"Wisconsin Republicans: Forcing Women To Undergo Transvaginal Ultrasounds Is Our ‘Priority’’"

66 posts / 0 new

I don't know whether the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) would prohibit these transvaginal ultrasounds that republicans have become so crazy for in the last few years, but it should. This is getting ridiculous. These bills previously reared their ugly head in Virginia, and have spread to other states where republicans hold the state house and / or legislature.

What's with republican men ... do they somehow get off on looking at the results of the scans, or just on the thought of subjecting women to them? Or do they get a buzz from the thought of abusing women in general?

“It is not up to the men, or the women for that matter, in the Legislature to be telling doctors they must do certain things…especially uncomfortable, invasive procedures before a woman can undergo a legal procedure,” Taylor told the Capital Times. “People should be outraged that this is how lawmakers are spending their time.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/15/1597701/wisconsin-forced-transvaginal-ultrasound/

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

Comments

The women may suffer some discomfort, but at least they are still alive. Can't say the same for the baby though.

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am

The way to end abortion in the United States and save the lives of all the babies is to require ALL MEN to have a vasectomy.

A very simple solution to the terrible problem of abortion.

northlander
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2013 3:23 pm

I totally agree, Miksilvr. As others have said, transvaginal ultrasound amounts to a symbolic rape by the state. In a literal sense too, though, such a procedure, where a "probe" and an object extends through the vagina and into the uterus, would be a particularly painful form of rape. But then, perhaps you need to be a woman to understand just how painful that would be.

How about we push for legislation mandating that any man who wants a prescription for Viagra must have a transpenile probe? Or, any man who wants a vasectomy has to undergo a psychiatric examination.

It's easy for these idiots to grant men the dignity of choice, that is, the right to make independent medical decisions that affect their bodies and their lives. But they have a hard time granting the same dignity to women. It bothers them not in the least to subject women to state-imposed indignities.

Liberal IDIOT: Tell me why subjecting women to the indignity of state intervention in their private, legal decision to have an abortion doesn't bother you? I'm curious.

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

Isn't it a bit odd for Republicans to push through anti-abortion laws while at the same time demanding cuts for welfare programs and education? How "pro-life" are these people if they can screw thousands of children out of having a life once they're born? Not to mention that most of the people who call themselves pro-life Christians are also strangely the demographic most in favor of war.

How does the right-wing Republican Christian line of thinking work? Their mentality is basically, "Jesus says that all life is precious, but I don't want my taxes paying for poor kids' meals, and we need to bomb everyone who calls God by a different name."

Crusty old white right-wingers talk about bringing back "tradional family values", in some mangled "Leave It To Beaver" or "Father Knows Best" sense of the word, as if they still have a place in the 21st century. But what are traditional values? The rule of thumb was a tradition. Maybe we should bring that back, too?

Republicans think sex out of wedlock is a sin, but they voted in lock-step for Sarah Palin (she's dumb enough to make Dan Quayle sound like Neil DeGrasse Tyson) while her unwed teen daughter was pregnant. Right-wing Republican Christians despise gay people but Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. They talk about personal freedom and small government but want to force women to have expensive medical equipment shoved into their uterus for no real reason.

Republicans do the same things that they accuse others of doing, so what are traditional American values?

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 2:04 pm
Quote liberal ID10T:

The women may suffer some discomfort, but at least they are still alive. Can't say the same for the baby though.

I didn't know that a transvaginal ultrasound killed babies. Maybe they should require transpenal ultrasounds for the alleged father. As with a woman, the results won't matter. It would just be fun to make everyone suffer needlessly.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

The abortion kills the babies, bush. I sorry I didn't know I had to hold your hand on this topic. Abortion kills 100's of babies each day and the left is all up in arms about a womens discomfort? If a women doesn't want to the responsiblity of raising a child, she should not have sex. Killing a child is wrong whether if it's with an abortion or with a gun. Too many people treat the babies worse than trash. If you don't want the baby, just throw it away and go about your day, it's just so sad. The baby has done nothing to nobody but still the left says" it's OK lady, just have an abortion, and go about your life" What would the left think if we had a way to determine if the child could be homosexual , and the mother just doesn't want to deal with that and decides to just get an abortion? Would that be OK?

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am
Quote liberal ID10T:

The abortion kills the babies, bush. I sorry I didn't know I had to hold your hand on this topic. Abortion kills 100's of babies each day

Do you have evidence to back up this statement? Are there actually "100's" of abortions performed every day?

Quote liberal ID10T:If a women doesn't want to the responsiblity of raising a child, she should not have sex.

Why put it all on the woman?

Why shouldn't ALL MEN have to have a vasectomy?

Men are the ones running around impregnating as many women as possible. Let MEN have to carry the burden of either controling their urges or having a vasectomy.

Wouldn't that be a more effective form of birth control instead of putting all the burden on women?

northlander
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2013 3:23 pm

Sorry my estimate was low

http://northbynorthwestern.com/story/are-there-really-3700-abortions-each-day-in-the-us/

Using your logic we can get all men fixed and then the problem will eventually be solved for ever. And i thought the lefties were suppose to be the rational ones, My bad.

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am

The inflamatory hyperbolic rhetoric of the Right on abortion is a moralistic cover for the moral emptiness of this misogyny. No "child" or "baby" is killed in an abortion. To call it either prejudices your moral argument without being an accurate statement of fact. It is the same type of crap that is behind these awful "personhood" laws regarding fetuses.

There is a path to personhood, and it is called birth. Until the fetus crosses this threshold, interferring with the woman's custodial rights over her fetus is immoral. She is the best advocate for her fetus, and when we come to issues of viability one ought to be able to presume that she has wanted this pregnancy until this point or been coerced into it if she wants an abortion now. It is a shame that Roe made viability any issue at all.

Abortion kills fetuses. Gestation is not a certainty of being born healthy and ready. Do you blame God for miscarriages?

The idea that abortion is just for the personal convenience of women who have no emotional stake in their children and is about contempt for life is a concoction of those lies needed to make this issue something you can be invested in. It is a sick way to avoid the bloodshed of the Modern Age by blaming women for what men do.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote liberal ID10T:

Sorry my estimate was low

http://northbynorthwestern.com/story/are-there-really-3700-abortions-each-day-in-the-us/

Your link is dated 2007, do you have current numbers? Numbers have been dropping every year, surely you have current numbers to back up your claim.

Quote liberal ID10T:Using your logic we can get all men fixed and then the problem will eventually be solved for ever.

You have not answered my question.

Why shouldn't men have to have a vasectomy?

Where does his responsibility lie?

Why shouldn't men be held responsible for their actions?

Why is it reasonable to subject women to these types of procedures and men held to no standard?

The right is always whining about responsibility, where is the man's responsibility here?

northlander
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2013 3:23 pm

Do you have evidence that the numbers have been dropping every year? http://www.lifenews.com/2011/07/11/abortions-at-planned-parenthood-done-in-record-numbers

Both parties should be responsible. I have never said that the man should not be held responsible If a man knocks a woman up he should be held responsible, just as the woman should be held responsible. No matter what your position is , the child ,the baby or the fetus has done nothing to deserve not getting a chance at life.

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am
Quote liberal ID10T:

Both parties should be responsible.

How would you hold the man responsible?

You still haven't answered my question as to why men should not have to have a vasectomy.

Why is it reasonable for a woman to be subjected to unnecessary procedures and men to be allowed to continue their irresponsible behavior?

When will men be held responsible for their behavior?

You are not answering my reasonable questions.

northlander
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2013 3:23 pm

Yes north, give all the worthless men a vasectomy. Women say they need to be in control of their own body. Well they were in control of their body when they had sex. Now they want their misjudgement to just go away. If you want people , men and women to be responsible. They need to know that not having sex is the best way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am
Quote liberal ID10T:

Do you have evidence that the numbers have been dropping every year? http://www.lifenews.com/2011/07/11/abortions-at-planned-parenthood-done-in-record-numbers

Both parties should be responsible. I have never said that the man should not be held responsible If a man knocks a woman up he should be held responsible, just as the woman should be held responsible. No matter what your position is , the child ,the baby or the fetus has done nothing to deserve not getting a chance at life.

Did you read the article? The doctor says this is their numbers but offers no proof of it. I'd like to hear someone from planned parenthood who maybe has the actual numbers. My guess is they would be much much lower than anyone thinks. If you believe the numbers the doctor used that would be like an assembly line working around the clock 24/7/365..

Your source has this in their first paragraph below...

LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community. With a team of experienced journalists and bloggers, LifeNews.com reaches more than 750,000 pro-life advocates each week via its web site, email news reports, social networking outreach and weekday radio program.

SO HOW IN THE HELL CAN YOU CLAIM TO BE INDEPENDENT WHEN YOU'RE ONLY INTERESTED IN ONE SIDE OF AN ISSUE?.......Is this how all things work in wingnutville?

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am
Quote liberal ID10T:

Yes north, give all the worthless men a vasectomy. Women say they need to be in control of their own body. Well they were in control of their body when they had sex. Now they want their misjudgement to just go away. If you want people , men and women to be responsible. They need to know that not having sex is the best way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

Still not answering my questions.

Can't keep putting all on the women, men are an active participant with responsibility.

A vasectomy does not interphere with a man's ability to enjoy sex. It is probably the most effective form of birth control and can be reversed.

