"Women's Issues" are "Side Issues?"

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

2034 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Kerry:

Oh, and in comes the nipping chihuahua for one more round......

Shhh. You'll stroke out.

What now? Are you feigning a concern for my wellbeing now, Ulysses? Like DRC feigned a concern for Abigail Fisher by saying how much DRC 'hoped she had gotten into a good college'....as long as it isn't about individual rights, you and your Kumbaya clan feign a lot of concern, don't you? And, as long as it isn't hate criminals and fetuses we are talking about....

Quote Ulysses:

Oh, that. That wasn't a definition. That was a statement of fact. I never offered any definition. You should look up the definition of "definition."

And, that's a 'reasonable' response? So well thought out by the nipping chihuahua....

Quote Ulysses:

And, when it comes to really how dishonest you and your clan is, you can't even take it upon yourself to explain how a woman deciding to end her pregnancy is not a 'selfish cause' that is so defined as being an 'individual right' (right in line with my point on this).

What point was that?

What part of that point do you not acknowledge, Ulysses? The point that you and your clan in being all for the woman aborting her fetus (at any stage in the pregnancy) dishonestly not recognizing that as a selfish right (as you claimed how 'selfish' I was in being 'libertarian')--or, the point that I make that, while 'individual rights' are, indeed, 'selfish causes', I see no distinction between a 'community interested in individuality' and 'one who grants individual rights to others as well as acquiring them for oneself'? And, do you acknowledge that now.....

Quote Ulysses:

Oh, now, it's not all that serious. I've never judged your capacity as a doctor. I've just always stated, and hereby state again, that I just don't believe that you are one.

And, what qualifications are you using, and what qualifies you, to make that assertion, Ulysses? But, you can't say anything about the Abigail Fisher case, can you? Why not? What distinctions are you reasonably offering about yourself and how you make such judgments that have you make a definite statement on my regard as being a doctor--and none at all on Abigail Fisher's reverse discrimination case no matter how qualified she may be with respect to others accepted into the state-supported institution that is the University of Texas....

Quote Ulysses:

It's a far different thing to judge one's capacity when that person is already acting in a capacity than it is to state that you don't believe that person is in that capacity in the first place, as I believe about you. Get your canards straight, ol' hoss.

You're full of it, Ulysses--and have nothing more to offer....

Naw. Wouldn't be honest. Gotta leave that to the admissions officers of the college(s) involved, as drc2 has so ably pointed out.

Then, why do you have a judgment about anything, Ulysses? Is life a 'statistical average' to you? It certainly isn't when you come up with all sorts of excuses to assert why I am not a doctor...but, in Abigail Fisher's case, well, leave that up to the 'experts', right Ulysses? Who, by the way, in the University of Texas' case, get paid by the taxpayers....but, that's not in respect to all taxpayers (as a fair and equal treatment), right, Ulysses? Only what some can use as a discrimnatory claim as 'victimhood' over others to bias it with--but just not in Abigail Fisher's case.....Abigail Fisher has to 'get over it'....like any oppressor could say to anyone they have oppressed at any time in history (that doesn't approach, or treat, people fairly and equally--even as an entity of a government supposedly 'of, by, and for, the people')....

Quote Ulysses:

Uh uh. Those adjectives came from the folks who gave me the sheepskins.

I don't think you received those sheepskins, Ulysses. At least not from a reputable institution. After all, I haven't seen any of your so-called 'education' on anything that you accuse others over--up to and including what distinctions you have with your 'accepted Bible' that you imply in claiming that the New International version is 'not acceptable'--of course, according to you without even an inkling of any reasonable qualifications like most educated people could do....other than some vague appeal to 'authority' in some post you made....isn't 'appealing to authority' a logical fallacy in arguments, Ulysses? I think that educated people would know that....

Quote Ulysses:

....but, it's OK and 'reasonable' to personally attack me, right?

How should I know?

Because that is all you ever do, Ulysses--in every discussion I have seen you in. You personally attack. You go out of your, my, and any other aspect of the discussion's, way to personally attack. But, I know, the wise moniter of DRC has sanctioned your form of attack on me--and did so on the abortion thread. You know, DRC, who told me 'to go to hell' on the abortion thread. You all offer such lavish remarks about each other as you castigate any one that doesn't follow lock-step with you--just like any clan....accusing me for continuing the description of near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing when that was D_NATURED's description--proving that, like all clans, you will condone in your friend what you will condemn in your enemy.....

The Kumbaya clan....but, you're lying hypocrites if you don't think what 'the clan' offers and stands for doesn't have 'selfish causes and interests' involved--you just hide it in dishonest Kumbaya-clan talk....as you accuse me for 'being selfish' by claiming that I am a 'libertarian'.....even if it is a 'leftist libertarian' that considers the primary duty of a good government is to secure and guarantee individual rights--with, as Roe vs. Wade noted, the primary one of that being 'right to life' because without it, you would not have access to any other right...so, the whole distinction between the contention of rights that elective abortions are all about is when does the 'right to life' begin....most honest, conscientious, thoughtful citizens believe it to be sometime before birth--the most natural manner to consider this is that if the fetus can come out alive, it should come out alive, and, if it takes a 'special (separate) procedure' to kill it (such as D_NATURED's near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing), it could have come out alive....but, the Kumbaya clan doesn't want this to be about 'right to life', doesn't even want this to be about 'individual rights', claims they are all about 'community' (as long as no one in that 'community' expresses a concern over the near birth fetus), doesn't seem to acknowledge that a woman wanting to abort her child is a selfish interest, and, then, castigates me from the beginning of the abortion discussion on the abortion thread for being 'selfish' as a 'libertarian'....and, then, claims that 'I' have no logic in this discussion.....what hypocrites you are.....

Ah! I've placed the banderillas...

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DynoDon: Geez, has there ever been a longer thread with not much being resolved? Maybe it's time to start a men's issues post.

But you don’t understand. The point isn’t to resolve anything. The point is to provide Kerry with ample opportunity to exercise his onomatomania. After all, if Kerry didn’t have this thread to endlessly repeat his favorite words and phrases, among them, “near-birth-fetal-brain-sucing-and-skull-crushing, Kumbaya-clan, individual rights, contention of rights, elective abortions, right to life, Abigail Fisher, nipping chihuahua, selfish, hypocritical, if-the-fetus-can-come-out-alive-it-should-come-out-alive,” what would happen? Goodness, we might have another mass murder on our hands. Don’t you see the service this thread provides in keeping Kerry’s fingers occupied and attached to a keyboard, far away from a 40-caliber Glock handgun?

Not that I’m an innocent bystander here. I have my own favorite words, my own obsessions. My current favorite word is cockamamie. See, while I was away, I discovered its correct spelling, so when I returned to catch up and scanned what I’d missed, I decided maybe I should re-name this thread “The Cockamamie Hotel.”

Not that I haven’t noticed the good sense and important points made in my absence, as well as the humor and entertaining bits. And I’m so grateful not to have had to take up the challenge on the subject of banking issues, or the Bible again, or Kerry’s stuff. Thank you so much! The thing is, though, I’ve got other things on my mind.

For one thing, D_NATURED brought up the subject of magical thinking, which interests me a great deal. And I agreed with his discussion of how magical thinking manifests for conservatives. However, I did want to briefly mention that the liberal side of the spectrum has its magical thinkers as well. I’m thinking of certain New Age concepts, such as “the law of attraction,” which I’ve heard discussed on L.A.’s lefty radio station, KPFK. For example, a show called The AWARE SHOW (01/12/2012 Guest Jackie Lapin ) where you will learn to “raise our personal frequency” and practice “personal frequency management” to “increase the number of positive experiences in your life,” and realize “you’re responsibile for what you experience...and then your life becomes easier.

I mean, it’s such a bloody, cockamamie philosophy that Barbara Ehrenreich had to write a whole book about it: Bright-Sided, “How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America.” Perhaps you’ve read it, D_NATURED. I’m sure you’d appreciate her discussion of the evolution of such thinking within American culture and her correct assessment of this as a money-making enterprise.

You can also see the exercise of magical thinking within the new-agey “religion” of Science of Mind, where you get to learn how to blame yourself for everything that happens to you in this life. Count new-age guru, Wayne Dyer, among this group of mind-fucking entrepreneurs.

Tayl appeared to disagree with my point about capitalism being a toddler who wants it all and wants it now, and the non-yin-yang of capitalism vs. communism. That’s cool. I don’t mind, but I draw the line at his obstinate defense of Angelina Jolie and her “perfect ***" whatever that is. I see nothing perfect about her, except herself as a cliché of the male fantasy of feminine perfection. I mean, Tayl, everything about her is a cliché, even her acting. Feel free to enjoy the cliché if you like, but don’t say I didn’t warn you. I mean, search Google Images for “Angelina Jolie,” then compare that with what you get with, for example, “Cate Blanchette.” Notice the difference: Angelina Jolie, blah blah blah, “I’m so sexy,” blah blah blah; Cate Blanchette, a full range of intelligent character and emotion expressed, from this to this, where she portrayed Bob Dylan. I rest my case. ;-)

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

What does you not being a doctor have to do with Abigail Fisher not getting to be a Texas Longhorn?

Nothing. It has to do with how you can judge me without any qualificaitons and how you ignore the Abigail Fisher case that at has some qualifications--Abigail Fisher's case is a reverse discrimination case coming before a tax-supported higher education entity. You have no ability to answer the question as to whether I am a doctor or not--and when you say that I am not, obviously, I know that you are lying. You do have some information to go by in judging Abigail Fisher's case--well qualified high school student that gets overlooked in her admission to the school she wanted to go to for what amounts to less qualified students. Is that fair for a tax-supported institution to do? When fairness and equality is the supposed premise that our government 'of, by, and for the people' is to be about? You have information to answer that--and you refuse to. But, you have company--none of your Kumbaya clan wants to say anything more than 'Get over it'....

And, all the other things that I have mentioned still apply. Do 'two wrongs make a right'? How does discriminatory judgment 'get rid' of discriminatory judgment? What is the goal of those who condone such discriminatory judgment to 'counteract' other discriminatory judgment? Is it 'equality'--especially the 'equality' of 'mutual respect'? Or, is it just replacing one oppressive regime for another? With the response to Abigail Fisher (and me) to 'Get over it' being exactly the statement that any oppressor could make to anyone that they oppress at any time in history.....All the things that go into the question: What should Abigail Fisher do?

The rest of your post, Ulysses, is your typical vacuous bullshit---it's slightly different from your usual accusatory distractions but I'm sure you'll resort to that before too long.....

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

After all, if Kerry didn’t have this thread to endlessly repeat his favorite words and phrases, among them, “near-birth-fetal-brain-sucing-and-skull-crushing, Kumbaya-clan, individual rights, contention of rights, elective abortions, right to life, Abigail Fisher, nipping chihuahua, selfish, hypocritical, if-the-fetus-can-come-out-alive-it-should-come-out-alive,” what would happen?

You know very well that D_NATURED owned up to describing near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing--but, as it typical for you and your form of distractions, you don't frame it in that manner, do you? D_NATURED is 'one of you'....a real 'vagina-worshipper' that has no problems killing fetuses right before birth if the mother wants--and in the most horrendous fashion that D_NATURED can describe. But, to you, that makes D_NATURED the man who worships the vagina. My repeated renditions of that same act gets a different response out of you. Why, Zenzoe? It's the same act. Why a different judgment coming if I describe it--and not when D_NATURED describes it? It is because you really don't mind the act--you just mind the disposition of the one describing it? Well, if that's the case, then, own up to it like D_NATURED has. In fact, maybe you and D_NATURED could create your own signs and march them out in front of any legislature to see if you can obtain support for this so-called 'women's issue' that D_NATURED claims as 'vagina-worshipping'. What could that sign say? How about these:

VAGINA WORSHIPPERS FOR NEAR BIRTH FETAL BRAIN SUCKING AND SKULL CRUSHING AS THE ONLY WAY TO PROVE WOMEN ARE EMPOWERED!

NO PERESONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LIFE OF THE FETUS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS THE ONLY WAY TO PROVE WOMEN ARE EMPOWERED!

Would those do it? I suspect, even coming from the Kumbaya clan that claims a 'community interest' over 'selfish causes', I doubt many would join in--and I doubt any legislature would invite you in. But, it's not about sucking fetal brains out and crushing fetal skulls, is it, Zenzoe? It's about 'who says it'...condoning in your friends what you condemn in your enemies...and you wonder why I call you a member of the clan.....

Quote Zenzoe:

For one thing, D_NATURED brought up the subject of magical thinking, which interests me a great deal.

Well, you might consider that it is magical thinking to consider a fact as being different dependent upon who says it--and that includes what 'difference' you make out of it whether it is me saying it or D_NATURED saying it--the fact still is the very concept of near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing no matter who says it......You condone it when D_NATURED says it--you condemn it when I say it. THAT is 'magical thinking'....that has nothing to do with the facts at hand....with another fact at hand being that a fetus before birth treated the way that D_NATURED describes will look just like a mutilated dead baby after birth. Thinking that has nothing to do with this issue of elective abortions is, also, magical thinking--to the point of being militantly delusional.....and, by the way, quite selfish....I thought the Kumbaya clan was supposed to be against 'selfishness'--that's one thing you all chimed in on when I described myself as a leftist libertarian, wasn't it, Zenzoe? \

By the way, I am not going to shut up describing near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing until, and only if, you, similarly, call D_NATURED down for it. Otherwise, you are condoning it from D_NATURED as you condemn it from me--and, if you are doing that, it has NOTHING to do with the fact and image of fetal brain sucking and skull crushing.....just your 'magical thinking and judgment' of 'who says it'...so, until then, I see it as fair fodder in your slurring campaign and will continue to describe it.....all the while, it is an adept representation of how selfish, and militantly delusional, your and your clan's stand on elective abortions really is.....which is, of course, quite hypocritical of you when you and your clan castigate my being a libertarian as being 'selfish'....

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

And, this is part of D_NATURED's last post (#1142) on the 'Sane conversation about abortion' thread that keeps me 'motivated' with repeating how 'near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing' can be the only way that proves the clan's idea of 'empowering women' with elective abortions:

Quote Kerry:
Quote D_NATURED:

You know, until you told me I didn't realize the sole reason for brain sucking was, in fact, to collapse the skull and put less stress on the cervix during extraction. I love that idea. That values women first. It is as it should be.

Again, D_NATURED, as Zenzoe has asked me, do you have an example of your position to go by? And, as I have asked you, if you were put in that position, would you be able to suck fetal brains out right before birth (and crush its skull)--and only if for the reason that the mother wants it (no dire circumstance excuses to try to 'lessen the blow')--as a show for how you see that 'empowers women'?

YES, YES and YES!!! Give me the triaining and the tools and the women in need and I'll be a brain suckiing fool, if you don't have the stomach for liberty, if you prefer the idea of the feminine underclass to the sight of dead fetuses. Yes, you weakling.

----------------------------------------------------------

And, I am not sure how that's not selfishly and militantly delusional as its own form of 'magical thinking' on elective abortions. And, I suspect only the clan and its advocates can even try to see that description apart from its militant and selfish nature.....why do you think I keep repeating it? It's like why I keep repeating 'What should Abigail Fisher do?'--it, also, points out how the clan can't face its own hypocrisy.....this isn't 'new order paradigm' thinking--this is the same old order paradigm thinking--starting with removing the incentive to have 'individual rights' as its political priority (individual rights--the only priority that can, in any way, keep oppressive political tendencies in check--including the Kumbaya clan's form of oppression--you know, the 'Get over it' kind of oppression....)....

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

To think that by repeating a hyperbolic, emotionally manipulative, misleading phrase such as, “near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing” you will change people’s minds and bring them around to your way of thinking, is to practice magical thinking. To keep repeating that phrase is to practice the rhetoric of magical thinking.

It matters little to me who said it first; you’re the one who keeps bringing it up with the sole purpose of manipulation via emotion; that is, you’re resorting to propaganda; you’re presenting that fantasy as if it’s a reality, as if women and their doctors do this, or wish to do it, on an elective basis. It’s a lie you present over and over as if it’s a reality. And you hope to shame us by ascribing to us a position we do not hold. To persist as you do in this fantasy is an aspect of your magical thinking— “If I repeat this often enough, people will come to believe it’s happening, or it’s on the pro-choice agenda.” That’s magical thinking. We’re never going to accept it.

Of course, D_NATURED did indeed bring it up first, but it was clear to anybody who knows his style that he did it to mock the anti-abortion hysteria regarding abortion, and to indicate his disregard for their arguments, up front and in their face. He knew it was hyperbolic. Or, if he meant it literally, that is, he didn’t care what reason a woman might have to abort a fetus, he would stand by her choice no matter what, I don’t think he would subscribe to a medical procedure that would include torture. I think he knows that medical procedures past viability are not about torturing fetuses. I think you know that, but you refuse to acknowledge it, thinking magically as you do and conjuring devil doctors and pregnant females who supposedly perform such "atrocities" by the “whims that harlots devise out of selfishness.

But of course, for me think you’re not going to twist what I’ve said here, that you’ll suddenly have an epiphany of consciousness, to see the fallacious nature of your stance, would be for me to engage in magical thinking myself. Thus, wail away with your diatribe. I won’t be surprised.

So, your daughters had elective abortions themselves? Well, good for you for supporting them. You’re almost there. (Btw, I already knew your stance on abortion prior to viability, and I did not accuse you of being against it.)

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

You've got me on a rant now, Zenzoe. Are you happy?

What should Abigail Fisher do? Besides all the questions that I listed for Ulysses above (that I doubt I will get an 'educated' answer from), there are other questions involved in what Abigail 'should' do:

1) Should Abigail expect being treated equitably and with mutual respect? Apparently, the clan doesn't care about that--not even from its female members.

2) Should Abigail expect that adequate effort is matched with appropriate judgment? Apparently, the clan doesn't--not even from its female members.

3) Should Abigail expect that the world is fair and just? Apparently, the clan doesn't believe so. After all, the world is unfair and unjust, isn't it? And, why reach for anything that makes its fair and just--as long as you show the 'appropriate politically correct concern', right? Now, it's just depends upon which oppressive regime that gains power and support...politically correct or not...

4) Should Abigail just 'get over it'? The clan thinks so--as the only way to resolve this issue. After all, read 3)....

5) Maybe more to the point on a 'women's issue' thread, why do the female clan members throw Abigail Fisher under the bus? I can't answer for the female members--and I wonder that, myself. My answer to that is that the clan is concerned more about being politically correct than it is about being just and fair, anyway. It's the hypocritical cohesion that allows them to ignore Abigail--and condone fetal brain sucking and skull crushing 'for the cause' (this time, a supposed 'women's issue cause' that has nothing to do with the contention of rights issue that elective abortions were really decided upon 40 years ago with Roe vs. Wade--'rights' sound 'too selfish' and aren't 'politically correct' to the clan--who claims to have a 'community-minded care' based on a supposed 'new paradigm' of thought that is 'above all that'...)....

I guess that's enough for now....Good day...

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

To think that by repeating a hyperbolic, emotionally manipulative, misleading phrase such as, “near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing” you will change people’s minds and bring them around to your way of thinking, is to practice magical thinking. To keep repeating that phrase is to practice the rhetoric of magical thinking.

So, as I said, you are going to condone it coming from D_NATURED--you are going to condemn it coming from me. Regardless of any real and factual elements that such fetal brain sucking and skull crushing represents. I say THAT is 'magical thinking'....

Quote Zenzoe:

It matters little to me who said it first; you’re the one who keeps bringing it up with the sole purpose of manipulation via emotion;

Oh? You know, coming from someone that wanted to justify elective abortions by the dire circumstances of incest and rape, I'm having a hard time taking your claims now seriously....

Quote Zenzoe:

you’re presenting that fantasy as if it’s a reality, as if women and their doctors do this, or wish to do it, on an elective basis

I know that it is illegal. I've said that before. But, that doesn't stop D_NATURED from using it, does it? Even threatening me with something to do with a pork shoulder over it. And, you ignoring that....but, none of that is 'magical thinking' to you, is it, Zenzoe?

Quote Zenzoe:

It’s a lie you present over and over as if it’s a reality.

Read above....(including, by the way, the part where D_NATURED comments on this)....

Quote Zenzoe:

And you hope to shame us by ascribing to us a position we do not hold.

Watch out how you use the word 'shame'--like 'emotion', you forget your own manner of arguing this issue--all those dire circumstances that 'I' wouldn't consider when I claimed that I was comfortable with Texas law limiting elective abortions to the point of fetal viability....

Quote Zenzoe:

To persist as you do in this fantasy is an aspect of your magical thinking— “If I repeat this often enough, people will come to believe it’s happening, or it’s on the pro-choice agenda.” That’s magical thinking. We’re never going to accept it.

To instill the image of near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing before birth looking just like a mutilated dead baby after birth is NOT 'magical thinking'--it's a bonafide fact of that image. Thinking that has nothing of consequence to the real issues of elective abortions IS the 'magical thinking'....which is why I keep bringing it up...and, you're right, but not as a 'magical thinking' element but more like placing a mirror on you to expose you and your clan's own hypocrisy over this...

Quote Zenzoe:

Of course, D_NATURED did indeed bring it up first, but it was clear to anybody who knows his style that he did it to mock the anti-abortion hysteria regarding abortion, and to indicate his disregard for their arguments, up front and in their face. He knew it was hyperbolic. Or, if he meant it literally, that is, he didn’t care what reason a woman might have to abort a fetus, he would stand by her choice no matter what, I don’t think he would subscribe to a medical procedure that would include torture.

Making excuses for your friend, aren't you, Zenzoe? How....feminine of you. But, this is what D_NATURED said:

YES, YES and YES!!! Give me the triaining and the tools and the women in need and I'll be a brain suckiing fool, if you don't have the stomach for liberty, if you prefer the idea of the feminine underclass to the sight of dead fetuses. Yes, you weakling.

Are you saying that D_NATURED didn't mean what D_NATURED said? Is that what D_NATURED is saying? No. We went over and over this point on the abortion thread--and what I post here is D_NATURED's last post on that thread. Very.....masculine of him, don't you think? But, is it really the reality of this issue? Or, is D_NATURED, as the proclaimed 'vagina-worshipper', just trying to impress you? People say lots of things, don't they? 'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey'...

Quote Zenzoe:

I think he knows that medical procedures past viability are not about torturing fetuses. I think you know that, but you refuse to acknowledge it, thinking magically as you do and conjuring devil doctors and pregnant females who supposedly perform such "atrocities" by the “whims that harlots devise out of selfishness.

Well, you are reading into my position a whole lot more than is there. Remember, my position is still based on the contention of rights that Roe vs. Wade decided this issue on. And, as I said fairly early on in that discussion on the abortion thread that I was comfortable with the mother having the absolute right to abort her fetus before fetal viability altered that option with, now, rights that the fetus is to obtain--with the first individual right being the 'right to life'--which, as Roe vs. Wade pointed out, without which no other right is possible....it was you, particularly, that did NOT want this based on rights--and you with the clan that kept hounding me over issues that really have nothing to do with elective abortions--you know, all those emotional dire circumstances that you kept bringing up that countered D_NATURED's near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing fiasco....

Quote Zenzoe:

But of course, for me think you’re not going to twist what I’ve said here, that you’ll suddenly have an epiphany of consciousness, to see the fallacious nature of your stance, would be for me to engage in magical thinking myself. Thus, wail away with your diatribe. I won’t be surprised.

How dare you try to claim that now--as you not one time, even including your post here, ever said anything to that affect to D_NATURED. Not even, 'Now, D_NATURED, that's gross and we women, more intuned to the feelings of others, just wouldn't want that to happen even to a fetus that we don't want'. Not once. So, are you owning up to it--or not--Zenzoe? Even in 'fantasy'....otherwise, I know exactly why I keep bringing it up....

Quote Zenzoe:

So, your daughters had elective abortions themselves? Well, good for you for supporting them. You’re almost there. (Btw, I already knew your stance on abortion prior to viability, and I did not accuse you of being against it.)

Well, thanks for your second statement--but, stop being so condescending with your first one....and, don't forget the other part to this that the clan thinks is unnecessary--personal responsiblity. Be personally responsible, one way or the other--and do so in a responsible time frame that doesn't have to contend with any issues of rights for the fetus. I am still all for that...

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

Funny, I had posted my comment #1157 at 15:21 p.m., and I saw Kerry's post ahead of mine at 15:20 p.m. So now I notice Kerry edited his comment of 15:20, so that it is now #1158, after mine. What is that, Kerry? You have to have the last word? You had it over at Sane Conversation; is that what you're working on here?

What an ass.

Quote Kerry: ...it was you, particularly, that did NOT want this based on rights--and you with the clan that kept hounding me over issues that really have nothing to do with elective abortions...

Wrong again. My position, which coincides with Justice Ginsberg's, regards the abortion issue very definitely as an issue of civil-liberty rights— the civil liberties of women, the right of women to equality under the law, and to opportunity, and to happiness. And such rights are not subordinate to a superior "right to life." That's ridiculous. (Only authoritarians want a hierarchy of rights. They're uncomfortable with nuance.)

You're the one who keeps arguing against elective abortions all the way to term, when I'm not advocating for elective abortions all the way to term. I'm advocating for reason, where the reproductive lives of girls and women are concerned; and, I do not consider a late-term abortion involving, for example, a nine-year-old child who had been raped by her father to be an "elective abortion." I consider it a medical and psychological necessity. That's the difference between you and me— you think such an interference with a pregnancy should deliver a live fetus, or should not happen at all. The child should endure a pregnancy all the way to term, according to you. And you think that's reasonable! I disagree! That would be an atrocity!!!!!!

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

[quote]You've got me on a rant now, Zenzoe.

The rant's not her fault; it's hardwired.

Are you happy?

I don't know. Are you? Happiness is a relative thing from one person to the next, you know. I think that in your case, if you were to learn to chant Hare Krishna, your life would become sublime.

What should Abigail Fisher do?

Journey to Delphi. Take the counsel of the Oracle.

Besides all the questions that I listed for Ulysses above (that I doubt I will get an 'educated' answer from),

A gross untruth. I answered every one of them.

there are other questions involved in what Abigail 'should' do:

Life is like a box of chocolates...

And, one of the most annoying things about life is that it always provides more questions than answers -- to everybody except the Keracken. He possesses the Cosmic Certainties.

I guess that's enough for now

I thought that a long time ago.

....Good day...

For REAL?

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

[quote=Zenzoe]

To think that by repeating a hyperbolic, emotionally manipulative, misleading phrase such as, “near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing” you will change people’s minds and bring them around to your way of thinking, is to practice magical thinking. To keep repeating that phrase is to practice the rhetoric of magical thinking.

So, as I said, you are going to condone it coming from D_NATURED--you are going to condemn it coming from me. Regardless of any real and factual elements that such fetal brain sucking and skull crushing represents. I say THAT is 'magical thinking'....

The dummy has never been able to understand that context is determinate.

Quote Zenzoe:

It matters little to me who said it first; you’re the one who keeps bringing it up with the sole purpose of manipulation via emotion;

Oh? You know, coming from someone that wanted to justify elective abortions by the dire circumstances of incest and rape, I'm having a hard time taking your claims now seriously....

You'll never take anything seriously if it's at odds with your own warped beliefs.

Quote Zenzoe:

you’re presenting that fantasy as if it’s a reality, as if women and their doctors do this, or wish to do it, on an elective basis

I know that it is illegal. I've said that before. But, that doesn't stop D_NATURED from using it, does it? Even threatening me with something to do with a pork shoulder over it.

Yeah, Boy Howdy! That's a real serious threat, isn't it, considering the fact that D_NATURED doesn't know who the hell you are and probably lives in a different state. You're such a lunatic you can't think your way out of a paper bag.

Quote Zenzoe:

To persist as you do in this fantasy is an aspect of your magical thinking— “If I repeat this often enough, people will come to believe it’s happening, or it’s on the pro-choice agenda.” That’s magical thinking. We’re never going to accept it.

To instill the image of near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing before birth looking just like a mutilated dead baby after birth is NOT 'magical thinking'--it's a bonafide fact of that image. Thinking that has nothing of consequence to the real issues of elective abortions IS the 'magical thinking'....which is why I keep bringing it up

The actual reason you keep bringing it up is to be annoying.

Quote Zenzoe:

Of course, D_NATURED did indeed bring it up first, but it was clear to anybody who knows his style that he did it to mock the anti-abortion hysteria regarding abortion, and to indicate his disregard for their arguments, up front and in their face. He knew it was hyperbolic. Or, if he meant it literally, that is, he didn’t care what reason a woman might have to abort a fetus, he would stand by her choice no matter what, I don’t think he would subscribe to a medical procedure that would include torture.

Making excuses for your friend, aren't you, Zenzoe?

No, she was simply stating facts, another of which is that you are an asshole.

YES, YES and YES!!! Give me the triaining and the tools and the women in need and I'll be a brain suckiing fool, if you don't have the stomach for liberty, if you prefer the idea of the feminine underclass to the sight of dead fetuses. Yes, you weakling.

Are you saying that D_NATURED didn't mean what D_NATURED said? Is that what D_NATURED is saying? No. We went over and over this point on the abortion thread

Yeah, so why are you here?

Quote Zenzoe:

I think he knows that medical procedures past viability are not about torturing fetuses. I think you know that, but you refuse to acknowledge it, thinking magically as you do and conjuring devil doctors and pregnant females who supposedly perform such "atrocities" by the “whims that harlots devise out of selfishness.

and you with the clan that kept hounding me over issues that really have nothing to do with elective abortions

Nobody has "hounded" you. You just won't take "No" for an answer when people don't agree with you; if that's "hounding" you, so be it.

In fact, people are so little inclined to "hound" you that if you were to dry up, pull your head down and around and up through your own heinie and blow away like an out-of-control balloon, nobody would mourn your passing for a New York second. Hard for you to believe, I know, but true nonetheless.

Quote Zenzoe:

But of course, for me think you’re not going to twist what I’ve said here, that you’ll suddenly have an epiphany of consciousness, to see the fallacious nature of your stance, would be for me to engage in magical thinking myself. Thus, wail away with your diatribe. I won’t be surprised.

So, are you owning up to it--or not--Zenzoe?

Yeah, Zenzoe. The Court directs that you answer the prosecution's questions! Got that, Zenzoe?

Even in 'fantasy'....otherwise, I know exactly why I keep bringing it up....

That's good. Nobody else does.

Quote Zenzoe:

So, your daughters had elective abortions themselves? Well, good for you for supporting them. You’re almost there. (Btw, I already knew your stance on abortion prior to viability, and I did not accuse you of being against it.)

Well, thanks for your second statement--but, stop being so condescending with your first one....and, don't forget the other part to this that the clan thinks is unnecessary--personal responsiblity. Be personally responsible,

You, too. Have the discernment to know when you're not wanted and the common decency not to stay at the party when everybody there knows it's you who are stinking up the room.

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

It matters little to me who said it first; you’re the one who keeps bringing it up with the sole purpose of manipulation via emotion;

Quote Kerry: Oh? You know, coming from someone that wanted to justify elective abortions by the dire circumstances of incest and rape, I'm having a hard time taking your claims now seriously...

You'll never take anything seriously if it's at odds with your own warped beliefs.

Oh so true. And he compares my references to rape and incest, violations which actually happen quite often, with his hyperbolic "near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing," which does not happen, at least not to live, late-term fetuses or on an elective abortion basis. Some people might call that a false equivalency. One can be legitimately outraged by rape and incest; one would have to be seriously nuts to be outraged by non-existent brain sucking and skull crushing of live, late-term fetuses.

Quote Ulysses:
Quote Kerry: To instill the image of near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing before birth looking just like a mutilated dead baby after birth is NOT 'magical thinking'--it's a bonafide fact of that image. Thinking that has nothing of consequence to the real issues of elective abortions IS the 'magical thinking'....which is why I keep bringing it up

The actual reason you keep bringing it up is to be annoying.

Yes, and because he can't tell the difference between "looking just like a mutilated dead baby after birth" and actual torture of a live fetus. The appearance of things has more reality for him than actuality.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DdC on another thread:

GOPerverts just can't keep their Mitt's off of people's bodies...

90 percent of Planned Parenthood services are abortions.
~ Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)

No federal funding goes to abortions.
97 percent of Planned Parenthood's services are not abortions.
~ Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood president

Kyl Walks Back Planned Parenthood Claim:
It 'Was Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement'.

Pro Life? Not even anti abortion

"Let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... If a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple.... Our goal is a Christian Nation... we have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules."
~ Randall Terry,
Head of Operation Rescue,
from The News Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Aug 15, 1993

Wall street's Spontaneous Abortionists
A California Department of Health study surveyed 5,144 pregnant women and fount that pregnant women who consumed more than 5 glasses of water a day containing more than 75 ppb (parts per billion) had double the risk of spontaneous abortion.

GOPerversion, another Prohibition! On Women...
1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape).

17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed rape.

9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003.
While about 80% of all victims are white, minorities are somewhat more likely to be attacked.

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

Funny, I had posted my comment #1157 at 15:21 p.m., and I saw Kerry's post ahead of mine at 15:20 p.m. So now I notice Kerry edited his comment of 15:20, so that it is now #1158, after mine. What is that, Kerry? You have to have the last word? You had it over at Sane Conversation; is that what you're working on here?

Well, actually, if you look at the posts, I'm not sure how my rant on Abigail (that I doubt Ulysses will give an 'educated' assessment of--or any of you will do any more than 'Get over it' just like any oppressor could do with any one that they oppressed at any time in history) has any thing to do with what you posted. Now, my next post after that does.....

I didn't even know you had posted until I posted that post, Zenzoe. I probably was just editing it. Had you read it before you posted yours? You didn't make any references to Abigail Fisher's case if you had...

What an ass

Speak for yourself--and read above....

Wrong again. My position, which coincides with Justice Ginsberg's, regards the abortion issue very definitely as an issue of civil-liberty rights— the civil liberties of women, the right of women to equality under the law, and to opportunity, and to happiness. And such rights are not subordinate to a superior "right to life." That's ridiculous. (Only authoritarians want a hierarchy of rights. They're uncomfortable with nuance.)

Once the 'right to life' is determined to exist, all other rights are subordinate to them, Zenzoe. Otherwise you would have the 'right to choose' to kill anyone's life--and, if Justice Ginsberg actually said that, I would like to see how she would respond to that point. I've even made the point that, in the oral arguments of Roe vs. Wade, one of the justices made the very remark that, if the fetus was seen to have a right to life at conception, then, all the existing laws allowing elective abortions at the time (in states like California and New York) were going to have to be removed as being unconstitutional. You don't think that Justice Ginsberg knows that? I know that the anti-abortionist know it. They have been trying to get any state to pass a constitutional amendment declaring the right to life to begin at conception.

Roe vs. Wade just noted that they couldn't do that as they tried to 'scientifically define' when a 'human life' began--which, also, they didn't agree on (but, they did give the mother the absolute right to abort for any, or no apparent reason, at all anywhere in the nation, only up to 12 weeks gestation--after which, any state could intervene against that right for the interest of the fetus as that state deemed appropriate--now, we have a federal law that removes the late stage abortions all across the nation) . Actually, as far as the fetus's natural state to that life, I see the most objective basis for it being that, when a fetus can come out alive, a fetus should come out alive as that fetus's right to life--just like Texas law has defined it since the Roe vs. Wade decision.

I suspect that you are mischaracterizing Justice Ginsberg's statements. This is, and has always been seen as, a contention of rights issue. And, also as I remember saying to you on the abortion thread, if the Kumbaya clan wants to try to make this a 'dire circumstances' excuse (as D_NATURED smugly sucks those near birth fetal brains out and crushes those fetal skulls 'in support') and you don't want this to be based on a contention of rights issue (because, apparently, the Kumbaya clan wants our political structure based on something else other than the securing and guaranteeing of individual rights--maybe something like 'communal concern for the oppressed' as long as they get to decide who is oppressed--and they can ignore any other oppression because, of course, no one has absolute rights as the political priority in Kumbaya-land, any way), don't be too surprised when the anti-abortionists take your very dire circumstances excuse and limits all abortions to those (just like the misogynist state of Texas offered even before Roe vs. Wade). The anti-abortionists have already taken your so-concerned 'protection and safety' issue (wasn't 'risk of life to the mother' another one of your Kumbaya-like excuses to justify elective abortions?)--and using it against you (as long as there is no discussion on the contention of rights that this really involves, they will be able to turn your own excuses against you--and, believe me, it will be a ploy that hypocrites, such as yourself that disregard the contention of rights this really involves, will have a hard time overcoming...). Remember you've already pointed out that some states (like Virginia) are imposing quite expensive and restrictive 'building requirements' on abortion clinics in their state--having the early abortion D&C's that could practically be done in any office setting now require a facility that would pass inspection for the most extensive surgical procedures--which, in a real sense, will just outprice abortions. And, why are they doing it? Of course, for your 'protection and safety'....

As Bob Dylan sings, 'When are you going to wake up--and strengthen the things that remain?' And, if Justice Ginsberg is really trying to subdue any consideration for the right to life of the fetus at any stage by claiming preemptive rights of choice by the mother at all stages of pregnancy, I believe Justice Ginsberg is ignoring the history of the legal decision as Roe vs. Wade made--and the present condition and attitude of the society with respect to near birth fetal killings like what D_NATURED smugly asserts....and, if the Kumbaya clan thinks all of that can be ignored for whatever the Kumbaya clan thinks is involved here other than the contention of rights that it is, then, the Kumbaya clan deserves whatever the Kumbaya clan gets.....but, I doubt it will be anything like vagina-worshippers for near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing as the only way to prove empowerment of women, either.....

Quote Zenzoe:

You're the one who keeps arguing against elective abortions all the way to term, when I'm not advocating for elective abortions all the way to term.

D_NATURED is--and you never called D_NATURED down on it. In fact, D_NATURED offered that right in the middle of your dire circumstances excuses for elective abortions frenzy on the abortion thread--and a fiasco it was. I even kept noting that this is the first time I have ever spoken against abortion rights on a thread--and I have been talking about this on boards like this for over a decade. I vehemently disagree with how you and the clan are trying to characterize this issue. I know that there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance. I disagree with allowing that 'medical indication' as being if the mother near birth just decides at that time that 'she wouldn't have the life she wants with this child--and now wants it eliminated'. If that were a responsible decision, she should have known that at the outset of the pregnancy--and, if the circumstances have changed at that point, she can adopt the child out. If there is something of a 'dire circumstances' issue that warrants the consideration of aborting at that late a stage, then, like any issue that involves persons with a right to life, that will have to go to court and/or involve an element of due process to remove that right at that point.....we have been over all of this, before, Zenzoe. But, the Kumbaya clan just ignores it--no matter how realistic my description is....and I do know this issue....personally and professionally....

Quote Zenzoe:

I'm advocating for reason, where the reproductive lives of girls and women are concerned; and, I do not consider a late-term abortion involving, for example, a nine-year-old child who had been raped by her father to be an "elective abortion." I consider it a medical and psychological necessity

At that point, it will still have to go to court--or undergo some form of due process--to be decided. While 'elective abortions' are an issue between the 'doctor and the patient', if there is to be abortions done at a time when the fetus has gained rights (the first being the right to life), that will take some form of due process to determine its elimination. And, in that due process consideration, I'm hoping someone is determining what is to be done with the person who incestuously raped the child---also something that the Kumbaya clan ignored. DRC wants them all to be 'rehabilitated'....as D_NATURED is sucking those near birth fetal brains out and crushing those fetal skulls over it....

We even discussed the point that the original Roe in Roe vs. Wade initially tried to claim that she was raped in order to get a legal abortion in Texas at the time. It probably didn't work because she didn't identify the rapist--and she didn't press charges. Of course, when no one identifies the rapist or presses charges, how are you so sure that they are telling the truth? People say a lot of things, don't they? But, if they don't act on their claims, how are you to know? I'll still respect you in the morning, honey.....and the original Roe ended up having that child, anyway--and, now, the original Roe is an avid anti-abortionist.....the Kumbaya clan doesn't know what it is up against, yet....'When are you gonna wake up--and strengthen the things that remain'....

Quote Zenzoe:

That's the difference between you and me— you think such an interference with a pregnancy should deliver a live fetus, or should not happen at all. The child should endure a pregnancy all the way to term, according to you. And you think that's reasonable! I disagree! That would be an atrocity!!!!!!

If it is a post fetal viability condition, it is either determined in court or, in some way, by due process, as anyone with a right to life would have--and, as far as I'm concerned, that court determination would include handling the rapist. Otherwise, read above.

And, the point still is that there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance. There may be a medical indication to rapidly deliver that fetus--but there is never one that requires a special procedure to exterminate its existence before delivery. This is a political and legal issue--not a medical one. When that fetus obtains the right to life at the point of fetal viability (as many states determine it), the determination of that fetus's existence will require due process--as I believe it should.....otherwise, prior to the stage of fetal viablity, until the Kumbaya clan have their way and all rights are no longer seen as absolute in its political sense, the mother has the right to end that pregnancy for any, or no apparent, reason at all--that's the essence of the elective abortion issue (as decided by Roe vs. Wade)--and the contention of rights it entails....and that's exactly what the Kumbaya clan constantly ignores....for what? It appears more for the emotional pleas of 'dire circumstances' as the excuse to abort--which, if that is what they want, don't be too surprised if that is all they get--just like the misogynist state of Texas had before Roe vs. Wade..... maybe then the Kumbaya clan will have their way as D_NATURED smugly sucks the near birth fetal brains and crushes the fetal skull from a 9 year old incestuous rape victim--who may still ask, 'What did my child do to deserve this?'--and the Kumbaya clan's answer will be, 'GET OVER IT!'

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

Chihuahua obsessed locked jaw pittbulls.

EdBourgeois's picture
EdBourgeois
Joined:
May. 14, 2010 11:24 am
Well, actually, if you look at the posts, I'm not sure how my rant on Abigail (that I doubt Ulysses will give an 'educated' assessment of

Already did. Recipients of educated assessments have to be educated to understand them. Too bad.

What an ass

Speak for yourself--and read above....

I'm rubber and you're glue. Anything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you...

Wrong again. My position, which coincides with Justice Ginsberg's, regards the abortion issue very definitely as an issue of civil-liberty rights— the civil liberties of women, the right of women to equality under the law, and to opportunity, and to happiness. And such rights are not subordinate to a superior "right to life." That's ridiculous. (Only authoritarians want a hierarchy of rights. They're uncomfortable with nuance.)

I suspect that you are mischaracterizing Justice Ginsberg's statements.

He "suspects." So now I guess that in addition to being a doctor (not); a learned Biblical exegete; an expert on abortion ethics; an expert on economics and politics; and The Most Interesting Man In the World, he's well-versed enough in Constitutional law to smugly "suspect" that she has mischaracterized Ginsberg's statements. Maybe he got his law degree at the University of Texas after the Abigail Fisher affair, after that event so incensed him that he sped through three years of law school in several weeks for the sole purpose of being able to correct whomever he "suspects" of mischaracterizing Supreme Court opinions. What a genius!

This is, and has always been seen as, a contention of rights issue. And, also as I remember saying to you on the abortion thread, if the Kumbaya clan wants to try to make this a 'dire circumstances' excuse (as D_NATURED smugly sucks those near birth fetal brains out and crushes those fetal skulls 'in support') and you don't want this to be based on a contention of rights issue (because, apparently, the Kumbaya clan wants our political structure based on something else other than the securing and guaranteeing of individual rights--maybe something like 'communal concern for the oppressed' as long as they get to decide who is oppressed--and they can ignore any other oppression because, of course, no one has absolute rights as the political priority in Kumbaya-land, any way), don't be too surprised when the anti-abortionists take your very dire circumstances excuse and limits all abortions to those (just like the misogynist state of Texas offered even before Roe vs. Wade). The anti-abortionists have already taken your so-concerned 'protection and safety' issue (wasn't 'risk of life to the mother' another one of your Kumbaya-like excuses to justify elective abortions?)--and using it against you (as long as there is no discussion on the contention of rights that this really involves, they will be able to turn your own excuses against you--and, believe me, it will be a ploy that hypocrites, such as yourself that disregard the contention of rights this really involves, will have a hard time overcoming...). Remember you've already pointed out that some states (like Virginia) are imposing quite expensive and restrictive 'building requirements' on abortion clinics in their state--having the early abortion D&C's that could practically be done in any office setting now require a facility that would pass inspection for the most extensive surgical procedures--which, in a real sense, will just outprice abortions. And, why are they doing it? Of course, for your 'protection and safety'....

Just another poorly constructed, thinly veiled, indirect argument for libertarianism. Up yours.

And, if Justice Ginsberg is really trying to subdue any consideration for the right to life of the fetus at any stage by claiming preemptive rights of choice by the mother at all stages of pregnancy, I believe Justice Ginsberg is ignoring the history of the legal decision as Roe vs. Wade made

Opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one. Once again, his quickly acquired legal expertise comes shining through.

--and the present condition and attitude of the society with respect to near birth fetal killings like what D_NATURED smugly asserts....and, if the Kumbaya clan thinks all of that can be ignored for whatever the Kumbaya clan thinks is involved here other than the contention of rights that it is, then, the Kumbaya clan deserves whatever the Kumbaya clan gets

In his humble "Christian" opinion.

Quote Zenzoe:

You're the one who keeps arguing against elective abortions all the way to term, when I'm not advocating for elective abortions all the way to term.

D_NATURED is--and you never called D_NATURED down on it.

Who do you think you are, the Supreme Assigner of Who Should Call Out Whom? That hubris makes you a tad large for even your own soiled tight whites, doesn't it?

and I have been talking about this on boards like this for over a decade.

In that case, your ravings must not be considered universally profound, or you'd have garnered more converts by now.

I vehemently disagree with how you and the clan are trying to characterize this issue.

No shit?

I know that there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance. I disagree with allowing that 'medical indication' as being if the mother near birth just decides at that time that 'she wouldn't have the life she wants with this child--and now wants it eliminated'.

But none of you nuts ever wants to adopt unwanted children carried to term, and none of you ever wants to pay a dime extra in taxes to ensure that they have a chance in life after birth. "Love the Fetus, Hate the Child." But taxes? Oh, hell no! Taxes aren't the Libertarian way! Forget that!

we have been over all of this, before, Zenzoe.

So why repeat yourself? Are you a man or a mynah?

But, the Kumbaya clan just ignores it--no matter how realistic my description is....and I do know this issue....personally and professionally....

He's NOT a doctor.

Quote Zenzoe:

I'm advocating for reason, where the reproductive lives of girls and women are concerned; and, I do not consider a late-term abortion involving, for example, a nine-year-old child who had been raped by her father to be an "elective abortion." I consider it a medical and psychological necessity

At that point, it will still have to go to court--or undergo some form of due process--to be decided. While 'elective abortions' are an issue between the 'doctor and the patient', if there is to be abortions done at a time when the fetus has gained rights (the first being the right to life), that will take some form of due process to determine its elimination.

This, again, is the expert legal opinion of The Most Interesting Man In the World.

And, in that due process consideration, I'm hoping someone is determining what is to be done with the person who incestuously raped the child---also something that the Kumbaya clan ignored.

He apparently thinks all prosecutors are always asleep. And, with all of that newly acquired legal expertise at his disposal, one would think he'd know that rape and incest are covered by laws which deal specifically with them. Alas, his writings reveal a failure to acknolwledge that, so he must be ignorant of it.

DRC wants them all to be 'rehabilitated'

Oversimplification and lie by omission. Besides, DRC is entitled to his opinions, as is the Keracken.

People say a lot of things, don't they?

Well, you certainly do, and most of them are lies, bullshit, or nonsense.

I'll still respect you in the morning, honey.....

Whoa, Nellie! You said that to somebody? Who? When did you have sex with them? Aren't you aware that you could get a sexually transmitted disease?

the Kumbaya clan doesn't know what it is up against, yet....

Oh, please, please, please, provide enlightenment! Could it be you? I mean, you are harder to comb out than a crab louse nit.

Quote Zenzoe:

That's the difference between you and me— you think such an interference with a pregnancy should deliver a live fetus, or should not happen at all. The child should endure a pregnancy all the way to term, according to you. And you think that's reasonable! I disagree! That would be an atrocity!!!!!!

and, as far as I'm concerned, that court determination would include handling the rapist.

In his learned legal opinion, that is.

This is a political and legal issue--not a medical one. When that fetus obtains the right to life at the point of fetal viability (as many states determine it), the determination of that fetus's existence will require due process--as I believe it should.....otherwise, prior to the stage of fetal viablity, until the Kumbaya clan have their way and all rights are no longer seen as absolute in its political sense, the mother has the right to end that pregnancy for any, or no apparent, reason at all--that's the essence of the elective abortion issue (as decided by Roe vs. Wade)--and the contention of rights it entails....and that's exactly what the Kumbaya clan constantly ignores....for what? It appears more for the emotional pleas of 'dire circumstances' as the excuse to abort--which, if that is what they want, don't be too surprised if that is all they get--just like the misogynist state of Texas had before Roe vs. Wade..... maybe then the Kumbaya clan will have their way as D_NATURED smugly sucks the near birth fetal brains and crushes the fetal skull from a 9 year old incestuous rape victim--who may still ask, 'What did my child do to deserve this?'--and the Kumbaya clan's answer will be, 'GET OVER IT!'

This one's an anti-rights analogue of Nixon's "Checkers" speech. Well, maybe we'll all be happy when we don't have the Keracken to kick around anymore. I know I will!

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

Of course, Ulysses comes in not making any intelligent and educated remarks about what Abigail Fisher should do--and Zenzoe praises Ulysses (you know, pats Ulysses' on its little nipping chihuahuah head) for all insults (nips) asserted and implied. However, this deserves one more remark:

Quote Zenzoe:

Yes, and because he can't tell the difference between "looking just like a mutilated dead baby after birth" and actual torture of a live fetus. The appearance of things has more reality for him than actuality

Point still is Zenzoe that if you mutilate a near birth fetus right before delivering it, it will look just like a mutilated dead baby right after delivering it--and everyone in the surgery suite at that time (because late stage abortions are more than a D&C procedure) will notice that. I know that California at one point allowed elective abortions all the way to term--California and New York did before Roe vs. Wade--which was one of the reasons why Roe vs. Wade went to the Supreme Court (whose rights were being infringed upon--the mother in not having that right all across the nation--or the fetus in not having the right to life in California and New York?). And, I remember a conversation many years ago on another board with a California lawyer, who happened to be Catholic, that informed me that, at that time in California, the mother could exterminate her child at will even right before delivery--but, if, say, an automobile accident caused her to prematurely deliver a dead fetus, that person who caused the accident could be charged with manslaughter--which he and I agreed was crazy--and I did comment that Californians must smoke too much dope.

Now, you tell me that even the 'liberal state' of California limits its elective abortions to 24 weeks gestation (at one point, you even said you were comfortable with that--but, then, you turned around and castigated Thom Hartmann for being for how Roe vs. Wade had decided this case because it limited women's decisions on this--which way is it, Zenzoe?). Texas is at 20 weeks. Most states--including New York--have limited legal elective abortions. And, I bet you that one element that caused them to change those laws was exactly having those present in the surgery suite noting that a near birth aborted fetus looks just like a dead baby after delivery--and I bet they organized complaints in their respective hospitals and to their respective legislators. And, it got changed. Why? Because, unless you are as smug and callous as D_NATURED with this, not a whole lot of people like looking at dead babies--especially mutilated ones. And, while early abortions can be done just between the doctor and the patient in a clinic-like setting, later abortions require hospital rooms and surgery suites with other witnesses present.....

It's you and your kind's 'magical thinking' to even try to assert that there is a difference between a mutilated fetus killed before delivery and the reality that it looks exactly like a mutilated dead baby after delivery....despite attempt on your part to assume that this is some abstraction not to be considered with regards to any consequences of its presence. It is so. And, you are mistaken....and I am betting you that is one reason why California changed its laws on legal elective abortions....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry: I suspect that you are mischaracterizing Justice Ginsberg's statements.
Quote Ruth Bader Ginsburg:The conflict is not simply one between a fetus’ interest and a woman’s interest.. Also in the balance is a woman’s autonomous charge of her full life’s course, her ability to stand in relation to men, society and to stay as an independent, self-sustaining equal citizen.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in Gonzalez vs. Carhart (partial-birth abortion ban upheld) clearly affirms sex equality (as opposed to privacy) arguments for reproductive rights:

Quote Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Today's decision is alarming.... It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.

I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices.

Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.

Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety. This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution—ideas that have long since been discredited.

In keeping with this comprehension of the right to reproductive choice, the Court has consistently required that laws regulating abortion, at any stage of pregnancy and in all cases, safeguard a woman’s health...

The Court's hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed.

Though today's opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of "the rule of law" and the "principles of stare decisis."

In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court's defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court — with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives.

...Similarly, Congress found that “[t]here is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures.” Congressional Findings (14)(B), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 769. But the congressional record includes letters from numerous individual physicians stating that pregnant women’s health would be jeopardized under the Act, as well as statements from nine professional associations, including ACOG, the American Public Health Association, and the California Medical Association, attesting that intact D&E carries meaningful safety advantages over other methods. See National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 490. See also Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1021 (“Congress in its findings . . . chose to disregard the statements by ACOG and other medical organizations.”). No comparable medical groups supported the ban. In fact, “all of the government’s own witnesses disagreed with many of the specific congressional findings.”

(emphasis, Zenzoe)

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

I find Kerry's assertion that the right to life is somehow more fundamental or whatever to be suspect. Fact is, the right to life of the fetus viable or not is subject to the choice the mother has the right to. It doesn't matter if Kerry is right about the types of situations pertaining to the issue, the patient has the final say per his/her rights as to what medical treatment to undergo. I am horrified by the idea of subjecting a young rape victim to a trial over the issue of whether an abortion is allowable. It comes back to the obvious bias Kerry has in determining the validity of other people's choices when speaking of this issue. There are always little creepy kind of things that right wingers say that they think are so pithy and this "I'll still respect you in the morning." thing is one example. Obviously, this comes down to Dr. Kerry Expert Opinion on the choices a hypothetical person has made. For all the finesse about the exact laws he thinks should be in place, he obviously cannot give up on the notion that he is the correct final arbiter not only on the issue itself but on each case that might hypothetically come to his attention.

I'll admit I tentatively entertained the idea that the right to life of a viable fetus would determine the question against the legality of an abortion in cases where a choice to become pregnant and stay pregnant. But, the fact is its not my position to judge in each case and say "I told you so." as in "I told you that guy would turn out to be a crackhead but its too late now you have to have the baby or whatever." I can't judge the circumstances and there's nothing in the Constitution to determine that the right to life is a more fundamental right than the others in such a way as to determine the question in each situation a-priori. Life is the condition for the excercise of natural rights, but all natural rights are absolute. If Kerry's argument had any merit, viability would not be an issue because the choice (assuming one was made) having been made would have the consequence of the right to life of the fetus. Maybe there's some debate about when the embryo becomes a fetus or whatever but that's obviously previous to viability. But choice or no, the right to privacy is very definately a liberty necessary to the preservation of all of the rights of the woman.

I don't want to validate Kerry's rather musty-smelling conservative social rhetoric but I think everyone here including D-Natured has some kind of desire to direct their energy not only to legal and political issues but also cultural issues such as Zenzoe's very important focus on the need to promote healthy and positive attitudes and regard for life and promotion of benevolent feelings of love and tenderness, etc., if that's not too kumbaya for Mr. "Let's Torture the Rapist to Death While We Put the Victim on Trial."

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry: Point still is Zenzoe that if you mutilate a near birth fetus right before delivering it, it will look just like a mutilated dead baby right after delivering it--and everyone in the surgery suite at that time (because late stage abortions are more than a D&C procedure) will notice that.

What does it matter what it looks like? What is important is that when a pregnancy must be terminated, by court order due to the fact the woman’s health is in jeopardy, care is taken that the fetus does not experience pain, nor suffers any sort of torturous dismemberment while alive.

Of course, the safer procedure (Intact D&E), the one that leaves the fetus intact, was banned by Congress, so that now that option isn’t available.

Quote Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Gonzalez vs. Carhart: Intact D&E, plaintiffs’ experts explained, provides safety benefits over D&E by dismemberment for several reasons: First,intact D&E minimizes the number of times a physician must insert instruments through the cervix and into the uterus, and thereby reduces the risk of trauma to, and perforation of, the cervix and uterus—the most serious complication associated with nonintact D&E. See Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 923–928, 1025; National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 471; Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 982, 1001. Second,removing the fetus intact, instead of dismembering it in utero, decreases the likelihood that fetal tissue will be retained in the uterus, a condition that can cause infection, hemorrhage, and infertility. See Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 923–928, 1025–1026; National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 472; Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1001. Third, intact D&E diminishes the chances of exposing the patient’s tissues to sharp bony fragments sometimes resulting from dismemberment of the fetus. See Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 923–928, 1026; National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 471; Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1001. Fourth, intact D&E takes less operating time than D&E by dismemberment, and thus may reduce bleeding, the risk of infection, and complications relating to anesthesia.

Btw, please don’t bother arguing this point from a medical viewpoint: You are neither trained nor experienced in any sorts of late-term abortion procedures.

Quote Kerry:
I know that California at one point allowed elective abortions all the way to term--California and New York did before Roe vs. Wade--which was one of the reasons why Roe vs. Wade went to the Supreme Court (whose rights were being infringed upon--the mother in not having that right all across the nation--or the fetus in not having the right to life in California and New York?).

That’s complete BS. I lived in California before Roe v Wade, and abortion —ALL ABORTION— WAS ILLEGAL before Roe v Wade passed.

Oye. You’re so full of it.

In short, don’t condescend to me about the “right to life” being first among rights. The only reason you take that position is that your mind-set blocks your comprehension of the notion that all rights have equal value and must be balanced, according to reasonable standards and fairness.

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

I think Abigail Fisher should star in a Lifetime miniseries about a certain valiant doctor whom the Lord looked down upon with favor as he valiantly fought not only for her rights but for the rights of the unborn. Oh wait, now I'm being unfair because I'm contradicting Kerry's "rational Christianiy" (something he probably doctored up to fool progressives) by psychoanalyzing him as having a center-of-attention complex.

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote nimblecivet:

I find Kerry's assertion that the right to life is somehow more fundamental or whatever to be suspect. Fact is, the right to life of the fetus viable or not is subject to the choice the mother has the right to. It doesn't matter if Kerry is right about the types of situations pertaining to the issue, the patient has the final say per his/her rights as to what medical treatment to undergo. I am horrified by the idea of subjecting a young rape victim to a trial over the issue of whether an abortion is allowable. It comes back to the obvious bias Kerry has in determining the validity of other people's choices when speaking of this issue. There are always little creepy kind of things that right wingers say that they think are so pithy and this "I'll still respect you in the morning." thing is one example. Obviously, this comes down to Dr. Kerry Expert Opinion on the choices a hypothetical person has made. For all the finesse about the exact laws he thinks should be in place, he obviously cannot give up on the notion that he is the correct final arbiter not only on the issue itself but on each case that might hypothetically come to his attention.

I'll admit I tentatively entertained the idea that the right to life of a viable fetus would determine the question against the legality of an abortion in cases where a choice to become pregnant and stay pregnant. But, the fact is its not my position to judge in each case and say "I told you so." as in "I told you that guy would turn out to be a crackhead but its too late now you have to have the baby or whatever." I can't judge the circumstances and there's nothing in the Constitution to determine that the right to life is a more fundamental right than the others in such a way as to determine the question in each situation a-priori. Life is the condition for the excercise of natural rights, but all natural rights are absolute. If Kerry's argument had any merit, viability would not be an issue because the choice (assuming one was made) having been made would have the consequence of the right to life of the fetus. Maybe there's some debate about when the embryo becomes a fetus or whatever but that's obviously previous to viability. But choice or no, the right to privacy is very definately a liberty necessary to the preservation of all of the rights of the woman.

I don't want to validate Kerry's rather musty-smelling conservative social rhetoric but I think everyone here including D-Natured has some kind of desire to direct their energy not only to legal and political issues but also cultural issues such as Zenzoe's very important focus on the need to promote healthy and positive attitudes and regard for life and promotion of benevolent feelings of love and tenderness, etc., if that's not too kumbaya for Mr. "Let's Torture the Rapist to Death While We Put the Victim on Trial."

Thanks so much for chiming in on the dubious notion of "right to life rights as fundamental to all rights." That one bugs the hell out of me.

I am wondering who you're talking about, though, when you say, "but also cultural issues such as Zenzoe's very important focus on the need to promote healthy and positive attitudes and regard for life and promotion of benevolent feelings of love and tenderness, etc." I mean, moi? Gosh, thanks, but I'm not sure, NC, if I can identify entirely with that one. And I reserve the right to be hostile any time I like, feeling as I do that not everybody deserves benevolent treatment of love and tenderness. ;-)

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

[quote]In short, don’t condescend to me about the “right to life” being first among rights. The only reason you take that position is that your mind-set blocks your comprehension of the notion that all rights have equal value and must be balanced, according to reasonable standards and fairness.

You nailed this point really well and exactly right. These nuts and fanatics want to see everything and all issues as black-and-white. His understanding of the way the law actually works and has worked since the inception of the Republic is flawed because he doesn't understand the courts' constant needs to balance rights. They do it every day.

The alleged doctors of the world would prefer an absolutist, black-and-white existence, with a hierarchy of rights, because they wouldn't have to think at all if that were the case, and they'd experience zero cognitive dissonance so they'd be psychologically comfortable all the time. "Kerry" psychologically projects his predilection for this "True Believer" mindset every time he presents his opinions as though they're facts, rather than what they are: his opinions.

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

Zenzoe,please,don`t give these 1% representatives no new ideas,they`re bad enough with the mess they put out on the internet. Your name for the thread being use by the opposition, should be "Last Stop Hotel'.(the last stop before empire graveyard) Why should banking issues be a problem? Free your mind from corrupt economic theories and think in turn of basic needs,you will see,you don`t need to be a rocket scientist to understand economics.As in most things,we get pass common sense,we can get very lost.(the 1% is a good example) We don`t disagree on capitalism or ying & yang.The toddler can be a "monster" and the 1% and 99% can have "different" ying & yang's. A sexual idea of attraction between men/women is never "cliche". If she act like a little mouse,that would be "cliche",she act as a female James Bond,that`s no cliche. I`m not going to compare a action movie to a play about Bob Dylan,but i bet Angelina would hold her own,if she did it.I could imagine,most sex symbols would love to show the "other side".(she could afford it)

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:
Quote Zenzoe:

[quote]In short, don’t condescend to me about the “right to life” being first among rights. The only reason you take that position is that your mind-set blocks your comprehension of the notion that all rights have equal value and must be balanced, according to reasonable standards and fairness.

You nailed this point really well and exactly right. These nuts and fanatics want to see everything and all issues as black-and-white. His understanding of the way the law actually works and has worked since the inception of the Republic is flawed because he doesn't understand the courts' constant needs to balance rights. They do it every day.

The alleged doctors of the world would prefer an absolutist, black-and-white existence, with a hierarchy of rights, because they wouldn't have to think at all if that were the case, and they'd experience zero cognitive dissonance so they'd be psychologically comfortable all the time. "Kerry" psychologically projects his predilection for this "True Believer" mindset every time he presents his opinions as though they're facts, rather than what they are: his opinions.

Thanks, Ulysses. Sometimes I wonder if I even make any sense, given how my points get either ignored or twisted by the opposition. It's good to have validation, especially from you.

Well, you know I agree with the rest of what you said there— all well said I noticed too. I kinda think that if only Kerry would just state his position in one or two sentences, as his opinion and his opinion alone, then agree to disagree amicably, then we could go forward on the subject. But no, he has to bring in the Bible, and Abigail and the Kerry word-salad, and we're off and running again. ;-)

It's time for a song, pals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDRrwj3fl4U   (Ani DiFranco / Amendment)

Tayl, you crack me up. See, if I re-named the thread to Cockamamie Hotel, it would only be because I like the word cockamamie and want to use it as often as possible, like Kerry uses Kumbaya and brain-crushing.

As for your comment, "A sexual idea of attraction between men/women is never "cliche," oh, I beg to differ. Most sex scenes, for example, in American movies are total clichés. You should watch a few French movies, if you want to see some that are not clichés. When it comes to sex, the French know what they're doing... ;-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:You can also see the exercise of magical thinking within the new-agey “religion” of Science of Mind, where you get to learn how to blame yourself for everything that happens to you in this life. Count new-age guru, Wayne Dyer, among this group of mind-fucking entrepreneurs.

LOLOLOL. You are so right on, Z. The notion that what makes life better for people is to improve, not thier lives but their perception of it, leaves a lot of room for a lot of bad shit.

As backwards as it is to expect people to have major changes in thought process that do not coincide with changes to their physical environment, that is exactly what the republicans keep pushing. Poor is the "new normal", right? And, as long as everyone around you is hungry and sick, your own hunger and sickness will seem less...well...concerning.You'll get used to it, right? And the sooner the better.

What are the lefties supposed to do, though? They are competing with promises of eternal bliss for the low, low, one time payment of quiet, grateful suffering here on Earth. If the left doesn't make up some magical shit, the demogogues will have all the tools for human mind fucking and we'll be nothing more than a small, powerless, logical, un-fucked minority. We'll stand out like atheists at a prayer vigil.

There is a battle for American hearts and minds at stake here, Zenzoe. You can't win minds by admitting that you don't know anymore than you can win a war by admitting defeat. Even a magical explanation is more comforting than none. The smallpox blankets DID keep the indians warm for a few nights. It's the same thing.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm
I don't want to validate Kerry's rather musty-smelling conservative social rhetoric but I think everyone here including D-Natured has some kind of desire to direct their energy not only to legal and political issues but also cultural issues such as Zenzoe's very important focus on the need to promote healthy and positive attitudes and regard for life and promotion of benevolent feelings of love and tenderness, etc., if that's not too kumbaya for Mr. "Let's Torture the Rapist to Death While We Put the Victim on Trial."

I don't think it was your intention, but you bring up a sticky subject for me. That is, if I claim-as an American- to respect and value a "nation of laws" don't I have the right to expect that the laws I live by are not created magically? The truth is, when I see a law that was created magically, I don't desire to follow it or defend it. The post-viability abortion argument is that kind of very magical idea. As if viability of a fetus can be discussed to the exclusion of any consideration of the woman who created and OWNS it.

Kerry and Camaroman keep saying that most people would disagree with my take on whether or not the appearance of an aborted fetus should be a deciding factor in my opinion of abortion. Obviously, though I doubt any but a very small minority of pro-lifers have ever seen an aborted fetus, except in an anti-choice advertisement, those people have a vote. However, while the appearance of an aborted fetus may be a useful tool for manipulating believers in magic, I don't find the fetal appearance to be a logical reason for subjugating women. The reason is magical and so is the law and they defend the magical law with the magic fetus argument.

I guess what I'm saying is, how can we have a rational discussion of legal and moral issues that are based upon appearances. The sight of an aborted fetus is sooo horrible, apparently, that I guess we'll just have to pass a law that requires all abortion doctors to wear blind folds. And we better hope there's no cringe-inducing bone crunching noises or ear plugs will also be required. After all, crushing the skull of a pre-birth fetus sounds exactly like crushing the skull of a baby. Maybe when all doctors are blind and deaf women will be free. See how stupid it gets?

The magic causes loops in the conversation and nothing changes. i think that is the plan.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm

D-Natured I think I understand what you are getting at and it sounds to me like the ploy you are talking about is at bottom of a common type for the right-wing to employ. To make a comparison, (here) in CA there's been a little scandal involving state workers getting retirement money from an illegal arrangement involving misuse of funds in certain types of accounts which are meant for this or that purpose, etc. Basically, retired state park workers were getting money they weren't supposed to and the amounts involved over time come to many millions (I just glanced at the article so I'm not sure exactly how much but I think its in the tens of millions). Not to say that's not significant, important and so forth, but of course there will be those who seize upon it and never let go as "proof" of their position that as long as we retaliate against state workers the state budget will (magically, if I take the meaning right) solve itself. So if I take your point I guess that yes, the images Kerry has seized upon and which you point out have been used by the anti-abortion crowd for some time now may often cause people to react a certain way and then entrench themselves in a defensive position. Hopefully I have expressed myself clearly enough so that you know that I too see the viability issue as something important to a total comprehension of the subject matter but as a factor which does not determine the conclusions regarding the constitutionality of abortion laws.

Zenzoe and all, here's an interesting article I came across. It seems to me that the sexualization the article is talking about is something deliberate as far as Industry (capitalist social engineering) manipulating and tweaking the minds of their customers. It shows how deeply entrenched the above and below ground are as far as the social sphere being controlled by rich and powerful sickos evolving ever new ways of undermining our humanity. Anyway, here's the link and some quotes in case you don't want to read the whole article, not that its that long. I know we've talked about this before, but this article claims to relate the "first" study about the phenomenon and makes some interesting observations, the most interesting of which I believe I have picked out of the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-6-old-girls-want-sexy-161825233.html

...

Researchers have shown in the past that women and teens think of themselves in sexually objectified terms, but the new study is the first to identify self-sexualization in young girls. The study, published online July 6 in the journal Sex Roles, also identified factors that protect girls from objectifying themselves.

...

"It's very possible that girls wanted to look like the sexy doll because they believe sexiness leads to popularity, which comes with many social advantages," explained lead researcher Christy Starr, who was particularly surprised at how many 6- to 7-year-old girls chose the sexualized doll as their ideal self.

...

Starr and her research adviser and co-author, Gail Ferguson, also looked at factors that influenced the girls' responses. Most of the girls were recruited from two public schools, but a smaller subset was recruited from a local dance studio. The girls in this latter group actually chose the non-sexualized doll more often for each of the four questions than did the public-school group. Being involved in dance and other sports has been linked to greater body appreciation and higher body image in teen girls and women, Starr said. [10 Odd Facts About the Female Body]

"It's possible that for young girls, dance involvement increased body esteem and created awareness that their bodies can be used for purposes besides looking sexy for others, and thus decreased self-sexualization." ...

...

...The power of maternal instruction during media viewing may explain why every additional hour of TV- or movie-watching actually decreased the odds by 7 percent that a girl would choose the sexy doll as popular, Starr said. "As maternal TV instruction served as a protective factor for sexualization, it’s possible that higher media usage simply allowed for more instruction."

Mothers' religious beliefs also emerged as an important factor in how girls see themselves. Girls who consumed a lot of media but who had religious mothers were protected against self-sexualizing, perhaps because these moms "may be more likely to model higher body-esteem and communicate values such as modesty," the authors wrote, which could mitigate the images portrayed on TV or in the movies. [8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life]

However, girls who didn’t consume a lot of media but who had religious mothers were much more likely to say they wanted to look like the sexy doll. "This pattern of results may reflect a case of 'forbidden fruit' or reactance, whereby young girls who are overprotected from the perceived ills of media by highly religious parents … begin to idealize the forbidden due to their underexposure," the authors wrote. ...

I think when advertisers direct their efforts toward to the (lucrative) market of teens and younger children they are deliberately exploiting the kids' desire for social acceptance in such a way as to promote a form of socialization where kids never have the chance to develop as individuals. That makes adults more susceptible to advertising/media manipulation. A lot of "adults" these days basically have the emotional and mental maturity and character of a teenager and are socially rewarded for it, in my opinion.

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED: LOLOLOL. You are so right on, Z. The notion that what makes life better for people is to improve, not thier lives but their perception of it, leaves a lot of room for a lot of bad shit.

Thanks, D., and I wasn’t even trying to be funny! But yeah, D, fools rush in... are you old enough to remember that song? Probably not, but, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread/ And so I come to you my love/ My heart above my head./ Though I see the danger there. If there's a chance for me, then I don't care...” And this is exactly how the Wayne Dyer’s of the world make a living, praying on our foolish dreams of “personal power,” where we’re the center of the universe, and nothing else matters; not economic realities, not insane political policies; not the incompetence of experts, not geography, not the weather, not lone madmen.

You’re probably not old enough to remember Billy Crystal’s portrayal of Fernando Lamas on Saturday Nite Live, his, “You rook mahvelous...It is better to rook good than to feel good.” Ah, the vacuousness of the terminally vain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygs-4GfqPcM

Quote D_NATURED:
As backwards as it is to expect people to have major changes in thought process that do not coincide with changes to their physical environment, that is exactly what the republicans keep pushing. Poor is the "new normal", right? And, as long as everyone around you is hungry and sick, your own hunger and sickness will seem less...well...concerning.You'll get used to it, right? And the sooner the better.

And a missing tooth is the new bed-head, or the new shabby-chic jeans, at least among the poor.

Quote D_NATURED:

What are the lefties supposed to do, though? They are competing with promises of eternal bliss for the low, low, one time payment of quiet, grateful suffering here on Earth. If the left doesn't make up some magical shit, the demogogues will have all the tools for human mind fucking and we'll be nothing more than a small, powerless, logical, un-fucked minority. We'll stand out like atheists at a prayer vigil.

I know. We had to do something. There’s nothing worse than being a “small, powerless, logical, un-fucked minority.” Better to present a positive front, an alternative for the spiritually inclined to claim as their own. My question is, why go so far as to assert with absolute confidence a theory as dumb as the law of attraction? I mean, it’s not as though they qualify their discussion of it with disclaimers, such as, “Well, of course you don’t always have control over what happens to you; practicing your positive money-thoughts might not make you rich, if the economy sucks really badly...” No. Instead, they present these ideas as if they’re foolpoof. Ach! But you’re right to say, “There is a battle for American hearts and minds at stake here, Zenzoe. You can't win minds by admitting that you don't know anymore than you can win a war by admitting defeat. Even a magical explanation is more comforting than none. The smallpox blankets DID keep the indians warm for a few nights. It's the same thing.

What is that about some humans? Why is “I don’t know the answer to that” such a turn-off? Why do people need gurus? I like Thom’s thinking on a lot of things, but I don’t take his every word as gospel.

Quote D_NATURED:

...However, while the appearance of an aborted fetus may be a useful tool for manipulating believers in magic, I don't find the fetal appearance to be a logical reason for subjugating women. The reason is magical and so is the law and they defend the magical law with the magic fetus argument.

Do you know, “Buff the Magic Fetus," the song?:

"Buff the Magic Fetus lived inside of me

and frolicked in placental mist in a land called Preg-nan-cee...

Little Kerry Raper loved that rascal Buff

And brought him wings and halo rings and other fancy fluff. Oh."

Why "Kerry Raper?" Because to put a nine-year-old girl through a nine-month pregnancy and birth of a fetus who's father is also her father (fetus ='s sister/brother) is to rape that child the second time. Then, to care more about violently punishing the child's rapist than the child's reality, that too is rape of a child.

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

Zenzoe,how can i be funny,when you have me worry that the opposition is having a effect on you. I would think it`s a "bad effect" to keep wanting to use "Cockamamie Hotel" in response to their insanity.But excuse me if this is a "new cure",it might work. I agree with you on American movies sex scenes in comparison to French movies are cliche's. Them French sex toys can change a lot of cliche's! James Bond is a cliche for men,who or what is the replacement for JB ? Brad Pitt?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote D_NATURED: LOLOLOL. You are so right on, Z. The notion that what makes life better for people is to improve, not thier lives but their perception of it, leaves a lot of room for a lot of bad shit.

Thanks, D., and I wasn’t even trying to be funny! But yeah, D, fools rush in... are you old enough to remember that song? Probably not, but, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread/ And so I come to you my love/ My heart above my head./ Though I see the danger there. If there's a chance for me, then I don't care...” And this is exactly how the Wayne Dyer’s of the world make a living, praying on our foolish dreams of “personal power,” where we’re the center of the universe, and nothing else matters; not economic realities, not insane political policies; not the incompetence of experts, not geography, not the weather, not lone madmen.

I'm 47. I remember a lot and, gratefully, have forgotten a lot too. Wayne Dyer is not a fraud. He is an enabler for people who already believe in some in-between spiritual bullshit that isn't religion but doesn't have to make sense either. If there's no other way for humanity to live except in the light of an imagined center of power, then god help us (pun intended).

You’re probably not old enough to remember Billy Crystal’s portrayal of Fernando Lamas on Saturday Nite Live, his, “You rook mahvelous...It is better to rook good than to feel good.” Ah, the vacuousness of the terminally vain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygs-4GfqPcM

Of course I remember that. I liked him in Soap too. Remember that one?

Quote D_NATURED:
As backwards as it is to expect people to have major changes in thought process that do not coincide with changes to their physical environment, that is exactly what the republicans keep pushing. Poor is the "new normal", right? And, as long as everyone around you is hungry and sick, your own hunger and sickness will seem less...well...concerning.You'll get used to it, right? And the sooner the better.

And a missing tooth is the new bed-head, or the new shabby-chic jeans, at least among the poor.

My relatives in West Virginia were so "chic" that they didn't have any teeth at all. I never realized they were so cool.

Quote D_NATURED:

What are the lefties supposed to do, though? They are competing with promises of eternal bliss for the low, low, one time payment of quiet, grateful suffering here on Earth. If the left doesn't make up some magical shit, the demagogues will have all the tools for human mind fucking and we'll be nothing more than a small, powerless, logical, un-fucked minority. We'll stand out like atheists at a prayer vigil.

I know. We had to do something. There’s nothing worse than being a “small, powerless, logical, un-fucked minority.” Better to present a positive front, an alternative for the spiritually inclined to claim as their own. My question is, why go so far as to assert with absolute confidence a theory as dumb as the law of attraction? I mean, it’s not as though they qualify their discussion of it with disclaimers, such as, “Well, of course you don’t always have control over what happens to you; practicing your positive money-thoughts might not make you rich, if the economy sucks really badly...” No. Instead, they present these ideas as if they’re foolpoof. Ach! But you’re right to say, “There is a battle for American hearts and minds at stake here, Zenzoe. You can't win minds by admitting that you don't know anymore than you can win a war by admitting defeat. Even a magical explanation is more comforting than none. The smallpox blankets DID keep the indians warm for a few nights. It's the same thing.

What is that about some humans? Why is “I don’t know the answer to that” such a turn-off? Why do people need gurus? I like Thom’s thinking on a lot of things, but I don’t take his every word as gospel.

Thom has listeners. Alex Jones has followers. That says it all.

Quote D_NATURED:

...However, while the appearance of an aborted fetus may be a useful tool for manipulating believers in magic, I don't find the fetal appearance to be a logical reason for subjugating women. The reason is magical and so is the law and they defend the magical law with the magic fetus argument.

Do you know, “Buff the Magic Fetus," the song?:

"Buff the Magic Fetus lived inside of me

and frolicked in placental mist in a land called Preg-nan-cee...

Little Kerry Raper loved that rascal Buff

And brought him wings and halo rings and other fancy fluff. Oh."

Why "Kerry Raper?" Because to put a nine-year-old girl through a nine-month pregnancy and birth of a fetus who's father is also her father (fetus ='s sister/brother) is to rape that child the second time. Then, to care more about violently punishing the child's rapist than the child's reality, that too is rape of a child.

Are you kidding? A raped child can't fit under the lens of his finely tuned moral microscope. They don't exist.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm
Quote Nimblecivet:D-Natured I think I understand what you are getting at and it sounds to me like the ploy you are talking about is at bottom of a common type for the right-wing to employ. To make a comparison, (here) in CA there's been a little scandal involving state workers getting retirement money from an illegal arrangement involving misuse of funds in certain types of accounts which are meant for this or that purpose, etc. Basically, retired state park workers were getting money they weren't supposed to and the amounts involved over time come to many millions (I just glanced at the article so I'm not sure exactly how much but I think its in the tens of millions). Not to say that's not significant, important and so forth, but of course there will be those who seize upon it and never let go as "proof" of their position that as long as we retaliate against state workers the state budget will (magically, if I take the meaning right) solve itself.

OH OH OHHHHH it's magic....Yes, you are correct. When your ideology determines your actions, you end up doing some stupid stuff. Any excuse, real or imagined, will suffice as a battle cry for the great fetal defenders, though. No amount of societal harm need be considered.

Just as tax cuts generate revenue and the answer to gun crimes is increased ownership of guns and the response to an attack by religious fanatics should be war and praying. There is nothing sensible in the conservative playbook-only magic- and, especially, on the subject of abortion. There is raw, ridiculous, blubbering emotion.

So if I take your point I guess that yes, the images Kerry has seized upon and which you point out have been used by the anti-abortion crowd for some time now may often cause people to react a certain way and then entrench themselves in a defensive position. Hopefully I have expressed myself clearly enough so that you know that I too see the viability issue as something important to a total comprehension of the subject matter but as a factor which does not determine the conclusions regarding the constitutionality of abortion laws.

You seem like a true gentleman. I can be a bit rough, I know, but you did a beautiful job of re-phrasing my comments.

Another way would be to say that Kerry thinks the discussion of rights ends when the fetus is magically endowed with viability. A viability that studies have found are intrinsically tied to the body and, as importantly, the will of another being that MUST pre-exist it. But he would rather distract the debate with images of dismembered fetuses than consider a greater good. He is a fish that has expired but continues to flop. But I posture and condescend...

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm
Quote Nimblecivet: Zenzoe and all, here's an interesting article I came across. It seems to me that the sexualization the article is talking about is something deliberate as far as Industry (capitalist social engineering) manipulating and tweaking the minds of their customers. It shows how deeply entrenched the above and below ground are as far as the social sphere being controlled by rich and powerful sickos evolving ever new ways of undermining our humanity. Anyway, here's the link and some quotes in case you don't want to read the whole article, not that its that long. I know we've talked about this before, but this article claims to relate the "first" study about the phenomenon and makes some interesting observations, the most interesting of which I believe I have picked out of the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-6-old-girls-want-sexy-161825233.html

...

Researchers have shown in the past that women and teens think of themselves in sexually objectified terms, but the new study is the first to identify self-sexualization in young girls. The study, published online July 6 in the journal Sex Roles, also identified factors that protect girls from objectifying themselves.

...

"It's very possible that girls wanted to look like the sexy doll because they believe sexiness leads to popularity, which comes with many social advantages," explained lead researcher Christy Starr, who was particularly surprised at how many 6- to 7-year-old girls chose the sexualized doll as their ideal self.

...

Starr and her research adviser and co-author, Gail Ferguson, also looked at factors that influenced the girls' responses. Most of the girls were recruited from two public schools, but a smaller subset was recruited from a local dance studio. The girls in this latter group actually chose the non-sexualized doll more often for each of the four questions than did the public-school group. Being involved in dance and other sports has been linked to greater body appreciation and higher body image in teen girls and women, Starr said. [10 Odd Facts About the Female Body]

"It's possible that for young girls, dance involvement increased body esteem and created awareness that their bodies can be used for purposes besides looking sexy for others, and thus decreased self-sexualization." ...
...

...The power of maternal instruction during media viewing may explain why every additional hour of TV- or movie-watching actually decreased the odds by 7 percent that a girl would choose the sexy doll as popular, Starr said. "As maternal TV instruction served as a protective factor for sexualization, it’s possible that higher media usage simply allowed for more instruction."

Mothers' religious beliefs also emerged as an important factor in how girls see themselves. Girls who consumed a lot of media but who had religious mothers were protected against self-sexualizing, perhaps because these moms "may be more likely to model higher body-esteem and communicate values such as modesty," the authors wrote, which could mitigate the images portrayed on TV or in the movies. [8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life]

However, girls who didn’t consume a lot of media but who had religious mothers were much more likely to say they wanted to look like the sexy doll. "This pattern of results may reflect a case of 'forbidden fruit' or reactance, whereby young girls who are overprotected from the perceived ills of media by highly religious parents … begin to idealize the forbidden due to their underexposure," the authors wrote. ...

I think when advertisers direct their efforts toward to the (lucrative) market of teens and younger children they are deliberately exploiting the kids' desire for social acceptance in such a way as to promote a form of socialization where kids never have the chance to develop as individuals. That makes adults more susceptible to advertising/media manipulation. A lot of "adults" these days basically have the emotional and mental maturity and character of a teenager and are socially rewarded for it, in my opinion.

Thanks, Nimblecivet, for that. I TOTALLY AGREE!!! And well said, for sure.

I believe I’ve mentioned the brief documentary, Sexy Inc., Our Children Under the Influence on this forum before this, but it covers some of the same information your article touches on, but with more urgency and attention to the details of such socialization. But thanks for mentioning the issue. It’s an alarming one, but not enough parents are sufficiently conscious of the problem to provide an antidote.

One day at my son’s place, I took a photo of my granddaughter and her friend, separately. My granddaughter, who does not have TV in the house, just stood normally for her picture; but her friend, who does have TV in her house, posed like a sexy model, with a hand on her hip, head tilted, and one knee bent. Well, it’s only one little example, but I couldn’t help noticing the difference.

Incidentally, I noticed that the link the article provided about “10 odd facts about the female body,” included, as is typical, the dubious “G-spot,” but failed to inform about the part the uterus plays in the female orgasm. In my experience, even OB GYNs sometimes not only express ignorance on the subject, but resistance to it as well. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that they have a vested interest in performing hysterectomies (a big part of their income). Ignorance is bliss, at least for them. For women, it’s a different story.

Quote tayl44: Zenzoe,how can i be funny,when you have me worry that the opposition is having a effect on you. I would think it`s a "bad effect" to keep wanting to use "Cockamamie Hotel" in response to their insanity.But excuse me if this is a "new cure",it might work. I agree with you on American movies sex scenes in comparison to French movies are cliche's. Them French sex toys can change a lot of cliche's! James Bond is a cliche for men,who or what is the replacement for JB ? Brad Pitt?

Tayl, I can't help it if you don't like cockamamie too. But don't worry, the opposition is not "having a effect" on me. Nope. I'm standing strong; and having a bit of fun, that's all.

After the French movie I watched last night, I'll have to temper my enthusiasm a bit. It was called, Leaving, or Partir in French, and I wish I'd read this review's last sentence before choosing it: "...Here, a contemporary French white woman who yearns for liberté, égalité and fraternité is as much a prisoner of her circumstances as women were once upon a time and still are in some cultures, though truly it’s all the clichés in this film that make her a captive." So true, so true. And it had so much potential, having been directed by a woman. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
"It's possible that for young girls, dance involvement increased body esteem and created awareness that their bodies can be used for purposes besides looking sexy for others, and thus decreased self-sexualization." ...

How ironic that dancers often have the best bodies.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm

Free Speech TV just aired (before Thom's show) a relevant documentary, Staying Real : Teens Confront Sexual Sterotypes. Unfortunately, I can't find the whole thing on YouTube, and FSTV doesn't seem to have it in their archives. Just one more reason to get Dish Network. Anyway, here's YouTube's trailer for the documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW7OP78Npqw

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

[quote]I think when advertisers direct their efforts toward to the (lucrative) market of teens and younger children they are deliberately exploiting the kids' desire for social acceptance in such a way as to promote a form of socialization where kids never have the chance to develop as individuals. That makes adults more susceptible to advertising/media manipulation. A lot of "adults" these days basically have the emotional and mental maturity and character of a teenager and are socially rewarded for it, in my opinion.

This is particularly astute and acompletely accurate. I think it's partly the mall mentality and partly the fact that teenagers always think (and probably always will) that they're rebelling against the adult establishment while they're wearing all the peer pressure styles and using the hip argot of their own generations, never dreaming for a moment that in doing those very things, they being the ultimate conformists. Individuality is not prized during the teen years, but rather, unless one is a genius or star jock, it's to be avoided in favor of remaining safely within the shallow norms of the herd.

One particularly sad aspect of this, and proof of nimblecivet's assertion, is the prevalence of everybody under 30 feeling obligated to say "like" every third or fourth word. I purposely annoy my oldest granddaughter when she does that by asking, "Was it simply 'like' that or was that how it actually was or what actually happened?" She rolls her eyes and writes me off. Likeosaurs are usually de-liked by the time they graduate from college and certainly, after a little time in the real business world, because it's not rewarded anyplace where people care what you know rather than whether you speak the generational hip idiom. Disgustingly, it often persists into the 30s of the uneducated and those hung up on being terminally hip. It really becomes stupid when used by people in their late 30s and into their 40s. To them, I just want to say, "Who the hell are you, like, Peter Pan? Grow up!"

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

Ok again I can see some hermits not knowing the truth about Ganja or the profits made perpetuating the war against it. But seriously, how many politicians can stand before Congress and argue that a husband has the right to rape his wife? Or that in this "civilized" country it wasn't until 1976 that it was outlawed. That's when I got married. It's unrealistic to think common sense would permit rape of anyone to exist legally or unenforced laws. A cop has no problem caging someone, even if they're sick for growing pot but hesitates caging a rapist because of a marriage license? Warped. Or war rape, as a spoils to the winners? Or pesticides in the bible belt where Tom Delay profited on the poisons. Not used on Hemp. Yet the same rightwingnuts pushing the poisons and the abortions that go with them, are also pushing Hemp prohibition. In the damn name of pro life? Now that's a hypocrite.

"A War on Women": DN! Exclusive with Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards on GOP Bills Targeting Abortion and Reproductive Rights

California Spousal / Marital Rape Laws
"Spousal rape" not only falls under the umbrella of California’s rape laws but under California’s domestic violence laws as well. This means that someone convicted of this offense is subject to many of the same penalties and punishments as (1) an individual convicted of Penal Code 261 PC "rape"1...and (2) an individual convicted of domestic violence.

Marital rape
Still, in many countries, spousal rape either remains legal, or is illegal but widely tolerated and accepted as a husband's prerogative.

An evolution of law: Spousal rape recently prosecutable
Spousal rape laws, or even the concept of raping a spouse, are pretty new developments. In fact, until the late 1970s, spouses were typically excluded from sexual assault laws.

Until 1993, North Carolina's rape law stated that “a person may not be prosecuted under this article if the victim is the person's legal spouse at the time of the commission of the alleged rape or sexual offense, unless the parties are living separate and apart.”

Currently, spousal rape is a crime in all 50 states but the degrees vary greatly.

Is marital rape a crime?
Marital rape is considered a criminal offense in many countries... It should be noted, however, that cultural norms and the perceived social stigma attached to rape often discourage the reporting of marital rape, and prosecution is very rare in many countries.

Until 1976, marital rape was legal in every state in the United States. Although marital rape is now a crime in all 50 states in the U.S., some states still don't consider it as serious as other forms of rape.

Fact Sheet: Wife Rape
When a woman submits to sexual acts out of fear or coercion, it is rape. A wife does not need to be "putting up a good fight" for it to be rape (even according to the law). Sexual acts include but are not limited to penile vaginal intercourse, the insertion of genitals into the mouth or anus, or the insertion of objects into the vagina or anus.

War rape - Wikipedia
During war and armed conflict, rape is frequently used as means of psychological warfare in order to humiliate the enemy and undermine their morale. War rape is often systematic and thorough, and military leaders may actually encourage their soldiers to rape civilians... Sexual violence in warfare is frequently perpetrated against women and children, and the perpetrators of sexual assault "commonly include not only enemy civilians and troops but also allied and national civilians and even comrades in arms."...

German women who became pregnant after being raped by Soviet soldiers in World War II were invariably denied abortion to further humiliate them as to carry an unwanted child.

During the Bosnian war, Serb forces conducted sexual abuse strategy on the thousands of Bosnian Muslim girls and women which became known as "mass rape phenomenon".

There are many reported rape cases of Tamil girls and women by Sri Lankan army soldiers during the Sri Lanka civil war.

Crimes against humanity and war crimes
The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum, which defines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, recognises rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, "or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity" as crime against humanity if the action is part of a widespread or systematic practice.

U.S. State abortion statistics

The teenage birth and abortion rates also declined between 1990 and 2000. (Pregnancies are calculated as the sum of births, miscarriages (including stillbirths) and abortions.)

Abortion has a low risk of maternal mortality except for abortions performed unsafely, which result in 70,000 deaths and 5 million disabilities per year globally. Abortions are unsafe when performed by persons without the proper skills or outside of a medically safe environment.

Is abortion justifiable in cases of rape or incest?
Despite its forceful appeal to our sympathies, there are problems with this argument.
Christian Answers Network
PO Box 200
Gilbert AZ 85299

Wallstreet's Spontaneous Abortionists

Spontaneous Abortion
"In the United States, fertility rates continue to decline and age-related spontaneous abortion is on the increase.

"Flulike symptoms, including fever, chills; can cause spontaneous abortion or stillbirth; can cause severe illness in newborns and immune-depressed people.

"Deficiency can produce: fatigue, blood clotting, red blood cell destruction resulting in anemia, coronary thrombosis, infertility (in both men and women), menstrual problems, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), uterine degeneration, neuromuscular impairment, neurological dysfunction, and oxygen-starved cells making them susceptible to cancer.

Spontaneous abortion and maternal work in greenhouses.
A positive association between maternal occupational exposure to pesticide and spontaneous abortion has been reported in some studies. Work in greenhouses may imply exposure of pregnant women to pesticides continuously and at elevated level.

For certain solvents, reproductive effects include impotence, sperm and menstrual abnormalities, spontaneous abortion...

"Exposure to benzene appears to increase the risk of developing leukemia and aplastic anemia; it also may be linked to an increased incidence of menstrual irregularities, spontaneous abortion...

Associations between spontaneous abortion and the number of hours worked per day in cosmetology, the number of chemical services performed per week, the use of formaldehyde-based disinfectants, and work in salons where nail sculpturing was performed."

"Sperm counts throughout the industrial world are seriously low, and spontaneous abortion rates are way up...

The risk of fetal loss may increase at higher levels of CB-153 and p,p'-DDE exposure...

An exploratory analysis of the effect of pesticide exposure on the risk of spontaneous abortion in an Ontario farm population... We observed moderate increases in risk of early abortions for preconception exposures to phenoxy acetic acid herbicides; 95% confidence interval, triazines, and any herbicide. For late abortions, preconception exposure to glyphosate, thiocarbamates, and the miscellaneous class of pesticides was associated with elevated risks.

Tobacco and alcohol use by pregnant women has adverse effects on the fetus. Tobacco use causes an increase in SIDS and miscarriages. It is estimated that 3700 children die by the age of one month because of complications from the mother's smoking during pregnancy.

Wall street's Spontaneous Abortionists

Pro Life? Not even anti abortion

GOPerversion, another Prohibition! On Women...

COMMON ARSENICAL PESTICIDE UNDER SCRUTINY
According to the U.S. EPA, MSMA "can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans" and is converted in the environment to inorganic arsenic, a known human carcinogen. About 4 million pounds of MSMA is applied every year to golf courses and cotton fields in the United States to control weeds. The pesticide has been banned in India and Indonesia.

Pesticide Exposure in Farm Families Linked to Spontaneous Abortion
The timing and types of pesticide exposures are critical determinants of reproductive outcomes, according to a recently published study by Canadian researchers. The study examined pesticide exposures based on recall by farm families and reported histories of spontaneous abortions among women living on the farms.

Switching cotton fields to hemp fields would improve: the quality of our soil, the durability of our clothes, the safety of our ground source water, the quality of our air, and the preservation of forests cut for paper (not to mention saving hundreds of thousands of lives prematurely ended by disease caused by pollution)

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 12:39 am
Quote Ulysses:
Quote nimblecivet:

I think when advertisers direct their efforts toward to the (lucrative) market of teens and younger children they are deliberately exploiting the kids' desire for social acceptance in such a way as to promote a form of socialization where kids never have the chance to develop as individuals. That makes adults more susceptible to advertising/media manipulation. A lot of "adults" these days basically have the emotional and mental maturity and character of a teenager and are socially rewarded for it, in my opinion.

This is particularly astute and acompletely accurate. I think it's partly the mall mentality and partly the fact that teenagers always think (and probably always will) that they're rebelling against the adult establishment while they're wearing all the peer pressure styles and using the hip argot of their own generations, never dreaming for a moment that in doing those very things, they being the ultimate conformists. Individuality is not prized during the teen years, but rather, unless one is a genius or star jock, it's to be avoided in favor of remaining safely within the shallow norms of the herd.

One particularly sad aspect of this, and proof of nimblecivet's assertion, is the prevalence of everybody under 30 feeling obligated to say "like" every third or fourth word. I purposely annoy my oldest granddaughter when she does that by asking, "Was it simply 'like' that or was that how it actually was or what actually happened?" She rolls her eyes and writes me off. Likeosaurs are usually de-liked by the time they graduate from college and certainly, after a little time in the real business world, because it's not rewarded anyplace where people care what you know rather than whether you speak the generational hip idiom. Disgustingly, it often persists into the 30s of the uneducated and those hung up on being terminally hip. It really becomes stupid when used by people in their late 30s and into their 40s. To them, I just want to say, "Who the hell are you, like, Peter Pan? Grow up!"

Like, Ulysses, you just don't, like, get it, do you? (RMES) (That means I'm, like, Rolling My Eyes, if you really must know...)

I'm not as hip as I think I am? Oh WELL...

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

DdC, that's pretty comprehensive, some of it news to me. I do wonder about the connection between spousal rape and switching to hemp fields. But, okay.

This quote, "German women who became pregnant after being raped by Soviet soldiers in World War II were invariably denied abortion to further humiliate them as to carry an unwanted child," does well to emphasize the humiliation factor of denying women abortions after rapes or incest, or anytime a woman might reasonably need an abortion.

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

Zenzoe,i`m ok with cockamamie(i like twight zone better) if you`re standing strong and having fun. Sound like the French movie you watch was a French version of American "Housewives". Z,when the women director have more money in the bank,hopefully she will make a movie free of "cliches". I also agree with Nimble post,it remind me of the 1% control of the message. We cannot do the right thing with the wrong info.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote tayl44:

Zenzoe,i`m ok with cockamamie(i like twight zone better) if you`re standing strong and having fun. Sound like the French movie you watch was a French version of American "Housewives". Z,when the women director have more money in the bank,hopefully she will make a movie free of "cliches". I also agree with Nimble post,it remind me of the 1% control of the message. We cannot do the right thing with the wrong info.

Cool, Tayl. (Or is "cool" an old-fashioned word now?)

Okay, so, I've never watched "Desperate Housewives," if that's what you're referring to, so I can't comment on that. Whatever, the idea of the French movie, Leaving, wasn't the problem; it was the casting, script, directing and editing that failed. I mean, it was all so implausible: We're supposed to believe that a common, brutish-looking, dumb guy could inspire the kind of obsession in a classy, intelligent, wife of a doctor that would end in her murdering her husband? But, hey, maybe that was the original part: Normally the French expect such women to enjoy their boy-toys and then move on to other things, without disrupting the family. In this case, however, the script and directing gives us no evidence for her obsession. They hardly talk; he grunts once in awhile, and they do a little bit of work together, without a hint of chemistry between them, no eroticism at all, then all of a sudden, wham, she can't live without him. Huh? And the husband: At first, when she tells him she's in love with someone, he cries, sobs in front of her; clearly he's a sensitive guy; then we're supposed to believe he would suddenly become Mr. Power-Oriented-Bastard. Doesn't make any sense.

Compare that with The Piano, also directed by a woman (Jane Campion). Hello! Now that's originality, basically on the same subject. Oh boy oh boy, talk about chemistry! No clichés there, not even one. Who wudda thought Harvey Keital could inspire such intense obsession in a female character, but given that film's artistry in every aspect of film-making, he managed it, very well, thank you very much. Oh Harvey... Well, anyway, that's one of my all-time favorite movies. Another, which I'm going to watch again for the first time in many decades, is the French film A Man and a Woman. But that's just pure romance, and very beautiful, the work of a male director.

Then, another woman-positive favorite of mine, the cult classic, "Harold and Maude." No clichés there.

Tah tah. So what's your favorite movie, not starring Angelina...? ;-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
So what's your favorite movie, not starring Angelina...? ;-)

Thanks for reminding me, Z, we got into that conversation about the spiritual charlatans and I forgot to mention a great film I saw recently, called Kumare. If you haven't seen it, you must, like right away.

PS, I included that "like" for Ulysses' benefit...

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm

Thanks, D. I just added it to my Netflix queue. It's not available yet, but perhaps it won't be too long before it is, and I'll check it out right away. Sounds, like, just perfect, like, wow man... ;-)

Wasn't that the "guru" Colbert interviewed recently? I only caught the tail-end of the interview. Very sobering, but not surprising, to think how easily people fall for that crap. How the world loves a charismatic leader. Gag me with a spoon...

These videos are awesome, Dudes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LctPbe6WyU  (teen girl talk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHf089jl9H4 (Valley Girl Contest/1982, with Moon Unit Zappa, where it all began, in the San Fernando Valley.)

Guess where I grew up? The San Fernando Valley. Of course, back then, we girls did not talk like "valley girls."

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
So what's your favorite movie, not starring Angelina...? ;-)

Thanks for reminding me, Z, we got into that conversation about the spiritual charlatans and I forgot to mention a great film I saw recently, called Kumare. If you haven't seen it, you must, like right away.

PS, I included that "like" for Ulysses' benefit...

Aw, Gee...

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:
Quote D_NATURED:
So what's your favorite movie, not starring Angelina...? ;-)

Thanks for reminding me, Z, we got into that conversation about the spiritual charlatans and I forgot to mention a great film I saw recently, called Kumare. If you haven't seen it, you must, like right away.

PS, I included that "like" for Ulysses' benefit...

Aw, Gee...

I'm thinking it might look like we're having fun at Ulysses' expense, but that wouldn't be true, not that he'd mind all that much. In fact, when U. told about his having conversations with his granddaughter about her use of "like," I absolutely agreed with his attitude. As soon as my granddaughters start talking like that you can be sure they'll be getting push-back from me. As it is, one of them is already saying, "Whatever-r-r..." and who knows where she got that— it's impossible to cure, I'm afraid.

My problem has more to do with generational shock, I think. I really really really don't get the low rider look the boys have adopted. Don't they know how this look originated? —at prison, where belts are prohibited and, "...Those who pulled their pants down the lowest and showed their behind a little more raw, that was an invitation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagging_%28fashion%29   The mystery for me is, what's holding those pants up?!

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

Zenzoe,i`m 62,the way things are today,to be "cool" is doing/saying whatever you want.(hopefully responsibly) Z, how many housewives shows are they? I don`t watch them,but from what i hear,the "Leaving " movie you talk about has the same stories as housewives. Yes,you need a lot of imagination for these stories to make sense,but that`s reason for there success,they make you forget your senses.(another reason for cliches) I like movies,but i`m no movie critic,i take your word on your picks. I like Harvey Keital,he was in a movie "Blur Collar" with Richard Pryor,that was a very good story about union corruption.(his best my pick) What`s my favorite movie without Angelina? I like the way the latest James Bond movies is evolving,and really like the women playing opposite(they`re all Angelina's) James Bond new character is a rebel and falls in love,one could imagine him joining the "public bank" movement. I love all the old classic movies(Bette Davis,Henry Fonda,etc...)(of course they`re politically connected,like " Tales of Two Cities") A good story leave nothing for the imagination?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe quoting Ginsberg:

The conflict is not simply one between a fetus’ interest and a woman’s interest.. Also in the balance is a woman’s autonomous charge of her full life’s course, her ability to stand in relation to men, society and to stay as an independent, self-sustaining equal citizen.”

If Ginsberg's intent is as your intent, Zenzoe, to make all individual rights relative, I think that she is mischaracterizing what Roe vs. Wade did, indeed, discuss in their oral arguments. Would, for instance (as was discussed in the oral argument of Roe vs. Wade), Justice Ginsberg be in favor of a woman choosing to end her pregnancy when the fetus had been named as a recipient of a will or trust--and do so just because it was to the woman's (or her other offsprings') advantage to do so? Does that fall under the guise of a 'woman's autonomous charge of her full life's course'? The point being, despite how hard you try to say otherwise, the fetus is not just a 'non-entity' that can be discarded at will at any stage in the pregnancy--and for any reason. Even as Roe vs. Wade acknowledged, at one point in that pregnancy, in many states (and, now, all states with the federal ban on 'partial birth abortions'), there will be seen as the fetus gaining rights restricting free and clear (for any, or no apparent, reason at all) rights to choose abortion by the mother as elective abortions really entail.

If you and, now, Justice Ginsberg are going to resort to 'dire circumstances' as the justification to abort even right before birth, I don't see that, in any way, favoring 'the woman's autonomous charge of her full life's course'. And, I also think that you and Justice Ginsberg are flat wrong to discard the history of this issue. As George Santayana put it, 'Those who fail to remember the past are condemned to repeat it'. And, the abortion issue right now is set up for a 'repeat in history'--with the 'protection and safety' excuse being set-up to be used by the anti-abortionists to regulate abortion clinics out of existence and, if you persist in claiming 'protection and safety of the mother' as yours and Ginsberg's excuse for abortions, do just like was present before Roe vs. Wade even in the misogynist state of Texas--limit legal abortions only to those issues that involve a woman's 'protection and safety'.

I'm not sure how a 'woman's autonomous charge of her full life's course' doesn't involve responsible behavior and responsible decisions. And, I'm not sure how that doesn't involve some consideration of the fetus (especially a normal fetus in a normal pregnancy) at some point in the pregnancy. I do know that many, many, people are disturbed by anything that resembles 'partial birth abortions' (the near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing) to the point to where, say, other hospital workers (both male and female) have voiced their avid disapproval of having to take part in anything like that procedure. In fact, most hospitals in my area limit abortions to only the ones that you and Ginsberg seem to want to emphasize as 'elective aboritons'--those that are, indeed, medically indicated--usually due to some terminal developmental problem of the fetus--not a 'risk of life' to the mother. And, even in issues of pregnancy 'risking the life' of the mother, if you, Ginsberg, or any supposed 'organization in its favor' are claiming that any issue of a pregnancy at risk requires killing a normal fetus before delivering it, you are, again, flat wrong. Emergency deliveries go quicker than that and 'killing the fetus before delivery' would just delay it. There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance--so quit using it as an excuse to electively abort--and, once again, I don't see a 'woman's charge of her full life's course' without acknowledging responsibility to the fetus at some point in the pregnancy (and any witnesses' very real response to any near birth abortion).....claiming that 'doesn't matter' is its own 'magical thinking'.....

And, I don't see Ginsberg's response to one of the Supreme Court Justices in the Roe vs. Wade oral argument claiming that 'If the fetus is determined to have a right to life at conception, we will have to knock down all the state laws that allow any elective abortions. We can't have people playing nilly-willy with another's right to life.' What did Ginsberg say about that? Or, is that something that 'we' have 'gone beyond history' to decide? Now, what is the issue of stare decisis with respect to elective abortions? Has anyone that has ever had the 'right to life' ever been considered to have that right handed to them only in 'relative terms'--especially if someone else decides that, with their 'right to liberty', they want to end that other's 'right to life'? Despite how you and Ginsberg want to frame this issue, there is a potential of contention of rights involved in the issue of elective abortions--even Roe vs. Wade acknowledged that. Are you and Ginsberg saying all those precedences should be ignored in claiming some issue about a woman 'having autonomous charge of her full life's course' without acknowledging any responsibility to a normal fetus at any stage in pregnancy? If you are, I am suspecting that both history and the present situation in our country on this issue of elective abortions are against you--and it has nothing to do with being 'misogynist'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Ulysses:
Quote D_NATURED:
So what's your favorite movie, not starring Angelina...? ;-)

Thanks for reminding me, Z, we got into that conversation about the spiritual charlatans and I forgot to mention a great film I saw recently, called Kumare. If you haven't seen it, you must, like right away.

PS, I included that "like" for Ulysses' benefit...

Aw, Gee...

I'm thinking it might look like we're having fun at Ulysses' expense, but that wouldn't be true, not that he'd mind all that much. In fact, when U. told about his having conversations with his granddaughter about her use of "like," I absolutely agreed with his attitude. As soon as my granddaughters start talking like that you can be sure they'll be getting push-back from me. As it is, one of them is already saying, "Whatever-r-r..." and who knows where she got that— it's impossible to cure, I'm afraid.

My problem has more to do with generational shock, I think. I really really really don't get the low rider look the boys have adopted. Don't they know how this look originated? —at prison, where belts are prohibited and, "...Those who pulled their pants down the lowest and showed their behind a little more raw, that was an invitation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagging_%28fashion%29   The mystery for me is, what's holding those pants up?!

Multiple sources. One of the most influential sources for the no-belt, pants-around-the-ankles look is the 92 Hoover Street Crips street gang in, I believe, Los Angeles during the '90s. That look is also called "The Compton Sag" in honor of gang originators in Compton, California. But hell, it was around in the '50s for Latino street gangs called Pachucos, too. One reason the Crips used it was that when the pants are that baggy, they're great hiding places for crack, showing no bulges.

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

Zenzoe,remember how the generation of the 50s and 60s look down at the young wearing jeans & sneakers at some fomal events? To understand the difference from then and now,the respect for authority is a lot "lower"! They see 1% vs 99%, no jobs a dying planet, and no solid vision for a future,i`m surprise there isn`t more "suicide parties". Until we give them more hope,they will have all the reason in the world not to respect authority.The Oklahoma City bomber and most of the 9/11 attackers was under 30,there actions gives a very good idea of what they think of authority. The 1% actions is making things "worse"! Don`t be surprise if the girls start walking around with "low-riding" pants.(equality?) I seen some already,they not as bad as the guys yet.(they`re not selling) What hold the pants up? They keep pulling them up when they fall too low,that`s the belt.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

[quote=Zenzoe quoting Ginsberg]

The conflict is not simply one between a fetus’ interest and a woman’s interest.. Also in the balance is a woman’s autonomous charge of her full life’s course, her ability to stand in relation to men, society and to stay as an independent, self-sustaining equal citizen.”

If Ginsberg's intent is as your intent, Zenzoe, to make all individual rights relative, I think that she is mischaracterizing what Roe vs. Wade did, indeed, discuss in their oral arguments.

Yeah, right, she's a lawyer and a Supreme Court Justice, but the Keracken feels free to opine, in his learned legal opinion, that she mischaracterized those oral arguments. Ginsberg didn't understand them, you know, but the alleged doctor does. Go figure.

Would, for instance (as was discussed in the oral argument of Roe vs. Wade), Justice Ginsberg be in favor of a woman choosing to end her pregnancy when the fetus had been named as a recipient of a will or trust--and do so just because it was to the woman's (or her other offsprings') advantage to do so? Does that fall under the guise of a 'woman's autonomous charge of her full life's course'? The point being, despite how hard you try to say otherwise, the fetus is not just a 'non-entity' that can be discarded at will at any stage in the pregnancy--and for any reason. Even as Roe vs. Wade acknowledged, at one point in that pregnancy, in many states (and, now, all states with the federal ban on 'partial birth abortions'), there will be seen as the fetus gaining rights restricting free and clear (for any, or no apparent, reason at all) rights to choose abortion by the mother as elective abortions really entail.

...In the Keracken's opinion.

claiming that 'doesn't matter' is its own 'magical thinking'.....

Or your opinion, and nothing more.

Sigh. Naivete knows no bounds, I guess. Silly me. Just when I thought his recent absence might mean he was gone, at last, the fool shows up like the hackneyed bad penny and tries another tack.

One pattern that has become quite obvious over time is that whenever he's confronted with opposing arguments he hasn't heard before, he goes away for a few days and prepares answers to them. Then he returns with those answers arranged to support his original worn out positions.

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

America: Meet Your Overlord Rupert Murdoch...

Thom plus logo The main lesson that we've learned so far from the impeachment hearings is that if Richard Nixon had had a billionaire like Rupert Murdoch with a television network like Fox News behind him, he never would've resigned and America would have continued to be presided over by a criminal.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system