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

221 posts / 0 new

Comments

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.
But I do have an opinion about this. I don't think Govrenment should be involved in these deeply personal decisions.
is the abortion of a "viable" fetus (20 yeaks or older) for issues of convinence a women right?
Your syntax is a bit confusing, but State homicide felony laws should be sufficient to protect 20 yeak old fetuses.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
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.
But I do have an opinion about this. I don't think Govrenment should be involved in these deeply personal decisions.
is the abortion of a "viable" fetus (20 yeaks or older) for issues of convinence a women right?
Your syntax is a bit confusing, but State homicide felony laws should be sufficient to protect 20 yeak old fetuses.

I am very torn by your wildly conflicting message. " I don't think Govrenment should be involved " & "State homicide felony laws should be sufficient"

Wow.. Not even I have suggested throwing women in jail for Killing unborn children as a felony. I'll be interested to see how that one plays out.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

Hefner is a putz, creating more guys that believe a woman's purpose is to serve the male....

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm

Doesn't his daughter run the business now?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
"State homicide felony laws should be sufficient"

Wow.. Not even I have suggested throwing women in jail for Killing unborn children as a felony. I'll be interested to see how that one plays out.

You don't think a woman should be imprisoned for killing a 20 yr old fetus?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
is the abortion of a "viable" fetus (20 yeaks or older) for issues of convinence a women right?
For me, viability is not even a factor. Can you explian why viability would be an improtant thing to consider? Also, I have no problem at all with "convenience" abortions. That would be a consideration for the mother. Why do you?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

she used to...in the executive offices. She never worked as a "bunny". Men with male privilege don't want THEIR daughters working as "bunnies" or strippers or sex workers. They like to provide these services - to profit economically - for other men by using females not of their blood line or adopted in to the blood line. Never ever ever would their daughters be among the sex services they provide for men.

Christie Ann Hefner (born November 8, 1952 in Wilmette, Illinois) is the former chairwoman and chief executive officer of Playboy Enterprises, the company created by her father, Hugh Hefner. She stepped down from her position at Playboy on January 30, 2009.[1] She has often worked with the progressive political organization Center for American Progress. Their site describes her as having "long been involved in electing progressive candidates, advancing women, first amendment issues, and advancing treatment for people with HIV/AIDS."

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm
Quote Art:

You don't think a woman should be imprisoned for killing a 20 yr old fetus?

So Felony without Jail... is Still a Felony and government involvement.

For me, viability is not even a factor. Can you explian why viability would be an improtant thing to consider? Also, I have no problem at all with "convenience" abortions. That would be a consideration for the mother. Why do you?

Viability is the point where a Fetus can live on it own. At that point to are killing a child and not just a clump of cells ( as described earlier).

I appreciate your candor and honest regarding convince abortions. Much better than the other dipshits on this threads. I respectfully disagree that abortion should be used as a method of Birth control, especially after viability. After the third month, they have developed the one thing that makes every person on the planet a unique individual. Fingerprints. To me that matter.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

Hefner is a putz but at least he isn't homophobic. Yet, still his aim was for the sexual freedom of the male only.

Perhaps if he had been a true visionary - sexual freedom for ALL - not just his selfish self interest - we wouldn't be having the problems around the freedom of choices concerning female sexuality we are having today. Today some men are trying to turn the clock back to ancient ignorant uneducated times.

Consequently, any effort - to root out deadly laws and attitudes APPLICABLE only to woman - is turned in to a sperminator's opportunity to exert his MALE CONTROL. The excellent examples here in this posting show the sperminator fixation to turn ANY conversation about ending the deadly treatment of woman in to a woman's right to choose how to control her body - whether to abort or not abort.

This is a Hugh Hefner quote from

Hugh Hefner: Biography from Answers.com

"If we are able to give the American male a few extra laughs and a little ...."

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm
Quote media_muse:

The excellent examples here in this posting show the sperminator fixation to turn ANY conversation about ending the deadly treatment of woman in to a woman's right to choose how to control her body - whether to abort or not abort.

ROTFLMAO...

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

CC

ISA

AOO

OOO EEE MAO WTF LOL OLO STMSSFM

xoxoxox

Quote Capital:

ROTFLMAO...

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm
Viability is the point where a Fetus can live on it own. At that point to are killing a child and not just a clump of cells ( as described earlier).
I already agreed to adopt to your language where fetus=baby. That way, they are all babies. How does viability come into play where a fetus' prospects are concerned? Are we thinking about C-sections and life-support figuring in somehow?
After the third month, they have developed the one thing that makes every person on the planet a unique individual. Fingerprints. To me that matter.
After the third month, they have developed the one thing that makes every person on the planet a unique individual. Fingerprints. To me that matter.[/quote] So, the important thing is that, at a certain point , this collection of cells has developed a distinguishing physical characteristic. Sort of like a snow flake. Interesting. I once saw a picture of a cauliflower that looked exactly like Richard Nixon. Pretty darned unique.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Art wrote:

You don't think a woman should be imprisoned for killing a 20 yr old fetus?