If you are actually interesting in preventing abortions why isn't a vasectomy an viable alternative?


northlander
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2013 3:23 pm
Quote liberal ID10T:

If a women doesn't want to the responsiblity of raising a child, she should not have sex.

So, you're saying that it's normal for men to want to have sex for the fun and pleasure of it, but women should only have sex for the purpose of procreation. Or perhaps you think that women can enjoy sex, but only as an adjunct to the real deal, which is to "make a baby."

That's so interesting. In your best of all possible worlds, if a woman already has all the children she wants and doesn't want any more, she should never have sex again, and if her husband wants to have sex, he should go find some other woman who wants another baby and have sex with her, or he too should stop having sex altogether. That is, you still conform to the old, religious/sexist position that basically views women as broodmares, or cows, or sperm receptacles, or baby incubators. That's correct, right?

Wow. That's a pretty sexless, joyless, unequal world you're offering. You might want to take a moment to think that one through.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote liberal ID10T:

If a women doesn't want to the responsiblity of raising a child, she should not have sex.

So, you're saying that it's normal for men to want to have sex for the fun and pleasure of it, but women should only have sex for the purpose of procreation. Or perhaps you think that women can enjoy sex, but only as an adjunct to the real deal, which is to "make a baby."

That's so interesting. In your best of all possible worlds, if a woman already has all the children she wants and doesn't want any more, she should never have sex again, and if her husband wants to have sex, he should go find some other woman who wants another baby and have sex with her, or he too should stop having sex altogether. That is, you still conform to the old, religious/sexist position that basically views women as broodmares, or cows, or sperm receptacles, or baby incubators. That's correct, right?

Wow. That's a pretty sexless, joyless, unequal world you're offering. You might want to take a moment to think that one through.

Zenzoe, I think that "idiot" isn't interested at all in preventing abortions and "saving babies" because if men had vasectomies, which is the most effective form of birth control, there would be NO unwanted pregnancies at all. Men having vasectomies is the simpliest, easiest answer.

What is it that "idiot" really wants?

northlander
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2013 3:23 pm

When did I say that men should be able to have sex for the fun of it?

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am

And isn't enough that a man has to suffer through a woman whining about discomfort? The pill is one of two things a woman can put into her mouth to avoid pregnancy. In the words of hillary clinton " what difference does it make"? Who is responsible? And just so you know I am in favor of the vasectomys for all the worthless men. Or how about we just put to death all the male babies born? They should all die running around with the evil penises and getting paid more for doing the same job.

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am

Sexual abstinence (i.e. conscious repression of basic biological functions and urges) leads to priests secretly molesting boys. And yet somehow the Church and religious leaders are still supposed to be the authorities on morality.

If the anti-abortion stance is based on religious teaching, then it has no place in public policy. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The wording is clear. It isn't open to interpretation. The first words of the US Constitution forbids religion from invading on public policy. In other words, the US Constitution says, "Shove your Bible up your ass. We the People do not have to do what you say." Republican right-wingers just don't want to accept that. They try to do these mental gymnastics to justify encroaching their religious subjugation of freedom on the People. They've willingly been brainwashed by their religious cult leaders to believe, "We vote our conscience and that's our right." But it's not their right, and their consciences are marred by a lifetime of disinformation.

It is not the right of the Church to tell their brainwashed masses to vote in dogma as public law.

Period.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 2:04 pm

Have I ever mention religion? Getting an abortion deprives the fetus,baby, or child a chance at life. Killing a child is wrong at 3 months, 6 months, or after the baby is born.If you don't want to deal with the prospects of a baby don't do the dance with no pants. But I agree with north we should just fix all the worthless men , problem solved.

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am

So, who gets to decide who the worthless men are? Is there a guideline of some sort to follow?

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am
Quote liberal ID10T:

When did I say that men should be able to have sex for the fun of it?

So, they shouldn't, in your view? Nobody should be having sex for the fun of it?

Perhaps you could give us your view of sex. It might be helpful to know where your apparent antagonism toward normal sexuality comes from, and why sex, in your view, should not happen for the fun of it. You say your views have no connection to religion. So, how did you come to conclude that sexual behavior can't be fun? Or wonderful? Or pleasurable? Or natural. Or intensely satisfying in and of itself, without any goal whatsoever other than sexual satisfaction?

Are you a man or a woman, Liberal ID10T? That too might be helpful to know.

Btw, vasectomies are not 100% foolproof. No form of birth control has perfect reliability, especially not abstinence (when practiced by couples). Accidents happen.

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

If you don't want to deal with a chance of getting pregnant. Have your man keep his rocket in his pocket. Again I agree with north we should fix all the worthless men. And if that is not foolproof, we should put all babies born with penises to death.Did that sound sexist?Or does the left have a problem with that? And why should they? They think it Is OK to end a babies chance at life , what difference does a few days make? Put all male babies to death and the problem will be solved.

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am
Quote liberal ID10T:

If you don't want to deal with a chance of getting pregnant. Have your man keep his rocket in his pocket.

That should be, "If you don't want to deal with a chance of getting pregnant, (comma), have your man keep his rocket in his pocket."

Quote liberal ID10T:

Again I agree with north we should fix all the worthless men. And if that is not foolproof, we should put all babies born with penises to death.Did that sound sexist?Or does the left have a problem with that? And why should they? They think it Is OK to end a babies chance at life , what difference does a few days make? Put all male babies to death and the problem will be solved.

That should be, "baby's chance at life." Anyway, it's clear what we have here is a failure of education. It's so difficult for people to think, when they haven't had a good education.

But, yeah, I get the sarcasm. Well, I can be sarcastic too— clearly, the more babies, the better: Unplanned Childbearing and Family Size: Their Relationship to Child Neglect and Abuse.

http://www.wral.com/police-cameron-woman-starved-beat-three-of-her-five-...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/elizabeth-escalona-99-years-chi...

Yes! Let all those unwanted "babies" be born into a world of abuse! Let the cruelty begin— the more the merrier!

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

Earlier this afternoon I was trying to find a quote I heard on the radio a few years ago. I can't remember exactly what the circumstances were that spurred the comment, but in general I remember it being a reaction to men doing something stupid.

She was proposing that women tell their men that there would be no more sex without marriage, no more birth control, no more having sex just for fun. Every time a man wanted to have sex he would have to marry the woman (if they were not already married) and assume the risk of having a child.

The "boycott" would be in place until men changed their position on the issue in question.

Her point was men would then start thinking with the big head on their shoulders and not just with the little one in our pants.

Wish I could remember how things turned out.

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

To Zenzoe

So if I follow your" logic" it's better to kill the baby, because all unwanted babies are born into abusive homes? If a child is abused the abuser should be punished to the full extent of the law? Also thanks for the correcting my mistakes? It is always makes my day to conversate with a non judgemental person on the left? And I am a better person because you took the time to enlighten me on the correct punctuation? Was that better. In a side note I sent 10 puns to a friend, who was ill, trying to cheer them up. As I found out later no pun in ten did.

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am

Zenzoe, thanks for giving me a buffer against this raging moralist misogynist. In the process of declaring his knightly devotion to the chivalry of sex, he repeats the humonuclear myth that the woman is just the vessel for the male's 'seed' and that his property rights trump her biological integrity and conscience. His comments about women are sick. His 'defense' of the fetus is the cowardly way to beat up on women for making sex such a moral test for men. Oh, that 'devilish' rocket in the pocket.

In my own experience, my penis was extraordinarily discerning and unwilling to settle for less than my romantic ideal. My wife of 47 years was clearly First Choice to the exclusion of much competition. The story has twists and turns, loss turned into victory and comedy when I could rewind the scenes. I got really lucky and did not over-ride the little head on this one, to my eternal fortune. So, I have a lot of sympathy for those who did not get lucky this way.

Our culture is screwed up about sex. From the Whore/Virgin paradox to the Macho Insecurity and Promise Keeper Patriarchs, the idea of powerful and equal women human beings is not on the board. They can be powerful when they use our sexuality to mess us up. That is how "we" guys see it when we have a "rocket in our pocket." How dare "they" throw that gas on our fire!

Real sensuality, real pleasure, real intimacy and real mutuality scare the crap out of these guys.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

One thing I left out of #27 ... married women would not return to work after having a baby; the men would have to support the family on their own paycheck.

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

This is ultimately about control and power over women. If it wasn't then Conservatives would actually be PRO-abortion. One thing that is never discussed is how many women are actually forced to have an abortion by the would be father. The birth of a baby would often times be a huge burden on the would be father's career, reputation, or marriage. Men still run this world and it would make more sense that men in general would always like there to be the option of abortion. They would prefer that it be a very confidential matter and not be subject to obstacles such as vaginal probes or phsyco analysis. So the only real conclusion for abortion being such a taboo has got to be for political and power reasons. It's come in the disguise of love and caring for life when we all know that love and caring for life is of little concern to Conservatives after a child is born. They prove it with their legislature and their political posturing.

I don't have any statistics in front of me but I would be willing to bet that a majority of abortions come from the demands of a would be father rather than from a scared would be mother.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

And any judge would call that hearsay. Either way the baby is dead. And why? The mother or the father or both found that the baby would be an inconvience. That baby should be ashamed ruining it's parents life like that. Give the kid a chance to enjoy life. Who knows the next great leader of the world may have already ended up in the trash can. But that's ok at least the parents weren't forced to be responsible. Take responsiblity for ones actions is what we are talking about here. You say it is about men having power over women, but you say it is OK for women to have the power over that baby. What makes that right, but yet the other is wrong? I also have no stats but that is what a hypocrite would think.

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am

You keep equating a fetus with a baby. They are different. I'm not making judgement as to right and wrong. I'm making an observation about political and social actions. It's very similar to many politicians stances on a gay lifestyle. Politically and socially, there are some who demonize it in public while practicing it in private. It's phony and fake. However they'll say anything for that place of power.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

What you have there is an opinion,bush. If the fetus was left alone it would become a baby.Even if it is not outside the women's body it is still a life. None of the "barn smell liberals" here have answered my question. What has the baby,fetus or child done to have to die?

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am
Quote liberal ID10T:

And isn't enough that a man has to suffer through a woman whining about discomfort? The pill is one of two things a woman can put into her mouth to avoid pregnancy.

Birth control pills are not 100% effective.

What is the other thing a woman can put in her mouth "idiot".... will you enlighten all of us?

Quote liberal ID10T:In the words of hillary clinton " what difference does it make"? Who is responsible?

Then why not the man?

Quote liberal ID10T:And just so you know I am in favor of the vasectomys for all the worthless men.

Never mentioned anyone being "worthless" and I agree with Sprinklerfitter... who would determine who is "worthless"?

Quote liberal ID10T:Or how about we just put to death all the male babies born? They should all die running around with the evil penises and getting paid more for doing the same job.

Aren't you over reacting here? Is your argument so weak you have to get all emotional and go to such extremes?

Aren't we all trying to "prevent" the deaths of all those babies?

Wouldn't having more effective birth control, such as a vasectomy, be a better answer?

Can you calm down enough to answer these simple questions?

northlander
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2013 3:23 pm
Quote liberal ID10T:

The women may suffer some discomfort, but at least they are still alive. Can't say the same for the baby though.

Of course, the 200,000,000 that die from every ejaculation are just as worthy. Life is life.
We need to start with requiring men who have a prescription for Viagra to wear a bright red I to proclaim their impotence. And require each man to certify weekly they have not destroyed any lives. DNA registry to track paternity.

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

Using your logic why don't we let the women of the world decide who the worthless men are, I mean if they can decide which child will live and which child must die. They can surely decide which men need to be fixed. Can you come up with any links to support the statement that men are not being held responsible? My satement about killing all male babies was my way of pointing out the absurdity of giving men vasectomy's to curb pregnancies on a previous post. Wouldn't people not having sex be the most effective form of birth control? If you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. If you have sex and do get pregnant take responsibilty ( both men and women).

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am
Quote drc2:

Zenzoe, thanks for giving me a buffer against this raging moralist misogynist. In the process of declaring his knightly devotion to the chivalry of sex, he repeats the humonuclear myth that the woman is just the vessel for the male's 'seed' and that his property rights trump her biological integrity and conscience. His comments about women are sick. His 'defense' of the fetus is the cowardly way to beat up on women for making sex such a moral test for men. Oh, that 'devilish' rocket in the pocket.

In my own experience, my penis was extraordinarily discerning and unwilling to settle for less than my romantic ideal. My wife of 47 years was clearly First Choice to the exclusion of much competition. The story has twists and turns, loss turned into victory and comedy when I could rewind the scenes. I got really lucky and did not over-ride the little head on this one, to my eternal fortune. So, I have a lot of sympathy for those who did not get lucky this way.

Our culture is screwed up about sex. From the Whore/Virgin paradox to the Macho Insecurity and Promise Keeper Patriarchs, the idea of powerful and equal women human beings is not on the board. They can be powerful when they use our sexuality to mess us up. That is how "we" guys see it when we have a "rocket in our pocket." How dare "they" throw that gas on our fire!

Real sensuality, real pleasure, real intimacy and real mutuality scare the crap out of these guys.

And thanks to you, Drc2, for your wisdom, openness and insight.

In my experience, when I've encountered this particular "pro-life" position on the part of a man, the position that views embryos from the get-go as "babies," I get the feeling that their advocacy for "babies" has less to do with any real concern for children than it has to do with punishing women. By adopting the "look-how-much-I-care-for-'innocent' life" attitude, they don't have to experience the hatred toward women underneath that hyper-sentimentalization of embryos. They get to feel good about themselves, instead of recognizing the hateful, cruel person within, instead of getting in touch with the truth of their wish to denigrate, humiliate, control, and enslave women. "Pro-life" masquerades as love and goodness, as the protector of "innocents," when behind the mask dwells a sadistic heart. We know them by their profound lack of empathy for women. Has liberal ID10T shown one iota of empathy yet for women? I haven't seen it. He can't. He's too angry and bitter toward us for that.

The other sane guys' responses to liberal ID10T's nonsense have me going, "Yes!" too, although I must remind everybody that the mind-set we're dealing with is not awfully amenable to reason, as we have seen in the past. His is a black-and-white logic that is uncomfortable with uncertainty, with difficult dilemmas and ethical relativism. This mind-set wants absolutes, and it wants everyone to conform to their ideas of moralistic living.

See, it wouldn't help to explain to ID10T that, as a woman, the idea of the state making a claim of eminent domain over my uterus, over my most private, intimate possession, my body, infuriates me like no other form of injustice I can think of. It wouldn't help, because his mind-set doesn't allow his comprehension of such things as autonomy for women or the inviolable sacredness and integrity of our bodies. He doesn't grok the sovereign nature of women's bodies. Thus, he has no qualms about granting greater importance to embryos than to the rights, bodies, lives and concerns of little girls and grown women.

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

What has the child done to deserve to die? Also remember not all pro life people are old gray haired men. Some of us use the same bathroom as you. What gives a women the right to decide which child shall live and which child should die. Maybe you should look into the eyes of a baby and realize that no one and I mean no one has the right to end the pregnancy. No sex means no baby it's pretty easy to figure out.

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am

First of all, ID10T, an insensate glob of protoplasm, which is an apt description of the stage of embryonic development at which the vast majority of abortions take place, is not a "baby," despite what your delusional fantasies tell you. But, go ahead and call it a baby, because your naming it such doesn't change the fact that women have life too, and rights; and women's lives, their hopes, dreams, sorrows, joys, plans, ambitions, ideas, creativity, and their contributions, matter. You may like to think that nothing matters more than bringing new life into being; but I disagree. Lots of things matter more than bringing more humans into this world. And for women who are not ready —financially, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually— to be pregnant, an awful lot matters to them more than having a baby.

Speaking of women who are "pro-life," a relative of mine is a rabid pro-lifer. She's a Catholic and a true-believer, if there ever was one. However, there was a time when she wasn't a believer back when she was a teenager and experimenting with her wild side. Well, she got pregnant and had an abortion. Now, fast-forward thirty years or so, and she has so many children I've lost count (8, the last time I checked)— beautiful children, I do admit. The thing is, though, her husband has a high-powered, great career with Disney; he can afford a big family. My point is this: it's highly unlikely those children, those particular, individual souls, ever would have been born, that is, would have the lives they have today, without that abortion when she was a teen. Abortion made their lives possible. Yes, it's unfortunate for the one who came too soon, but who are we to deny the lives of other children, deny happiness to wanted children? I say it's better to deny poverty its cruelty, better to make choices in everyone's best interest, rather than making everyone suffer for one and only one life.

Would you like to look into the eyes of any one of my relative's children and tell them they don't deserve to be here?

Don't they say God works in mysterious ways? Perhaps abortion is one of those mysterious ways. In any case, it's not up to you to decide. It's up to the woman. It's her body— all of it, including everything that might be developing within her.

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

Again why can't you answer the question? What did the baby do to deserve to die? Sorry to hear your story. But that doesn't change anything the first child didn't need to die. Was the death of the first child the only option? How about adoption? Many children are raised by other family members.I have a relative who had tried for years to have children. They never were able to have a child of their own, but they were able to adopt 3 kids and these children were able to grow up in a loving home and have even started families of there own. So the child doesn't have to die at the request of the mother. There is always another option.

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am
Quote liberal ID10T:

Again why can't you answer the question? What did the baby do to deserve to die? Sorry to hear your story. But that doesn't change anything the first child didn't need to die. Was the death of the first child the only option? How about adoption?

Adoption would have been out of the question. That doesn't happen in my family. To have had that baby would have meant an early end to her education, dependency on either the state or the family, because she wasn't equipped to support a child herself, and it would have meant life as a single mother. She and her husband would never have met in the first place; her life would have been entirely different. As a matter of fact, her younger sister had two children out of wedlock. She did not believe in abortion. And now she must supplement the income the family provides with welfare, since she has never been able to find work to support herself and her two children, and she never met someone who would be willing to share her burden. Maybe you think that's a happy picture, but I don't.

Btw, adoption isn't the magical choice you think it is. Hundreds of thousands of children await adoption, and many never do get adopted and find themselves shuttled from foster home to foster home. In my book, that's not a happy choice at all.

Quote liberal ID10T:

Many children are raised by other family members.I have a relative who had tried for years to have children. They never were able to have a child of their own, but they were able to adopt 3 kids and these children were able to grow up in a loving home and have even started families of there own. So the child doesn't have to die at the request of the mother. There is always another option.

I'm sorry to say so, but you're obviously very naive about life in the real world. You have no idea how people suffer, how women suffer, how children suffer, when the option of abortion isn't available. You have no concept of the desperation that drives a woman to terminate a pregnancy. Your image of pregnancy, birth, parenting, and adoption is the stuff of fairy tales. It's nice that you have a happy adoption example to bolster your argument, but I'm afraid the real world is full of far more tragic stories resulting from lack of family planning and access to abortion services.

In any case, abortion is legal, and for good reason. You're just going to have to accept that women have abortions, and they will continue to have them, whether or not they are legal. Would you prefer it, if it were made illegal, and the old days of the coat hanger and botched, back-alley abortions returned? Do you really think women deserve to die like that?

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

I'm sorry to hear that you value the life of a child so little. Some peole are capable many great things when faced with adversity. But to blame a pregnancy for keeping ones self from great things is merely a cop out and the sign of a weak person.You say adoption was not an option in your family. But your family is OK with ending a child's chance at life. Many single parents are able to raise a family and have a career or even get a education. To say this one child would have ruined her life is very sad. But at least she was able to have a life.

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am

So sorry you value human life so little IDIOT that you refuse to accept the Bible's prohibition against spilling of the seed on unfertile fields. Why do you demand to destroy so many human lives!? Our spermazoan Americans deserve a chance at life.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote liberal ID10T:

Using your logic why don't we let the women of the world decide who the worthless men are, I mean if they can decide which child will live and which child must die. They can surely decide which men need to be fixed.

So you are not actually sincere in your concern for saving little "baby" lives. If you were you would at the very least consider what I've proposed. Vasectomy is an effective and reversible procedure. You are obviously not sincere in your statements.

I have not proposed anything but an effective way of preventing unwanted pregnancy, you on the other hand have gone off on silly immature rants.

Which of us actually wants to solve this problem? It certainly isn't you.

northlander
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2013 3:23 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

First of all, ID10T, an insensate glob of protoplasm, which is an apt description of the stage of embryonic development at which the vast majority of abortions take place, is not a "baby," despite what your delusional fantasies tell you.

Zenzoe, no where else in nature is a glob of protoplasm recognized as a being or animal. A fertilized chicken egg is not called a chicken, etc. Even in the plant kingdom seeds are not recognized as "plants."

All of this is actually beside the point. I believe we need effective birth control. Instead of wasting so much energy trying to restrict women's behavior, that energy should be focused on developing and providing effective, safe birth control for men and women. Social indoctrination that men should not be provided with and use birth control needs to change. Preventing unwanted pregnancies would solve this entire problem.

And, what providing this safe and effective birth control would also do is expose those who only want to belittle and control others for the disturbed individuals they are.

northlander
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2013 3:23 pm

And just think, once you go over the hill there's nothing to worry about anyway- anytime, anywhere...

Keep your figures girls, and hold out for later.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote liberal ID10T:

I'm sorry to hear that you value the life of a child so little.

If, when you write "you value the life of a child so little," you mean that I value the life of an embryo less than I value the life, civil liberty and happiness of a woman, you're right. If, on the other hand, you mean that I value the lives of living, born children less than you do, well, you're simply wrong. In fact, I care so much about the lives of children that I believe people like you, people who claim to love "the child," should contribute a portion of their salaries to the care, feeding and shelter for unwanted children and orphans. I would even support legislation mandating all "pro-lifers" be taxed at a higher rate, so that their "love of the child" would be made manifest and real, and so that the incidence of child abuse, filicide, runaways, child sex trafficking, suicide and other ugly realities of unwanted children's lives be ameliorated.

Quote liberal ID10T:

Some peole are capable many great things when faced with adversity. But to blame a pregnancy for keeping ones self from great things is merely a cop out and the sign of a weak person.

So, the sensitive, unwanted child whose environment —beatings, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, poverty, hunger, drug culture, and lack of love and guidance— alters his brain such that he cannot confront misery and rise above it, but, rather, turns into a criminal, or becomes suicidal, or just doesn't give a damn— that child is a "weak person?"

So, should I assume you take a rather punitive approach to criminality as well? It's all their fault for being weak— put the weaklings to death! That is, are you also in favor of the death penalty?

Quote liberal ID10T:

You say adoption was not an option in your family. But your family is OK with ending a child's chance at life. Many single parents are able to raise a family and have a career or even get a education. To say this one child would have ruined her life is very sad. But at least she was able to have a life.

So, in your mind, the "child" that is aborted knows she was aborted and denied a "chance at life," feels sorrow over this loss, and wonders, "Why did you abort me? What did I do to deserve it?" Is that what you think? If not, where's the harm? There's no reality to a life that never lived. If you do imagine such things, there's nothing for me to say that would rescue you from your delusion.

Would you like to tell the loved and wanted children who have life now, because of their mother's earlier abortion, that their lives are less important, that they don't deserve to live, that they shouldn't be here?

Life is at the very top of your hierarchy of values, with other values, such as equality, quality of life, justice, care, happiness, civil liberty and so forth, lower down. Life is near the top of my hierarchy of values but not at the very top and excluding all other values as yours does. That's our fundamental difference here. You view embryos as "life," and once described as "a child" you discard all other values and realities from your imagination, blocking any thoughts that might adjust your view.

I, unlike you, have the values of equality and the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness not above the right to life, but equal to it; thus, when I look at this issue, I must weigh all of the factors and think about what works best, what is the most ethical choice, for the individual and for the community. To my mind, in weighing the unrealized, undeveloped "life" of an embryo against the life and realities of a fully formed, fully developed woman, and looking at which option would cause the greatest suffering, or the least suffering, then I choose on behalf of the woman: it is within the context of her life that the potential for suffering weighs heaviest. I simply do not see a great deal of suffering caused by an abortion to an embryo. All that sorrow you feel about the lost potential for life— that's all in your head, not in any actual place outside your head. In any case, that's for the mother to feel, or not; otherwise, it's none of your business.

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

First of all, ID10T, an insensate glob of protoplasm, which is an apt description of the stage of embryonic development at which the vast majority of abortions take place, is not a "baby," despite what your delusional fantasies tell you.

Zenzoe, no where else in nature is a glob of protoplasm recognized as a being or animal. A fertilized chicken egg is not called a chicken, etc. Even in the plant kingdom seeds are not recognized as "plants."

Good point, Northlander.

Quote northlander:

All of this is actually beside the point. I believe we need effective birth control. Instead of wasting so much energy trying to restrict women's behavior, that energy should be focused on developing and providing effective, safe birth control for men and women. Social indoctrination that men should not be provided with and use birth control needs to change. Preventing unwanted pregnancies would solve this entire problem.

And, what providing this safe and effective birth control would also do is expose those who only want to belittle and control others for the disturbed individuals they are.

I am very much in favor of making birth control a top priority, including putting more of a responsibility on the men. And I agree that a lot of this nonsense is about controlling women. However, I don't view abortion as a "problem." Abortion is safe, as long as it's legal. It is not the problem; the problem is unwanted pregnancy, which is basically what you're saying, I hope. Anyway, abortion will always be needed, because no form of birth control will ever always be perfectly reliable.

Leighmf: So true, so true. Thank goodness I'm there! Hallelujah!

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

Presuming that you actually believe this sentimental moralistic misogynistic bullshit, you need to get very busy making sure that all the adoption alternatives are available and then get to work on support for Single Parents with such things as the Early Childhood Education Initiative. They probably need rental assistance and certainly must have available healthcare, and I think it would have to be free to insure that children are not experiencing healthcare rationing or food insecurity. Oh, and those heating assistance programs that need to be expanded. There is so much more for you to do to make this a child-friendly country, so instead of being an ugly whiner and sentimentalist, get busy doing something real.

In the meantime, try to wrap your one-dimensional thinking around something to expand it just a bit. You are very upset about any woman choosing not to have a fetus she is carrying. Get over it. You can support contraception and birth control access and use. You can provide a context in which a woman carrying a fetus can bring it to term with far fewer negative consequences in her life. You might even be able to make having a child with real problems much less difficult if you build the community services and supports so lacking today. But, you need to stop intervening in her conscience with your moralistic self-righteous maleness.

All you have proved so far is that the last half of your handle is 100% accurate. A person totally ignorant of politics.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

If it is a "insensate glob of protoplasm" is that just another way of saying it is nothing? And if it is nothing then why do you have to remove it after all it is just a" insensate glob of protoplasm". That is because it will turn into a living, breathing inconvience for the father and mother. What I am talking about is why doesn't the left want people to be responsible for their actions? There is a load of birth control out there that prevents pregancy. The best of course is don't have sex. But back to the question , what has that "insensate glob of protoplasm'' done that it is forbidden from achieving it's destiny?

liberal ID10T's picture
liberal ID10T
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2012 7:08 am

Currently Chatting

Who Should an Economy Serve?

The top one percent own half of all the world's assets. In stark contrast, the bottom fifty percent of the world owns less than one percent. According to the 2014 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse, global inequality has surged since the 2008 financial collapse. The report explains that while global wealth has more than doubled since the year 2000, the vast majority of overall growth has gone to those who were already wealthy.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system