own at the point of that decision--and 'abusive exceptions' make no difference to me in that matter. But, having the 9 year old 'decide to abort' a child that that 9 year old had been carrying up until that late in pregnancy doesn't address the 'abusive sitatuion', either...so, why is 'abortion' anywhere near a term pregnancy in any way the appropriate way to handle this abuse? It certainly doesn't address the issue to the ones who should be responsible for it--and it assumes that a 9 year old that carries a child all the way to term can, then, decide to kill that child as 'the answer to the abuse'. I think that assumption lacks a whole lot of qualifications--not the least of which, what of those that are personally responsible for this situation? What are you going to do there? And, how does 'aborting the child' really answer that? Only with the 'victimhood triumph' posturing that removes all personal responsibility to any 'choice' does it even make any sense--certainly not any sense in addressing all the pertinent issues of this abusive situation--much less claiming 'aborting the child' actually addresses any of the abuse. The one part of this situation (the fetus) unable to speak at all on its own behalf has to be the one that takes the brundt of how its began as an abusive situation--and, as to what is wrong with the 'victimhood triumph' lack of completely addressing the entire issue at hand (from 'everyone's perspective'--at least, everyone that has a right to a perspective) in its political context, in line with it avoiding acknowledging the need for personal responsibility in every abusive set-up, it makes others victims--and, a real political victim is one without a voice.....now, please, that's not to say that this could have ended up as an abortion earlier when the fetus could not live outside of the womb on its own--however, it is to say that, once the fetus has that capacity, making that 'the choice' is inappropriate at best--irresponsible at worst--and certainly irresponsible of the 'victimhood triumph' posturers if they are punishing the fetus with death for the actions of the abusive father....as if that 'death' really answered any of the abuse involved....

Now, back to this 9 year old raped by her father and, somehow, while the 9 year old has not freely chosen to abort all the way through her pregnancy--abusive impregnation and all--am I to believe from the liberal 'victimhood triumph' posturers here that that 9 year old will now suddenly be able to 'choose to abort' without that, itself, carrying just as much mental anguish and potential harmful ramifications than, say, going ahead and delivering that child and offering it up for adoption? How is that 9 year old going to make that choice now to kill her fetus (abusive impregnation and all)--when that 9 year old hasn't taken that choice before now? I sincerely doubt that such a 9 year old could make that choice as freely--and as responsibly--as we should have adults do it. So, that 'choice' is going to be more influenced by what other people think about this issue--not the 9 year old herself. So, it appears to me to be those 'others'--such as the present clan of liberal 'victimhood triumph' posturers have not only put it upon themselves to 'make that choice' for this 9 year old (that is even recognized by law as not being 'old enough to choose for herself')--but, 'choose' the option of killing her child in this late a stage of pregnancy as, somehow, answering the abuse by the father. 'Kill the fetal results' to as, somehow, a way to remedy the 'father's abusive actions'. What are you going to do with the father? 'Rehabilitate him'--to 'understand his motives'? And, really, how is a 9 year old that hasn't taken the choice to abort this child yet now going to freely (and responsibly) take it on her own to now take such a choice in as late a stage of pregnancy that the fetus could come out alive on its own? I don't think it's possible--and claiming that it is isn't really addressing this issue as responsibly as it should be addressed--including assuming that killing the fetus now answers the abuse. If the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive. Now, the 9 year old's child can be given up for adoption--but, again, what are you going to do with the father that abused this 9 year old? The 'victimhood triumph' posturers have yet to directly give an answer to that issue--other than assume the 'right thing to do' is 'kill the 9 year old's fetus'--even if near term and that fetus could come out alive on its own....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Again, Zaney, you cannot even address the issue that abortion causes more suicides in women than actually giving birth does. This is FACT, it is not right or left, as you condescenders here like to see things. Your silence or ignorance of this proves my point.

I do not know if the 9 year old was forced to "endure" a pregnancy or not. Again you are either missing the point or avoiding it. How does an abortion solve the issue of and abusive father? ANSWER THAT! What would you do to the abusive father? ANSWER THAT!

I certainly would not FORCE her to endure a pregnancy. Do you think a 9 year old would automatically choose abortion if given the "free" choice? And do you think abortion would solve her emotional issues? And if she had ,for whatever reason, carried the child/fetus to term, do you think punching a hole in the child's skull and sucking its brains out is somehow solving the issue emotionally for her? It is not a "screwy sense of entitlement for the fetus".

Z-" Do you have any concept of the burden of trauma and shame such a situation would mean for a child?"And you think an abortion would automatically solve those issues, even if she had for, whatever reason or reasons, had carried the child to term? I think at that point killing the child would cause her more trauma. A 9 year old might have diffiulty understanding the situation, but i certsinly think a 9 year old would understand the concept of killing the baby when it could have been born alive. She is uncabable of making , much less understanding, those decisions. Optimally, the child SHOULD have had an abortion before the viability of the fetus. But how does that address the issue of an abusive father?

Yes, I have children. A son and a daughter. If my son's mother got pregnant and her father forced her to have an abortion it was very traumatic for her. If not for my interjection, he would have done the same with my son. Although she has had very little to do with him, he is 40, I raised him and he and I have a wonderful and meaningful relationship to this day. The daughter is happily married with 2 boys.

Address the questions, Zenzoe!

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

His "compassion" sides in favor NOT of this girl child, WHERE IT BELONGS, with her tender, emotional and physical reality, her true, living rights and life, but on the side of the fetus, as if only fetuses quality as victims, while born humans deserve, apparently, to be discarded as the flotsam and jetsam of society on behalf of the unborn, no matter the facts of the situation.

Zenzoe, your whole line of argument is bullshit. What are YOU going to have done to the father that raped this 9 year old? And, how does killing the 9 year old's fetus at a point where that fetus could live outside of the womb on its own address that? And, how 'caring' are YOU to claim that killing the 9 year old's fetus at a point where that fetus could live outside of the womb on its own does address that? Really....

Quote Zenzoe:

I don't know how you feel about it, but this sort of mentality —where the suffering of true victims and vulnerable, whole persons earns not one iota of compassion and concern, in favor of non-persons— deserves my disrespect. They complain about being disrespected. But they EARNED IT!

The idea that the fetus right before birth is a 'non-person' is part of this point that I contend with you and all your liberal 'victimhood triumph' posturers that put up all sorts of abusive and dire situations as excuses for elective abortions at any stage and ability. Again, in typical 'victimhood triumph' status, not even commenting at all on the perspective that elective abortions are all about the free choice of the mother when there is no contention to consider for the fetus as an unalienable (and absolute) right (something that you constantly try to 'condition away' with dire and abusive situations--but, any dire or abusive situation that you can concoct addresses a great, great, majority of all induced abortions--which have nothing to do with anything other than the mother's 'free choice'--and, as many of us would agree, the responsibility to make that choice when there is no capacity of the fetus to live on its own outside the womb--otherwise, now be responsible for that). Also, in the typical irrational fashion that the 'victimhood triumph' posturers ignore, actually creating real victims in their posturing by not recognizing the rights of everyone involved, and realizing their part in any situation so considered, in their so-called 'decision'.....in other words, removing the consideration of every person involved in order to concentrate their political impetus only on those that they can agree are the 'victims'--without, at any point in this conversation, acknowledging that many can see a fetus about to be born being killed for someone else's actions as being the true 'victim'--since a true 'victim' in its political context is one without a voice in the decision--or even any one acting as a 'voice' for them--and, then, in true 'victimhood triumph' fashion with this raped 9 year old late in her pregnancy, not even assuming that she might be considering that this fetus had nothing to do with her abuse....and, then, ignoring any comment whatsoever as to how these 'victimhood triumph' posturers would handle the real abuser--the father that raped her.....

And, then, have the audacity to claim that 'I' am the one that lacks compassion? What 'compassion' are you talking about--and claiming? One that has to disregard any consideration of a fetus about to be born to be 'compassionate'? Even as the 'victimhood triumph' posturers that you are, does that 'compassion' really address every potential victim in this? Really.....And, since it really doesn't, how really 'compassionate' are you?

Quote Zenzoe:

It defies reason to argue with an ideology —opinion— that is based on prejudice and ignorance.

Speak for yourself, Zenzoe. If you don't think that killing the fetus as, somehow, addressing the abuse of the father isn't a prejudiced and ignorant action, then, I don't think that you are thinking--even 'compassionately'....why blame the fetus for what the mother's father did? Really....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

By the way, to preempt Ulysses' smart-assed remarks, I realize there are words not spelled right and phrases not worded right in post #754--but, Zenzoe and bullwinkle have responded before I could correct them. Why don't you correct them for me, Ulysses? That is about all you ever do in this 'discussion'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Fetal sentimentality is, I'm sure, an evolutionary advantage...except when there's seven billion of us. We must be spiritual creatures, though, and not solely driven by nature. We must weigh the harm and change our attitudes when they fail us. The greater good requires that women be free to exercise whatever care necessary, between herself and a licenced professional, and that the nature of their visit not be of public concern.

To give a fetus the rights of a person is to ignore a glaring, HUGE freakin' difference between they and other REAL humans. A couple of the lesser differences is that they have never touched another human being and they exist suspended in a fluid-filled sack within the expanded organ of a woman, feeding off of her and initiating a hormonal roller coaster and, whether aborted late term or delivered, representing a threat to the woman's very life. No other kind of "person" is inherently an existential threat to another. Fetuses are not people. They do not have rights yet. While they exist in a state of murderous potential, they must not be given the protection that individuals enjoy. To do so is, as has been said, anti-woman.

If only our cowardly friends had half your sensibility, your love of women. But they don't. They imagine themselves to be authorities on what women should do with their own bodies and minds, bullies that they are. They represent a wholly condescending, patronizing position, one entirely lacking in the kind of love that enables empathy for women. The odd answers they present demonstrate their lack of empathy not only for the minds and lives of women, but for women's bodies as well. That they are males, without uteruses, is no excuse, obviously; but somehow that fact grants them an entitlement to dictate outcomes.

Isn't that a kind of cowardice —bullies are cowards, after all— to ignore the life stories and realities of women, to expect them to choose motherhood above all else? "But no!" they shout—"it's okay, you can have your abortion, but only up to the point where we can invade your privacy, your person, your entire life, and save the thing that represents our potency, our dominance, our eternal seed."

Eeesh...it's all so murky in those patriarchal, poopy-head minds. Eh, D_NATURED?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

As I said, the point of the abortion for a 9-year-old, who has been raped by her father, does not address the problem of the rapist, no. But THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!!

THE POINT OF THE ABORTION IS TO STOP THE ABUSE! The point, idiot, is to rescue the child from the consequences of an irresponsible, selfish and cowardly father. "Responsibility" cannot apply in any way whatsoever to the child—she must be absolved of all responsibility whatsoever. SHE IS THE INNOCENT CHILD.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And killing a child that could be born alive is solving the abuse? I f the child had had an abortion before having to ABUSIVELY carry the child to term, I would agree. However, at the point the child could come out alive,and be adopted, killing the child does not and has not solved the abuse of the 9 year old.

You still have not addressed how you would handle the abusive father.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote DRC:

I wish Kerry could "give birth" to whatever is stuck up his ass so we could end this nonsense.

Do you think that the objection to having a fetus killed (especially right before birth) as an answer the father's abuse is 'non-sense', DRC? Do you think the objection to having a 'fetus's skull crushed and brains sucked out right before birth if the mother wants it' is 'non-sense', DRC? And, certainly 'less non-sense' than your objection to 'cutting the dick off, cramming it down the throat, shoving a hot rod up the ass, and slowly exsanguinating to death a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer' as being 'barbaric' and 'uncivilized'? Do you think that such questions that are intended as dialectic--but ignored--is 'non-sense', DRC?

And, finally, do you think that those of us who have no problem with elective abortions being all about 'free choice' (for any, or no, reason at all) in early pregnancies--but do have a problem with that 'choice', and the personal responsibility it should entail, being delayed until the fetus can come out alive on its own--as being 'non-sense', DRC?

Since you think this is all 'non-sense' without you even addressing many of the issues that elective abortion and its required personal responsibility does have, maybe you have something stuck up your ass, DRC. Especially if you think that 'the doctor's (or any authority's) choice' has anything to do with 'the mother's choice' in the circumstances of a real elective abortion--which, regardless of how many here want to cloud the issue with 'dire and abusive situations altering free choice', has nothing to do with a great, great majority of all induced abortions....

Quote DRC:

It has been demonstrated that a sane conversation about abortion cannot be had in public, but only among a few.

Since you cannot bring it upon yourself to even address the questions offered in this issue that are intended on starting a dialectic, you are the one to 'judge' the saneness of this conversation, DRC? Especially since you threaten me with banning--but allow Ulysses to insinuate that my 'selfishness' relates to my sociopathy and psychopathy. I think that your sense of 'fairness' and 'sanity' is lacking here, DRC.....

As has been the case all along, some of us would see it insane to claim that a fetus about to be born has no right to be considered as human--even by those of us who would agree that, prior to such viabilty considerations, that woman has the right to freely choose an elective abortion....you think that your 'sanity' even considers the rights and responsibilities to freely choose, DRC? If not, from what angle of 'sanity' are you offering to judge by? Or is that another question attempting some form of dialectic in this discussion that will get ignored.....prejudicially and ignorantly....

Quote DRC:

It is also clear that the misogyny of the Right is not limited to fine points of control even though I agree that Roe v. Wade did not tell men to get out of women's consciences by limiting the right to choose as it did. Zenzoe is right on that.

