"Sexual orientation is a part of diversity and cannot be ignored, said Robert Anderson, chair of the Academic Senate of the University of California system.
It's for their own good. The university has services it wants to provide. All the government's intrusions into your private life are for your own good. You will be given what is good for you, so come on now, tell us all about everything.
ADDED: When I started college, at the University of Michigan in 1969, the freshman were all given a test — various multiple choice questions — and it produced a number of different scores, one of which was not revealed to the students (although we figured out the code and were able to read our scores). This score purported to place everyone on a spectrum from very masculine to very feminine, and perhaps the authorities imagined that they could identify the homosexuals.
What were the questions? — you may wonder. Famously, one question was do you prefer cooked or raw carrots. In my family, we only ate raw carrots, so I'd always regarded cooked carrots as gross. I suppose that made the University regard me as more of a lesbian. I seem to remember a question that asked what would you rather do, where one option was to take apart a clock and then put it back together again. I don't know what the other choice was, but I suspect that clock project skewed a lot of the boys gay.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१९३ टिप्पण्या:
If sexual orientation is biological, as the proponents of this requirement probably believe, would they lose their collective shit if someone put pedophile down as their orientation?
Ok, THAT'S funny. Made me laugh out loud. Needed that.
Annie. channeling Tank.
Astonishingly crass, among other things.
How many choices are there? Will selecting "bi-curious" protect oneself from hateful lefties and gays?
Lighten up, David. It's no more crass than asking students to out themselves to college administrators. There's no danger in that information becoming public...
I think you protest too much. Projecting?
The GOP around the country have introduced over 1100 anti-abortion bills. These government intrusions into your private life are for your own good.
I would advise every straight white male, as much as it might hurt, to declare themselves gay for the purposes of this exercise.
Just how stupid would a prospective student have to be to answer that question?
KIDZ! Don't answer! Because in the future some employer (e.g. a security clearance firm) will get that information, and it may be used against you. Don't assume when you fill out that form that today's level of sexual tolerance will be the case 35 years from now.
Keep your private life private! It's getting more difficult to do every day, so work at it.
Is babes on the list?
"The GOP around the country have introduced over 1100 anti-abortion bills. These government intrusions into your private life are for your own good."
Hey tough guy, I'll tell you the same thing I tell every other pro-abortion person who whinges about this stuff. Pass an amendment to the US Constitution protecting the right to abortion if you're so worried about protecting this right.
This seems to me to be another way to create a new class of victims based on the way they reach orgasm.
Good luck with that
Faced with such a question, how is it possible for a closet homosexual to give an honest answer? Is closet homosexual a legitimate identity. If not, why not.
God, crunchy, you're right. I was projecting. Here I am, 68 years old, nearly 50 years out of college, and you have made me realize that I actually never sorted out my sexual orientation.
My wife, 8 children and grandchildren are going to be shocked.
My homosexual tendencies run about 0.1% Can I put gay?
The GOP around the country have introduced over 1100 anti-abortion bills. These government intrusions into your private life are for your own good.
I'd assume they'll all lose, mostly.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
You vote and take the majority.
If you don't like it, work on arguing the other side about its unwisdom until you win the point with the voters.
Roe vs Wade cut that process off, which is why it's cutthroat combat now.
Yikes! That's insane. Awfully personal. Plus, most of the gay people from my high school weren't even out when they were applying to colleges.
The GOP around the country have introduced over 1100 anti-abortion bills. These government intrusions into your private life are for your own good.
And if there's anything that's private, it's killing another person.
Does it count that if I was a woman, I would choose to be a lesbian?
Does it count that if I was a woman, I would choose to be a lesbian?
Aren't we all just pre-op lesbians anyway?
And the woman hating right...marches on:
A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they're using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona's an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees' sex lives could fire them as a result.
Yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Republican Debbie Lesko's HB2625 by a vote of 6-2, which would allow an employer to request proof that a woman using insurance to buy birth control was being prescribed the birth control for reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant.
They may just be worried about number of potential hook-ups.
Consider a hypothetical student population of 4 students comprising just 2 men and 2 women. With a heterosexual population, that's 4 different potential hook-ups (ignoring threesomes).
If that same 4-person student population is exclusively oriented G/L, there are only 2 different potential hook-ups.
I'm sure there's a mathematical way to describe this.
There's nothing wrong with this, unless you think being gay is something of which one should be ashamed.
It isn't.
Also, gay people have been gracing educational institutions for hundreds of years, contributing a ton, and generally getting shat on if they didn't maintain a closeted existence until relatively recently.
Love - blah blah HB2625 blah
Hey, you left out something...If HB 2625 is signed into law, businesses in Yuma that offer their employees health insurance could refuse to provide contraceptive coverage to their female workers if that goes against their religious beliefs.
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. You didn't even bother trying to be truthful did you?
Could also be universities out to avoid the Rutgers-style suicide match-ups.
Do they have a worksheet where you can compute your orientation? I mean, if you are only 18 - how are you supposed to figure that kind of stuff out without some guidelines.
"I'm here with the U.C. Santa Barbara Admissions Application Fact Finding Committee. Where may I disrobe?"
"There's nothing wrong with this, unless you think being gay is something of which one should be ashamed.
It isn't."
How about what's wrong with it is that gay people will get PREFERENTIAL treatment. Please point out any case ever where a student submitted an application to a university and was turned down because he was an out or closeted homosexual. I'll wait.
Freeman - "And if there's anything that's private, it's killing another person."
Except of course, it isn't a "person."
A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman.
Do they have a worksheet where you can compute your orientation? I mean, if you are only 18 - how are you supposed to figure that kind of stuff out without some guidelines.
There is a fully comprehensive color chart that helps with this determination. For freshman men, the further you go into the lavender area, the more gay you are. For freshman women, there are a couple of decision points that leave you either in hot pink (fem) or checked flannel(robobulldyke).
"Elmhurst College, in Illinois, announced last year that it would ask students about their sexual orientation on its admission application, making it the first college believed to make such a move. Students who identified themselves as gay were eligible for a diversity scholarship."
Scholarship money for claiming to be LGBTQI? Really?
Rialby - Is what I posted not true?
Think you're gonna just answer enough to keep your privacy? Hah!!
In 2010, before Elmhurst’s decision, the University of Pennsylvania aimed to expand its so-called affinity outreach by reaching out to applicants who might be gay. The university gleaned information from applicants — through statements in their essays, their memberships in groups, and their expressed interests in social and cultural organizations — to identify gay admits.
If you don't tell'em, they'll guess and tag you with it anyway.
Good luck with that.
Talk about being institutionalized.
Colleges and everything else that we do that has computer connections is being converted by our keepers into an insane asylum restraining us like we are incompetent patients.
I'd tell them that my lawyer says it's none of their damn business.
Then, if I had any problems, I'd get a lawyer.
What is the penalty for the student that tells them its none of your business?
"A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman."
Until what point?
Rialby - What does an employer's "religious beliefs" have to do with a woman's health?
Birth control isn't just to prevent pregnancy.
Maybe you should read up on this before posting silly right wing drivel.
A lot of kids who are Q in LBGTQRYUTICXZVXB or are just saying so to show "solidarity" should be told this will follow them the rest of their lives.
And that "Gay" might not be as fashionable someday.
PS Somebody tell Love Axelrod & Co are already on Plan C. They've run up the white flag in the War On Women.
Love, I think you're missing a few steps.
These legislative proposals would allow employers the choice to cover recreational contraceptives in the benefit plan they provide, or not. Most will continue to include any and all contraceptives because that is what their employees want and are willing to pay for in terms of higher premiums, co-pays, etc.
Some will opt out on moral grounds and these employers will be able to ask employees who seek coevrage to verify that the drugs are being used for non-recreational purposes. If so, they are covered. If not, they are not covered. Nobody will be fired for this, unless they lie or submit a false doctor's note (obtainable on the street in Madison) to make the employer pay and the employer discovers the lie.
It has nothing to do with managers being critical of individual employees' sex lives. It has everything to do with whetehr every employer is forced to pay for recreational contraceptives.
I think employers should offer the coverage, but should be forced to do so.
"What is the penalty for the student that tells them its none of your business?"
Junior college? If you don't submit, you will not have a chance to be admitted. If you do submit and you're not "diverse" then you're put in the undesirables pile.
The best orientation in college would be Try-Sexual, which means you will try anything once.
Rialby - "Until what point?"
Well, you tell me.
At what point could the fetus continue to live without being attached to the mother?
And if you're soooooooooooo concerned about this, why not get off your ass and begin adopting children.
Oh, and are you a man or a woman?
I don't think that the right thing to do is to declare your sexual orientation, but rather, what sex and sexual orientation you would prefer not to room with.
I think a lot of guys, in particular, of the age where they are entering college are a lot more homophobic than they may be later, when they are less secure with their sexuality. And, maybe some gay guys are heterophobic. Ok, to get this to work, you would need to specify your (current?) sexual orientation, or probably better, whether you like boys or girls or both, and whether you want to live with someone who differs there from you.
My point is not that "homophobia" is right, but rather that it does exist, esp. in mid to late teens, and living with someone in a dorm room in college is an intimate enough of a situation that you should be able to avoid living with someone whose sexual orientation threatens you, at least as a freshman. Later, in most cases, you get to choose your own roommates, and so this is much less critical.
Trying to pretend that this fear of sexuality, esp. of such opposite your own, does not exist at those ages ignores reality. And, I think that it is much easier justifying requiring a lack of discrimination throughout much of the rest of life than in such an intimate situation.
"What does an employer's "religious beliefs" have to do with a woman's health?
Birth control isn't just to prevent pregnancy."
Oh, here we go again.
"Oh, and are you a man or a woman?"
I'm your mother. Get out of the basement and go find a job.
Just now I'm reading a book about John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was about as gay as they come. For example, his middle name was Maynard. Nonetheless, he fell in love with a Russian ballerina, married her, and became, at least intermittently, a hetero. I remember reading somewhere that Cecil Beaton was so smitten with Greta Garbo that he became a hetero for the length of his affair with her......Sexual orientation is not a fixed star. Convicts become gay. Converts become straight. Human sexuality is malleable.
"Well, you tell me.
At what point could the fetus continue to live without being attached to the mother?"
No, you tell me. It's your standard.
"I think employers should offer the coverage, but should NOT be forced to do so."
There. FIFM.
"Love" wrote: A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman.
Don't be such an umbicile.
I think that of the GOP continues to concentrate on woman's issues they'll be hard-opressed to sty within 20 percentage points of President Obama in November.
What ever happened to the "JOBS,JOBS,JOBS" mantra?
Right now the Democrats are salivatinga the prossibility of a Santorum - Newt ticket.
As your old buddy used to say (right before losing over 4,000 American soldiers): 'BRING IT ON!!!"
chickenlittle - Are you disputing the fact that "A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother?"
William wrote: Human sexuality is malleable.
Which implies it's also ductile.
Rialby "No, you tell me. It's your standard."
It's not MY standard you idiot.
It's the standard set forth by "science."
Being a person, as far as the performance of person is concerned, depends on other people, not the object of the investigation.
A fetus will be a person or not depending, first of all, on what the parents think.
After it's born, and mostly exactly after it's born, there's a large contingent of other people who say it's a person.
The point of transvaginal ultrasound law is to change opinions of personhood by making it more as if it's been born, which is cheating but there it is.
Computerized ultrasound aging (but not too far) is next. You've got to make it cute and present, which is what kicks in caring-for genes.
All of this supports the truth of the idea of person being in the others, not in the object.
It goes with the actual performance of the word, not a theoretical dogma about the beginning of life.
chickenlittle - Are you disputing the fact that "A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother?"
No, just the arbitrary use of umbilical attachment for viability. You're essentially saying that person only becomes viable after birth--after the severance.
William - Having sex with a woman doesn't make a gay man a "hetero."
Good grief...
Took a similar test in junior high, questions like
Pick one from the list below. Would you rather
a) collect garbage
b) boss a crew collecting garbage
c) make garbage
d) create an immortal work of art
It convinced me I had no aptitude for anything people did in the working world. 35 years in the workforce never quite disabused me of this conclusion.
Is there a squirrel in the room?
Which implies it's also ductile.
Yes, but can it fix just about anything or can you make a wallet out of it?
I think not.
I'll give "Love" about an hour until full relapse into Jeremy mode.
Wait for it.
So far I'm being discriminated against in various places for being white and male.
Does this mean they're going to start discriminating against me for not being gay too?
Answer: Well, yes.
Dis country be fucked up.
DEAD COUNTRY WALKING
I have two sons of Western European descent. So far, they appear to be leaning towards classic hetero tendencies - crushes on girls, love of blue, etc.
Better up contributions to their 529 plans.
Unbelievable.
chickenlittle "No, just the arbitrary use of umbilical attachment for viability. You're essentially saying that person only becomes viable after birth--after the severance."
It's not "arbitrary."
It's a scientific fact.
And I didn't say it was a "person."
It's a fetus.
This seems to me to be another way to create a new class of victims based on the way they reach orgasm.
a) friction
b) any other means
"None of your damned business" is an answer.
Love: Yeah, it 'lets' those employers who are on record as having a religious opposition to birth control ... only pay for it when it's used for actual treatment of a pathology, rather than as birth control.
Why am I supposed to give a flying copulation about that, or consider it a "war on women"?
"Because I want it for free" is a lame argument, by the way.
Tank "So far I'm being discriminated against in various places for being white and male."
Where?
I enjoy taking Love's rants and replacing words like "fetus" with words like "slave." Example: "I didn't say it was a person. It's a slave."
She would have been right at home in the confederate south.
"A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman."
Amazing biological insight. Not sure I get the moral insight though.
The fetus is born, and still is able to live only because it is attached to the mother, or to some other adult human. Here the attachment is one of nurturing and care, rather than through an umbilical cord.
Either way, without the attachment, the kid dies. So if the morality is determined by the fact that the kid can not live on its own, just when does it become immoral to kill a child?
Your argument has just sent you careening headlong down that slippery slope.
"Better up contributions to their 529 plans."
Elle, that's right. Colleges learned this from our taxation system. It is the redistribution racket that colleges play.
Tuition is sky-high, but that's before the goodies are doled out to favored constituencies. If you fit one of the catagories, you get a rebate, essentially forcing the non-rebated straight guy to subsidize your education.
All in the name of fairness and diversity.
@David
Your argument has just sent you careening headlong down that slippery slope.
Arguing is certainly Jeremy's strong suite, he's just not that good at it.
Duh.
Slavery and abortion are related by being opposites, more or less.
Slaves were nonpersons because that was the only argument left for slavery after its economic justification disappeared with the beginning of the industrial age.
It used to be just the spoils of war, no personhood argument about it.
Fetuses, though, are nonpersons by usage and grammar, and words come up and perform according to a need for them.
It's theory ("where exactly is the beginning of humanhood") that numbs itself to the words, not ordinary speech. If theory's dogma then takes over, that tyranny.
Sigivald - As I said before:
I think that if the GOP continues to concentrate on woman's issues (especially considering how many of thse idiots are MEN) they'll be hard-opressed to stay within 20 percentage points of President Obama in November.
Why they are so concerned about the minimal amount spend on contraceptives, versus the cost of unwanted pregnancies or even worse, unwanted children or abortions...shows just how desperate and downright stupid they really are.
(Oh, and by the way 20 something states have already required such payments for decades.)
Contraceptives cost about $500 a year...a birth costs about $7,000.
And many studies show that the insurance premiums cost LESS when contraceptives are covered.
David - "Amazing biological insight. Not sure I get the moral insight though"
Didn't say it had anything to do with "moral insight."
Did I?
It's merely a scientific fact that shores up an argument for a woman having a "choice" relating to her own body.
If men had babies there would be no argument or debate...but of course, you and others here already know that.
Barry - this mama ant is beginning to resent the grasshoppers.
Immensely.
Coketown - "I enjoy taking Love's rants and replacing words like "fetus" with words like "slave." Example: "I didn't say it was a person. It's a slave."
That's not a realistic argument.
A legislative or "Constitutional" argument is not the same as a scientific argument.
And the slave argument isn't even relevant anymore anyway.
Housekeeping tip: If you take the screens off open windows, it lets the bugs out.
Mostly lady bugs.
Thousands of them.
Why would raw carrots be more likely to appeal to lesbians?
Love you ignorant slut, (God I miss when SNL used to be funny)
Reading your badly regurgitated Daily Kos talking points is actually starting to change my pro life stance. I still think abortion is wrong, but you have me coming around on the topic of Eugenics.
Hopefully your little liberal bubble bursting when your hero B. Hussein gets his ass thrown out of the white house will cause a coronary. November can not come soon enough, if only to shut you up for a day or two.
Humans have engaged in two stunningly different patterns of conduct throughout human time: killing the defenseless and nurturing the defenseless.
Generally developments that have tended towards greater nurturing of the defenseless have been seen as progress (or as progressive, if you will.) Now we have a shift, where "progressive" thinkers find positive moral value in killing a defenseless fetus, even in cases where the killing is motivated solely by the convenience and preference of the mother of the fetus.
I find it difficult to see how this is moral improvement. Even if you concede that a fetus is somehow not a human life, the widespread promotion and prevalence of abortion contributes to a callousness that is not healthy overall for society. It certainly is possible that this development could lead to other compromises in which human life is ended or allowed to end without moral objection. This could be a particularly insidious trend if a rising generation tires of the financial obligation the preceding generation has imposed on it for the care and nurturing of the old and infirm.
Will the abortionists of today someday be viewed like we now see the slave owners of the 19th century? Maybe not, but don't count out the possibility.
"Why would raw carrots be more likely to appeal to lesbians?"
The satisfying crunch that accompanies the destruction of a phallic symbol?
Actually, scratch that.
That would probably mean you're a feminist.
"A legislative or "Constitutional" argument is not the same as a scientific argument."
Love, are you really that ignorant? There was a pervasive scientific argument in favor of slavery. It was believed proven beyond doubt (a consensus!) that blacks were intrinsically intellectually and morally inferior to whites. Thus their enslavement in white dominated societies was scientifically justified.
Love,
Your definition of "person" is not scientific. The fact of fetal development are scientific, just at the facts related to aging and evelopment after birth are. We could define "person" as only including individuals who have passed the stage of puberty, or exclude the elderly after they have lost some life function of a fully functional person (post-menopausal women). Whether and when a developing fetus (or person) should be afforded legal protection is not scientific. It is a political dispute.
Stop trying to hide behind science. Almost all legal scholars (even pro-choice legal scholars) agree that the "scientific" viability standard from Roe was a colossal legal mistake.
When they came for the hermaphrodites I was silent.
Does the form contain an "Other" item, with a blank line?
Secondly, is this information part of the student record?
(Typically student records are considered private, even from parents, unless the student specifically allows the release of the information. At least, that's what I was told when I was a grad student.)
Love, Do you understand the meaning of love?
Love, you did not say "moral insight" but you were making a moral point. Your point is that killing a fetus is morally ok because it can not live without the umbilical attachment to the mother. I have asked why that same moral point could not be used to justify the killing of a completely dependent young child. Your response (implicitly) is "just because." It's not much of a response.
If the defenseless fetus is not "human" and therefore subject to killing at the pleasure of the mother because it is not able to fend for itself, what other creatures are not human, and subject to the same fate? Babies? Mentally or physically "incomplete" humans? Old and feeble humans?
The death of a fetus is an actual death. A heart stops beating. Pain is felt. A brain ceases to function. All of this is true.
If society wants to have abortion, it will. But it would be a good idea to own up to what abortion actually is.
The satisfying crunch that accompanies the destruction of a phallic symbol?
Confirmation that blow jobs are risky business
Well, I can see the value in knowing sexual orientation for the purpose of assigning dorm roommates.
Some people do NOT want to be roomies with a guy or gal who is going to be looking at you in a (possibly) sexual way.
Other demographic items that should be taken into consideration is: smoking or not. drinker or not.
In my daughter's questionaire at a private college she went to they also wanted to know if you were an early riser or early to bed. So that if you were a night owl, you weren't put in a room with someone who wants to go to sleep early.
But....for scholarships....give me a break.
This thread is shaping up to look like the bumper sticker, "Nuke the gay unborn whales for Jesus."
I am beginning to think I will have a sticker made, one that I've been thinking about for a while, and put it on the bumper of my Jeep.
ABORTION: I JUST DON'T CARE. NOW F--- OFF!
All of that said, do 17-year-olds applying to college necessarily KNOW their sexual orientations? Some people do, but at least when I was there, college was a time of discovery for a lot of people.
So what happens if someone doesn't tell the "truth"? If there are scholarships involved, is this fraud? Someone goes to school on a lesbian scholarship, and ends up falling for a man? Someone puts "straight" and discovers that he might be gay, does he just get kicked out of the dorms when his straight roommate is creeped out?
And as others have mentioned, does everyone want to have this sort of thing written down? Should they be forced to do so, knowing that, until recently, gays were legally persecuted, even in the US, and remain so elsewhere? (Not to go Godwin here, but in all seriousness, I would not exist if my great grandfather had left a paper trail that showed his Jewish heritage.)
I really can't see what good could come of this. Colleges are ostensibly educational institutions; they have no right to demand that their students relinquish their basic right to privacy and individual identity.
Plus....whenever I was asked about sexual orientation, I would put something smart assed like:
Prone or supine as the mood strikes.
Or...north and south.
If there was a blank spot where it said Sex:____________
I usually would fill in, "yes thank you"
My motto: screw with the system.
Just remind Love that the War on Women thing has blown up in the Demos' faces. I don't think they're pushing it any more.
We've Moved On.
Love said...
Freeman - "And if there's anything that's private, it's killing another person."
Except of course, it isn't a "person."
A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman
Got news for ya there, Einstein, if it weren't alive it wouldn't attach itself to the uterine wall.
I hope you aren't planning to reproduce.
It's not mandatory. And it is only asked after a student is admitted to the college. Therefore, it is only as invasive as a student wants it to be. If a student is gay and does not want to let the college know then they would simply leave it blank.
Note it first started at Elmhurst which is a private college affiliated with the United Church of Christ.
The only questionable part is the diversity scholarships. That makes an assumption that gay kids are less likely to get normal scholarships or are at a disadvantage. And what happens if a kid says he is gay just to get a scholarship? How is the school going to test his orientation?
[Edited]
Hey Dust Bunny, good stuff. Funny. I once saw an episode of the Beverly Hillbillies, where Jethro BoDean answered "OH BOY!" next to the Sex:___ on a job application.
The Government has a ton of costs involved in health care. Many, many questions of health involve sex and sexuality. This is now a legitimate concern of the Government. In fact, really there is nothing anymore that is not a concern of the Government.
Yippee.
Rather than identify my sexual ORIENTATION, I'd prefer to tell them about the brief, euphoric DISORIENTATION men feel after sex, just prior to the post ejaculation blues.
edutcher "Just remind Love that the War on Women thing has blown up in the Demos' faces. I don't think they're pushing it any more."
Yeah, right.
A poll, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for the progressive groups EMILYs List and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, showed that Democrats hold a wide lead over Republicans on issues like access to birth control (56-18), women’s health (46-28) and abortion (42-31).
In addition, voters strongly opposed the Blunt amendment, which would have allowed employers to deny preventive health care coverage as part of their insurance plans if they raised a moral objection, by a 60-40 margin. But more importantly, 48% of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate if they supported the Blunt amendment.
That’s a significant number that puts metrics to the belief that the debate hurt Republicans generally.
On the politics, it does appear that Republicans are right to back off – their position on birth control was severely damaging their party brand.
OR
The 2012 version of the “war on women” as many characterize the current attacks by Republicans on women’s health is not only morally wrong, but it is really dumb. From a political standpoint, it is like a 90 pound weakling picking a fight with a 280 pound football player. The odds favor women.
Continue reading on Examiner.com War on women is wrong but also really dumb - National economic policy | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/economic-policy-in-national/war-on-women-is-wrong-but-also-really-dumb#ixzz1p7lOUugx
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/us/politics/centrist-women-tell-of-disenchantment-with-gop.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman
Pregnancy is such a one-way street, amirite?
@chickenlittle
It look more than an hour, but you were spot on. Dog bites man, though.
Simon Kenton at 2:01 missed the obvious:
Pick one from the list below. Would you rather
a) collect garbage
b) boss a crew collecting garbage
c) make garbage
d) create an immortal work of art
Very often c & d are indistinguishable.
Rusty - If you believe a fetus is a "person," that is YOUR opinion and I respect it.
I personally do not believe it to be the case. I believe a woman should have the final "choice" when dealing with her own body.
Why is it so hard for you and other here to ONLY believe what they themselves believe to be so?
Most here constantly push the Christian values bullshit, when in reality, they could give a flying fuck what others think...unless of course, it's what THEY believe.
And you know what?
I bet there are regulars here who have had abortions, have friends and relatives who have...and that they themselves supported the decision when it was made.
And as for birth control being paid for via employer insurance, etc...why in world would anyone be against such coverage? Many women take such measure, not to avoid pregnancy, but to deal with real and serious medical concerns.
Whay are YOU and others so against such protection?
It's called hypocrisy...and it's alive and well among the Althouse gang.
I suspect that the November election will either validate or repudiate all the polling done today--IMO its a fool's errand to project these data onto an election where, in fact, the economy might be the big issue.
"My motto: screw with the system."
LOL! Hear! Hear! I remember taking personality-type tests in HS. I could see the patterns in the questions (or at least I thought I could), and so I would choose answers that contradicted each other. I refused to be pigeonholed by some bureaucrat.
That probably landed me in the "smart-ass" category - that's what my mother angrily called me when I told her what I had done- as in "why do you always have to be such a ...". Or maybe I was labeled psychotic. Who knows? They never gave us the results. As far as I cared, the "tests" were a waste of my time, and an intrusion into my privacy. They annoyed me.
I believe a woman should have the final "choice" when dealing with her own body.
Until what point of the pregnancy? 2nd trimester? Third? When contractions start? Seconds before the head clears the birth canal?
Please expand on your statement of supporting choice.
Scott - some would go as far as the ancient Romans and say the parents had right of life or death over their children to the age of adulthood.
Wow--reviewing all these comments about foetal personhood are a trip down memory lane. I rather thought the philadelphia abortionist Dr Glassney resolved that: deliver the foetus and then cut its spinal cord after it was delivered. (sarcasm off)
Scott M "Please expand on your statement of supporting choice."
I believe in a woman's choice.
If you can't understand that...well, never mind...I already know you don't understand much of anything...you just like to whine and bitch.
*By the way, Scotty...how many times have YOU been pregnant, and how babies have YOU personally given birth to?
We both know the answer to that, don't we?
Here's an idea. Post something about something like the lines painted on the highway, and see how long it takes for the comments to degenerate into a go-nowhere rantfest between pro- and anti-abortion types, neither of who will ever be convinced by the other.
I believe in a woman's choice.
Answer the question as posed so we both know where you're coming from. Currently, only you do. I'll answer your questions fully if you answer mine, Jeremy.
If you can't understand that...well, never mind...I already know you don't understand much of anything...you just like to whine and bitch.
Therefore, Scott M wins the argument. Love - just have the stones to admit you have no idea why you feel the way you do, and that there are a million holes in your view. It'd be more honest than the whining and bitching you're doing.
Love says...
If it's inconvenient...kill it!
Love. Some moniker for a monster.
Here's how well the "war on women" is playing out for the GOP:
Pew Research Center
3/7-11/12; 1,503 adults
1,188 registered voters
538 Republicans
Live telephone interviews
National
Obama Job Approval
50% Approve
41% Disapprove
2012 President: General Election
54% Obama 42% Romney
57% Obama 39% Santorum
Just keep it up...and President Obama will win by 20 points.
Seems to me that the biology of pregnancy dictates that the women carries the foetus. But, and a big assumption here, is that the father also has a right in a decision to abort. The trope that its strictly a woman's decision is wide of the mark and fails to recognize there are at least three people involved in the decision, except one of them, the foetus, has no say.
ricpic - I've never said anyting of the kind.
Your comment is nothing more than the standard uninformed, uneducated drivel the right loves to push.
Just for fun, answer this: If your wife or mother were told that if she did not have an abortion, she would die...what would you suggest she do?
It happens every day.
Love - stop citing the Pew that's biased. Rasmussen shows Obama in deep doo-doo.
If it's inconvenient...kill it!
yeah so let's tell women what to do with their own bodies...
It happens every day
No it doesn't. Pure conjecture.
It's very simple, Jeremy. Please answer the question as posed. Here, I'll even rephrase it.
Is there a point in a pregnancy at which the pregnant woman can no longer abort the unborn "whatever" inside her?
Roger - "But, and a big assumption here, is that the father also has a right in a decision to abort."
I agree, but I also think it shoud be a requirement that he be there for all medical examinations, ultrasounds, the delivery, and responsible for 18 years of support.
ScottM--Dr Glassney solved that conundrum, although he now faces murder indictments.
I'm sure Scott would say the woman should give birth even if it means her own death. The fetus has priority!
Love - the point is a lot of men want no part of the pregnancy and many simply leave their pregnant girlfriend/wife and go start fresh.
Love--you and I are in complete agreement about the father's role in child rearing. And if you want to send your child nee foetus to college your time horizon extends another 4 years.
I'm sure Scott would say the woman should give birth even if it means her own death. The fetus has priority!
You can be sure of nothing on my part, Alex, and you lost all credibility with me on this issue a long time ago with your inept use of your own-cited percentages.
I'm certainly not sure how you can come to that conclusion when I'm simply asking for someone who has advocated a position to clarify that position with a very simple answer. Frankly, I don't plan on following it up with any other questions. A clear answer will speak for itself one way or another, but Jeremy doesn't seem to have the conviction to back up his own position.
Roger - really? I've read countless stories of boys kicked out of the home at 16 and made to fend for themselves. It happens all the time.
Love is Jeremy?
Love said...
edutcher "Just remind Love that the War on Women thing has blown up in the Demos' faces. I don't think they're pushing it any more."
Love said..
Just remind Love that the War on Women thing has blown up in the Demos' faces. I don't think they're pushing it any more.
Yeah, right.
A poll, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for the progressive groups EMILYs List and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, showed that Democrats hold a wide lead over Republicans on issues like access to birth control (56-18), women’s health (46-28) and abortion (42-31).
And the CBS and ABC polls say it's blown up in their faces.
That's why all the Leftiues are so scared.
And why Love is pushing polls commissioned (bought and paid for with results already built in) nobody ever heard of or puts credence in. Because Lefty pollsters think we're as stupid as the trolls.
Not that I put credence in what Black Rock or Walt says, but, if they're that worried it gives validity to what I linked before - that Barry & Co are running scared.
I Callahan - There are 6 billion people on the planet, 300 million here, and yu don't think it happens every day?
You need to read more and post ridiculous comments less.
There are a variety of health conditions in which abortion may become critical to protect a woman's life. There is, for example, a form of pregnancy-related high blood pressure that can be life threatening. The medical term for it is preeclampsia. It occurs in seven percent of pregnant women.
If it is untreated or doesn't respond to treatment, it can lead to convulsions, failure of various organ systems, coma, or death. Abortion may be the only way to save the woman's life.
Certain other conditions, such as severe diabetes, heart disease, or trauma from car accidents, may also require abortion to save a woman's life. Termination of pregnancy is also essential to save the life of a woman with an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy.
Alex--I suspect you are right; but the fact there are lousy fathers out there, should not be a basis for walking away from parental responsibility when it comes to child rearing.
edutcher - Can you provide the link to the CBS and ABC polls you tout?
That would help.
And if true, why do you suddenly feel the MSM polls are so accurate?
I thought the MSM was the enemy of the GOP.
Love: I do not disagree there are genuine medical emergencies that dictate the need for abortion. That decision is one, again assuming a commited husband and wife relationship, that should be taken jointly. And I am sure it is wrenchning decision for the parents involved. Life just isnt all that simple sometimes, and my personal view is that governments should not interject themselves into such decisions. Thats the libertarian in me.
Speaking of good Christian values and the sanctity of life and one's self respect:
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, believes that the Catholic church has gone too easy on the survivors of sex abuse by clergy, and has vowed to fight them “one by one,” says a post at the blog Right Wing Watch.
In an interview with Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times, Donohue says that in the past the church “has been too quick to write a check” to individuals who report being victimized by pedophile priests. He believes that the church should fight each case “one by one,” ostensibly to save money “in the long run.”
He said that Catholic bishops should “toughen up and go out and buy some good lawyers to get tough” in the fight against victims of sex abuse. “We don’t need altar boys.”
Roger J. - I agree, but without laws to protect a woman's decision, where does she go?
And I also know that almost all abortions are a matter of "personal choice" and not a necessary procedure.
What I don't understand is this: When ever I say that if men had babies, there would be no debate, almost everyone here acts as if that's somehow imposible to belive or understand.
For whatever reason, expecially Scott, Freeman and others here think that, even though it's almost impossible to get men to just use birth control or get a vasectomy or support unwanted childern...they would allow others to tell them to have a baby whether they wanted to or not.
Not a chance.
Love said...
edutcher - Can you provide the link to the CBS and ABC polls you tout?
They're the latest ones all over the web and there are tons of articles on You can find them yourself.
Or you can look at the older posts page here.
We talked about it all yesterday.
Weren't you lurking?
Love: I fail to see how your last post re "Christian values" furthers the debate. Christians are flawed human beings. That is really the basis, I think, of Christianity.
Was there a "askew hat" question. Because that is a clear indication of gay. Or douchebag. Or both.
For whatever reason, expecially Scott, Freeman and others here think that, even though it's almost impossible to get men to just use birth control or get a vasectomy or support unwanted childern...they would allow others to tell them to have a baby whether they wanted to or not.
You have absolutely zero information to back up that contention and all you're doing now is flailing and, effectively, name calling.
I asked you to explain your position with a simple answer and you refuse to do so. Why?
Love--the "if men had babies" argument is foolish. I take the position that if there is not a committed relationship, and the father is long gone, than the woman gets to decide. In most cases, I suspect, there are some bright lines. But laws favoring women when there is a committed relationship are a bit more problematic.
I have no answer to this conundrum. From a standpoint of equity, it seems to me that biology notwithstanding, the father has rights equal to the mothers. Unfortunately, laws are a blunt instruments to make these decisions.
Scott - explain why the government has a right to interfere with what a pregnant woman decides to do to the fetus. You are a fascist.
Raw carrots. It's what's for dinner.
And my last comment on the subject: men are equally responsible for practicing contraception. These are issues for a committed couple to discuss with their physician and practice accordingly.
Scott - explain why the government has a right to interfere with what a pregnant woman decides to do to the fetus. You are a fascist.
Please show me where that's been said by me. I'm still waiting for someone how made a pronouncement on a policy to back up that pronouncement with an explanation. Which he refuses to do.
The fact that you jump to the "fascist" label with nothing to substantiate it simply outs you as childish.
I tend to pass over Love's comments, but sometimes I do wonder whether she thinks her statements qualify as argument.
Education system fail.
Would you prefer to (a) take apart and reassemble a clock or (b) have sex with a woman?
Love,
A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother
Guaranteed, the only reason you're able to live is because you are attached to a society that is mostly provided to you by others. So if all of us vote on it, can we kill you if a majority says yes? Or do you think that a person's life, no matter how dependent on another, is a sacred thing to be given true dignity?
"Freeman Hunt said...
Would you prefer to (a) take apart and reassemble a clock or (b) have sex with a woman?"
Funny
Elmhurst College, eh? I'm sure it's a fine school, with an unmatched reputation - one that can afford to drive away prospective students with intrusive questions.
I couldn't imagine a member of the administration using this information, ever. It's private, like the Ryan's divorce records.
You just can't make this stuff up.
Would you prefer to (a) take apart and reassemble a clock or (b) have sex with a woman?
Sex is wildly overrated.
Love, you conflate "pro choice" with "good idea" or "moral." Because you are accepting of a pseudo scientific arbitrary line between what is and is not human (and therefore subject to whim killing), you have walled yourself off from the moral issue that abortion involves.
As father of eight children and stepchildren (including four daughters), I am well aware of the issues of choice and hardly inclined to a war against women. It would probably surprise you to know that I am pro choice, in the sense that I do not believe that this is ultimately an area where the state should make the decision.( Of course I believe this about many areas of life, while today's typical liberal is glad to involve the state in most areas except abortion.)
Think of it as having decriminalized abortion. We can decriminalize it, but we can not make it right. Where nothing more than the convenience or preference of the mother is involved, it is a act of extreme selfishness. In all cases, it is an act of considerable violence towards a living organism. Writ large, this has vast and subtle social impact. (Some of it is not so subtle, like the approximately 20 million black babies who have not been born since whim killing of the fetus has been legal.)
I do not propose that we criminalize women who choose to abort an otherwise viable fetus. I do propose that we stop giving them an easy out on the moral decision involved.
(And by the way, I think many women who abort do have a moral crisis over the decision. Good for them and God bless them as they wrestle and decide.)
Ken "Guaranteed, the only reason you're able to live is because you are attached to a society that is mostly provided to you by others."
I don't need any "society" to "live."
Neither do you.
And I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that I'm "attached to a society that is mostly provided to you by others."
Are you implying that you create your own "society?"
You sound like a ten-year old.
In Wisconsin a DA was going to charge someone who assaulted a pedophile with a hate crime, so the OP question about someone putting dow pedophile as a sexual orientation isn't that far fetched. I wonder if the nude poster photos that were taken of every student at UW-Madison, Ivy League Schools etc., in the mid 20th century were really just used for posture.
Daqvid - "I do not propose that we criminalize women who choose to abort an otherwise viable fetus. I do propose that we stop giving them an easy out on the moral decision involved."
Pass this along to the GOP.
And since when does a woman have "an easy out on the moral decision?"
How woud you or anyone know (or assume) what goes through a woman's mind before making such a decision?
I'm not pro-abortion, I'm merely for a woman having the choice in the matter, opposed to politicians and supposed Christians like Santorum demanding laws that mandate ultrasounds or vaginal probing, designed to do nothing more than humiliate and cast shame.
Don't forget not to check any of the "race" boxes. Write in "human".
Freeman Hunt said...
Would you prefer to (a) take apart and reassemble a clock or (b) have sex with a woman?
Digital or analog?
I would mark the "gay" box, because I am usually a happy guy.
Sex is wildly overrated.
The question is for teenagers.
Digital or analog?
Asking that gets you marked bisexual.
Elmhurst College, eh? I'm sure it's a fine school, with an unmatched reputation - one that can afford to drive away prospective students with intrusive questions.
As usual, the Althouse commenters, and Althouse herself, get all bent out of shape based on a misreading of the policy. No where in the article does it say that students will be required to declare their sexual orientation. As for Elmhurst College, the article explicitly states that the self-identification is optional.
Do they expect Jeffrey Dahmer types to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? "I will need a LARGE refrigerator..."
Sexual orientation is not a fixed star.
Yeah, Althouse says disassembling a clock can turn a boy gay, but I suspect it has to be an analog one.
Funny that Love brings up the science of "viability" but ignores DNA.
I think most women who have abortions should have them. If they want to kill the baby, they don't admire, respect, or love the father of the baby. They don't want to have a child one-half of whose genes are repugnant to them. The fact that they were willing to have sex with such a person is another problem. Some people just hate themselves.
Prone or supine as the mood strikes.
Prone, top or bottom.
BTW - diversity can be ignored. If you did, you'd probably have a better, more natural diversity. How about trying to educate someone for a change?
I'm sure everyone has noticed the full court press with this "war on women" thing. Even in here the lefties are out in force pushing it like carnival barkers. At this rate, by next week, Obama will be trailing my German Shepard by 10 points.
You guys are pathetic little toadies. Do you even allow yourselves an individual thought during your long day of toil?
40% of CA judges who were "asked" that question replied "none of your business." :)
There certainly must be an option for undecided.
I wonder how many deanlets were involved in the construction of the incoming test, and how many out-of-state conferences they had to attend to get the test just so.
Love-
Does abortion (I'm pro-choice BTW) let men off the hook? Yes or no?
If yes, what is the impact of that blanket abdication of responsibility on society at large?
"Collapse comments" works again! Hooray!
They'll never publish the results because they'd should how few people answered anything other than "heterosexual."
Do you even allow yourselves an individual thought during your long day of toil?
I did once, about 2-3 years ago. It was terrifying.
Love: "And since when does a woman have "an easy out on the moral decision?"
If they follow your reasoning they do. Baby and mother have umbilical attachment, baby can't survive and can be killed. It's the blob theory. Intelligent young women referring to a fetus as a batch of cells or a blob. Reasonably articulate men like you posing a justification that dehumanizes the fetus and seemingly not seeing any moral implication. We are so far gone that the destruction of 20,000,000 black babies over 40 years is a non event.
"Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, believes that the Catholic church has gone too easy on the survivors of sex abuse by clergy,..."
It's not Godwin's Law, but it's pretty obvious that the first person who shreiks "Catholic Pedophile Priests!" has admitted that they've lost the argument.
The diversity thing is about as stupid as all the other diversity things, but it makes sense to ask questions that are relevant to student housing.
The military is going to start asking for declarations as well, just wait. They're going to have to.
“And if there's anything that's private, it's killing another person.”
It’s between you and your doctor. And, with the advent of post-birth abortion, the two of you can discuss the relative merits of the little rascal lying helplessly in front of you before deciding.
Rialby mooed--
The GOP around the country have introduced over 1100 anti-abortion bills. These government intrusions into your private life are for your own good."
here's an idea--if you want to kill your baby, do it with your own damn money. and if you want it to be legal, campaign and get a law passed.
Love,
I think that of the GOP continues to concentrate on woman's issues they'll be hard-opressed to sty within 20 percentage points of President Obama in November.
Oh, I think if all Obama's supporters write like that, the GOP will have little trouble.
I don't get it. I thought everyone was the same. If so, what's gay/female/straight/black/white/hispanic got to do with it?
It's so . . .confusing.
Love,
Rusty - If you believe a fetus is a "person," that is YOUR opinion and I respect it.
I respect your belief as well. But if your belief is that a prematurely born baby at 7 months' gestation is a "person" whose killing would be murder, while a fetus at the same gestational age would be just a bit of waste tissue to be evacuated at will, probably in pieces ... well, I just don't believe you, that's all.
"No, we are not homosexual, but we are willing to learn."
Love;
FYI
(from the Arizona Republic)
Arizona is among 26 states with laws requiring employers to cover contraception through their health insurance
Damn Republicans they've controlled the AZ legislature for at least the last 15 years and look what they've done.
On second thought, what an amazing scam!
Students can claim to be gay, and no one will check.
Schools can start an entirely new diversity bureaucracy,
Everyone wins!
Love: A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman.
Wow. And to think that Love calls the GOP the "anti-science" party. Dear, take a biology course. Please. I'm left wondering if you are Parody.
Love: What does an employer's "religious beliefs" have to do with a woman's health? Birth control isn't just to prevent pregnancy.
Uhm... hahah... the Catholic Church already covers birth control pills used to treat a medical condition, like cysts.
Love: Maybe you should read up on this before posting silly right wing drivel.
Oh. The. Irony.
Whoever your Information Brokers are, they are feeding you with a shovel. Thank them for us - it was very entertaining to see you beclown yourself with such arrogance.
Love: If you believe my property is a "person," that is YOUR opinion and I respect it., said the slaver to the abolitionist.
[yah, its got to be parody. Overplayed. Even liberals aren't that stupid]
David: Reasonably articulate men like you posing a justification that dehumanizes the fetus and seemingly not seeing any moral implication. We are so far gone that the destruction of 20,000,000 black babies over 40 years is a non event
Something I recently learned:
Empress Theodora of the Byzantines abolished the practice of abandoning unwanted infants to the elements.
1500 years ago.
Love,
"And as for birth control being paid for via employer insurance, etc...why in world would anyone be against such coverage?"
Oh, stop. Just stop. Not a single soul here gives the tiniest damn if one, some, or every insurance company pays for some or all of the cost of oral contraceptives. What we're steamed about is that the federal government thinks it has any power to force unwilling parties to do so.
Freder Frederson said...
As usual, the Althouse commenters, and Althouse herself, get all bent out of shape based on a misreading of the policy. No where in the article does it say that students will be required to declare their sexual orientation. As for Elmhurst College, the article explicitly states that the self-identification is optional.
And yet nowhere in Ann's short post does she say "students will be required."
It's rather a neat trick to call someone out on a problem (misreading) you yourself make in you own post - that the person you're calling out (Althouse) didn't make.
"No, we are not homosexual, but we are willing to learn."
"The Cartwrights were NOT gay...but thank god Hop Sing was."
With all this talk about "sexual orientation," here I am ready to discuss (a) whether a male's sexual organs are oriented toward joinder with a female's sexual organs, or whether a male's sexual organs are oriented toward joinder with with another male's digestive organs, (b) whether the expulsion of pro-creative material by the male is oriented toward introduction into a female's reproductive tract where it might join with pro-creative material from her, or whether the expulsion of pro-creative material by the male is oriented toward introduction into another male's digetive tract where it might join with fecal matter, and here most everyone is engaged in this exercise of deflection by Hate, complete with her anti-woman, misogynist rhetoric, totally ignoring the issue presented.
For the record, the correct answer to such invasive questions (whether "straight" or "gay") is -- "NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS."
I would like to see the committee's response to the note appended by a young Jeffrey Dahmer, "Will need a large refrigerator. Thank you for helping my dreams come true."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा