Amanda Marcotte attempts some broad humor. The clip is funny:
Kotex Classic - watch more funny videos
११ फेब्रुवारी, २०११
"Don’t think the Republicans’ move to get America’s vaginas back to cherished 50s-era restrictions will end with banning abortion and restricting contraception."
"After that’s done, the next step is moving us back to the god-fearing age when women wore thick pads and belts. Proper ladies know that menstruation is god’s reminder that we’re evil, and should be dealt with in a way that maximizes discomfort and humiliation."
Amanda Marcotte attempts some broad humor. The clip is funny:
Amanda Marcotte attempts some broad humor. The clip is funny:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२३ टिप्पण्या:
My favorite Kotex motto: "It may not be the best product in the world, but it's right up there next to it."
Ms Marcotte sure is stupid, and seems to harbor intense anger against anyone who doesnt agree with her fully.
Funny stuff. Abortion is a topic just ripe for amusing riffs. Did you hear the one about the abortionist who snipped through the spinal cord of struggling live-borne infants with a pair of scissors?
Oops, I just sprayed coffee all over my keyboard. My sides are splitting.
What's funny is that the Edwards campaign hired Amanda as their blogmaster. What were they thinking?
I believe Marcotte is given over to evil. She is a huge liar.
Trey
Broad humor?
Get it? Broads. Humor.
Amanda Marcotte is such an ugly person inside that shes becoming ugly on the outside. So much hate.
Erm, I remember wearing the belt with the thick pads. I don't remember that making me feel humiliated, or that I was evil, or any of that. I do remember being glad when my mother brought me a new box of pads with the new stick-on strip so I could dispense with the belt, because it was more convenient than fussing with getting those pad ends to stay in the belt clips.
Hey, you know what's humiliating about having one's period? Having it perpetually -- as it seems Ms. Marcotte does. Maybe she's on the pill? I was on the pill for a few months and while it helped with the cramps and lessened the heavy flow, it also made me fat, morose, and a bit paranoid (in that "they're all looking at me and judging me!" way).
Someone must have hurt Amanda very deeply when she was a child.
Maybe Amanda Maracotte can travel to Africa to fight female genital mutilation.
(the other kev)
Gather around, everyone! John Edwards' whore has something to say. No, not that one, the other one.
This is a female version of the Tom Cruise character in "Magnolia".
Anatomy trumps all!
It's a good thing that Bob Wright is giving a Bloggingheads soapbox to truthful moderates like this instead of some crazy liar like Glenn Beck.
The clip is funny like being hit with a sledgehammer is funny.
My guess is that if Republican's backs were against the wall and they had to tell the truth they wouldn't support banning abortion and I darn well know they wouldn't be in favor of banning contraception. I doubt you could get anti-contraception majorities polling Catholics in this country.
Just sayin'.
What's funny is that the Edwards campaign hired Amanda as their blogmaster. What were they thinking?
To be fair, Edwards wanted women to get back to 1500s-era restrictions. When having babies with your mistress and having another family take them while your wife kept quiet so you could both have power was the Kingly thing to do.
Message: We scare
DaveW said...
My guess is that if Republican's backs were against the wall and they had to tell the truth they wouldn't support banning abortion and I darn well know they wouldn't be in favor of banning contraception. I doubt you could get anti-contraception majorities polling Catholics in this country.
As he says, he guesses.
The clip is funny. Amanda is as funny as cancer.
This reminds me, I must head over to Amazon and leave a positive review for It's a Jungle Out There. I used the bathroom at a girlfriend's house and I should have know better because she always was a bit sloven but I realized too late the paper hadn't been replaced. The book there in the bog suited well for wiping my ass.
I wasn't aware that banning ob was in the republican party platform.
There it is again, the selfish rhetoric of a class of people that are narcissistic and self-indulgent. It may be you pussies ladies, but once my son or daughter is growing inside of that hallowed hall that I 'chose' to make a contribution in, then it's half my choice too. Do not use your biology against me please.
Marcotte is one of the more odious people involved in American political commentary. I wish people would stop paying attention to her.
It'd be funnier if I didn't think she really IS that paranoid.
Really?
I mean, REALLY?
Althouse, why do you pay Amanda Marcotte ANY attention?
You are an enabler.
In a 'stirring the pot' kinda way.