So, unless one is all for 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it', we're 'misogynist', is that right, DRC? Whether we are for the free choice of elective abortions in early pregnancies or not, if we aren't for late stage abortions by the same choices we offer early stage abortions (and, remember, your 'dire and abusive circumstances' as the excuse for abortions are not a sane example of free choice in this issue), we're 'misogynist' is that correct, DRC? And, now, who is being ignorant and prejudiced? Who is making 'non-sense'? Tell me that, again, DRC....and, in your assessment, please tell me what you say Ulysses is 'making'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Notice too, how, in the case of the pregnant 9-year-old, our dear proponents of forcing her pregnancy to term fail to refer to the father as a "selfish" bastard, and fail to call him irresponsible, and fail to see how forcing her pregnancy to term would constitute yet another act of forcible rape upon a child. Oye, the blindness. (Does constipation cause blindness?)

God almighty, this just gets less rational by the post, Zenzoe. If you haven't acknowledged it yet, acknowledge it now. It is you and your clan that have not mentioned one suggestion on what to do with the father that abused this 9 year old mother--other than offer killing the fetus right before birth as the 'solution'. I have no problem with punishing that father accordingly--and, if the fetus is at a stage where it can come out alive, allow it to come out alive--and adopt it out if necessary....

What suggestion do you have to deal with that father? 'Rehabilitation' in order to 'understand his motives'?

I'll let you and DRC hash out the 'misogynist quotes of the Bible'. But, then, you say this:

Can you believe it? A father invades his little daughter's sacred person, impregnates her, then she has to endure the consequences, because his "seed" has more worth than her very life and future? Excuse me?

Once again, Zenzoe, you ignore and misconceptualize much of what I have said. Read above with respect to how even YOU can say that a 9 year old can 'take a choice'--especially if allowing this pregnancy to go as far as late stage viability to 'choose it'. Also, tell me again how 'compassionate' it is to have this 9 year-old's fetus killed right before birth as a way to 'solve' the abuse by the father. And, recognize that, while I have no problem punishing the abusive father, it is you and your clan that have not offered one suggestion as to actually handle the abusive father--except, of course, kill the 9 year-old's fetus right before birth as a way to 'address it'. Even come with the assumption that, although the 9 year old hadn't taken the choice to abort that child all throughout the pregnancy, that 9 year old, somehow, right before birth will freely--and responsibly--take that 'choice' now. That's not a credible description on what is happening with that 9 year old--neither in really addressing the abuse and who is responsible nor in addressing how a 9 year old, not offered or taking the choice to end the abusive impregnation beforehand, could somehow take it upon herself to do so right at the time of delivery. THAT is non-sense....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And the rest of the posts aren't worth commenting much differently on--including D_NATURED now using DRC's term of 'fetal sentimentalism'--as euphemistic a term as I've ever seen to cover up for the posture that everyone else that doesn't go all for 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' as being 'misogynist'--regardless of the continued point that we have nothing against the free choice of the mother when fetal viability is not an issue. And, then here comes Phadreus76 again making a rather non-sensical assumption that any of this has anything to do with 'honoring all sperm'. Who here has even offered such bullshit, Phadreus?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Are you saying that forcing a 9-year-old child to endure a pregnancy all the way to term would not be ludicrous, but worse, a cruelty beyond all reason?

Is that what you are saying bullwinkle and myself are saying? 'Forcing to endure a pregnancy all the way to term'? As far as I understood how this issue was being postured, you have assumed that no one knew--because the 9 year old didn't tell--that this pregnancy even existed until fetal viability was present. Although, unless that 9 year old were larger and fatter than most, you would think that 'someone' could tell long before it got to that late a stage--but, this is the assumption that I have been working with. If this is caught in the early stages of pregnancy, by all means, offer an elective abortion like anyone would be offered--even in the 'misogynist state of Texas' (made 'misogynist' apparently because it doesn't allow elective abortions 4 extra weeks like in California--20 weeks vs. 24 weeks). But, to think that, at the time when the fetus is viable and the 9 year old hadn't had or taken the choice to abort that fetus beforehand and, now, that choice can freely be taken now is something that, itself, ignores and prejudges what is possible in a 9 year old's capacity to 'decide' (especially in a case of being abused) to begin with. And, again, how aborting that fetus late in pregnancy in any way addresses the abuse of the father, you and all your clan have yet to tell....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zaney-"If only our cowardly friends had half your sensibility, your love of women. But they don't. They imagine themselves to be authorities on what women should do with their own bodies and minds, bullies that they are. "

Bullshit! I have already said that I believe a woman should have a free choice as to having an abortion, for any or no reason at all, up and until the fetus has viability. If you think a woman should be able to abort a child all the way up to birth and has not already made the decision before the fetus became viable, the THAT is ridiculously irresponsible on thast woman's part. What your acting like is that women are the victims and men (with the execption of your tag-team here), are all chauvanists. Pure crap on your part! You are making a false generalization.

Do not confuse your tag-team members "empathy" for women with narcissism. From the perspective of ability, narcissists are extremely empathetic; indeed they have a gift of telling what other people are feeling and thinking. Their skill at discerning and guiding the emotions of other people is the basis of many characteristically narcissistic interactions. Be careful.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

If only our cowardly friends had half your sensibility, your love of women.

Oh, we're 'cowards' now, Zenzoe? Are you saying that a 'real man' has to be for 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'? Certainly in order to not be labelled 'misogynist'--even if us wimps are all OK with the free choice (that, by the way, none of those 'brave men' have commented on) of the mother before the fetus is viable--(and, certainly, right before birth)? And, does 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' (remember, that is D_NATURED's description) represent 'human compassion' to you? Or, are those questions intending on a dialectic to be ignored here, once again, Zenzoe?

Well, I've got other things to do. Have at it. Later....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And killing a child that could be born alive is solving the abuse? I f the child had had an abortion before having to ABUSIVELY carry the child to term, I would agree. However, at the point the child could come out alive,and be adopted, killing the child does not and has not solved the abuse of the 9 year old.

You still have not addressed how you would handle the abusive father.

Yes, killing the fetus that "could be born alive" solves the abuse. IT ENDS THE ABUSE RIGHT THERE. KAPUT. The father has no more "power" to ruin the life of his child. The issue is over and done with. The child can heal —abortion is safe and easily endured, but pregnancy, birth are not safe and easily endured— and go on with her life, hopefully without the father who raped her, because he will be in jail and out of her life forever. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10774104

You dunderheads are so cavalier about adoption and C-sections and birth, with absolutely no thought to how such things affect the person involved. Trust me, if I am a nine-year-old child, the last thing I need would be to give birth to another child, one either to be raised in my sick, dysfunctional family, or given up for adoption. Such solutions beg to be understood as extensions of the initial abuse. But why try to explain it to you? You're incapable of grokking the mind and heart of a nine-year-old girl, or any woman, apparently.

