Hugh Hefner thinks he’s figured out what’s driving the Republican war on women

221 posts / 0 new
Last post

Comments

Capital
Capital's picture
Karolina wrote: and allow

Karolina wrote:

and allow every woman on this earth decide whether her embryo (i.e. clump of dividing cells without the brain, spine or nervous system to think or feel with) will have a fair chance to be magnificent and to live the best possible life that human beings can live.

You are claiming possession and rights to someting that is only 1/2 yours.  What about those that are not just Clumps of dividing cells? But individual and distinct

Art
Art's picture
Quote:Are we talking Hamster

Quote:
Are we talking Hamster Fetus? Do you think a Human Fetus could somehow magically turn into a Hamster Fetus. False equivalency.
Does it sound as though I believe that one species could magically turn into a different species?  
Quote:
So you hold the Newborn in higher regard than you did a hour before. Where an hour before you would be ok with it termination. Why is that?
Well, let's explore this question.

Organism development is a continuum. Starts at zero competence and ends at maximal competency. We can say for sure that a fertilized egg has near-zero competence and awareness and that a 20 year old has full physical competence (later for mental competence). At what point do we say the fertilized egg has become the same as the 20 year old? It's a scientific and highly arbitrary judgment. If it's too difficult, then we can just say that they're both the same.  It's an easy way to solve our inner conflicts. Is this how you deal with this conflict?

Quote:
Where an hour before you would be ok with it termination. Why is that?
Did I say that? Did I put the dividing line at an hour?
Quote:
Is higher regard above Zero, Which you have NO regard for a fetus.
Actually, I don't believe that I said I had zero regard for an early fetus, either human or hamster. We have stillborn babies where I am from time to time. There's always a degree of sadness involved. I don't think that there ought to be laws where the really early ones are involved. But then, that's just me. We are talking about our personal opinions, aren't we.

Karolina
Karolina's picture
Capital wrote:And I would

Capital wrote:
And I would argue you have that backwards.   Where Liberals just want the dependency and the ghettos for of babies so they can have more people dependent upon the system.  Conservative take a more tough love approach.   I'd wold post the only know study to shows conservative as just all round better people where liberal are more hands off and believe government solves all problems.   But you guys freak out whenever it brought up.

Well, then, maybe some of your ancestors should have had some abortions if the DNA you were handed gives you this kind of logic.

Why wouldn't Liberals then be advocating repeal of Roe vs. Wade if the Liberals were looking for this idiocy??????????

I am still seeing Neocons as wanting to build up a class of powerless humans for needs fodder.

Karolina
Karolina's picture
Capital wrote:You are

Capital wrote:
You are claiming possession and rights to someting that is only 1/2 yours.  What about those that are not just Clumps of dividing cells? But individual and distinct

I am saying that women are more intuitive and more practical than a Conservative.

media_muse
yahoo... Certainly you - like

yahoo...

Certainly you - like all humans - are entitled to your opinion. Glad we got this cleared up. From your response, however, clearly a sensitive nerve was touched - taking this beyond beyond opinion or the silly factoids you posted.

This post started out about putzer Hefner and the war on women. Once again - a topic of considerable magnitude of complex issues  reduced - by a MALE -  to ONE issue - the highly personal right of a woman's right to control her body. When this happens it is obvious -  this is beyond opinion or science. What we have here is a completely out of control emotional response from that raw nerve in you. I wonder why?

So you don't have empathy -  that's your right, just like your opinion. Glad we got that worked out too. Clearly real life experiences of another person have no meaning for you. Its only YOUR OPINION that matters.

Capital wrote:

media_muse wrote:

Have you ever considered - there are reasons you - as a male - could not possibly have any idea of  why a woman may need to abort?

In short.  I dont care.  As a human being I'm entitled to an opinion and that opinion places a women's convinence secondary to the life of a unborn child that by all right is only half hers.  Empathy isn't a pursasive argument.

All of us were once a fetus - so? There is no insurance given to us that every human zygote will come to fruition. Heck there's no insurance that even once one is an adult they achieve fruition. What about all the fetus's that are now babies, children adults who need care & love? Why not direct your opinions to a place for actual use? Or do you just want to be a BULLY?

You wrote " I dont care". It is very clear what you do care about - You. You want to be the enforcer-  ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS on to someone you have no business or connection to! And you justify it with your opinions or made up factoids. Glad we got this cleared up!

Clearly - you are wanting to claim male privilege here - there are many ways to NOT keep it in your pants.

Capital
Capital's picture
Art wrote: Well, let's

Art wrote:

Well, let's explore this question.

Organism development is a continuum. Starts at zero competence and ends at maximal competency. We can say for sure that a fertilized egg has near-zero competence and awareness and that a 20 year old has full physical competence (later for mental competence). At what point do we say the fertilized egg has become the same as the 20 year old? It's a scientific and highly arbitrary judgment. If it's too difficult, then we can just say that they're both the same.  It's an easy way to solve our inner conflicts. Is this how you deal with this conflict

My answer would be that you will never know the potential of that 20 year old if you terminate it.

Quote:
Did I say that? Did I put the dividing line at an hour?  

Born v Unborn.   Do you have a better dividing line? 

Quote:
 We are talking about our personal opinions, aren't we.

I certainly would never claim to be talking in an offical capacity.

 

Capital
Capital's picture
Karolina wrote: I am saying

Karolina wrote:

I am saying that women are more intuitive and more practical than a Conservative.

Yea...ok then

chilidog
I visited the "Sane

I visited the "Sane Conversation About Abortion" once, about a year ago.  There can't be any resolution to this dispute.  Doesn't mean we can't indulge in the mental masturbation.

According to Wikipedia, the first nation to apparently fully decriminalize all abortions was the USSR under Lenin.  I'm not too familiar with the history of the USSR under Lenin, and whether it was as oppressive/"less civilized" as it was under Stalin (who apparently re-criminalized abortion.)

Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland began to decriminalize abortion in the 1930's, and apparently have only lessened restrictions in the last 80+ years.  I don't think anyone can point to anything in these societies that might suggest that they have become "less civilized" in this time (apart from any allegation that legalizing abortion is itself uncivilized.)  The People's Republic of China is another story, but under completely different circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

 

Capital
Capital's picture
Karolina wrote: Well, then,

Karolina wrote:

Well, then, maybe some of your ancestors should have had some abortions if the DNA you were handed gives you this kind of logic.

That is absolutely the best line ever.

Although brings up and interesting perspective. You are not just terminating a Fetus. You are Terminating EVERYONE up the ancestral line.  The possiblity of Hundreds of new unique life.  It's worst than I thought.

Quote:
 Why wouldn't Liberals then be advocating repeal of Roe vs. Wade if the Liberals were looking for this idiocy??????????

Because as an Opposing party they have to hold the opposing idea. There probably are people who genuinely believe that it is a women right to kill her unborn child.

 

 

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Capital wrote: Karolina

Capital wrote:

Karolina wrote:

and allow every woman on this earth decide whether her embryo (i.e. clump of dividing cells without the brain, spine or nervous system to think or feel with) will have a fair chance to be magnificent and to live the best possible life that human beings can live.

You are claiming possession and rights to someting that is only 1/2 yours.  What about those that are not just Clumps of dividing cells? But individual and distinct

An unborn child is completely dependent upon it's mother.  After birth a child depends upon it's mother for care and life sustaining nourishment.  In most cases a child depends upon it's mother for everything from before birth until their teens.  A child depends upon it's father in part for discipline, financial support, and learning how to play catch.

In my mind that child is much more than 1/2 the mother's.  That's just my personal opinion.

media_muse
from this succinct example we

from this succinct example

we can see - there is no sanity or science involved with this topic as shown here by Capital.

It must be very scary for him as a male to accept how the science works. Those clumps of dividing cells have a long history behind them - from the past spawners of eggs & sperms. Those who spawned them are no longer around - do they get to have a say about the clumping cells - which they don't have the body for?

It seems Capital does not understand - no matter what DNA he contributed - he doesn't have the highly necessary equipment in his body to carry around any clumping cells - which might grow into a fetus. The only cells he can grow naturally in / on his body stay on / in his body - contributing only to HIS cellular arrangement.

Admittedly, for sure, difficult concept for some men to comprehend. There must be some guy down in the bowels of Monsanto working on some sort of Kangaroo pouch. I bet they have all kinds of medieval tortuous experiments going on with the poor kangaroos just so some men can keep control over everyone else except themselves.

Karolina wrote:

Capital wrote:
You are claiming possession and rights to someting that is only 1/2 yours.  What about those that are not just Clumps of dividing cells? But individual and distinct

I am saying that women are more intuitive and more practical than a Conservative.

Capital
Capital's picture
media_muse wrote: This post

media_muse wrote:

This post started out about putzer Hefner and the war on women. Once again - a topic of considerable magnitude of complex issues  reduced - by a MALE -  to ONE issue - the highly personal right of a woman's right to control her body. When this happens it is obvious -  this is beyond opinion or science. What we have here is a completely out of control emotional response from that raw nerve in you. I wonder why?

A thread goes where a thread goes.  Are you going to suggest that the "War on Women" isn't directly related to the Abortion issue?  with the side issue of Equal pay? 