So Felony without Jail... is Still a Felony and government involvement.

BTW, a 20 year old fetus has probably been dead for 19 years. They don't seem to do very well when they stay inside the womb too long.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:

I already agreed to adopt to your language where fetus=baby. That way, they are all babies. How does viability come into play where a fetus' prospects are concerned? Are we thinking about C-sections and life-support figuring in somehow?[

I am figuring that at that point, the decision is no longer in the hands of the mother. there is no longer a choice for an abortion of convience. Seems a bit extreme to forcefully remove the fetus as a option instead of abortion. But I like where your head is.

So, the important thing is that, at a certain point , this collection of cells has developed a distinguishing physical characteristic. Sort of like a snow flake. Interesting. I once saw a picture of a cauliflower that looked exactly like Richard Nixon. Pretty darned unique.

You lost me at Snow flake.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

bogus again

consistent...only the bogus or factoids..

Can you get a abortion after 8 monthswiki.answers.com › ... › PregnancyAbortion

Can you have abortion at 8 months? No. Can you have an abortion at 8 months pregnant? Not legally in the U.S. unless it's for health reasons in mother and ...

Quote Capital:

How 8 month old unborn child?

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm
Quote Art:

BTW, a 20 year old fetus has probably been dead for 19 years. They don't seem to do very well when they stay inside the womb too long.

Here I thought that was a typo.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote media_muse:

Can you have abortion at 8 months? No. Can you have an abortion at 8 months pregnant? Not legally in the U.S. unless it's for health reasons in mother and ...

Clearly you didn't understand the reference nor the line of thought that spured the question. Sort of sad they you attempt to swoop in and claim Bogus... methinks you cherrypick for fun and exercise.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

Hmm...

I said hmm...a few weeks ago.... Thom Hartmann did a segment on the results of scientific experiments about homophobia. I find sperminators reactions in this posting as irrational as the homophobes. I wonder - are these issues are related? I wonder if the scientist can hook up their equipment to the sperminators equipment to show the biological responses in their bodies to validate their extreme emotionalness.

I wonder... is it related to something in their upbring from a long time ago - anchored unknow in their unconscious. Did they kill a baby? Did they witness someone close to them kill a baby? Did they believe as a baby their Dad or Mom wanted to kill them? Was Mom or Dad strongly authoritarian? Did they wish they had not been born? Did they then internalize this wish into a magical belief that they were really wanted? So now they have to ENFORCE EVERYONE to believe this is the answer? I wonder...

Homophobes Gay? Study Ties Anti-Gay Outlook To Homosexuality ...www.huffingtonpost.com/.../homophobia-homosexuality-gay_n_141...

Apr 9, 2012 – ... suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward ... The prejudice of homophobia may also stem from authoritarian ...

"Homophobics should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones.

The prejudice of homophobia may also stem from authoritarian parents, particularly those with homophobic views as well, the researchers added.

"This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why?'" co-author Richard Ryan, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, said in a statement. "Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection."

The research, published in the April 2012 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, reveals the nuances of prejudices like homophobia, which can ultimately have dire consequences. [The 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors]

"Sometimes people are threatened by gays and lesbians because they are fearing their own impulses, in a sense they 'doth protest too much,'" Ryan told LiveScience. "In addition, it appears that sometimes those who would oppress others have been oppressed themselves, and we can have some compassion for them too, they may be unaccepting of others because they cannot be accepting of themselves."

Ryan cautioned, however, that this link is only one source of anti-gay sentiments.

Hidden homosexuality

In four studies, the researchers looked at the discrepancies between what people say about their sexual orientation and their implicit sexual orientation based on a reaction-time test. The studies involved college students from Germany and the United States.

For the implicit measure, students had to categorize words and pictures flashed onto a computer screen into "gay" or "straight" groups. Words included "gay," "straight," "homosexual" and "heterosexual," while the pictures showed straight and gay couples. Before each trial, participants were primed with the word "me" or "others" flashed momentarily onto a computer screen. The researchers said quicker reaction time for "me" and "gay," and a slower association of "me" with "straight" would indicate said an implicit gay orientation. [Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents]

In another experiment, the researchers measured implicit sexual orientation by having participants choose to browse same-sex or opposite-sex photos on a computer screen.

Questionnaires also teased out the parenting style the participants were exposed to, with students asked how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as: "I felt controlled and pressured in certain ways;" and "I felt free to be who I am." To gauge homophobia in a household, students responded to items such as, "It would be upsetting for my mom to find out she was alone with a lesbian" or "My dad avoids gay men whenever possible."

Participants indicated their own level of homophobia, both overt and implicit; in word-completion tasks, students wrote down the first three words that came to mind when prompted with some of the words' letters. Students were primed at some point with the word "gay" to see how that impacted the amount of aggressive words used.

Controlling parents

In all of the studies, participants who reported supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, meaning it tended to jibe with their outward sexual orientation. Students who indicated they came from authoritarian homes showed the biggest discrepancy between the two measures of sexual orientation.

"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals," lead author Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom,said in a statement. "But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying."[5 Ways to Foster Self-Compassion in Your Child]

Those participants who reported their heterosexuality despite having hidden same-sex desires were also the most likely to show hostility toward gay individuals, including self-reported anti-gay attitudes, endorsement of anti-gay policies and discrimination such as supporting harsher punishments for homosexuals.

The research may help to explain the underpinnings of anti-gay bullying and hate crimes, the researchers note. People in denial about their own sexual orientation, perhaps a denial fostered by authoritarian and homophobic parents, may feel a threat from other gay and lesbian individuals. Lashing out may ultimately be an indicator of the person's own internal conflict with sexual orientation.

This inner conflict can be seen in some high-profile cases in which anti-gay public figures are caught engaging in same-sex acts, the researchers say. For instance, evangelical preacher and anti-gay-marriage advocate Ted Haggard was caught in a gay sex scandal in 2006. And in 2010, prominent anti-gay activist and co-founder of conservative Family Research Council George Rekers was reportedly spotted in 2010 with a male escort rented from Rentboy.com. According to news reports, the escort confirmed Rekers is gay.

"We laugh at or make fun of such blatant hypocrisy, but in a real way, these people may often themselves be victims of repression and experience exaggerated feelings of threat," Ryan said. "Homophobia is not a laughing matter. It can sometimes have tragic consequences," as was the case in the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay man."

Study: Homophobic people likely repressing homosexual attraction ...www.rawstory.com/.../study-homophobic-people-likely-repressing-...

Apr 9, 2012 – Study: Homophobic people likely repressing homosexual attraction ... households that forbid homosexual feelings, according to a recent study.

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm
Quote media_muse:

I find sperminators reactions in this posting as irrational as the homophobes.

The lengths that some peope go to, to demonize and silents people.

Sorry Media, I am immune to such things.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

Hmm...

I said hmm...a few weeks ago.... Thom Hartmann did a segment on the results of scientific experiments about homophobia. I find sperminators reactions in this posting as irrational as the homophobes. I wonder - are these issues are related? I wonder if the scientist can hook up their equipment to the sperminators equipment to show the biological responses in their bodies to validate their extreme emotionalism.

I wonder... is it related to something in their upbringing from a long time ago - anchored unknown in their unconscious. Did they kill a baby? Did they witness someone close to them kill a baby? Did they believe as a baby their Dad or Mom wanted to kill them? Was Mom or Dad strongly authoritarian? Did they wish they had not been born? Did they then internalize this wish into a magical belief that they were really wanted? So now they have to ENFORCE EVERYONE to believe this is the answer? I wonder...

Homophobes Gay? Study Ties Anti-Gay Outlook To Homosexuality ...www.huffingtonpost.com/.../homophobia-homosexuality-gay_n_141...

Apr 9, 2012 – ... suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward ... The prejudice of homophobia may also stem from authoritarian ...

"Homophobics should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones.

The prejudice of homophobia may also stem from authoritarian parents, particularly those with homophobic views as well, the researchers added.

"This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why?'" co-author Richard Ryan, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, said in a statement. "Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection."

The research, published in the April 2012 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, reveals the nuances of prejudices like homophobia, which can ultimately have dire consequences. [The 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors]

"Sometimes people are threatened by gays and lesbians because they are fearing their own impulses, in a sense they 'doth protest too much,'" Ryan told LiveScience. "In addition, it appears that sometimes those who would oppress others have been oppressed themselves, and we can have some compassion for them too, they may be unaccepting of others because they cannot be accepting of themselves."

Ryan cautioned, however, that this link is only one source of anti-gay sentiments.

Hidden homosexuality

In four studies, the researchers looked at the discrepancies between what people say about their sexual orientation and their implicit sexual orientation based on a reaction-time test. The studies involved college students from Germany and the United States.

For the implicit measure, students had to categorize words and pictures flashed onto a computer screen into "gay" or "straight" groups. Words included "gay," "straight," "homosexual" and "heterosexual," while the pictures showed straight and gay couples. Before each trial, participants were primed with the word "me" or "others" flashed momentarily onto a computer screen. The researchers said quicker reaction time for "me" and "gay," and a slower association of "me" with "straight" would indicate said an implicit gay orientation. [Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents]

In another experiment, the researchers measured implicit sexual orientation by having participants choose to browse same-sex or opposite-sex photos on a computer screen.