Again, what to do with the father is glaringly obvious. But that's what you focus on? Oye!

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Get off the "crushing of brains" and the rest of your irrational, extreme blatherings. You know damn well fetuses are not tortured during any terminations of any pregnancies. But good, go away. I don't have time for you either.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So,Zaney, you ARE for poking a hole in the childs skull and sucking out its brains right before birth and solves the abuse of her carrying the child that far. What affect on the 9 year old do you think having the child killed right before her will have? And, still, the dead child HAS to be born,(it is not going to disappear), so how is that any safer than a live birth? As Kerry has stated there is NO difference in deliverying a live child as opposed to deliverying a dead one. How does that solve the issues withj the 9 year old? How are you so sure that killing her child would n ot create more issues for her? You don't!

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

Zaney-"Get off the "crushing of brains" and the rest of your irrational, extreme blatherings."

Your "empathetic" buddy, D-Natured's description.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

Z-"Again, what to do with the father is glaringly obvious."

It's ALL about responsibility and accountability! You want to kill a child that had no responsibility or say so in this situation as somehow solving the abuse. YOU are the dunderhead!

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

Very FUCKING funny, 76, but it still does not address anything as to the issues here, it is merely unintelligable bullshit. Your attempts at insult are crap and prove you only have a demented phallic fixation.

Again, no one can address a direct question, when the answer might prove contradicting to their already stated position.

OH, and I know what position phallus likes. Are you hungry little guy?

The question has evolved into is the taking of a human life murder. The Roman Catholic Church, the US Bishops, Sen. "Frothy" Santorum have all drawn the biblically inspired line that life begins at the sperm stage. Any action that prevents life from continuing is murder.

You and Kerry are coming up fanciful rhetorical "what ifs" and gotcha scenarios that push the line of legalized murder beyond the clear biblical one, holy and apostolic truth, that your modernist, pro contraception stance is fully pro murder, and you hide behind an anti-abortion line to disguise your true pro-babymurder views.

So, I'll answer your narrow worldview; make the protection of human life legal, and have a law making the protection of the sperm sacrosanct. If we can enforce that, for say 5 years, then I'll consider a law making 2nd trimester abortions illegal. But such a law would be completely unnecessary. Since no unwanted, unplanned pregnancies could occur, if men are 100% responsible for the protection of human life.

And in the end, that is what this is all about. Having old White men control the bodies and liberties of young women. Any attempt to place responsibility on the man will be fought tooth and nail, any attempt to take away liberty from women is good with conservatives.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Again, is a sane conversation possible? Theoretically and in a very limited demographics, it might be so. However, unless there is a cone of silence to prevent others from getting involved, it is clear that the answer is a resounding "NO!" Men just cannot let women decide, even though men let men decide who lives and dies all the time without speaking up at all. Biology is not nearly as clear and unambiguous as the principle of "respect for life" gives us in law or the theology of conception and gestation. Why we feel the need to parse this mystery and ambiguity for law is worth understanding.

Were we just interested in respect for life, we would happily support women who bear all the consequences of their decisions and do everything to make their decisions free from oppression and negativity. It would be a crime to interfere with her desired pregnancy, but also to mandate that she give birth against her will. Men would accept that our role in conception is not anything like being pregnant. We would also accept that women are human beings and are no more perfect than we, and have the humility to know our place with regard to conscience and their wombs.

I loathe the 'religious' who exhibit pictures of aborted fetuses and equate it with the Holocaust. I find the rhetoric on this thread equally nauseous at times, filled with sanctimonious self-righteousness instead of the compassion appropriate to tragic circumstances. Respect for life ought to generate the latter and a humble silence and care for the woman.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote D_NATURED:

Fetal sentimentality is, I'm sure, an evolutionary advantage...except when there's seven billion of us. We must be spiritual creatures, though, and not solely driven by nature. We must weigh the harm and change our attitudes when they fail us. The greater good requires that women be free to exercise whatever care necessary, between herself and a licenced professional, and that the nature of their visit not be of public concern.

To give a fetus the rights of a person is to ignore a glaring, HUGE freakin' difference between they and other REAL humans. A couple of the lesser differences is that they have never touched another human being and they exist suspended in a fluid-filled sack within the expanded organ of a woman, feeding off of her and initiating a hormonal roller coaster and, whether aborted late term or delivered, representing a threat to the woman's very life. No other kind of "person" is inherently an existential threat to another. Fetuses are not people. They do not have rights yet. While they exist in a state of murderous potential, they must not be given the protection that individuals enjoy. To do so is, as has been said, anti-woman.

If only our cowardly friends had half your sensibility, your love of women. But they don't. They imagine themselves to be authorities on what women should do with their own bodies and minds, bullies that they are. They represent a wholly condescending, patronizing position, one entirely lacking in the kind of love that enables empathy for women. The odd answers they present demonstrate their lack of empathy not only for the minds and lives of women, but for women's bodies as well. That they are males, without uteruses, is no excuse, obviously; but somehow that fact grants them an entitlement to dictate outcomes.

Isn't that a kind of cowardice —bullies are cowards, after all— to ignore the life stories and realities of women, to expect them to choose motherhood above all else? "But no!" they shout—"it's okay, you can have your abortion, but only up to the point where we can invade your privacy, your person, your entire life, and save the thing that represents our potency, our dominance, our eternal seed."

Eeesh...it's all so murky in those patriarchal, poopy-head minds. Eh, D_NATURED?

When you're raised, as many American men are, within a world view that treats femeninity as inherently weak and less-than, it becomes clear that the biological processes they normally posess power over, as women, cannot be entrusted to them (as if their biological power CAN be taken away). Fetus protection is far too important to allow it to be decided in any way by fickle, irresponsible, whore-women. We are better off putting control of their bodily processes into the hands of proven slavers and war-makers. You know...pro life christians.

I agree with you, Zenzoe. Abortion, as it stands today, is more of a male issue than a female issue. Patriarchal poopy-heads have been running the show for so long, they think their behavior is normal. The unfortunate and ironic thing is that on these forums of endless words, they aren't forced to accept the inevitable consequences of what their "idea" would really mean for the women in their lives and for themselves, if the world really did exist in the way they desire. They don't see the dead women. They don't see the unwanted children and their cost to society and they don't get to experience the ten pound pork shoulder that awaits them, should their stupidity ever impose, in any way, on the lives of the women I love.