Quote:
So you don't have empathy - that's your right, just like your opinion. Glad we got that worked out too. Clearly real life experiences of another person have no meaning for you. Its only YOUR OPINION that matters. 

Your assumption that I have no empathy is wrong.  empathy however is not a winning argument. 

Quote:
 What about all the fetus's that are now babies, children adults who need care & love? Why not direct your opinions to a place for actual use? Or do you just want to be a BULLY?

Are you getting hostile now?    Shall I just randomly spout opinions regarding none topic issues for your peace of mind? 

Quote:
You wrote " I dont care". It is very clear what you do care about - You. You want to be the enforcer- ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS on to someone you have no business or connection to! And you justify it with your opinions or made up factoids. Glad we got this cleared up! 

There you go....  WAR ON WOMEN...   You stupid males just want to enforce you beleifs on my body....  Grrrrr. 

"made up factoids"  LMAO...  

Capital
Capital's picture
media_muse wrote: from this

media_muse wrote:

from this succinct example

we can see - there is no sanity or science involved with this topic as shown here by Capital.

Is this an issue of Science?  So why would science be involved...   Unless you are spinning out of control grappling with whatever is handy. 

Capital
Capital's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: In my mind

Bush_Wacker wrote:

In my mind that child is much more than 1/2 the mother's.  That's just my personal opinion.

A well stated, rational opinion.  3/4?   But certainly not 100%.

Art
Art's picture
Quote:My answer would be that

Quote:
My answer would be that you will never know the potential of that 20 year old if you terminate it.
As I said, I don't care about futures that will never happen. There are plenty of futures being born every day. The human species is in no danger of of having no future.
Quote:
Born v Unborn.   Do you have a better dividing line?
I think I do. We haven't even considered the impact of unfortunate pregnancies on the parents and families and how devastating they can be. Others are getting into that. I can contribute that I favor freedom of choice for the mother. I think freedom is a good thing. Don't you? At any rate, it is my understanding that it starts to be dangerous to the mother when the fetus achieves 12 weeks. I don't believe there's much of anything going on in the fetal brain at that stage, so this may be a decent place to start having concerns.

Art
Art's picture
Some people might be

Some people might be disturbed that the welfare of the mother didn't seem to figure into your calculus of what would be a time to be thinking about dividing lines.

Capital
Capital's picture
Art wrote:  I can contribute

Art wrote:
  I can contribute that I favor freedom of choice for the mother. I think freedom is a good thing. Don't you?

I think freedom is a great thing,  and I'm pretty sure you would agree your freedom cross a line when infringe upon others.  As with this issue.  Abortion infringes on at least 2 others.   Father and Fetus. 

 

Quote:
At any rate, it is my understanding that it starts to be dangerous to the mother when the fetus achieves 12 weeks. 

What about those after 12 weeks?  You can fill a football stadium with those. 

Quote:
so this may be a decent place to start having concerns. 

You mean similar to the ones that I am expressing? 

media_muse
yup, capital its about

yup, capital its about science.

Hmm...if I recall you are the one who posted the bogus pregnant drug pellet link. You didn't bother to read before you posted it. Next you pull factoids - probably from your christianized script book. Clearly showing you post what EMOTIONALLY suits you -You are busted.

Zenzoe
Where sex and reproduction

Where sex and reproduction are concerned, many men have the capacity to empathize with the unique vulnerabilities of women.  Apparently, though, Capital is not one of those men.  He seems to be one whose head is filled with negatives about women, so that he can't bring himself to imagine why abortion might be justified. Abortion has just got to be a frivolous choice, because women are frivolous beings who don't need mercy or care, who don't own their bodies anyway. Thus, it's useless to argue with him, given that he will never see the error in his thinking, not until he has a sex change, has a uterus installed, gets impregnated at the same moment the bank forecloses on his mortgage, the day before he was about to retire. (or, if he's a young guy, which I doubt, the day before he was to enter college.) He'll never get it, until every time he has sex, he risks becoming someone he has no intention of being, someone entirely different from the person he was when he had sex.

As it is now, it's easy for him to tell women what's important. It's what's known as willful ignorance.

He says, "Conservative take a more tough love approach."  Well, could he ever understand how abortion might be a "tough love approach?" Nope. Not until he has his sex change.

Capital
Capital's picture
Art wrote: Some people might

Art wrote:

Some people might be disturbed that the welfare of the mother didn't seem to figure into your calculus of what would be a time to be thinking about dividing lines.

Define Welfare?   Medical nessessity or scared to tell mom and dad.  I weight one higher than the other. 

Capital
Capital's picture
media_muse wrote: yup,

media_muse wrote:

yup, capital its about science.

Hmm...if I recall you are the one who posted the bogus pregnant drug pellet link. You didn't bother to read before you posted it. Next you pull factoids - probably from your christianized script book. Clearly showing you post what EMOTIONALLY suits you -You are busted.

If that is all you have....   Then you have nothing. 

Sorry not a christian,  dont have script book.   Still have nothing.   

Art
Art's picture
Quote:I think freedom is a

Quote:
I think freedom is a great thing,  and I'm pretty sure you would agree your freedom cross a line when infringe upon others.  As with this issue.  Abortion infringes on at least 2 others.   Father and Fetus.
I said that I think that freedom is a good thing. Not absolute or with no qualification.
Quote:
What about those after 12 weeks?  You can fill a football stadium with those.
Not sure what this proves. As I tried to indicate, it's sort of an arbitrary thing for thinking people. What is the potential devastation for the mother, father and family of allowing the fetus to progress - balanced against what degree of risk is there to to the mother at a given age - balanced against  how much suffering will the fetus suffer? Tough questions. It's just so easy to take the lazy way out and make the fetus the same as a newborn.
Quote:
You mean similar to the ones that I am expressing?
I don't think so. You don't seem to have even mentioned the concerns that I have brought up. Perhaps earlier in the thread. BTW, why don't we make a brief summary of the concerns you have.

 

Capital
Capital's picture
Zenzoe wrote: Where sex and

Zenzoe wrote:

Where sex and reproduction are concerned, many men have the capacity to empathize with the unique vulnerabilities of women.  Apparently, though, Capital is not one of those men. 

I love watching when threads begin to spin out of control.  

Quote:
 so that he can't bring himself to imagine why abortion might be justified. 

I imagine all kinds of reasons they would be justified.  I however to not agree that ALL reasons for a abortion are justified.   Do you? 

Quote:
 Thus, it's useless to argue with him, given that he will never see the error in his thinking,

Perhaps you can point to this Error?  that why I and the rest of the world can visually see it. 

 

Capital
Capital's picture
Art wrote: I said that I

Art wrote:

I said that I think that freedom is a good thing. Not absolute or with no qualification. 

That was very vague,  Is this one of those times in which there are qualifications?

Quote:
 It's just so easy to take the lazy way out and make the fetus the same as a newborn.

Why?  you merely talking about difference of minutes and geographic location. 

Quote:
BTW, why don't we make a brief summary of the concerns you have. 

regarding what,  War on Women or Abortion?

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Sexual intercourse in

Sexual intercourse in consentual except of course for cases of rape.  Whether to have a baby or not should be consentual as well.  If a woman gets pregnant from what turns out to be a deadbeat that wants nothing to do with her or a child then the woman makes her own choice.  Either way it needs to be a unanimous decision since the decision to have sex in the first place was unanimous. 

I would say that giving birth to a child is the closest thing to a "religious" experience you can have outside of maybe dying.  Whether you believe in God or a Sun God makes no difference.  It's the creation of life and should be given the same political status as any religion.

Regarding the seperation between church and state I don't think that any laws can be made prohibiting aborting a child if by unanimous decision.

That's just my opinion on the matter.

Art
Art's picture
Quote:That was very vague, 

Quote:
That was very vague,  Is this one of those times in which there are qualifications?
I think that are only rare times when freedoms can be immune fro qualifications.
Quote:
Why?  you merely talking about difference of minutes and geographic location.
Why what? I think I was talking about a period from egg fertilization and somewhere aroung 20 years old. Never mentioned geography.  I think you brought that up.
Quote:
regarding what,  War on Women or Abortion?
I haven't weighed in on the "War on women", but I can. It doesn't matter whether you or I think there is a war on women, or whether right-wing policies just coincidentally tend to disadvantage women. All that matters is how women judge that. They're the ones that get to cast their votes. You should talk to them. I weighed in only on abortion. However, it's a good stepping-off point for how women perceive the abortion issue relative to their lives. Once again, you will learn more by talking to women about this. 

Karolina
Karolina's picture
Capital wrote:Karolina

Capital wrote:
Karolina wrote:
Why wouldn't Liberals then be advocating repeal of Roe vs. Wade if the Liberals were looking for this idiocy??????????

Because as an Opposing party they have to hold the opposing idea. There probably are people who genuinely believe that it is a women right to kill her unborn child.

I am a Liberal and I absolutely believe it is never the government's business and not even a religion's business to tell a woman what to do with a pregnancy—unless she herself seeks the religious support to make her decision. An abortion is never a happy time, and it is probably the most difficult decision a person of either gender ever has to make.

I think that all real Liberals would stand with me on that, and also, like me, would want to see all poverty abolished from this earth.

Once again—if abortion was abolished, only women living in poverty would be completely unable to get a safe abortion. Now, you have not answered my crucial question, so please answer it without any side steps or clever comments:

Do most Conservatives aspire to maintain a class of people to be dregs of society, as disposable human fodder for various needs for themselves and their off-spring?

If you do not give me a clear answer, then I will know that your answer is Yes.

Zenzoe
Capital wrote: Zenzoe

Capital wrote:

Zenzoe wrote:
 Thus, it's useless to argue with him, given that he will never see the error in his thinking,

Perhaps you can point to this Error?  that why I and the rest of the world can visually see it. 

 

Well, I gave you a clue to your error once before, but, as you usually do, you ignored my comment and its implications (too inconvenient, I guess):

Zenzoe wrote:

So, may we assume you would be willing to pay more taxes to support, each year, the additional 50 million women and the offspring they would produce were your anti-abortion beliefs translated into law?  How about the increase in crime down the line, due to the additional numbers of unwanted children born into poor households, where abuse becomes the norm when women do not have control over their reproductive destinies?   Wanna pay for that too?  No?  They should just wallow in poverty and be happy to be born into a culture that abandons all but embryos?

Your reducing of the exigency of an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy to an "inconvenience" reveals a depth of ignorance I one can only pity. But that's the choice and habit of anti-abortion zealots everywhere, or so I've noticed— to be ignorant, and small-minded about the lives of women. 

So, if, as you claim, you can think of reasons that would justify abortion, what are those?  Which reasons would be unjustifiable?  You go first. Be specific as to situations.  Also, what could possibly justify bringing a millions of unwanted children into a world already overburdened with human beings?

media_muse
Hmm... you make valid points

Hmm... you make valid points here. Something must be going on and it can only be about an economic base for providing more money into some man's pocket - already overflowing with lots of zero's.

Perhaps the men that do control things really do not want abortions to go away. They want poor, economically depleted people with out any resources to achieve a living wage. Then these destitute folks can have the one economic opportunity available to them. They can sell their blood or their internal organs or be a surrogate womb for a wealthy female who has her contract with male priviledge. Failing this they'll probably line up beds - or stalls - like they do with cows. Install & confine they woman to a cot, bring along the turkey baster, inject contents. About 9 months later temporarily unchain the female, induce labor for the birth. Then start the process over again.

chilidog wrote:

Well, we're into Samuel Alito's seventh year on the USSC.  They've found it compelling to overturn 100 years of campaign finance law that no one cared about, but not so compelling to overturn 39 years of abortion rights, which is the main reason probably one-third of voters go to the polls every election.

Zenzoe
Also, to Capital, do you

Also, to Capital, do you support equality of opportunity as a value?

media_muse
cool chilidog! I too visited 

cool chilidog!

I too visited  "Sane Conversation About Abortion" and left - there is NO sane conversation possible. As shown here there everywhere - the many pages there amply demonstrate the insanity.

Since emotionally insanity cannot be controlled the insane subject is here too - like an emotional virus - it made its way in - by a lone sperminator. Those sperminators apparently have a lot of sperm on hand - I guess they have not yet learned how to manage with them.

Have you ever noticed - those that want to stick their prickies in anothers body - also want to take over that body and the bodies of others as well? They want the world revolving only around them - the believe everyone must do as they believe. And if you don't they shoot you or bomb your house. If you survive - then the name calling begins.

chilidog wrote:

I visited the "Sane Conversation About Abortion" once, about a year ago.  There can't be any resolution to this dispute.  Doesn't mean we can't indulge in the mental masturbation.

Undeniably the proof is out for ALL to see - countries not mired in trying to kill off the poorest citizens in the rest of the world - like the USA does, have more realistic and progressive attitudes to all life.

While they have their emotionally unbalanced people too - at least they can keep them out of a womb that doesn't belong to them. Its only the crazy person who things all wombs are for their own control. I guess because sperminators eject their sperm out into the world the sperminators think this means they themselves can go & do anything they want.

chilidog wrote:

According to Wikipedia, the first nation to apparently fully decriminalize all abortions was the USSR under Lenin.  I'm not too familiar with the history of the USSR under Lenin, and whether it was as oppressive/"less civilized" as it was under Stalin (who apparently re-criminalized abortion.)

Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland began to decriminalize abortion in the 1930's, and apparently have only lessened restrictions in the last 80+ years.  I don't think anyone can point to anything in these societies that might suggest that they have become "less civilized" in this time (apart from any allegation that legalizing abortion is itself uncivilized.)  The People's Republic of China is another story, but under completely different circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

 

Capital
Capital's picture
Art wrote:  Why what? I think

Art wrote:

 Why what? I think I was talking about a period from egg fertilization and somewhere aroung 20 years old. Never mentioned geography.  I think you brought that up

I bring it up because you have now hinted that there are not just two distinctions, but three. All garnering different levels of interest. Lowest being clump of Cells, Highest being a born child, but that there is a more complicated middle where the fetus is viable but not yet born. Unborn but viable abortion is OK. Killing a Born child Bad. AS I said, the distinction is minutes apart and the location has changed.

 

Capital
Capital's picture
Karolina wrote: I am a

Karolina wrote:

I am a Liberal and I absolutely believe it is never the government's business and not even a religion's business to tell a woman what to do with a pregnancy—unless she herself seeks the religious support to make her decision. An abortion is never a happy time, and it is probably the most difficult decision a person of either gender ever has to make.

So you were Pissed that they Banned Late Term Abortion in 2003.  So they already do. 

Quote:
 I think that all real Liberals would stand with me on that, and also, like me, would want to see all poverty abolished from this earth.

You advocate the repealing of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. 

Quote:
 

Do most Conservatives aspire to maintain a class of people to be dregs of society, as disposable human fodder for various needs for themselves and their off-spring?

If you do not give me a clear answer, then I will know that your answer is Yes.

Would laughing in your face over such a ridiculously vacuous dogmatic statement be a clear answer?  if so,  consider it done.

 

 

Karolina
Karolina's picture
Capital wrote:Would laughing

Capital wrote:
Would laughing in your face over such a ridiculously vacuous dogmatic statement be a clear answer?  if so,  consider it done.

With your former statements about all embryos from all situations having to "have a chance" regardless of the woman's life, coupled with your Concervative ideology which does not give any financial support to any human beings that need it, and finally with your indirect answer to my explicit question:

"YES" IT IS!

And I am done here.

 

Capital
Capital's picture
Karolina wrote: With your

Karolina wrote:

With your former statements about all embryos from all situations having to "have a chance" regardless of the woman's life, coupled with your Concervative ideology that does not give support of any kind to human beings whether or not they need it, and finally with your indirect answer...."YES" IT IS!

And I am done here. 

I would be floored it you could actually point to where I made that statement.  But if it gives you peace of mind to believe they exist and so easily dismiss them..   whatever you need to get you through the day,  Be my guest. 

And you wonder why the Debate rages on... regardless of the Fantasy you created to dismiss it. 

Art
Art's picture
Quote: but that there is a

Quote:
 but that there is a more complicated middle where the fetus is viable but not yet born. Unborn but viable abortion is OK. Killing a Born child Bad.
I have never addressed the question of viability. I think that you are the only one to mention it.  I'm glad that you recognize how difficult these issues are. They can be agonizing to the parents of unwanted fetuses that can destroy their lives. They don't need Daddy Government making these decisions for them. I think that Doctors and other civilians are more qualified advisors.

And yes, It's OK with me if a mother chooses to kill her 3 month old unborn baby. (Thought we might make more progress if we adopt your language).

Zenzoe
Shall I take Capital's

Shall I take Capital's non-responses to my questions at #129 & 130 as an acknowledgment of defeat?  Or, maybe he's brushing up on female anatomy, getting all that complexity straight in his head. Or maybe he's reading, Woman, an Intimate Geography, by Natalie Angier, and getting to know us better.  One can only hope...

Karolina
Karolina's picture
Capital wrote:In short.  I

Capital wrote:
In short.  I dont care.  As a human being I'm entitled to an opinion and that opinion places a women's convinence secondary to the life of a unborn child that by all right is only half hers.  Empathy isn't a pursasive argument.

  • 74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
  • 73% Can’t afford a baby now
  • 48% Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
  • 38% Have completed my childbearing
  • 32% Not ready for a(nother) child
  • 25% Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
  • 22% Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
  • 14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
  • 13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
  • 12% Concerns about my health
  • 6% Parents want me to have an abortion
  • 1% Was a victim of rape

Do you see too many reasons in there that wouldn't be considered a convinence.  Hardly based on my "belief" 

You mean other than the medical necessity arguments and other larger mitigating problems, Incest, Rape, etc).   I have considered them all. 

There you go sweetheart. You enjoy!

Zenzoe
Good one, Karolina.

Good one, Karolina.

media_muse
he has NOT answered any

he has NOT

answered any question - not one. Nada, zilch. I wish he was studying up on female anatomy - it could take things in a whole new direction. ( It seems more likely his wife put his dinner on the table.)

Your questions are excelllent and worthy of consideration. Responding to an actual question, however would mean he can't use his  scripted list or he would have to consider more than just his opinion. But you see that's the problem - like all males HIGH on male privilidege - he just does what he wants. AND by golly, women better do what he believes. No one else exsists - except fetus's. After all, ALL women are at his command. Consequently I don't ask questions any more.

As you say,  one can only hope....

Zenzoe wrote:

Shall I take Capital's non-responses to my questions at #129 & 130 as an acknowledgment of defeat?  Or, maybe he's brushing up on female anatomy, getting all that complexity straight in his head. Or maybe he's reading, Woman, an Intimate Geography, by Natalie Angier, and getting to know us better.  One can only hope...

Capital
Capital's picture
Art wrote: I have never

Art wrote:

I have never addressed the question of viability. I think that you are the only one to mention it.  

Opps my bad,  your comment was directed toward the mothers "Art  "At any rate, it is my understanding that it starts to be dangerous to the mother when the fetus achieves 12 weeks"

Viability is 18 weeks. 

Quote:
  I'm glad that you recognize how difficult these issues are.

Would you like in on a little secret,  This isn't my first rodeo.   I already have reconized and dealt with the issues and have already developed my own opinion regarding Abortion.   However for this discussion I prefer to the generic position as it relates to the generic "War on Women".  Congrats you are the only one to hold up so far.  everyone else had fold back into their dogma bubbles and lashing out aimlessly as if that actually does anything but make themselves feel good. 

Quote:
They don't need Daddy Government making these decisions for them. I think that Doctors and other civilians are more qualified advisors. 

Regardless if you need it or not, Daddy Government has already banned the most heinous of Abortion procedures as pro Abortion people grapple the “women Right” to terminate a living child right up to the moment before Full Birth.   So the Divide between Full abortion rights and Out banning Abortion has already been drawn in the sand.  Now it’s just a matter of finding a line society is comfortable with.  The extreme position have already been breached. 

Quote:
And yes, It's OK with me if a mother chooses to kill her 3 month old unborn baby. (Thought we might make more progress if we adopt your language). 

How 8 month old unborn child?

Karolina
Karolina's picture
IMO, ladies, we have an

IMO, ladies, we have an example here of what so much of the non-liberal world is like. They just make no logical sense to me.

It doesn't seem like these people can be completely honest, because they seem to only see truth in small pieces floating in a giant sea of propaganda, lies, and dishonesty—and they consequently can't tie the whole big picture together?

Capital
Capital's picture
Zenzoe wrote: Shall I take

Zenzoe wrote:

Shall I take Capital's non-responses to my questions at #129 & 130 as an acknowledgment of defeat?  Or, maybe he's brushing up on female anatomy, getting all that complexity straight in his head. Or maybe he's reading, Woman, an Intimate Geography, by Natalie Angier, and getting to know us better.  One can only hope...

You may take it any way you want. 

For the Record "Well, I gave you a clue to your error once before, but, as you usually do, you ignored my comment and its implications (too inconvenient, I guess"

Is not a answer.   That is a baseless empty rhetorical response.  Frankly I had better things to do than remind you of that fact. 

media_muse
Thanks Art! I appreciate you

Thanks Art! I appreciate you and your comments through out this post - especially this one. Although  I do fear adopting Capitals language will bring about another venomous twist.

Viability is important but that's an issue of science and science doesn't count when you are full of opinionated beliefs. I mentioned the issue when Capital brought up he wanted his half of the clump of cells. Clearly he may want them and he certainly feels entitled to them but ... WHERE IS HE GOING TO PUT THEM?   Next I mentioned Kangaroo pouches....somewhere in this thready mess.

It really is a shame that the uterus, cervix and vaginal canal cannot be surgically attached to the male body who wants to control how these are used by the female. If it were possible men could try all the crazy things they "believe" can be done with these body parts. Then they would shut up, and crawl away -  embarrassed by their stupidity. Yes, it is a real shame. But, I am sure somewhere in some laboratory some guy is trying to make this strange science work. The only reasonable alternative since all women aren't; willing to go along with these dumb programs some guys think up.

I remember many years ago a sister of mine lost some of her breast size - due to breast feeding her infant daughter. The husband complained - said she wasn't the cup size he married and how about a boob job? My sister said sure - go ahead and get the boobs surgically attached to him so he could play with them whenever he wanted. Funny, for some reason such practicality did not appeal to him. Some men just want to force women to do things they themselves would not do.

Art wrote:

Quote:
 but that there is a more complicated middle where the fetus is viable but not yet born. Unborn but viable abortion is OK. Killing a Born child Bad.
I have never addressed the question of viability. I think that you are the only one to mention it.  I'm glad that you recognize how difficult these issues are. They can be agonizing to the parents of unwanted fetuses that can destroy their lives. They don't need Daddy Government making these decisions for them. I think that Doctors and other civilians are more qualified advisors.

And yes, It's OK with me if a mother chooses to kill her 3 month old unborn baby. (Thought we might make more progress if we adopt your language).

Capital
Capital's picture
Karolina wrote: Capital

Karolina wrote:

Capital wrote:
In short.  I dont care.  As a human being I'm entitled to an opinion and that opinion places a women's convinence secondary to the life of a unborn child that by all right is only half hers.  Empathy isn't a pursasive argument.

  • 74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
  • 73% Can’t afford a baby now
  • 48% Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
  • 38% Have completed my childbearing
  • 32% Not ready for a(nother) child
  • 25% Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
  • 22% Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
  • 14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
  • 13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
  • 12% Concerns about my health
  • 6% Parents want me to have an abortion
  • 1% Was a victim of rape

Do you see too many reasons in there that wouldn't be considered a convinence.  Hardly based on my "belief" 

You mean other than the medical necessity arguments and other larger mitigating problems, Incest, Rape, etc).   I have considered them all. 

There you go sweetheart. You enjoy!

Thanks...   The first 5 you bolded are what I would call abortion for convience, Not good reasons to terminate life.  And thanks for highlighting that Rape and health issues are so LOW on the scale. 

Capital
Capital's picture
Karolina wrote: IMO, ladies,

Karolina wrote:

IMO, ladies, we have an example here of what so much of the non-liberal world is like. They just make no logical sense to me.

It doesn't seem like these people can be completely honest, because they seem to only see truth in small pieces floating in a giant sea of propaganda, lies, and dishonesty—and they consequently can't tie the whole big picture together?

LOL...   Funny stuff. 

Zenzoe
Capital wrote: Zenzoe

Capital wrote:

Zenzoe wrote:

Shall I take Capital's non-responses to my questions at #129 & 130 as an acknowledgment of defeat?  Or, maybe he's brushing up on female anatomy, getting all that complexity straight in his head. Or maybe he's reading, Woman, an Intimate Geography, by Natalie Angier, and getting to know us better.  One can only hope...

You may take it any way you want. 

For the Record "Well, I gave you a clue to your error once before, but, as you usually do, you ignored my comment and its implications (too inconvenient, I guess"

Is not a answer.   That is a baseless empty rhetorical response.  Frankly I had better things to do than remind you of that fact. 

"...not an answer?" "...baseless empty rhetorical response?"  My oh my, how good you are at projection.  LOL!!!

Art
Art's picture
Quote:Opps my bad,  your

Quote:
Opps my bad,  your comment was directed toward the mothers "Art  "At any rate, it is my understanding that it starts to be dangerous to the mother when the fetus achieves 12 weeks"

Viability is 18 weeks.

As I said, I haven't addressed viability as a factor.
Quote:
How 8 month old unborn child?
Yes, these questions get more difficult the older the fetus. I would have to deal with that judgment the next time I find myself with an unwanted pregnancy.

chilidog
jmacneil wrote: The times

jmacneil wrote:

The times they are a changin', as Bob was wont to say. The world as we know it is going through epochal change, right now, that in the end is going to see the loss of control by the traditional powers and they fear that so exquisitely that they are doing everything they can to hold on to their antiquated control paradigm. In a world where women are, by volume, literally twice as smart as men, then it is inevitable that most of the best decisions about society are going to come from women. With a world wide community of persons, which is a state that trancends nations, toward which we are rapidly and irreversibly approaching, the interconnectivity of community is going to require that war go the way of the dodo. And that will show that men are hardly needed for anything more than the heavy lifting.

In the new paradigm the shallowness of male rule will be exposed and the organized religious hierarchies are also going to pass into history as an extinct species, since all of them are centered on the dominance of women. That reveals that all of future society is going to be matriarchal in nature because, quite simply, women are more relevant to society then men.

Good thing I can lift a lot!

Capital
Capital's picture
Art wrote: Yes, these

Art wrote:

Yes, these questions get more difficult the older the fetus. I would have to deal with that judgment the next time I find myself with an unwanted pregnancy.

But you currently don't have an opinion on one of the most contentious Abortion subject in the history of abortion, Late term/Partial Birth abortions.   Strange.  I can't tell wheather your evading or simply don't want to say.  Personally I can't imagine anybody not having an opinion on the issue... 

Quote:
As I said, I haven't addressed viability as a factor. 

Ok,  how bout now.  In your opinion.  is the abortion of a "viable" fetus (20 yeaks or older)  for issues of convinence a women right?