Questionnaires also teased out the parenting style the participants were exposed to, with students asked how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as: "I felt controlled and pressured in certain ways;" and "I felt free to be who I am." To gauge homophobia in a household, students responded to items such as, "It would be upsetting for my mom to find out she was alone with a lesbian" or "My dad avoids gay men whenever possible."

Participants indicated their own level of homophobia, both overt and implicit; in word-completion tasks, students wrote down the first three words that came to mind when prompted with some of the words' letters. Students were primed at some point with the word "gay" to see how that impacted the amount of aggressive words used.

Controlling parents

In all of the studies, participants who reported supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, meaning it tended to jibe with their outward sexual orientation. Students who indicated they came from authoritarian homes showed the biggest discrepancy between the two measures of sexual orientation.

"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals," lead author Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom,said in a statement. "But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying."[5 Ways to Foster Self-Compassion in Your Child]

Those participants who reported their heterosexuality despite having hidden same-sex desires were also the most likely to show hostility toward gay individuals, including self-reported anti-gay attitudes, endorsement of anti-gay policies and discrimination such as supporting harsher punishments for homosexuals.

The research may help to explain the underpinnings of anti-gay bullying and hate crimes, the researchers note. People in denial about their own sexual orientation, perhaps a denial fostered by authoritarian and homophobic parents, may feel a threat from other gay and lesbian individuals. Lashing out may ultimately be an indicator of the person's own internal conflict with sexual orientation.

This inner conflict can be seen in some high-profile cases in which anti-gay public figures are caught engaging in same-sex acts, the researchers say. For instance, evangelical preacher and anti-gay-marriage advocate Ted Haggard was caught in a gay sex scandal in 2006. And in 2010, prominent anti-gay activist and co-founder of conservative Family Research Council George Rekers was reportedly spotted in 2010 with a male escort rented from Rentboy.com. According to news reports, the escort confirmed Rekers is gay.

"We laugh at or make fun of such blatant hypocrisy, but in a real way, these people may often themselves be victims of repression and experience exaggerated feelings of threat," Ryan said. "Homophobia is not a laughing matter. It can sometimes have tragic consequences," as was the case in the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay man."

Study: Homophobic people likely repressing homosexual attraction ...www.rawstory.com/.../study-homophobic-people-likely-repressing-...

Apr 9, 2012 – Study: Homophobic people likely repressing homosexual attraction ... households that forbid homosexual feelings, according to a recent study.

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote media_muse:

Can you have abortion at 8 months? No. Can you have an abortion at 8 months pregnant? Not legally in the U.S. unless it's for health reasons in mother and ...

methinks you cherrypick for fun and exercise.

What's cherry picking about NO and BOGUS? Admittedly fun is another matter...

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm
I am figuring that at that point, the decision is no longer in the hands of the mother. there is no longer a choice for an abortion of convience. Seems a bit extreme to forcefully remove the fetus as a option instead of abortion.
I don't really followed your reasoning. I also don't think the "convenience" label is useful, although you are welcome to use it. Did I mention that I don't have a problem with "convenience" abortions?
Clearly you didn't understand the reference nor the line of thought that spured the question
I didn't understand the question either. That's why I didn't attempt to answer it.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote media_muse:

What's cherry picking about NO and BOGUS? Admittedly fun is another matter...

Have you had coffee this morning? you really aren't tracking this morning.

You cherry picked the 8 months as it were a legal argument when it was a perception argument. Where Art claimed he was alright with the termination of a 3 month old fetus. The question was whether he is equally ok with the termination of an 8 month old fetus. Weather it is currently illegal or not is irrelevent. Other than being illegal respresents government intrusion into the abortion issue.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
The question was whether he is equally ok with the termination of an 8 month old fetus.
ah, that's what you meant. Equally, not sure. But OK . . . yeah. Not my decision. Shouldn't be yours or Daddy Government's, either.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:

I don't really followed your reasoning. I also don't think the "convenience" label is useful, although you are welcome to use it. Did I mention that I don't have a problem with "convenience" abortions?

A convenience abortion is any abortion other than medical reasons that the reason of termination was a matter of Timing, Money, Shame, or anything that might inconvenience the parents.

And you did mention that.... And I believed I thanked you for your forthrightness

As I pointed out above, I don’t except reasons of convenience as a legitimate reason to terminate a viable fetus.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Art:

ah, that's what you meant. Equally, not sure. But OK . . . yeah. Not my decision. Shouldn't be yours or Daddy Government's, either.

Art, I want to give you a big <hattip> You may very well be the first person to successfully navigate the abortion issue to it's natural conclusion based entirely on principle. You remind me of a former poster here Common Man Jason. That man could walk the walk.

As you can tell most people lack the conviction or the stomach for this issue. And it general spirals out of control. As any discussion regarding matters of opposing principles. They will always end in a draw.

As you may have already concluded. I hold the moderate position regarding Abortion. I ok with 1st trimester abortion, I oppose 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion. If you can't make up your mind in 3 months, the decisions is no longer yours to make. What I would like, is for people to stop using Abortions as birth control. But that is unlikely to happen with the degrading of personal responsibility society. But in the mean time 50 million potential Einstein’s, Gates, Martin Luther’s, Gandhi’s were never given the chance.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote media_muse:

What's cherry picking about NO and BOGUS? Admittedly fun is another matter...

you really aren't tracking this morning. What's cherry picking about NO and BOGUS?

What's cherry picking about NO and BOGUS?

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm

That wasn't the question... as I have already stated now twice.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

Can you get a abortion after 8 monthswiki.answers.com › ... › PregnancyAbortion

Can you have abortion at 8 months? No. Can you have an abortion at 8 months pregnant? Not legally in the U.S. unless it's for health reasons in mother and ...

Can you get a abortion after 8 monthswiki.answers.com › ... › PregnancyAbortion

Can you have abortion at 8 months? No. Can you have an abortion at 8 months pregnant? Not legally in the U.S. unless it's for health reasons in mother and ...

Can you get a abortion after 8 monthswiki.answers.com › ... › PregnancyAbortion

Can you have abortion at 8 months? No. Can you have an abortion at 8 months pregnant? Not legally in the U.S. unless it's for health reasons in mother and ...

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm

What's cherry picking about NO and BOGUS?

Can you get a abortion after 8 monthswiki.answers.com › ... › PregnancyAbortion

Can you have abortion at 8 months? No. Can you have an abortion at 8 months pregnant? Not legally in the U.S. unless it's for health reasons in mother and ...

Quote media_muse:
Quote Capital:
Quote media_muse:

What's cherry picking about NO and BOGUS? Admittedly fun is another matter...

you really aren't tracking this morning. What's cherry picking about NO and BOGUS?

What's cherry picking about NO and BOGUS?

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm

You are doing a lot of needless and pointless arguing when the question was "How bout 8 month old unborn child?" in reference to Art comment "It's OK with me if a mother chooses to kill her 3 month old unborn baby" As I attempted to test the limits of Art conviction. Nobody would have answered that question, unless you had conviction. Because quite frankly from my perspective it an appalling thought.

Are you losing it?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

Are you

losing it?

You are doing a lot of needless and pointless arguing. What's cherry picking about NO and BOGUS?

Can you get a abortion after 8 monthswiki.answers.com › ... › PregnancyAbortion

Can you have abortion at 8 months? No. Can you have an abortion at 8 months pregnant? Not legally in the U.S. unless it's for health reasons in mother and ...

Quote Capital:

Are you losing it?

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm

OK then... have fun.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
As I pointed out above, I don’t except reasons of convenience as a legitimate reason to terminate a viable fetus.
As I pointe out above, I don't give viability much importance as a criterion.
What I would like, is for people to stop using Abortions as birth control
Don't know why you didn't just say that in the first place. I don't think it's any of your business (or Daddy Government's) how people choose to control birth.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:

Don't know why you didn't just say that in the first place. I don't think it's any of your business (or Daddy Government's) how people choose to control birth.

Because what I want is irrelevant to the general discussion of Abortion where there are two opposing sides. I began this by arguing the generic pro-life arguments. and yes, had this been a conservative board I could argue the pro-choice side equally well.

There are all kinds of things that I don't think Government should be in the business of... yet there they are. One could argue that government role is to protect the most vulnerable among us from the whims of convenience (my words)

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:Because what I want is irrelevant to the general discussion of Abortion where there are two opposing sides. I began this by arguing the generic pro-life arguments. and yes, had this been a conservative board I could argue the pro-choice side equally well.

If I had actually gotten emotionally involved here, I would be angry that I wasted my time for the whim of Capital's convenience.

Quote Capital:There are all kinds of things that I don't think Government should be in the business of... yet there they are. One could argue that government role is to protect the most vulnerable among us from the whims of convenience (my words)

The bottom line is that patriarchal men have to get over it finally—nature created it that women are in charge of who does or does not get born. They are the proverbial "gatekeepers."

If patriarchal governments try to control that, they will just get more trouble in in their world—at its most basic foundation.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm
There are all kinds of things that I don't think Government should be in the business of... yet there they are. One could argue that government role is to protect the most vulnerable among us from the whims of convenience (my words)
I think there is a point of possible agreement. Like you, I think that Government is there to protect the most vulnerable among us. An important part of our vulnerabilities is our privacy and our right to work out our most difficult conflicts without Government interference.

I don't feel the same way about fetuses as I do about fully born people. I don't think it is my place, or Daddy Government's place to determine the cut-off points for fetuses. It is obviously a more difficult question the older the fetus. I am not unhappy with the constraints that the Fed has so far placed on what the States can can legislate, although I prefer that these things should be personal decisions. As for born people, I favor heavy Government involvement in protecting the most vulnerable among us from the predators - the money scammers, because that is where the most mischief and suffering takes place. State laws are sufficient for the other things that bad people do to others, but not in the financial sphere.

So, we both want effective Government, You want it in the bedroom. I want it in the marketplace. You feel that the bedroom is a place where you have business. I think that the marketplace is a place where I have business.

One difference, while I care enough about the interests of the older unborn to want them to have the fullest consideration of the parents, I don't give a crap about the selfish interests of the money-movers. Only the interests that coincide with the interests of society at large.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I did

have fun

Thanks - I was inspired by your techniques!

Early on here I asked you earnest valid questions. In response I got a bogus web link and factoids. The closest statement was about your "right to your opinion" - which I was in agreement with. You took this posting off subject - on to the topic of abortion. It seems the conversation devolved from there. It seems the least you could do was be honest from the start. Or you could have started your own blog about how you think abortion discussions ought to be navigated - to reach the proper conclusion.

This morning I saw your response to Art #175 - I was rather surprised - I found it impossible to know what you REALLY thought. It was especially surprising - because we are close to agreement in some areas. I would like for women to have many many more options available thus preventing the some times using abortion as birth conrtol. Despite this sometimes happening I still lean towards choice - for women to decide who controls their body. I find men who say "do as I say not as I do'" extremely hypocritical.

Quote Capital:

As you may have already concluded. I hold the moderate position regarding Abortion. I ok with 1st trimester abortion, I oppose 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion. What I would like, is for people to stop using Abortions as birth control.

We need more options. Until we have a level playing field with education, and economics we will have pregnancies unable to be completed. Many folks here spoke eloquently & sometimes frustratedly about the complexity all of the related issues - all sent in your direction.You dissed everything. Until we have a level playing field with education, and economics we can only use what is available us - to get us through the next part. This necessity of education, economics and forwardness to the future and how to get there was not ever mentioned by you. Or that a woman had the right to choose.

Quote Capital:

If you can't make up your mind in 3 months, the decisions is no longer yours to make. What I would like, is for people to stop using Abortions as birth control.

Now you acknowledge or permit a woman's choice - up to a point. We understand this is your opinion. I see it a little differently. Unless one is dealing with a child under 18 years old - we may not care for the decision another person has made but ultimately it is none of our business. We adults must have the right to make our own decisions.This is the only way to achieve "personal responsibility." You got the "responsibility" part down very well but the "personal" part needs development- as in allowing for another person to be a person.

You cherry picked an example of the termination of an 8 month pregnancy. I was under the understanding this was very rare. After researching I learned I was correct - rare it is. But you - unreasonably to my mind - brought this in and pushed it. When you said this to Art it was clear to see what your opinion is:

Quote Capital:

Art, I want to give you a big <hattip> You may very well be the first person to successfully navigate the abortion issue to it's natural conclusion based entirely on principle.

Difficulties were created by this - wanting folks to navigate the complexity of the abortion issue by you wanting sole control of the navigating - where the topic went - keeping the human & woman complexities out of range.

Quote Capital:

But in the mean time 50 million potential Einstein’s, Gates, Martin Luther’s, Gandhi’s were never given the chance.

yes, it would be great if every clumping of fertilized cells could bring the potential of more brilliant folks. I thought this the two times I saw my bloody miscarriages slip down into the waters of the toilet.

Quote Capital:

OK then... have fun.

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm

SPERMINATOR

From another posting

but since we went SPERMINATOR here it is again:

If you don't want an abortion don't have one.

If you believe another ought not have one then all you can do about it: is NOT have one yourself.

This was offered as a simple pragmagtic solution. Our founding fathers were brillant when they advocated & set up our governance to separate church & state. It seems like we would be better served by following this part which is part of our governing documents.

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm
Quote Capital:

What I would like, is for people to stop using Abortions as birth control. But that is unlikely to happen with the degrading of personal responsibility society.

The idea that "people" (code for "lazy-ass, irresponsible, slutty women") use abortion for birth control only works in your head, as it has derived from right-wing, misogynist propaganda; it has absolutely no validity in the real world. Again, if you were a woman could you possibly get this. Regardless, shall I try to explain the reality to you? Probably not, but, what the heck: a diaphragm, a condom, or a pill is far less trouble and far less expensive than seeking out difficult-to-find abortion clinics and coming up with the huge expense of getting an abortion. In short, real birth control is far more convenient than abortion. That's why women do not "use abortion as birth control," aside from a number of other reasons women don't really care to go have an abortion every other minute.

See, there's a reason for "those little rubber things:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMx6X26iJ_c   ...unless you think every sperm is sacred, like some people I know.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I think this boils down to the expression "possession is nine-tenth's of the law."

Until that fetus is separated from the mother, the mother alone can possess it. Unless we are going to determine a date at which the state or some other organization is going to seize and possess both the mother and her fetus.

Now, how does all this apply to circumcision of infant boys?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

been eating

French food

have you?

Circumcision of infant boys is a completely different subject - another wild turn here on the posting. But you are on to something. It has been my opinion for many years this is the basic foundation for most of the male violence and cruelty.

Why do folks "choose" to do such an extremely painful torturous cutting away of a baby's precious protective skin?

If one must be barbaric and believe the Great Creator made a big mistake with the design of intact foreskin then I ask - why circumcise without any anesthesia?

Quote chilidog:

I think this boils down to the expression "possession is nine-tenth's of the law."

Until that fetus is separated from the mother, the mother alone can possess it. Unless we are going to determine a date at which the state or some other organization is going to seize and possess both the mother and her fetus.

Now, how does all this apply to circumcision of infant boys?

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm
Quote media_muse:

Circumcision of infant boys is a completely different subject - another wild turn here on the posting. But you are on to something. It has been my opinion for many years this is the basic foundation for most of the male violence and cruelty.

Why do folks "choose" to do such an extremely painful torturous cutting away of a baby's precious protective skin?

If one must be barbaric and believe the Great Creator made a big mistake with the design of intact foreskin then I ask - why circumcise without any anesthesia?

And now there's hope— TLC Tugger, Improving the World, One Penis at a Time.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I think the title of that website is fabulous, Zenzoe !

Yes—finally there's hope!

:o) ;-) :o) ;-) :o) ;-) :o) ;-) :o) ;-) :o) ;-) :o) ;-)

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

TLC Tugger,

Improving the World, One Penis at a Time.

WOW - way cool Zenzoe! Way to GO! I can let some folks know about this site. Thank You!

Makes we wonder - maybe this is the real issue with sperminators rather than than homophobia - ? Hmm...Definitely - got to be part of it.

Several years ago I brought this matter of circumcision up at a get together with my sisters - one was pregnant with a boy. At that time all 5 of us discussed the issues of circumcision. One sister told how she was opposed but went along with her husbands insistence. She described how her infant baby son screamed and writhed in agony as they strapped him - only few days old - down on a board and did the procedure. The doctors had assured her the baby boy was too young to feel pain so no pain anesthetic was used. She was angry that she believed the doctors lies. The pain was clear on her face - she regretted the decision. She felt folks ought to wait until the son was old enough to make such a decision him self.

Consequently the next boy delivered was NOT circumcised and now as a teen-ager he is fine with it.

Quote Zenzoe:
Quote media_muse:

Circumcision of infant boys is a completely different subject - another wild turn here on the posting. But you are on to something. It has been my opinion for many years this is the basic foundation for most of the male violence and cruelty.

Why do folks "choose" to do such an extremely painful torturous cutting away of a baby's precious protective skin?

If one must be barbaric and believe the Great Creator made a big mistake with the design of intact foreskin then I ask - why circumcise without any anesthesia?

And now there's hope— TLC Tugger, Improving the World, One Penis at a Time.

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm
Quote Art:

So, we both want effective Government, You want it in the bedroom. I want it in the marketplace. You feel that the bedroom is a place where you have business. I think that the marketplace is a place where I have business.

Unless you are moving medical offices into the bedroom... Then NO, I do not want it in the Bedroom.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

The idea that "people" (code for "lazy-ass, irresponsible, slutty women") use abortion for birth control only works in your head, as it has derived from right-wing, misogynist propaganda; it has absolutely no validity in the real world. Again, if you were a woman could you possibly get this. Regardless, shall I try to explain the reality to you? Probably not, but, what the heck: a diaphragm, a condom, or a pill is far less trouble and far less expensive than seeking out difficult-to-find abortion clinics and coming up with the huge expense of getting an abortion. In short, real birth control is far more convenient than abortion. That's why women do not "use abortion as birth control," aside from a number of other reasons women don't really care to go have an abortion every other minute.

Why thank you attempting to interrupt my words with your own projections, I think I'm going to read way too much into your additions.

I'm sure you believe what you say. However the fact remains that Abortion is a form of BIRTH CONTROL..... to claim otherwise is funny.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote media_muse:...you are on to something. It has been my opinion for many years this is the basic foundation for most of the male violence and cruelty.

Why do folks "choose" to do such an extremely painful torturous cutting away of a baby's precious protective skin?

If one must be barbaric and believe the Great Creator made a big mistake with the design of intact foreskin then I ask - why circumcise without any anesthesia?

Media_muse, this is brilliant. I never connected the two, but I have always thought that it is cruel, and blatantly unnecessary to perform circumcision automatically at birth.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm
Quote media_muse:

Early on here I asked you earnest valid questions. In response I got a bogus web link and factoids.

I find your assessment of the links and Factoids bogus, Thereby under the Rules, double negative makes a postive. Unless you had something more substantial than your opinion to challenge a Survey. Than you entire ranting about bogus this, bogus that falls to deaf "eyes" As most fallicious arguments should.

This morning I saw your response to Art #175 - I was rather surprised - I found it impossible to know what you REALLY thought. It was especially surprising - because we are close to agreement in some areas. I would like for women to have many many more options available thus preventing the some times using abortion as birth conrtol. Despite this sometimes happening I still lean towards choice - for women to decide who controls their body. I find men who say "do as I say not as I do'" extremely hypocritical.

Regardless if our actual opinions are closer. That has nothing to do with the larger arguments that are currently conflicting regarding the "War on Women"/ "war to save children". The war on women is just a propagandist tool to scare people. Whether there are people who want to admit it or not, The other side have equally valid arguments regarding the use of abortion.

I to lean toward choice UNTIL 3 months. That is where Pro choice and I part ways. I believe my position is well reasoned and fair to all parties and considers all aspects of the debate. This isn't a position I magically came up with. It was forged through multiple and quite frankly nauseating discussions mostly centering around Late Term abortions.

We adults must have the right to make our own decisions.This is the only way to achieve "personal responsibility." You got the "responsibility" part down very well but the "personal" part needs development- as in allowing for another person to be a person.

As I have explained. Those desicions effect others. To clarify, You have the Right to make any decision you care to make. you however do not have the Right to act upon that desicion in all cases, especially in cases where those decisions harm others. Don't blame me, It is the system we live in.

You cherry picked an example of the termination of an 8 month pregnancy. I was under the understanding this was very rare. After researching I learned I was correct - rare it is. But you - unreasonably to my mind - brought this in and pushed it. When you said this to Art it was clear to see what your opinion is:

It was never about fair, rare or legal, it was about the internal perception of a aborting a "clump of cells" and aborting a viable human being that within minutes and displaced 4 inches could be legally a person and granted legal protection. One is easier to justify than the other. And you really have to a pro-choice to answer the question hence walking the walk. People of intellegent conviction are rare.

Difficulties were created by this - wanting folks to navigate the complexity of the abortion issue by you wanting sole control of the navigating - where the topic went - keeping the human & woman complexities out of range.

You mean you wanted appeal to emotion fallacy to hold a higher role in the discussion. You want people to empathize with the problems of women that leads them to make these decisions. "my parents are going to be angry" is not a valid excuse to end a life.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Zenzoe:

The idea that "people" (code for "lazy-ass, irresponsible, slutty women") use abortion for birth control only works in your head, as it has derived from right-wing, misogynist propaganda; it has absolutely no validity in the real world. Again, if you were a woman could you possibly get this. Regardless, shall I try to explain the reality to you? Probably not, but, what the heck: a diaphragm, a condom, or a pill is far less trouble and far less expensive than seeking out difficult-to-find abortion clinics and coming up with the huge expense of getting an abortion. In short, real birth control is far more convenient than abortion. That's why women do not "use abortion as birth control," aside from a number of other reasons women don't really care to go have an abortion every other minute.

Why thank you attempting to interrupt my words with your own projections, I think I'm going to read way too much into your additions.

I'm sure you believe what you say. However the fact remains that Abortion is a form of BIRTH CONTROL..... to claim otherwise is funny.

Technically, you're right—but only as a last resort. And I don't think it was a projection to pick up on the implication in your comment that women use abortion first, as opposed to using other forms of birth control. Certainly, many anti-abortion types do believe this, sad to say.

Anyway, your comment, "As you may have already concluded. I hold the moderate position regarding Abortion. I ok with 1st trimester abortion, I oppose 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion. What I would like, is for people to stop using Abortions as birth control..." contained a logical contradiction (ignoring the baby talk): On the one hand, you say, "I ok with 1st trimester abortion," but on the other hand you wish "people" to "stop using Abortions as birth control." I mean, either you're against abortion as a form of birth control, or you're not. You can't have it both ways. And the question becomes, So, what would you like it used for in the first trimester— weight control?

Actually, in case it hasn't occurred to you, what you refer to as birth control (abortion), allows women to have equal status with men. It removes an impediment to the freedom to determine one's reproductive destiny, putting women on equal standing with men. It grants us equal opportunity in life, the same as men should have. If you can explain why this "birth control" shouldn't be available to women, in a way that does not reduce us to slave status, I'd love to hear it.

Don't presume to know how unwanted pregnancies affect women, or whether their reasons for seeking abortions conforms to your morality. It's none of your business.

Media_muse and Karolina, I do SO agree with you about circumcision. Horrible practice, tantamount to genital mutilation. If I had it to do again (my sons), I wouldn't have allowed it. But parents have such fears about their boys being "different" and the social negatives there. It's silly, but there it is.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Is George Zimmerman Right?

It's time to listen to George Zimmerman. Seriously, and I'll explain in a minute.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system