I may not have a lot to offer this world, as a man, but I can use my superior physical strength to act as a deterrant to any other man who wants my wife, sisters and neices to exist for their or their god's pleasure. In fact, it's the consideration of times like those where I begin to have a clear view of what potential good I and my male collegues have to offer the world. Maybe it's not as glamorous as giving birth to a new human being, and it's definitely not patriarchal, but a little protection is the least I can give to those who have been endowed with the ability to create life. I happily accept that role. It just feels right to me.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote DRC:

Again, is a sane conversation possible? Theoretically and in a very limited demographics, it might be so. However, unless there is a cone of silence to prevent others from getting involved, it is clear that the answer is a resounding "NO!" Men just cannot let women decide, even though men let men decide who lives and dies all the time without speaking up at all. Biology is not nearly as clear and unambiguous as the principle of "respect for life" gives us in law or the theology of conception and gestation. Why we feel the need to parse this mystery and ambiguity for law is worth understanding.

Were we just interested in respect for life, we would happily support women who bear all the consequences of their decisions and do everything to make their decisions free from oppression and negativity. It would be a crime to interfere with her desired pregnancy, but also to mandate that she give birth against her will. Men would accept that our role in conception is not anything like being pregnant. We would also accept that women are human beings and are no more perfect than we, and have the humility to know our place with regard to conscience and their wombs.

I loathe the 'religious' who exhibit pictures of aborted fetuses and equate it with the Holocaust. I find the rhetoric on this thread equally nauseous at times, filled with sanctimonious self-righteousness instead of the compassion appropriate to tragic circumstances. Respect for life ought to generate the latter and a humble silence and care for the woman.

Beautiful words.

Quote N_NATURED:

When you're raised, as many American men are, within a world view that treats femeninity as inherently weak and less-than, it becomes clear that the biological processes they normally posess power over, as women, cannot be entrusted to them (as if their biological power CAN be taken away). Fetus protection is far too important to allow it to be decided in any way by fickle, irresponsible, whore-women. We are better off putting control of their bodily processes into the hands of proven slavers and war-makers. You know...pro life christians.

I agree with you, Zenzoe. Abortion, as it stands today, is more of a male issue than a female issue. Patriarchal poopy-heads have been running the show for so long, they think their behavior is normal. The unfortunate and ironic thing is that on these forums of endless words, they aren't forced to accept the inevitable consequences of what their "idea" would really mean for the women in their lives and for themselves, if the world really did exist in the way they desire. They don't see the dead women. They don't see the unwanted children and their cost to society and they don't get to experience the ten pound pork shoulder that awaits them, should their stupidity ever impose, in any way, on the lives of the women I love.

I may not have a lot to offer this world, as a man, but I can use my superior physical strength to act as a deterrant to any other man who wants my wife, sisters and neices to exist for their or their god's pleasure. In fact, it's the consideration of times like those where I begin to have a clear view of what potential good I and my male collegues have to offer the world. Maybe it's not as glamorous as giving birth to a new human being, and it's definitely not patriarchal, but a little protection is the least I can give to those who have been endowed with the ability to create life. I happily accept that role. It just feels right to me.

Beautiful, just beautiful.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Oh please! You are all condescenders kissing each others asses.

Goddamn it, I have never said that I was against a woman having an ABSOLUTE free choice in determining wheter or not (for any or no reason at all) to end her pregnancy up and until such time as the fetus has become viable. How fucking hard is that to comprehend. Now any adult responsible female should and would have taken care of it before that viability has been reached.

And FYI, phallus, I DO NOT agree that life begins with your weird fixation about sperm, so get over it and go play with yourself. It begins when a fetus gains the ability to survive outside the mother's womb on it own. No amount of posturing here about the danger to a woman at that point of viablity will change the reality that whether you KILL the fetus right before birth or deliver it live does not make a difference medically. It is the SAME because the child dead or alive HAS to come out! What is so fucking hard to understand about that. Zenzoe , your are niave at the very least , if you don't understand that, and your tag-team members exhibit an extreme amout of ignorance if they don't understand that either. I happen to believe that if a child can be born alive it has gained that right to life. But if a woman wants to kill the child right up to the point that it is about to be born then by all means she should FREELY have that option of killing it. BUT SHE IS STILL GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE BIRTH TO GET IT OUT! Got that?

If my first father-in-law (he wasn't at the time) had had his way my son would not be here today. I raised him (as we divorced when he was still a baby) as his mother has had little to do with him in these 40 years.

Yeah, D, your a real woman's man. Did you read my post #755?

D-" They don't see the unwanted children and their cost to society and they don't get to experience the ten pound pork shoulder that awaits them, should their stupidity ever impose, in any way, on the lives of the women I love."

Real tuff there D man.

Again Zenzoe,do not confuse your tag-team members "empathy" for women with narcissism. From the perspective of ability, narcissists are extremely empathetic; indeed they have a gift of telling what other people are feeling and thinking. Their skill at discerning and guiding the emotions of other people is the basis of many characteristically narcissistic interactions. Be careful.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

And FYI, phallus, I DO NOT agree that life begins with your weird fixation about sperm, so get over it and go play with yourself. It begins when a fetus gains the ability to survive outside the mother's womb on it own.

What you agree with is immaterial to the religious teachings of the one true religion. Life begins with life, as a sperm. I fully comprehend that you will fight to the end to avoid accepting responsibility for life, and will instead project your irresponsible actions onto women.

The fact is, if men were held responsible for life, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches, the whole abortion debate is effectively dealt with. Until men are responsible, women will bear the brunt of those choices.

So, you reject the idea that you will hold men responsible for life, fine. How about a DNA registry, and ironclad laws on holding deadbeat dads economically responsible for their "non life" emmissions that then somehow magically turn a woman's belly large?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Bull, did you need the law on your side, or were you able to make your own promise and fulfill it without compromising anyone else? Sounds like you did a good thing. Fine. Now, about your insults. Please just leave it alone because what others agree to respect here is not your business. You do not add anything to the sane discussion. I think we have all said all that can be said and more. Peace be with you.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And to what "one true religion" are you referring to , 76? The Catholic Church?

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

DRC-"Now, about your insults. Please just leave it alone because what others agree to respect here is not your business."

Well I don't remember them, especially Ulysess , D-Natured or Phaedrus, adding much of anything to this converstion except hurling insults. Are they special or exempt from the "rules"I am supposed to adhere to? Have they garnered special exemptions from the "great one"?

Go back in this thread and show me where I made any insults that I was not insulted first.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote You-Know-Who:

Goddamn it, I have never said that I was against a woman having an ABSOLUTE free choice in determining wheter or not (for any or no reason at all) to end her pregnancy up and until such time as the fetus has become viable. How fucking hard is that to comprehend. Now any adult responsible female should and would have taken care of it before that viability has been reached.

As I said before, "But no!" they shout—"it's okay, you can have your abortion, but only up to the point where we can invade your privacy, your person, your entire life, and save the thing that represents our potency, our dominance, our eternal seed." In other words, I got that you think abortion is okay, but only if the woman or girl has been very very good, and not if she has been very very bad, so bad as to allow her father to rape her, so bad as to not know that she's pregnant, or so bad as to develop a medical emergency demanding the terminal extraction of her fetus, or so bad as to be poor, or so bad as to be unable to find a clinic in time, or so bad as to exist within any of the myriad of dire realities possible for pregnant women.

Who, exactly, are you to determine what "any adult responsible female" should do? It's none of your business, Mr. Bullheaded, stink-pot, doo-doo BM.

See, these guys, those who think they're so smart as to know what's best for pregnant women and their pregnancies, i.e., what's best for other people, simply have no idea what rape means to a woman, and how being forced to endure a pregnancy with complications feels just like rape, symbolically. They can't relate. It's very sad, really. But shame on them too! Shame on them for being such clods.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have advised the people who agree with me on policy not to throw feces back, but I am not their master. I think several of us have attempted to post clear and civil accounts of our position, but that the nature of the issue and its social context in the Culture War starts with nasty. The Hyde Ammendment is an offense against civil neutrality and a concession from liberals to soothe the theocrats instead of holding them to civility. It is hard to be civil about having religious war waged against you.

I think you have given as well as taken some cheap shots. Your comments about Zenzoe often go over a line she did not deserve. I will confess that I have gotten sick and tired of the moralistic bs and self-righteous "right to lifer" piety about the fetus. In my last post, responding to your personal account of your own experience, I tried to show respect for that while asking you to return the favor.

Randi Rhodes complains that anti-abortion cons "love the fetus, but hate the child." She is talking about their public policy votes and cheap shots on Single Mothers. I think she is totally correct about the way anti-abortionists conduct themselves and the hypocrisy of their racial and mysogynist rhetoric and votes.

You may get some blowback from that, but it comes with the territory. I think Zenzoe is makes the best case here, and I fully support her. The present farce in Congress about contraceptives tells volumes about why this issue stinks of misogny.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe, I will say this one last time. I DO NOT CARE if you or any other woman wants to abort her child (FOR ANY OR NO REASON AT ALL AT ANY TIME) she , as far as Me or anyone else, should be FREE to do so.You are absolutely right, it is NON of mine or anybody else's (except maybe the father's) business. But your crap about rape and medical reasons do not hold water when it comes to late stage abortions. Because of the simple fact that there is a child in yours or other womens body THAT HAS TO COME OUT be it via her birth canal or by C-section whether that child is alive or dead.The risk is the same! I do not claim to make any kind of assessment of the behavior of a woman that would disqualify her from doing exactly as she wants. Just don't pretend there are medical reasons to have to kill a child to save the mother's life. There is none. If a woman wants to abort her child in a late term pregnancy IT STILL HAS TO COME OUT OF HER BODY! I hope you never get pregnant- you'd probably have a terminal anxiety attack from your phobia of it.

You are not my master either, DRC.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

DRC-"Now, about your insults. Please just leave it alone because what others agree to respect here is not your business."

Well I don't remember them, especially Ulysess , D-Natured or Phaedrus, adding much of anything to this converstion except hurling insults. Are they special or exempt from the "rules"I am supposed to adhere to? Have they garnered special exemptions from the "great one"?

Go back in this thread and show me where I made any insults that I was not insulted first.

Look at your very first post. You began with an insult, changing my name to Neutered. You never came to this forum with the idea of respectful conversation. I, on the other hand, never insulted anyone that didn't first insult me.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Bullwinkle:

I hope you never get pregnant- you'd probably have a terminal anxiety attack from your phobia of it.

You are not my master either, DRC.

ROTFL!!! O, that's a good one, considering the fact that I have two sons and four grandchildren, and probably won't be getting pregnant anytime soon. And, by the way, my pregnancies were wanted and timed very nicely, after I graduated from college, after I got married, and exactly WHEN I FELT LIKE HAVING BABIES, thank you very much (and how I managed that is none of your business). I liked being pregnant, liked the way I looked, and had a husband who never made me feel ugly or fat. I wasn't afraid of pregnancy in the least and had no complications, except with the second birth, where my bastard of an OB gyn insisted on examining me during contractions, whereupon I told him not to touch me again, whereupon he disappeared and couldn't be found, just when I needed to deliver. Well, he wasn't really needed, anyway, so we —my son and I— went ahead without him. The "doctor" finally showed up, when I was being wheeled into the recovery room, just in time to give me a lecture about who was in charge. So, I fired him. I followed up with a different doctor.

I guess you and my OB gyn have something in common—he thought he should get away with torturing a woman in labor; and he imagined, if she resisted, she was trying to be his "master;" you'd like women to suffer the torture of having babies they neither want nor have the ability to support, and if somebody disagrees with you, they're trying to be your "master."

That I had a good outcome with pregnancy and childbirth does not mean I can't comprehend the lives of other women. That you cannot get pregnant does not mean you cannot, if you tried, imagine what it might be like to be pregnant, poor and emotionally unequipped to handle either giving birth and raising a child, or giving up a child for adoption. You can imagine it, if you try. Think about it. Be the master of your own mind, and heart, if that isn't too condescending of me.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

Very FUCKING funny, 76, but it still does not address anything as to the issues here, it is merely unintelligable bullshit.

It's "unintelligible," genius.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

Yes, I have children. A son and a daughter. If my son's mother got pregnant and her father forced her to have an abortion it was very traumatic for her. If not for my interjection, he would have done the same with my son. Although she has had very little to do with him, he is 40, I raised him and he and I have a wonderful and meaningful relationship to this day. The daughter is happily married with 2 boys.

Wow! How clever of you! Some would have merely intervened and some would have injected themselves into the situation, but not you. Oh, no, not you! You sagely performed an "interjection."

Pray tell us, was your "interjection" loud, from your diaphragm, or did it emerge ala Mitch McConnell, pinched and repressed, from your larynx and glottis? Were the addressees of the "interjection" annoyed by the interruption? Your words must be powerful indeed to bring about such wholesale changes with "interjections." What, exactly, did you "interject" to bring about the sanctimoniously wondrous changes you've chronicled above? Please do offset your "interjection" in quotation marks and enlighten the world by posting it right here! Once that's done, I'll be sure to forward a copy to Mrs. Malaprop.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

By the way, to preempt Ulysses' smart-assed remarks, I realize there are words not spelled right and phrases not worded right in post #754--but, Zenzoe and bullwinkle have responded before I could correct them. Why don't you correct them for me, Ulysses? That is about all you ever do in this 'discussion'....

If you weren't a dipshit, you'd know how to edit your own posts.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

You still have not addressed how you would handle the abusive father.

Continued use of this rhetorical point/question is nothing more than a purposive diversion/distraction, because it's a different issue. Punishment of criminals is a topic which should have its own thread; it's not relevant here and is only tangential to both sane and insane conversations about abortion. When people are losing or have lost arguments, they create diversions to try to save face.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

[quote]here), are all chauvanists.

"Chauvinists," lad, not "chauvanists." Look up Chauvin (not Chopin, he'd be lost on you); it'll do you some good.

Be careful.

A personal threat?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

[quote=Zenzoe]

His "compassion" sides in favor NOT of this girl child, WHERE IT BELONGS, with her tender, emotional and physical reality, her true, living rights and life, but on the side of the fetus, as if only fetuses quality as victims, while born humans deserve, apparently, to be discarded as the flotsam and jetsam of society on behalf of the unborn, no matter the facts of the situation.

Zenzoe, your whole line of argument is bullshit. What are YOU going to have done to the father that raped this 9 year old?

What's that got to do with abortion rights?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:
Quote Bullwinkle:

If not for my interjection, he would have done the same with my son.

Pray tell us, was your "interjection" loud, from your diaphragm, or did it emerge ala Mitch McConnell, pinched and repressed, from your larynx and glottis?

More likely it emerged from something with an extra tight sphincter.

Ulysses makes me laugh louder and louder all the time. Oh lord, my sides do ache.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

Oh please! You are all condescenders kissing each others asses.

Not yours. Now legion on our side of the aisle are those who will give back everything you pukes send over, with interest. You bastards turned the national debate acrimonious beginning with Reagan, and now you're going to get it back. Live with it or dry up and blow away. I don't care which.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

Zaney-"Get off the "crushing of brains" and the rest of your irrational, extreme blatherings."

Your "empathetic" buddy, D-Natured's description.

Then why don't you tell your harness mate, Kerry (the alleged doctor), to stop bringing it up in literally almost every post he writes? To accuse anybody else of riding that dead horse is to deny reality.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote DRC:

I wish Kerry could "give birth" to whatever is stuck up his ass so we could end this nonsense.

Do you think that the objection to having a fetus killed (especially right before birth) as an answer the father's abuse is 'non-sense', DRC? Do you think the objection to having a 'fetus's skull crushed and brains sucked out right before birth if the mother wants it' is 'non-sense', DRC? And, certainly 'less non-sense' than your objection to 'cutting the dick off, cramming it down the throat, shoving a hot rod up the ass, and slowly exsanguinating to death a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer' as being 'barbaric' and 'uncivilized'? Do you think that such questions that are intended as dialectic--but ignored--is 'non-sense', DRC?

And, finally, do you think that those of us who have no problem with elective abortions being all about 'free choice' (for any, or no, reason at all) in early pregnancies--but do have a problem with that 'choice', and the personal responsibility it should entail, being delayed until the fetus can come out alive on its own--as being 'non-sense', DRC?

Since you think this is all 'non-sense' without you even addressing many of the issues that elective abortion and its required personal responsibility does have, maybe you have something stuck up your ass, DRC. Especially if you think that 'the doctor's (or any authority's) choice' has anything to do with 'the mother's choice' in the circumstances of a real elective abortion--which, regardless of how many here want to cloud the issue with 'dire and abusive situations altering free choice', has nothing to do with a great, great majority of all induced abortions....

Quote DRC:

It has been demonstrated that a sane conversation about abortion cannot be had in public, but only among a few.

Since you cannot bring it upon yourself to even address the questions offered in this issue that are intended on starting a dialectic, you are the one to 'judge' the saneness of this conversation, DRC? Especially since you threaten me with banning--but allow Ulysses to insinuate that my 'selfishness' relates to my sociopathy and psychopathy. I think that your sense of 'fairness' and 'sanity' is lacking here, DRC.....

As has been the case all along, some of us would see it insane to claim that a fetus about to be born has no right to be considered as human--even by those of us who would agree that, prior to such viabilty considerations, that woman has the right to freely choose an elective abortion....you think that your 'sanity' even considers the rights and responsibilities to freely choose, DRC? If not, from what angle of 'sanity' are you offering to judge by? Or is that another question attempting some form of dialectic in this discussion that will get ignored.....prejudicially and ignorantly....

Quote DRC:

It is also clear that the misogyny of the Right is not limited to fine points of control even though I agree that Roe v. Wade did not tell men to get out of women's consciences by limiting the right to choose as it did. Zenzoe is right on that.

So, unless one is all for 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it', we're 'misogynist', is that right, DRC? Whether we are for the free choice of elective abortions in early pregnancies or not, if we aren't for late stage abortions by the same choices we offer early stage abortions (and, remember, your 'dire and abusive circumstances' as the excuse for abortions are not a sane example of free choice in this issue), we're 'misogynist' is that correct, DRC? And, now, who is being ignorant and prejudiced? Who is making 'non-sense'? Tell me that, again, DRC....and, in your assessment, please tell me what you say Ulysses is 'making'.....

The idea that a hyhen should be inserted into "nonsense" is, uh, nonsense.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

OK, let me lay this out, again, as clear as I possibly can as I see how this issue of elective abortions has gone. I (and I think bullwinkle) are for the free choice of elective abortions (for any or no reason at all) up until the fetus gains viability. Specifically, I (nor do I think bullwinkle) or for tolerating as a 'civil act' the 'crushing of a fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'--and see it neither as 'civil' or 'humane'--or any rendition that I can imagine that correlates to 'compassion'--unless you want to correlate it to a 'soldier's compassion to the cause to kill'--much in line with what some of us would say 'cutting the dick off, cramming it down the throat, shoving a hot rod up the ass, and having the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer bleed to death before God and country'. Although, peculiar only to the liberal-minded 'victimhood triumphant' posturers on this board, the act to the fetus about to be born is not only to be tolerated but is required to tolerate in order to 'not be misogynist'--whereas the act to the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer is 'uncivil' and 'inhumane'--and, then, the liberal-minded 'victimhood triumphant' posturers don't see how irrational their position really is. Why, everyone that doesn't want to be labelled 'misogynist' has to tolerate killing the fetus right before birth.

Then, of course, as this discussion has indicated, that 'tolerance' hasn't been for 'free choice' as the issue of elective abortions has been considered before the court in Roe vs. Wade. No, when it gets down to it, they (except for the 'fetal head crusher' D_NATURED in a backdoor, roundabout manner--because, when pressed, D_NATURED resorts to the same excuses as the rest of the clan) resort to 'dire and abusive circumstances' as a justification for killing the viable fetus--which is never a medical indication as they posture with (including abusive impregnation and physicial threats to the mother's life). But, more to the point, the 'dire and abusive circumstance' excuse doesn't acknowledge free choice in this issue at all. In fact, the liberal-minded 'victimhood triumphant' excusers have neither acknowledged that this issue of elective abortions has anything to do with the free choice of the mother (although, of course, 'we' are the 'misogynist' ones)--nor has the liberal-minded 'victimhood triumphant' excusers even acknowledged that any responsibility to the viability of the fetus should even be considered at any stage of the pregnancy. In fact, they don't believe in personal responsibility--just excuses that can make one look like a victim to influence political decisions. However, this should be pointed out once again, if they don't believe in free choice--especially in this issue--but believe in acting on only the interest of who they can claim is 'the victim' (of course, it's 'the other side' that even considers any victimization of the fetus)--ie. it's nothing short of misogynist if you don't always believe the woman is the victim (and, as this conversation has noted several times, if that victimization has been the cause of the impregnation, what are you planning on doing to the one who actually did that instead of the results from it as if the death of the fetus answers the abuse--which it most certainly DOES NOT). But, here's the most important point I think in that 'non-sense' with what not acknowledging free choice in any of this issue of elective abortion--that lack of acknowledging free choice in any decision to abort a child keeps the mother as a victim--as their excuses offer, it takes the set-up of victimization for them to justify the mother's act--another self-fulfilling prophecy.....and free choice is disregarded as much as is personal responsibility as long as you are 'politically correct' with who to call 'the victim'.....

In a very real psychological and social sense, centering on, honing in on, just the 'victimization' ideology of this issue as its political impetus neither acknowledges the victim as a person (as their posturing indicates, it takes the constant recognition of their victimization to have political power--and personal justification--yep, no 'free choice' here--and, along with it, no 'personal responsibility', either....)--nor removes the impetus to victimize absent that recognition (in a very real political sense that has anything like fairness and justice involved, all 'rights of conscience' carry with it 'obligations of personal responsibility'--and complete and solid 'voice' in society would have both those traits--but, 'victimization triumpant' people don't seem to think so). But, if Zenzoe is the example to take here, it appears the women who want this to be an issue primarily of the 'victimization of women', want to be wooed with descriptions of 'crushing fetal skulls and sucking out brains right before birth' as their right. But, with that, I still hear 'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I guess another question is, would your law against viable birth abortions include late term abortions of children that will die as soon as the cord is cut? Like Sen. Santorum's wife's abortion? Or, did their child's sould already leave?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

U-"The idea that a hyhen should be inserted into "nonsense" is, uh, nonsense."

That's HYPHEN, O-literate-one.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

I guess another question is, would your law against viable birth abortions include late term abortions of children that will die as soon as the cord is cut? Like Sen. Santorum's wife's abortion? Or, did their child's sould already leave?

Your first question addresses a situation, or similar situations, where late term "abortions" actually occur, as opposed to the dubious notion that women wait long after viability to "crush the skulls" of their fetuses and "suck their brains out," just because women are irresponsible and "selfish" bitches. So, that's a good question I doubt you'll get an honest answer to.

Your questions about Santorum's situation might require some fact-checking, or so it may seem. Apparently, it may not, technically, have been an "abortion." Regardless, the following, from the article, is interesting, yes?

Quote Salon:

Rick Santorum did tell the Inquirer that “if that had to be the call, we would have induced labor if we had to,” under the understanding that the fetus was going to die anyway and intervening would save Karen’s life. And it is accurate to say that the direct experience of a life-threatening pregnancy and a tragic loss did not leave Rick Santorum with any empathy for women who do have to make those difficult decisions in extremely murky circumstances.

As the doctor put it, “One takes from this that pregnancies can go very, very wrong, very quickly.” Moreover, the kinds of legislative hurdles Santorum wants — or hospital administrative committees that seek to supersede the family’s decision-making — can certainly slow down the process and endanger women’s lives in the process.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Let me state, for the record, that I was not the one who originally introduced the idea of crushing skulls and sucking brains. I said I thought it should be legal to do late term abortions and Kerry then began his redundant idiocy, based upon what he believes to be the accepted method of performing late term abortions. Don't get me wrong, if there is a better way than the crush and suck, let doctors use it. As I have had to state ad nauseum, whatever the safest way is for the human mother is what I want. If it involves crushing skull and sucking brain, fine. If there is a blender type device that can puree the fetus allowing for easy pouring out of the vaginal opening, I like that too.

No, when it gets down to it, they (except for the 'fetal head crusher' D_NATURED in a backdoor, roundabout manner--because, when pressed, D_NATURED resorts to the same excuses as the rest of the clan) resort to 'dire and abusive circumstances' as a justification for killing the viable fetus--which is never a medical indication as they posture with (including abusive impregnation and physicial threats to the mother's life). But, more to the point, the 'dire and abusive circumstance' excuse doesn't acknowledge free choice in this issue at all. In fact, the liberal-minded 'victimhood triumphant' excusers have neither acknowledged that this issue of elective abortions has anything to do with the free choice of the mother (although, of course, 'we' are the 'misogynist' ones)--nor has the liberal-minded 'victimhood triumphant' excusers even acknowledged that any responsibility to the viability of the fetus should even be considered at any stage of the pregnancy. In fact, they don't believe in personal responsibility--just excuses that can make one look like a victim to influence political decisions.

The viability of the fetus is SECONDARY to the viability of the mother, first of all, so continuing to talk about viability when the mother wants an abortion is stupid. The viability is ZERO when abortion is desired and carried out by competent technicians and there's no way to prove any other viability without first violating the hell our of some woman's rights. Viability, as a description of a fetus, is akin to using the word "receptive" when talking about a canvass to be painted. It is a speculative word and not a description of the objects current state.

I also still find it hilarious that you accuse women of being free to murder babies in the liberally sanctioned manner of responsibility avoidance, but have yet to indicate any apreciation or responsibility for the laws you yourself advocate (as if supreme court decisions have any less consequences than individual sex). All you do is the typical, conservative, emotional plee to treat women like criminals for accidentally getting pregnant and treat fetuses like a protected class of "people" for accidentally having a heart beat. I refuse to do that but, then again, I'm not interested in this fetal, chicken-counting exercise that conservatives love to engage in. Dividing up rights between women and their womb's contents is far too dependent upon the ability to view women as sub-human for me to join the pro life team. I'd rather just treat women with the respect and human rights they deserve for having been born and with which they are requred to treat me.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

U-"The idea that a hyhen should be inserted into "nonsense" is, uh, nonsense."

That's HYPHEN, O-literate-one.

You're half right, which isn't a bad percentage for you jackwits. I misspelled the word, which is true, but unlike you and the alleged doctor, I'll write that down in public and own my mistakes.

The half you're not correct about is contextual. When I make those kinds of errors, it's because I type fast and they're typos. When you make them, it's because you didn't know any better in the first place. The documentation for that is your entire body of posts compared to mine; I invite any interested parties to read both and see whose are more literate and whose are more riddled with misspellings, bad grammar, and inaccurate punctuation. The record is there.

Half-literate prose, riddled with errors, is usually an indicator of shoddy thought; the former is usually inextricably linked to the latter. In your case, that's certainly empirically true.

Hang in there, dork boy.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system