...the next step is moving us back to the god-fearing age when women wore thick pads and belts. Proper ladies know that menstruation is god’s reminder that we’re evil...
Untrue. Dave Foley speaks for me.
I used to hear chicks babble like Marcotte a lot. Then I graduated from high school.
Well, in partial defense (do I have to?) of her argument, there are hard right folks who do wish to do much of the things she points to.
But they have as much influence on public policy as, well, Ms. Marcotte does.
Much of the debate in America today - certainly on the internet - consists of finding some stupid or outrageous comment by someone on the other side and holding it up as an example of all that that side wishes. "See, look at this! This is what they want to do."
I guess it generates attention but doesn't really teach us much.
"What's funny is that the Edwards campaign hired Amanda as their blogmaster. What was Edwards thinking?"
John Edwards Thought: "Gee, if I hire enough of these Democrat groupie sluts, sooner or later one of these whores will blow me in the airplane bathroom.
And sure enough ...
I guess it generates attention but doesn't really teach us much.
See!?! SEE??? The SMGalbraith's don't want to teach our kids!!!
One is used to the attempt to cast aspersion on anti-abortion advocates by branding them also anti-contraception.
This is the first time I've seen someone do that and then go a step further and try to say that they're anti-regular pad and/or tampon advocates.
Tampon rhymes with something I'm thinking of here... Ah yes, moron.
Without the glue, they'd be no good as bicycle helmet sweat pads.
I'm just really glad Amanda Marcotte isn't my mother.
I also don't think the clip is funny. Menstruation is funny?
I’ve been a little swamped, due to the overwhelming load of anti-woman horseshit that’s coming out the GOP.
Then she quotes Nancy Pelosi saying what's coming out of the GOP, nothing about what the GOP really says.
Personally, I can't wait to get back to the cherished past and do all these evil things. Sewing lampshades out of the epidermis of females excites me.
She's a highly functioning Jared Loughner.
Imagining a way, no matter how tortured and silly, to place one's self in a verifiable victim class seems all that liberals do these days.
Everybody except for white hetero men is oppressed just like a black man under Jim Crow.
By the Republicans.
Although it was Democrats who enforced Jim Crow.
there are hard right folks who do wish to do much of the things she points to.
Names please
Names please
Pat Robertson, James Dobson....
As I said, it's a small group that has little national influence. Regionally, they have a bit more.
But to deny that there aren't some, in my view, isn't accurate.
I've never heard of Amanda Marcotte before. I hope to never hear from her again.
Andrea said:
"Hey, you know what's humiliating about having one's period? Having it perpetually -- as it seems Ms. Marcotte does"
Good one Andrea!
OT Althouse but how about a question for you- do you think your commenters are way funnier than the average lib blog? I am reading the comments and laughing at almost every comment.
As a conservative, I find it scandalous that anyone--anyone!--would deprive Marcotte of unrestricted access to Yaz, and the subsequent stroke Yaz might induce.
That was almost as classless as joking about abortion. Almost.
Ah yes the Eeevillle Patriarchy is conspiring to control Womyn by restricting feminine hygiene products.
Imagine what the Suffragettes could have accomplished if they were able to get tampons.
Amanda Marcotte is not funny.
I find it scandalous that anyone--anyone!--would deprive Marcotte of unrestricted access to Yaz
I lost a $10 bet in 1988 claiming that the lead singer was a dude.
And while I'm airing grievances, here's another one: 'God' is a proper noun whether you believe in him or not and should be capitalized. I know the intent behind it is petty defiance, but it just comes across as illiteracy. Imagine what would be said if Christians stopped capitalizing Darwin. Such rolling of eyes!
@ AJ do you think your commenters are way funnier than the average lib blog? I am reading the comments and laughing at almost every comment.)
I second that. Maybe not every comment, but there are some pretty funny commenters over here. And usually there is a refinement to the snark (and profanity) which is lacking elsewhere. More nuance, one might say ;-) (Trooper excluded.)
When I am snickering at the keyboard the husband usually knows I am here.
And usually there is a refinement to the snark
The hell you say. Time to redouble my lowest common denominator efforts at "humor".
The left is just delusional.
Wake up Amanda. The real issue is right in front of you.
Pat Robertson, James Dobson
Prove it.
Because I have here in my house a book by James Dobson where he advocates teaching boys (the book is about raising boys) that masturbation is perfectly fine. So you're going to have to prove to me that I should thinking, "Oh yeah, Dobson, totally sexually repressive guy."
Dobson's organization's official position statement on contraception. Note especially this:
"...our interpretation of Scripture leads us to believe that the prevention of fertilization is not morally wrong."
Dobson's organization, Focus on Family, issued a policy statement on birth control: Link.
I'll just note that they're against the use of IUDs.
I have to caveat that I don't know whether the above is still their (or Dobson's) views or not. Perhaps they've changed.
One is used to the attempt to cast aspersion on anti-abortion advocates by branding them also anti-contraception.
It is unfair to say that "anti-abortion" implies "anti-contraception", yes.
But on the other hand, the Catholic Church is the largest pro-life organization in the United States. It is vehemently anti-contraception and has a long history of lending its support to contraception bans. Wanting to ban contraception is not a fringe position among pro-lifers -- just a *minority* position.
SMG, I linked to the same statement. It isn't anti-contraception. Read the part I quoted.
They're anti-IUD because it could cause an early abortion, not because it's contraception.
Rev, there's a big difference between personally anti-contraception and in favor of government bans on contraception.
I know a lot of Catholics. They vary in their personal views on contraception, but I don't know a single one who wants the government to ban it.
Not to belabor things (he said belaboring things) but I could cite the views of more fringe rightwing people like a Randall Terry who believes that all birth control should be banned.
As I said, fringe people that have no influence over public policy.
But they do exist.
Sanitary napkin humor does not have the broad appeal of fart jokes. I think there is tremendous comic potential with queefs, but for the male sensibility sanitary napkins are one with kleenex humor......Why has no feminist ever been offended by the fact that in China and India a kind of gendercide is going on due to abortion? I suppose it is remotely possible that a few females in America have been aborted simply because they were female. However, it is not remotely possible that any feminist would make a fuss about this......In Iran the Shah was supportive of women's rights. This was a partial cause of his unpopularity. I have never heard a feminist mount a defense of the Shah. Mrs. Mubarak campaigned against female genital mutilation. No feminist will ever give her credit for that....For all the abuse and degradation that women suffer worlwide, it seems peevish and small minded to consider restrictions on late term abortions the only cause worth railing against.
But you didn't mention Terry because he's a nobody. You mentioned Dobson because he's more famous and has some influence. And you didn't actually know what he thought, so you misrepresented him.
Finding rare individuals who support a position does not bolster the case that there is a general Republican push toward such a position.
Oh, blah, blah, blah.
Progressive-liberal-leftist woman have been trotting out this line of crap since the 60s. Not funny. Not even scary.
Old, tired, dull.
Pat Robertson, James Dobson
I don't know Pat Robertson's writings/statements very well but I am more familiar with James Dobson's. Can you please cite the quotes that confirms your conviction. I'm not a huge fan of Dobson but the way women are portrayed in his Christian books etc. would not be a '50's model. Of course, YMMV.
Finally, if that qualifies as bringing women back to the '50's to what future decade is Ms. Marcotte bringing women (or should I say womyn)
Hey! You ate the forbidden fruit of the tree in the garden first.
One great thing about the 50s: No Amanada Marcotte.
(When I read Dobson's book, I expected it to be crazy. Instead I found he was sufferer of the Limbaugh Effect, one of those personalities who are branded verboten by the cultural elite and then entirely misrepresented by them.)
What's funny is that the Edwards campaign hired Amanda as their blogmaster. What were they thinking?
John was probably thinking "I'd hit that."
But you didn't mention Terry because he's a nobody. You mentioned Dobson because he's more famous and has some influence. And you didn't actually know what he thought, so you misrepresented him.
I mentioned several names off the top of my head while also stating that the people who hold such views such as banning all or some contraception are fringe individuals in terms of having influence over public policy.
Second, I didn't misrepresent any views of Dr. Dobson. I provided a actual link to his Focus on Family organization and its views on birth control. Why would I "misrepresent" his views and then provide a link to those views?
He's against the use of IUDs or other birth control devices that prevent the fertilized egg from being implanted. His view is that once the fertilization occurs, that destroying the embryo should be outlawed.
Those are, in my view, out of the mainstream views of the type - type - that Marcotte is referring to.
In my view, Dr. Dobson and Robertson hold extreme views on birth control and wish to use the state to intervene in the private lives of Americans in a dangerous way.
Marcotte errs when she say such views are dominant among Republicans or the right. But such views are held by some.
As I've documented.
I have always had a soft spot for Mandy. I think she has just fallen with bad companions and she thinks these douchenozzles are cool.
I think she should have a different
career.
No, you implied that Dobson was anti-contraception, which he isn't. Your link proved the exact opposite of your implication.
Contraception is hardly defined by the IUD, and if you think that being fine with contraception that prevents fertilization and not fine with "contraception" that results in an early abortion is a position outside the mainstream, then I'd say your stream is awfully narrow.
I'm anti-conception. But, then, I have four ankle-biters already...
Har-har.
Funny how the left has little to say about Islamic vaginas being forced back to the 5th century.
Asshats.
@Freeman
...then I'd say your stream is awfully narrow.
I'd say more like grasping at straws.
Rev, there's a big difference between personally anti-contraception and in favor of government bans on contraception.
Sure. There is also a big difference between being personally anti-abortion and in favor of government bans on abortion -- but there's a pretty good correlation between people who strongly oppose something and people who want it banned.
The Vatican's position on contraceptive use is that it is intrinsically evil, and not a matter for the conscience of individual Catholics. American Catholics support it to the extent that they ignore what their religion teaches them.
Many do, of course; heck, 40% of American Catholics are pro-choice.
Amanda Marcotte is a living, breathing argument for contraception. And double bagging (and I don't mean your willy - I mean a bag over her head so you can't see her, and then one over yours just in case hers slips).
Actually, she's a pretty good argument for purdah.
Sure. There is also a big difference between being personally anti-abortion and in favor of government bans on abortion -- but there's a pretty good correlation between people who strongly oppose something and people who want it banned.
No, there is only a "pretty good correlation" on certain issues. That's not one of them. Just like all those Catholics aren't Hindus doesn't mean that they want Hinduism banned. I'm well aware of of the Church teaching on contraception, and it is not the same as its teaching on abortion. There is no teaching that you must be in favor of a legal ban on contraception, whereas that is the teaching concerning abortion. Abortion and contraception are distinct issues within the Catholic Church.
No, you implied that Dobson was anti-contraception, which he isn't. Your link proved the exact opposite of your implication.
I didn't imply anything. I explicitly stated: "..there are hard right folks who do wish to do much of the things she points to."
And the things Marcotte said pointed to "banning abortion and restricting contraception."
Again: Banning abortion and restricting - not banning - restricting contraception.
When asked to name individuals, I cited Dobson, Robertson and, later, Terry.
All three above wish to ban abortion. Period.
And Dobson wants to ban the use of IUDs or other devices that destroy a fertilized egg. That's restricting contraception.
Whether that is good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral is secondary to the fact - fact - that he does.
Dobson wishes to ban abortion and restrict contraception.
Exactly as I explicitly said above.
And Dobson wants to ban the use of IUDs or other devices that destroy a fertilized egg. That's restricting contraception
Banning partial-birth abortion is "restricting" abortion. It doesn't mean someone wants to ban abortion.
Amanda's issues spring from her eternal juvenile magical thinking that she have the personal freedom to do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, and never have an unpleasant consequence to worry her tiny amoral brain -- plus make other people pay for her behavior.
There is no teaching that you must be in favor of a legal ban on contraception
Freeman,
When it was legally possible to ban contraceptives, American Catholics -- among others -- fought to keep them banned. As noted above, the Church's position on contraception is that it is indisputably evil. The Church and Catholic organizations fight to restrict both access to contraception and the legally available methods of it.
I don't know, maybe American Catholicism really has wandered so far from the core faith that it won't be a problem anymore. But "we banned it when we had the chance, and our faith tells us it is evil, and we're fighting to restrict it even today, but we SWEAR we won't try banning it again" is, perhaps, not the most reassuring of arguments.
But personally, the whole thing reminds me of people who *swear* they don't want to ban guns -- just offer "resonable restrictions".
Hmmm. Marcotte talks of Republicans. Wikipedia shows Randall Terry as having switched to the Democratic Party.
Marcotte's comments are akin to claiming all Catholics want to outlaw abortion and contraception. No such thing is the case, just look at the Kennedys.
Banning partial-birth abortion is "restricting" abortion. It doesn't mean someone wants to ban abortion.
I agree.
But I never said that Dobson wanted to "ban contraception" only that, as Marcotte says, he wants to "restrict conception."
He does.
I'm in the uneviable position of (somewhat) defending Marcotte.
My only point was that there are some - some - people on the right who do wish to ban abortion and restrict contraception.
Dobson is one of those people.
BTW, since I came of age in the era of pads and belts, I didn't find the bit all that funny because it doesn't match reality.
It should be noted, too, that we've come full circle as - in the interests of being "green" - reusable cloth pads are back in vogue.
Still, Mandy's idea that pads are there to remind women of their "evilness" is more about her then it is about women finding the most comfortable way to deal with their periods.
She is obviously on the rag 24/7. She should see a doctor.
The Catholic Church is very clearly unambiguously opposed to all forms of artificial contraception (see Humanae Vitae Paul VI). No doubt, many, perhaps the majority of Catholics do not observe this teaching. However it is considered grave matter (i.e. mortal sin) to contracept or be surgically sterilized as a form of birth control. When we marry in the Church we specifically vow to be open to new life.
Not a popular or politically viable position for sure, but salvation is not about this world: it's about the narrow gate to eternity.
The Pope was recently widely misquoted on condoms. It was not an endorsement (he said it was a false solution in the same discussion). In context, he was referring to the use of condoms by a AIDS carrying male prostitute as evidence of a living conscience making at least a "first step" toward morality. In other words, at least the use of condoms in that case, demonstrated some modest level of care for someone other than self. The Pope was pointing to the lone mitigating aspect of an otherwise grave sin.
The Pope was pointing to the lone mitigating aspect of an otherwise grave sin.
"Plus," the Pope added, "it simply doesn't feel as good."
And Dobson wants to ban the use of IUDs or other devices that destroy a fertilized egg. That's restricting contraception.
You do understand that an organization not supporting contraception that destroys a fertilized egg and "banning" are two different things.
The irony in the timing of this Marcotte piece is the rise of the libertarian within the Republican Party. quite a few libertarians want to liberalize our abortion laws. You'd think Marcotte would rejoice in that. But it appears that once she sees the "R", logical thinking turns off.
"After that’s done, the next step is moving us back to the god-fearing age when women wore thick pads and belts. Proper ladies know that menstruation is god’s reminder that we’re evil, and should be dealt with in a way that maximizes discomfort and humiliation."
Why is that the "next step"? What conservative politician or leader thinks "menstruation is god’s reminder that woman are evil"?
Pads and belts were used because that was the best technology available. Nothing to do with "God fearing". Once technology got better, they stopped being used.
They were not "humiliating", they were an improvement on what women had used before.
It is also quite odd that Marcotte apparently thinks all conservatives are men.
Her argument is something like: some Americans would like to have 1950s style picnics again. Those who do want to force us to have a giant computer that takes up the whole block.
She needs a brain implant.
My father in law used to keep boxes of Kotex pads in all of his trucks.
He was a logging contractor and if he or his employees had an injury out in the woods(skill saw rebound, smashed body parts, stabbed by the limbs or any of the other zillion things that could go wrong) a Kotex or two tightly bound to the wound, generally by a very dirty ripped tee shirt or some rope would get you by until you could drive the couple of hours down the mountain to get to the clinic.
One of his fallers once cut his own leg very badly. The guy put on a tourniquet with his belt, sewed himself up with a kit that he always carried with him. He then hiked the several miles to the camp and was Kotexed up and sent in the bed of one of the pickup trucks down to town....with a bottle of Jack Daniels to tide him over on the bumpy ride.
Kotex pads make good first aid supplies.
Since we're on the "going back to the '50's" kick, I thought this would be interesting.
(The blogger is a Democrat sociology professor who focuses on marriage issues. This week he's blogging on Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker's Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think About Marrying. )
A few think that introducing sex early in a relationship will speed it along to true intimacy and love. They are all wrong.
The earlier sex is introduced in a relationship, the shorter it is likely to be.
Women tend to be emotionally hurt by sexual relationships that go nowhere, even when they think they won't care.
Men and women are scarred by broken relationships. The more broken relationships we have in our past, the harder it is to make a secure marriage in the future.
You do understand that an organization not supporting contraception that destroys a fertilized egg and "banning" are two different things.
Not in this instance.
Dr. Dobson and his organization believes that life starts at conception and the the government is obligated to protect that life.
As such, they support banning any contraception that destroys or results in the destruction of that embryo.
I've been Catholic all my life, and I live in a very red state. I've met, at most, a small handful of people who actually favor, in practice, not using birth control.
My husband and I attended the "engagement encounter" weekend as part of our preparation to be married in the Church. While we did have a presentation on natural family planning, it was unequivocally presented as a suggestion, not a requirement, and we were specifically told that choosing birth control was not a "sin", but a "poor moral choice." (Interestingly, out of 50 engaged couples there, I was aware of at least 3 who were pregnant- this was also not a big deal.)
I've never met anyone who advocated for the actual banning of birth control.
My mother is adamently anti-abortion. She was before she joined the Church, but is even more so now. She is absolutely a single-issue voter on the matter. She knows that I'm on the pill, and has never expressed the slightest problem with it (and believe me, she would).
Suggesting that Catholics want to ban abortion is absolute bullshit and displays intense ignorance.
- Lyssa
Suggesting that Catholics want to ban abortion is absolute bullshit and displays intense ignorance.
When you were given a chance to vote on the matter, you voted to ban it.
The onus is on you to prove you've changed, and wouldn't try the same crap again if given a chance. I recommend starting by overturning the Vatican's insane position on the matter.
Methadras expresses feelings of inadequacy over lacking a uterus. I suggest he grow his own so that he can have 100% say over what happens in the housing structure of his "deposits". And so can we - at least, according to his illogic.
Your sperm belongs to all of us, Methadras, and don't you forget it!
Just as aside to the inner workings of the Marcotte semi-grey matter ... she who is a hammer viewing all things as sexist nails ... in all seriousness she found her laundry basket a sign of "heterosexism".
Yes, really.
When you were given a chance to vote on the matter, you voted to ban it.
I don't recall voting on this issue. I must have been absent the day they passed out the ballots.
feelings of inadequacy over lacking a uterus
Goodness! Dismissive enough? I just bet you drag out the "penis envy" canard, too, with women you find too uppity.
It should be noted, too, that we've come full circle as - in the interests of being "green" - reusable cloth pads are back in vogue.
WTF?!
And I thought cloth diapers was taking it too far
...And Marcotte snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
Or something like that...
I don't recall voting on this issue. I must have been absent the day they passed out the ballots.
When an organization has a long history of a certain behavior, for which that organization remains unapologetic and unrepentant, how seriously can one take people who voluntarily belong to that organization -- and, in most cases, financially support it -- when they say "oh, don't even think about trying to pin that on me"?
Did you give Obama a pass for attending Trinity United? I seem to recall you didn't.
Let me see if I understand the logic.
There are a lot of people in this country opposed to at least late term abortions. The biggest organization in the country opposed to abortion is the Roman Catholic Church. It also opposes the use of contraception. Therefore people who oppose abortion also oppose the use of contraception and the use of tampons and stick on pads.
Oh, I forgot, some Republicans oppose abortions, and therefore also oppose contraception and the use of tampons.
Did I miss something there?
I was hoping for an illuminating discussion of whether or not sanitary napkins or queef jokes should be considered as the natural evolution towards a new, edgier kind of fart joke. Once again, the Althouse community has let me down with their absurd tangents into issues of secondary importance.....I am not as knowledgeable about feminist issues as I am about fart jokes, but herewith some observations about sexual and reproductive rights: Much as the left felt that the right of Ukranian peasants to be free from capitalist exploitation superceded their right to eat, just so do leftists consider that the right of women to have an abortion supercedes their right to exist. Look at the disproportionate number of females that have been aborted under abortion rights and tell me this isn't so.... In international affairs, a woman's right to possess a clitoris is superceded by her right to live in a society that is not unduly influenced by western mores. Clearly women like Mrs. Mubarak and Queen Noor are Uncle Toms and are deserving of no support or recognition. If it's a choice between them and a street mullah, the enlightened western feminist will choose the street mullah.....As a general rule, western bourgeoise men are the enemy, and anything that weakens their dominance is a positive good.
On a more serious note, abortion has a significant moral aspect. If you believe that human life begins at conception, then abortion is the intentional killing of a human being (aka murder). And, even if you don't believe it begins at conception, if the abortion is after when you believe human life beings, you are talking about the intentional killing of a human being (aka murder).
For me, the line is viability. And, yes, that has been moving ever younger. But if a fetus is a minute or two emergency C-section away from being a (premature) baby, I consider it a human being. As is obvious, I am not Roman Catholic.
Contraception is very, very different. It ranges from preventing conception to causing a spontaneous abortion within a day or two of conception. I would suggest that the vast majority of the American public is just fine with those methods, even including those who think of themselves as good Roman Catholics.
I do not remember the last time that I met someone who was seriously opposed to contraception, male or female. It is just too ubiquitous, and really doesn't raise much in ethical questions.
As a guy, why should I be opposed to contraception? It has kept me from having to pay child support for 18 years or so for kids I would likely never meet.
Sure, contraception may result in more promiscuity. But sex outside marriage has been going on as long as there has been marriage. For most of us, there just isn't a basic moral issue with contraception.
So, you have two different things - abortion which is viewed as the intentional killing of a human being by a large chunk of this country, and contraception, which does not have that moral overtone. It is just plain silly to argue that they are similar just because some guy 1/3 of the way around the world who chose marriage to his church instead of to a person of the opposite sex thinks that both are bad. Hey, even he acknowledges that abortion is much worse (but then goes to tie them together by claiming that human life begins at conception, and therefore most contraception is a form of abortion - which few outside the Roman Catholic clergy really accept).
The argument for banning abortions is that if it is the intentional killing of human beings, then it is hard to justify why people should be sent to prison, or even executed, for the intentional killing of humans after birth, but there is no penalty if they are intentionally killed a couple of minutes before birth.
Now how this all got tied in anyone's mind to pads and tampons is beyond me.
Oh, I forgot, some Republicans oppose abortions, and therefore also oppose contraception
If the official position of the Republican Party was that contraception was evil, and if the Republican Party had spent the past centuries fighting long and hard to keep women from having access to contraception, then yes, I would laugh at people who supported the Republican Party while claiming to have nothing against contraception.
That's like supporting ObamaCare while claiming to be for small government. At the very least it establishes that you've got much bigger priorities than worrying about the size of government. :)
...queef jokes should be considered as the natural evolution towards a new, edgier kind of fart joke. Once again, the Althouse community has let me down with their absurd tangents into issues of secondary importance...
They're too preoccupied w pubic hair, haven't you noticed? Well, some are, anyway. (I'd have said boobs, but TItus hasn't been around lately.)
As both were legitimized most thoroughly by Supreme Court decisions, would those who wish to overturn 'Roe v. wade' also disagree with the right to privacy as interpreted by the Court in 'Griswold v Connecticut?'
Regardless of what people want democratically, if abortion is left to the states to decide legislatively or in their own constitutions, might some ruling also let states decide on the legality of contraception?
Even though hardly anyone opposes legal contraception or considers (publicly) banning it, I think the arguments against the "right to privacy" are fairly common.
BJM said...
Har-har.
Funny how the left has little to say about Islamic vaginas being forced back to the 5th century.
Asshats.
This wins the award for "comment of the day." Blinding bit of hypocrisy from the left, isn't it?...
And Dobson wants to ban the use of IUDs or other devices that destroy a fertilized egg. That's restricting contraception.
Actually, that wouldn't be the case.
Contraception would involve a means or method that prevents the egg and sperm from joining in the first place. Hence, the Pill (blocks ovulation), condoms (blocks sperm), cervical caps (blocks sperm), the rhythm method, and all such other things that center on keeping egg and sperm separate from each other.
In contrast, IUDs, abortions, and RU-486 work by destroying the egg AFTER it has been fertilized. Since conception has already occurred, these are not contraceptives; they are abortifacients.
And therein lies the word game. You would get no argument whatsoever from the vast and overwhelming conservative, religious, and Republican population that adults should be allowed free access to whatever contraceptive they desire. Condoms, pills, whatever -- just as long as the intent is to prevent egg and sperm from joining, and not to eliminate the fertilized egg after that has happened.
The reason perverse fools like Marcotte and Planned Parenthood play this game is because drawing that line would make it clear that they fall nicely on the baby-killing side. They really don't care about condoms, the Pill, and whatnot; what they want is to get their pound of flesh, as it were, and charge for it.
In short, I, who consider myself strongly religious and pro-life, have no problem whatsoever with birth control pills, sterilization, condoms -- anything that keeps the egg away from the sperm and prevents conception. However, once conception has happened, that entity is a brand-new being, scientifically, morally, and spiritually; to deliberately kill it or prevent it from implanting is abortion, and it involves the destruction of another distinct human life.
I have a problem with people wanting to eat chocolate and throw up the calories, or who think that food having a digestive dimension is some kind of imposition. Sort of a serious misunderstanding of what food is for.
But a lot of people don't really understand the birds and the bees, these days.
In contrast, IUDs, abortions, and RU-486 work by destroying the egg AFTER it has been fertilized. Since conception has already occurred, these are not contraceptives; they are abortifacients.
I'm starting to wonder if Focus on the Family pamphlets are the sole source of birth control information for the people in this thread.
The medical consensus is that IUDs work by preventing fertilization. It has been *hypothesized* that they may also prevent implantation of fertilized eggs. Stating that like it is a fact is inappropriate.
For me, the line is viability. And, yes, that has been moving ever younger
For me, its the uncertainty. Beyond a reasonable doubt. If you're not sure you're taking a human life, then you err on the side of caution.
And guess which is the largest unregulated industry in America?
When you were given a chance to vote on the matter, you voted to ban it.
The onus is on you to prove you've changed, and wouldn't try the same crap again if given a chance. I recommend starting by overturning the Vatican's insane position on the matter.
The "you" you're referring to involves people who's actions occurred before my parents were born. It is in no way representative of Catholics in America in 2011. Nor is the Vatican. Open your eyes.
Rev (to DBQ): Did you give Obama a pass for attending Trinity United? I seem to recall you didn't.
What an exceptionally silly comment. Really, Rev, I expect better from you. You just tried to hold DBQ responsible for an opinion of members of a church that she doesn't belong to (DBQ's not Catholic, or even really Christian, IIRC) which was held before she was even born (or at least old enough to be aware).
That's like being upset about Obama's connection to Trinity not because Obama went there, but because someone who also went to law school went there in 1953. Obama himself actually chose to go to that church and worship under the leadership of that man, who was saying those things at the time. There's not even the slightest similarity.
- Lyssa
I just got an email from Wicket and he's staying on Endor.
DOES Marcotte ever mention clitorectomies in her voluminous vituperations?
Obviously William you do not follow my blog as I covered the history of queefing when I posted excerpts of Doris Kearns Goodwin's seminal tome Vages For Victory, The Invention of Twatter.
Rev keeps saying that the RC regards contraception as intrinsically evil. He's wrong. Abortion is intrinsically evil. Contraception is does not fall into that category, or else the Church would not teach NFP (natural family planning). What the Church opposes is artificial contraception, because it perverts the sex act into something that it is not, by removing from it the possibility of creating new life.
Nevermind... just looking around we can see what a tremendous positive influence the ready availability of contraceptives and abortion have been! Why, the strength of the Black family alone provides sufficient testimony to justify this great social experiment!
Heh. Amanda needs sex so bad that she's willing to kill for it.
She knows birth control is not 100% effective but she makes a CHOICE to take that risk anyway. She'll kill her kid in search of the Big O.
Hope it was worth it, baby.
Rev keeps saying that the RC regards contraception as intrinsically evil. He's wrong.
"The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable."
else the Church would not teach NFP (natural family planning).
"Natural family planning" is not contraception. But if you want to play words games then yes, the RCC is fine with contraceptive techniques provided they don't actually prevent women who WOULD have conceived from doing do.
It is in no way representative of Catholics in America in 2011. Nor is the Vatican. Open your eyes.
The Vatican is still fighting tooth and nail against condom distribution, even in poor nations where AIDs and other sexually transmitted diseases present significant non-contraceptive reasons for adopting them.
Heck, they devote considerable money and effort to promoting the lies about the supposed "ineffectiveness" of condoms, further driving down usage by people ignorant enough to take moral guidance from Rome. You support men who would rather see you dead than using contraception, Lyssa.
Marcotte's only competition as the Most Utterly Worthless person on the planet is Bill Maher. No insight, no understanding, no perspective: nothing at all.
Congratulations, Revenant, and good work finding a quote using the term "intrinsically evil" rather than the much more commonly found "illicit". The fact that you found it in a document advising how priests should receive and counsel married persons in the confessional explains why it isn't a commonly used phrase among the laity.
The evil of contraception does not approach the evil of abortion.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा