Let’s put it this way: Imagine that you need Viagra. Imagine that a law passed by an 80 percent female Legislature mandates that to obtain a prescription, you have to procure an affidavit from a sexual partner verifying that you are indeed incapable of an erection.
Or maybe, before obtaining a vasectomy, you have to undergo an ultrasound on your testicles — wherein a technician must apply gel and press a hand-held transducer on your private parts. The legislation mandates that you watch images of your sperm on a monitor as a doctor describes the millions of pre-human lives you are about to end.
March 13, 2012
"Women are facing sexual McCarthyism" according to Jennifer Granholm.
"Guys, I’m thinking it’s hard for you to imagine what it’s like to have your most private decisions made for you. By women."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
147 comments:
Begs the question. Nobody cares (much) what a woman privately does with her unfertilized eggs
She bucking for Sibelius' job, after Kathleen is thrown under the bus.
After all, it must get old sharing a bathroom with Keith Ubermoronn.
This can only lead to backroom vasectomies and men buying generic sildenafil from mystery tramps or over the internet.
What on earth is that nitwit babbling about now?
What if you lived in Granholm's Michigan and were far too poor to think about anying but your next meal?
Typical democrat straw argument. Because Viagra is the same as an abortion. Now lets try this on for size: we have someone perform a lethal injection to someone else using the current requirements needed to obtain an abortiion.
No wonder they are so easily mocked and ignored.
If you get a vasectomy in California, you have to get signed permission from your wife.
I am not kidding.
You're right, Jennifer.
The Government has no business weighing in on the birth control/stiff penis side of it's citizen's lives.
A fanatic like Granholm or Obama can never, ever acknowledge that for some us the killing of a fetus has some sort of moralconsequence.
I have no experience with these issues, since I'm an assexual alien. But my objectivity grants me the power to observe that Granholm appears to be acting as what the male of the human species calls "a castrating bitch".
Imagine if you gave birth to a child and a judge gave custody to his father and ordered you to pay for both of them to live with his new lover, because that's just what we do.
Then imagine that if you look at a man the wrong way, or say the wrong thing, or just piss him off, he could easily get you fired or at least put through the ringer and have your career damaged just because other women have acted poorly in the past.
And don't you ever let yourself be alone with a child not your own, or around any children unless another adult is there unless you want your life ruined forever, because some people with your genital design have done some awful things.
Try that for a while.
Sperm are not "pre-human lives". They are human and they are made of living - not dead - human cells. They just aren't living human beings, like human embryos are. And they aren't persons, like human fetuses with brain waves are.
Cry me a river. Imagine as a woman if your husband got some other woman pregnant, and he decided to divorce you and move in with her AND then a court ordered YOU (his ex-wife) to pay child support for this other child -- not related to you in any way -- until age 22 just because you happened to be married to the guy when the baby was conceived.
Hmm..."assexual alien"...
Any guy who goes in for a vasectomy and doesn't want his sack touched by medical equipment is in for an unwelcome surprise.
When, oh Lord, will this "sisterhood" nonsense die?
There are no huge differences between the genders on the so-called "women's health" social issues. Here's the breakdown for abortion.
Are there lots of folks out there who want to put a major crimp in abortion rights? You betcha! But those folks are just as likely to be female as male, and those numbers have been consistent across genders since Roe v Wade.
Nature designated women to give birth to children. Children are everyone's concern, not just womens'. Terminating pregnancies/killing babies/aborting fetuses/whatever you want to call it is not just womens' business. Sorry, that's just the way it is. If you don't like it, take it up with God/nature/whatever created us.
Uh, except no one dies in Granholm's scenario.
The only men who's most important decisions about sex aren't made by women are gay.
There is an organized campaign to force someone with unacceptable political views off the airwaves, and its TARGET is the McCarthyist?
Chutzpah: its not just a stat in Paranoia.
Who gets killed in the Viagra scenario? That's where the analogy breaks down, i.e., from jump.
Jennifer,
I recently had a radical prostate-ectomy for prostate cancer. I'm fine now but I need a little help getting an erection.
It's either Viagra or you, baby. And I hear that no automotive bumper is a challenge for you. I'll sign the affidavit.
Bring. It.
Why can't Canada take her back?
I wonder if she really meant to equate birth control (vasectomies) with abortion or if it just sort of happened.
Did someone say something about gel on the testicles? That alone should answer whether Viagra is indicated.
"Men are facing sexual Granholmism" according to Jenny McCarthy.
This is my favorite part from Granholm:
Look, it’s obvious that abortion is the most sensitive of public policy issues. Women deeply understand the wrenching trade-offs they must make in weighing such a personal decision. So, in addition to legislatively forced physical procedures, it should come as no surprise that women are angered by patronizing bills mandating waiting periods or forced “reflection” on images or on text written by legislators — bills that assume women are empty-headed children.
snort
I don't get the hate on Viagra from women. I thought women liked sex!
It must be Charlie McCarthy.
Speaking as a man, it would be nice if Viagra (and other drugs men might need) were as trivial to obtain as abortions are.
As I understand it, Viagra is prescription-only. You need to go to a doctor and convince him you need it. I would assume this means answering a lot of embarrassing personal questions about your ability to "perform".
In contrast, if a woman wants an abortion she just goes to the clinic. No questions asked, no attempt by the doctor to ascertain why she's asking for the abortion, no requirement to show medical need.
Jennifer,
I recently had a radical prostate-ectomy for prostate cancer. I'm fine now but I need a little help getting an erection.
It's either Viagra or you, baby. And I hear that no automotive bumper is a challenge for you. I'll sign the affidavit.
Bring. It.
MayBee, I think I get the hate. Viagra is often covered by health "insurance". It's hypocritical to say that's fine and also argue that birth-control pills should not be covered.
I don't know whether anyone in particular is making both arguments simultaneously, but logic demands rigor.
This Republican war on women has been the best thing that could've possibly happened before the election. They overplayed their cards and discerning women now know just how far back these men would take reproductive rights.
How unwise of them, to pander to the Religous Right, while they could've appealed to the fiscal conservatives with a focus on the economy stupid.
I'd be worried about the independant womans vote if I were a conservative.
Guys, I’m thinking it’s hard for you to imagine what it’s like to have your most private decisions made for you. By women.
You mean decisions like whether or not we're getting laid tonight? Yeah, men have no idea what it's like for women to make that decision.
If you get a vasectomy in California, you have to get signed permission from your wife.
I am not kidding.
I did, and I did. Imagine the uproar if a woman needed permission from her partner to get an abortion.
Any guy who goes in for a vasectomy and doesn't want his sack touched by medical equipment is in for an unwelcome surprise.
The unwelcome suprise was the biggest damn soldering iron I ever saw.
"What's that smell? Oh, it's me - I'm on fire!"
If you get a vasectomy in California, you have to get signed permission from your wife.
I am not kidding.
Isn't that depending on your ages as husband and wife? If you are young or old?
I don't remember since it has been decades since my first husband had a vasectomy. Don't recall having to sign for him.
It seems to me that the Democrats are the ones who want to control our sex lives and our prescriptions.
I don't want to control anyone's sex life, birth control, viagra or even abortions.
I just don't want to be forced to PAY for your use of it.
Which side is issuing the blacklists, bitch?
Isn't that depending on your ages as husband and wife? If you are young or old?
I don't know. I had to do it last month. There was a form and everything.
I'd be worried about the independant womans vote if I were a conservative.
The New York Times poll today says Obama's approval is down to 41%.
Most people right now who are worried about their homes, jobs, and how they are going to pay for things because of this economy really dont give a shit about "reproductive rights" of women. They have a few other things on their plate right now.
it’s obvious that abortion is the most sensitive of public policy issues. Women deeply understand the wrenching trade-offs they must make in weighing such a personal decision.
It seems to me that there is more than one person involved in abortion and pregnancy.
It isn't JUST the woman involved. There is a man, a father and lest we forget there is a CHILD.
If women are to be the sole arbitors and completely in control of who lives and who dies and who gets to have a say so in that decision.....then why should the man who is not a party to the transaction be on the hook for child support for years and years.
In addition. If we propose that birth control be available free at all times as a 'civil right', thereby putting all women in the position of total control over whether they have a child or whether they kill that child.....why should the tax payer be on the hook supporting these bastard children for the rest of our lives.
The women want to be in control. Be the be all end all of decision making?
Fine. Let them bear the consequences since it is a deliberate action to have a child or not....evidently.
YOU decided to have a child, when it is your civil right to abort or prevent a child.
YOU take care of it.
Bob Ellison said...
It's hypocritical to say that's fine and also argue that birth-control pills should not be covered.
Do you mean it's hypocritical to cover medication for a medical problem while not covering medication for preventing the body from working, or do you mean that it's hypocritical to cover medication that you do not find morally objectionable while not covering medication that you do find morally objectionable?
Personally, I think the entity paying for the insurance should be able to cover and/or not cover whatever they want.
I've had a few transvaginal ultrasounds. Each time to measure/detect my unborn baby in the first trimester. Each time I watched. The quote above is just plainly absurd, that is used as a tool to harm women. Yes, it is a wand and it is inserted into your vagina, but it serves a true medical purpose. To properly detect an embryo/fetus and measure its size or find a heartbeat if there were signs of miscarriage.
I even had a transvaginal ultrasound with my mother in the room!
Before a doctor dialates your cervix and dispose the contents of your uterus, it makes sense that the doctor wants to get a clear idea how far a women is in her pregnancy prior to the procedure, or do women just want the doctor to guess????
Viagra is often covered by health "insurance". It's hypocritical to say that's fine and also argue that birth-control pills should not be covered.
I don't think it's hypocritical. They are two different things for two different uses. And there's no OTC option for Viagra.
But if you say it is hypocritical for insurance to not treat them the same- is it also hypocritical to *not* have the zero copay mandate apply to Viagra?
Bob you do understand the difference between a mandate and a company making a business decision?
Incidentally as noted by another commenter Viagra restores a natural function to a male body. Birth control pills fool the body in to an unatural state, acting as if it was permanently pregnant. You do understand the distinction I hope.
It seems to me that there is more than one person involved in abortion and pregnancy.
It isn't JUST the woman involved. There is a man, a father and lest we forget there is a CHILD.
A lot of liberals treat pregnancy as some sort of sickness or disease that needs to be "treated" or "dealt with". Thats why they think they way they do about abortion and "reproductive rights".
What does 'sexual McCarthyism' even mean? Seriously. Talk about a metaphor that makes no sense.
Does it mean opposition to sex with Communists? Or something else?
If you think about it, it really makes no sense. But I guess you're not supposed to really think about it. You're just supposed to recoil in horror because someone threw the McCarthyism accusation around. And if they did that, it must be so very serial.
Vasectomies and viagra are not mandated at zero copy by Obamacare. War on Men!!!!
Okay, I admit I've ben been pissed about my rapidly rising helth insurance bill. But now that I know it's so slutty students at $50,000-per-year law schools don't hhave to pay for their birth control, while I still pay all my medical bills short of surgery or intensive care, I feel much better.
"Guys, I’m thinking it’s hard for you to imagine what it’s like to have your most private decisions made for you. By women."
Has the ex-governor ever met a heterosexual man?
(notices where she works now)
No, apparently she has not.
This Republican war on women has been the best thing that could've possibly happened before the election. They overplayed their cards and discerning women now know just how far back these men would take reproductive rights.
Yes, me not paying for it and not having the government force members of your insurance pool pay for it is just such an extreme stance.
Heck, if the government doesn't force insurance companies to give you contraception, you might have roving gangs running around tearing vaginas out of women.
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES, LADIES!!! AIIIEEEE!
I'd be worried about the independant womans vote if I were a conservative.
I think you didn't spell "empty-headed" properly. There is no "i" in empty-headed.
Yeah men, think about that. What if you wanted to kill someone and you had a meddling board of females deciding for you! The temerity!
What's amazing about Althouse is there are almost no frickin' pro-life people in our media. None. It's as if we don't exist. And then I come here and I'm just flooded with the reality of how many people feel the same way I do.
Is the technicial fondling my testes a woman? and will she also do a prostate check?
YAY!
Look - Jenny was our gov'nr for 8 years. She didnt suck, but she didnt really do anything other than be Engler in a skirt.
It's kinda sad to see her shilling for for the Democrats so whole heartedly. I thought she might have more integrity than that.
I wonder what Jennifer Granholm thinks of this bill in Arizona.
Ms.Oopenheimer is the classic concern troll.
Let's remember that this started because the Obama admin wanted to force this on religious institutions in violation of conscience. That's why his is not going well for the Dems.
Madison you are right on that. Equally stupid.
It's amazing (and corrupt) how the Obama campaign staff manipulates people in order to increase votes for Obama.
In the last campaign, it was appeasing the voters who wanted Gitmo closed and the terrorists brought to civilian court in the States. He promised it, he got the votes, it didn't happen.
And it was appeasing the gays by promising gay marriage would be the law of the land. He got their votes, it isn't the law of the land.
Now it's the women. He's promising free birth control pills and EZ abortions and day-after pills. And the gullible among the gender believe that will happen if only they cast their votes for him.
Liberals are such suckers. They fall for it every time.
This Democrat war on the economy has been the best thing that could've possibly happened before the election. They overplayed their cards and discerning citizens now know just how far back these men would take productive businesses.
How unwise of them, to pander to the Moocher Left, while they could've appealed to the fiscal conservatives with a focus on the economy stupid.
I'd be worried about the independents vote if I were an incumbent president. I don't think White Guilt, Bush Fatigue and Unicorns are gonna work this time.
Some actual news:
President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.
Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years."
When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.
However you feel about Sibelius' mandate, the arguments made for it are embarrassing.
"Sexual McCarthyism"? And this woman was governor of the State of Michigan? No wonder it is in the shape it is in!
Tell you what -- even up trade -- all contraception will be covered by insurance ... and all abortions will be illegal, with increasingly severe penalties according to the age of the developping baby. Starting with Manslaughter-3 and progressing to Murder-1. For both the woman and her doctor.
The existence of consequences does not remove choice and with unlimited free birth control there is absolutely no excuse.
This Republican war on women has been the best thing that could've possibly happened before the election. They overplayed their cards and discerning women now know just how far back these men would take reproductive rights.
You know, I often wonder how seemingly intelligent people can get manipulated so easily...
and then I read posts like yours. You've got the jargon down, that's for sure.
Let's replay the tape.
1) George Stephanopolous asks the Republican candidates about banning birth control. Everyone laughs. WTF, who's talking about banning birth control?
2) The WH mandates that religious institutions must offer contraception in any health plans they offer to employees... despite longstanding deference to religious institutions that choose not to do so out of religious doctrine.
3) The Dems cry "OMG, they're trying to stop women from getting the pill!"
And people like you jump.
Who is stopping anyone from getting the pill? It's the Democrats who are trying to force Jesuit schools to provide birth control... it's not like Republicans are trying to prevent anyone from offering it.
But hey, Obama's looking at a close election in November, so they gin up this "controversy." What did they use to call this? Oh yeah, a "wedge issue."
Congrats, you're part of the constituency they can rely on when they need to drum up fake controversy.
I stopped at the phrase 'need Viagra'. Do you really 'need' Viagra?
I also don't care for the McCarthy reference. McCarthy was proven right in most cases after the Venona files were finally released.
Now it's the women. He's promising free birth control pills and EZ abortions and day-after pills. And the gullible among the gender believe that will happen if only they cast their votes for him.
I think there's a certain amount fear at work too. Some of them may believe the media's characterization of conservatives--that overnight criminalization will occur for matters & behavior which they don't consider crimes.
Fear is being stoked and mongered.
I think many in the middle don't perceive compromise with hardliners on either side.
Viagra is often covered by health "insurance". It's hypocritical to say that's fine and also argue that birth-control pills should not be covered.
Okay, so some health insurers cover viagra. Some cover birth control. So your solution is to have the government mandate they offer both? Or do you want the government to mandate just birth control? What else do you want the government to do?
Do you really think conservatives are rallying to mandate coverage for viagra?
@Blue@9
Do you really think conservatives are rallying to mandate coverage for viagra?
I do think you have a winner there for the Repubs, Blue!
I've already got the motto: "Republican men -- stand firm with Romney!"
This elections in the bag, I tell ya!
Do you really think conservatives are rallying to mandate coverage for viagra?
I do think you have a winner there for the Repubs, Blue!
Not a bad idea. If women get free abortions and pills, we get free viagra and vasectomies. Maybe playboy channel too.
I'd be worried about the independant womans vote if I were a conservative.
Hm. Is "independent" the right term for people angry about having to pay their own bills?
Regardless, I think we can all agree: the prospect of Republicans rolling back women's rights to where they were in 2011 is truly terrifying.
Regardless, I think we can all agree: the prospect of Republicans rolling back women's rights to where they were in 2011 is truly terrifying.
Yes, but then 30-year-old law students will have to pay for their own birth control. Have you no decency? Think of the children!
"Guys, I’m thinking it’s hard for you to imagine what it’s like to have your most private decisions made for you. By women."
Not for those who are married.
I applaud the responses to the hypocrisy I tried to identify. They clarify the debate, and I was unclear. Here's what I meant:
Imagine a single person who wants the best for all, in equal degree. Imagine that that person says society and/or private insurance should pay for one, and only one, of these two:
1) Viagra
2) Birth control pills
Doesn't it seem that these two things go hand-in-hand (hee hee)? If you support (hee hee) one, you have to support the other.
The CBO announced this evening that their calculations put the cost of ObamaCare at around $1.76 trillion over 10 years...double of what Obama said it would cost.
Please, Dems...keep bringing up issues that are involved with ObamaCare. Immerse yourselves in it.
Viagra is often covered by health "insurance". It's hypocritical to say that's fine and also argue that birth-control pills should not be covered.
Let's count the ways in which that is a silly argument.
(1): Viagra is a treatment for sexual dysfunction; birth control pills aren't. The male equivalent to birth control pills is condoms or vasectomies; the female equivalent to Viagra are the various drugs that treat female sexual dysfunctions.
(2): Insurance companies offer coverage based on actuarial tables and customer demand, not out of some lame attempt at gender equivalence. Choosing to cover X and not Y isn't "hypocritical" any more than it is hypocritical for a fast food joint to sell chicken sandwiches and not hamburgers.
(3): There is nothing hypocritical about supporting freedom of choice. Shocking as this is to some people, the human right to freedom of choice covers more than just the right to abort any and all fetuses! It includes, for example, the right to not be forced to sell things you don't wish to sell, and the right to not buy things you don't wish to buy.
Blogger Tom Spaulding said...
"Men are facing sexual Granholmism" according to Jenny McCarthy.
well played sir!
So men's and women's sexuality is the same.
WhoHoo! No more child support.
Here's an idea, you ladies want to have sex, buy your damn birth control or have your "partner" buy it. Its the least he can do, considering its his sperm.
Doesn't it seem that these two things go hand-in-hand (hee hee)?
It doesn't seem that way to me. Feel free to explain your reasoning, with or without giggles.
This "war on women" nonsense is just that: nonsense.
The issue is government mandates. It's government telling private organizations what to do. There is no "war on women" issue.
That said, the transvaginal ultrasound requirement was uncalled for. It is not the norm at all, and it is physically invasive. ANY unnecessary medical testing is wrong. Unless there is a medically necessary reason for a transvaginal ultrasound, requiring them ONLY for women considering abortion is indeed a deliberate act of aggression.
Either ALL pregnant women are required to get a transvaginal ultrasound, or no pregnant women, unless there is a specific medical issue, are required to get a transvaginal ultrasound. Frankly, there is little difference, to me, between the mentality of the brutish apes who suggested this requirement and those who performed forced sterilization on men and women in this very country.
If a man insisted on sticking a broom handle up your hoo-ha, you'd call it rape. If a doctor shoves a large wand up your hoo-ha for no other reason than his ideology, it's also rape.
And any doctor who ever tried it on me or my daughters would discover what God made Glocks for.
The Obama drones have to blame conservatives in some way, otherwise the message would be "you have the right to a consequence-free, government supported, fuck-a-thon for all of your adult life."
Revenant:
(1): Viagra is a treatment for sexual dysfunction; birth control pills aren't. You are probably aware that this area is wide open for debate. Are "frigid" women dysfunctional? What about men with non-wiggly sperm?
(2): Insurance companies offer coverage based on actuarial tables and customer demand, not out of some lame attempt at gender equivalence. Right. I'm not trying to say what's moral here. Morality and actuarial soundness are mixed up here-- just think of the people who say we'll save money by aborting all those babies, because pregnancy costs so much! There's too much stupid to get into, but your point is good.
(3): There is nothing hypocritical about supporting freedom of choice. There is if you support it on one side and then deny it on the other side.
Then there was the man who overdosed on Viagra. It was a quick death, but then they couldn't get the coffin closed.
"McCarthyism" is a prime example of what Ayn Rand called the "Art of Smearing." Edward R. Murrow did a fine job of smearing Appleton's "Tail-gunner Joe."
Ayn Rand for the defense:
In the late 1940’s, another newly coined term was shot into our cultural arteries: “McCarthyism.” Again, it was a derogatory term, suggesting some insidious evil, and without any clear definition. Its alleged meaning was: “Unjust accusations, persecutions, and character assassinations of innocent victims.” Its real meaning was: “Anti-communism.”
Senator McCarthy was never proved guilty of those allegations, but the effect of that term was to intimidate and silence public discussions. Any uncompromising denunciation of communism or communists was—and still is—smeared as “McCarthyism.” As a consequence, opposition to and exposés of communist penetration have all but vanished from our intellectual scene. (I must mention that I am not an admirer of Senator McCarthy, but not for the reasons implied in that smear.)
I don't get the need to call a human embryo a "human being" or "person." Does using that definition make someone a better person, or do they think more highly about themselves, because they supposedly have more respect for human life?
I think it's absurd and diminishes the concept of what it means to be a human being or a person.
Isn't calling a fertilized egg a person just a conceit or device to pit the woman against the embryo, some kind of legal mumbo jumbo theory of equal rights when there actually is no equality? Do the woman and the embryo discuss and agree about the day's activities they will enjoy together or what the woman is going to eat or what book or music she might purchase?
If fetus is completely dependent for survival on the woman, how are they equal? They simply aren't.
In fact IMO that notion of embryonic personhood devalues the concept of what it means to be a human being regarded as an individual and a separate and distinct person. An embryo is not a separate and distinct person.
FYI -- Because I make this argument please do not assume that I hate babies or favor abortions or think they are no big deal. I just am particular about what words mean and using them accurately.
Calling a
"Or maybe, before obtaining a vasectomy, you have to undergo an ultrasound on your testicles — wherein a technician must apply gel and press a hand-held transducer on your private parts. "
Not sure what type of research miss granholm did, but before I was given the opportunity to schedule my vasectomy, I had to receive a consultation from my doctor. My doctor then also evaluated my testicles (no gel mind you) and was given a run through of the procedure. My wife was also consulted (I forget if she had to sign acknowledging her agreement with the procedure). Only then could I schedule the procedure, which was usually a couple of weeks after all this.
So spare me the extra, unnecessary procedures crap. Careful considerations before any type of elective surgery is always the best course of action.
Yeah, and before any doctor, hospital or medical provider insists on a test, he has to get _informed_ consent from the patient.
A doctor has to prove that a _transvaginal_ ultrasound, specifically, is medically necessary for each patient's particular situation.
For the state to mandate a physically invasive test on a woman based on nothing but ideology is twisted and sick. It's Nazi Germany. It's forced sterilization of ethnic minorities. It's the same thing.
Also, a doctor has to inform his or her patient of ALL options. A woman seeking an abortion has the option of a regular ultrasound and should be so informed.
Imagine a single person who wants the best for all, in equal degree. Imagine that that person says society and/or private insurance should pay for one, and only one, of these two:
Throw in a ribeye and a double bourbon and I'm there.
Now try mine:
Imagine a government limited by the Constitution, and imagine that this government is run by people who actually respect it.
I know this is hard for you to believe, but neither you nor the government own private insurers. If some insurers offer viagra but not the pill, feel free to write them a letter. Hell, feel free to picket them and start a national campaign against them. But don't go crying to the government to force private companies to do it.
Again, if private insurers offer viagra, it's not because conservatives have waged a "war against women" or lobbied to make it a government mandate.
"For the state to mandate a physically invasive test on a woman based on nothing but ideology is twisted and sick. It's Nazi Germany. It's forced sterilization of ethnic minorities. It's the same thing. "
Wow what a spectacular failure at moral equivalence! Makes me wonder if you know what forced sterilization actually is?
Blue@9, I suspect it's difficult for you to believe, but I'm on your side.
Isn't calling a fertilized egg a person just a conceit or device to pit the woman against the embryo, some kind of legal mumbo jumbo theory of equal rights when there actually is no equality? Do the woman and the embryo discuss and agree about the day's activities they will enjoy together or what the woman is going to eat or what book or music she might purchase?
If fetus is completely dependent for survival on the woman, how are they equal? They simply aren't
Let's see how this might read in 1855:
Isn't calling a black a person just a conceit or device to pit the whites against the blacks, some kind of legal mumbo jumbo theory of equal rights when there actually is no equality? Do the whites and the blacks discuss and agree about the day's activities they will enjoy together or what the master is going to eat or what book she might purchase?
If blacks are completely dependent for survival on the whites, how are they equal? They simply aren't.
And yeah, these very same arguments were employed back then.
Basically, a fetus meets the qualities necessary to define a human being: a complete set of unique chromosomes. Whether it's dependent on another for survival is immaterial--toddlers are likewise dependent, as are people in comas or on iron lungs.
Calling a fetus a "pre-person" or "non-human" is a simple tactic to dehumanize it so that abortion is more palatable.
Yeah, I do.
That you think YOUR ideology allows you to perform a medically unnecessary test on a pregnant women is the same mentality.
It's AS sick as performing tests on prisoners or ethnic minorities based on the ideology that they're not quite as human as you.
If you wouldn't force your pregnant wife to have a medically unnecessary, physically invasive test, but would insist that another woman be FORCED to undergo the same test, you're an animal. Period.
"(1): Viagra is a treatment for sexual dysfunction; birth control pills aren't."
You are probably aware that this area is wide open for debate.
I concede that sufficiently ignorant people see everything as "open for debate". What are you disputing -- that impotence is a sexual dysfunction or that fertility isn't?
just think of the people who say we'll save money by aborting all those babies, because pregnancy costs so much!
Those people aren't very bright. The average human being creates more wealth than he or she consumes. Anyone who thinks babies are "expensive" needs to think beyond the short term.
"There is nothing hypocritical about supporting freedom of choice."
There is if you support it on one side and then deny it on the other side.
You don't get it. I'm talking about the freedom of insurers to offer the services they wish to offer, and the freedom of purchasers of insurance to reach voluntary agreements with those insurers. That is the freedom of choice being threatened.
Having the government hold a gun to one person's head and say "you must cover birth control", then hold a gun to another person's head and say "and you must purchase the policy for women who want it"? That's not freedom of choice. That's just ordinary extortion.
Just saw our 6 week old in utero baby's heart beat a few weeks ago. Never been more awestruck in my life and never so certain that that being does not belong to us.
We lost the baby a week later. I've never cried so hard.
I think a more accurate scenario of government intrusion into the personal and sexual habits of people would be a fictional view into the future where men and women would have to undergo extensive physical and financial certifications before they could engage in coitus, to protect the rights of the unborn. Kind of like that film Gattaca, where your DNA would be evaluated to determine if you are suitable for certain positions in society. All of this interference and control is done of course with the best interests of human beings in mind.
, I suspect it's difficult for you to believe, but I'm on your side
You might be surprised. I'm pro-life ideologically, but I accept the political reality that it will remain legal for as long as I'm alive. Frankly, I wish Republicans would just drop this issue and treat it like many of us now regard drug legalization: a social ill that is best handled by someone other than the government (preferably your family and friends).
Want to know the the "secret" to Viagra?
Notice, it's about how the male consumer is incentivised to cut costs and regulate dose.
Viagra Pill Splitter
Physicians normally offer 50mg samples and suggest that the 50mg dosage should be tried first to see if it is effective. Viagra is also available in a 25mg tablet and a 100mg tablet - most users soon discover that a Viagra tablet costs about $15 regardless of dosage.
When they realize the economics, many users ask their physician for the 100mg tablets and try to cut them in half or in quarters. The savings are obvious, but it's not that easy.
Your Swiss Army Knife won't cut it. A single edge razor is no match for the super-hard coating.
Of course, you can buy a pill splitter at the local drugstore for $6. Or better yet, most mail-order pharmaceutical suppliers will gladly send you a free pill splitter…with your order.
But, there's a major problem - they don't work.
Inexpensive pill cutters/splitters are designed to cut uncoated pills such as aspirin that are already scored to facilitate easy cutting. The coating on Viagra is extremely hard; and if you do manage to cut through it, the pill disintegrates - it crumbles. An accurate dose is impossible.
But, you can solve the problem!
Swiss Precision Cut developed the "Viagra Pill Splitter" with two finely honed blades of tool quality steel alloy which accurately and easily split a 100mg Viagra tablet in half or in quarters or a 50mg tablet in half with no waste.
Bob E explain to us dolts how a mandate is the same as a business reasons choice. You come up with silly analogies but can't offer a logical explanation why the two are the same.
R Chatt if you take your point to its logical conclusion none of us are actually free from the civilizational umbilical cord.
Therefore are you less than fully human?
Revenant, I agree with all that you say. RE: item (1), I just meant that that it's an argument fraught with penumbra of emanations and all that.
I do think I "get it". It's not always a legal question. I'm calling HYPOCRISY on people who want to have it both ways. As you say, let the insurers and their clients have their way. If some castrating bitch like Granholm tries them on trumped-up moral or legal grounds, I'm ready.
I think a more accurate scenario of government intrusion into the personal and sexual habits of people would be a fictional view into the future where men and women would have to undergo extensive physical and financial certifications before they could engage in coitus, to protect the rights of the unborn. Kind of like that film Gattaca, where your DNA would be evaluated to determine if you are suitable for certain positions in society. All of this interference and control is done of course with the best interests of human beings in mind.
Undoubtedly. Next thing you know, the government will mandate that you buy a health plan deemed "acceptable" by a bureaucrat in Washington. I know, Crazy!
"Isn't calling a fertilized egg a person just a conceit or device to pit the woman against the embryo, some kind of legal mumbo jumbo theory of equal rights when there actually is no equality?"
No.
It is an attempt to express the status of an embryo. It is human. It is alive. It is biologically distinguishable as an individual separate from the woman who carries it in her womb.
If it's got brain activity, then it mirrors our definition of "dead" with a rational definition of "alive."
Those are facts, not opinions. The opinion comes with using "person" and it is simply a description of what those facts *mean*. Certainly personhood starts at some point.
If nothing natural or unnatural disrupts the process, the state of unawareness is a temporary one, and we don't define people as not-a-person due to temporary conditions.
Certainly personhood *matters* when it comes to decisions about choosing to destroy that life. Birth is a poor standard as it only changes the infant's location, and our rights aren't defined by our location. Some philosophers feel that an infant is not a person until it leaves that sort of proto-person potato stage, and people should be free to chose to destroy a born child.
In any case, if one objects to "person" for an embryo or fetus with brain activity, then they ought to have some argument in place to claim some other point of personhood that makes sense.
"Do the woman and the embryo discuss and agree about the day's activities they will enjoy together or what the woman is going to eat or what book or music she might purchase?"
No.
The embryo did not ask to be, it can not possibly *impose* itself on a woman of it's own volition, and it has no way of discussing anything or agreeing to end its existence. It is human and alive and most profoundly vulnerable.
The vulnerability *itself* can hardly be considered proof that a woman has a right to destroy it.
My condolences, Holms. That is very sad. At first I was thinking that it might have been better not to have known, but I think that even if it hurt more, you got to love it for that week, and that is probably worth it.
Blue@9 -- Your argument comparing the fetus to Negro slaves is absurd. The point was as obvious back then in 1855 as it is now. An embryo can not survive without the mother, but the slave could survive and in fact thrive quite nicely without the master. Yes, the slave could be a separate and free individual and fully deserved to be called a human being and treated as such. But can you treat an unborn as a person? No. Can't you have sensitivity towards that vulnerable unborn baby without calling giving the fetus legal status as a person? Or is it a person without legal status?
Cool. The democrats want to control each and every breath we take. Where can I get my pro-democrat worshipping t-shirt? I want obey and show my reverence.
"An embryo can not survive without the mother,..."
I'd put the age of mortal dependency up to at least five.
A five year old can not survive on its own. It is every bit as dependent on others as an infant. It is every bit as dependent on others as a fetus.
Pre-technological dependency, pure physical absolute dependency on the mother or *die* would have been at least a year. We have baby formula now, so a male parent can sustain the child after birth. Once we have the ability to "can" a fetus and bring it to term, that will change again.
And in the absence of rape, the mother chose to play host, or at the least, to risk playing host. The fetus has no ability to force it's own existence, to push its way "unwanted" into the womb.
I would think that any doctor with any sense would insist on an examination before prescribing Viagra. Remember those warnings about making sure your heart is strong enough for sexual activity, etc? A doctor would be wide open for a negligence suit if something happened, and he or she had not made a fairly thorough examination and recorded it.
Oh, and Young Hegelian's link went to stats that show women significantly more pro-life than men.
This silly notion that women *of course* are pro-choice and "reproductive freedom" is automatically a winning policy with women, is only maintained by defining a woman who isn't pro-choice as a woman who doesn't count as female.
Your argument comparing the fetus to Negro slaves is absurd.
It only sounds absurd because you're politically and psychologically prepared to to dehumanize fetuses, whereas you are not with regard to black people.
The stuff about a person having independently? This is a made-up requirement that conveniently excludes fetuses. Disagree? Then surely you must support restrictions on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, when a fetus is capable of surviving on life support.
without calling giving the fetus legal status as a person? I guess that's the nub, right? People want it legal but don't want to admit what it really is.
R Chatt lets try this experiment using your logic: we dump you naked and without any food or equipment of any kind in the middle of he Amazon or deep in the wilderness of Alaska. How long will you survive on your own? Not so easy without the civilization umbillical cord, just a couple of degrees of separation.
N: abortion is to medical procedures as lethal injection is to medical procedures.
Here is a better comparison. Virtually all death row inmates are men. We should pass laws that make it as easy to kill a male death row inmate as is it is kill an unborn baby.
I can live with that comparison.
"Or maybe, before obtaining a vasectomy, you have to undergo an ultrasound on your testicles — wherein a technician must apply gel and press a hand-held transducer on your private parts. The legislation mandates that you watch images of your sperm on a monitor as a doctor describes the millions of pre-human lives you are about to end."
What's the tech look like, she hot? And the gov will pay for it? Win/win. How did the author get the eggs inside the man's testicles to get fertilized? Those folks really know how to party.
N: abortion is to medical procedures as lethal injection is to medical procedures.
I agree.
However, abortion is legal in this country, and you can't require people who are undergoing a perfectly legal procedure to be physically assaulted just because you don't approve of their choice.
Change the law, but don't sexually and medically assault women because you disagree with them.
Synova, we now have "medical ethicists" Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics that after-birth abortion should be permissible. Is this the future of the pro-choice movement?
Note that the JME seems to have closed access to the article.
I am a bit confused, however. Reading and hearing the discussions about the contraception mandate lead me to believe that the Catholic Church has police who can enter the homes of Catholic women or of employees of Catholic hospitals, search for contraceptive drugs, and confiscate any they find. As far as I know, religious police only exist in societies dominated by another religion, not any form of Christianity. And I don't hear of the pro-choice side complaining about those countries. Do you?
The State requiring vaginal inspections thing isn't a political winner.
IMHO.
MayBee said... "If you get a vasectomy in California, you have to get signed permission from your wife.
I am not kidding."
No she's not, because I had to get my wife's written consent when I got the snip about 15 years ago. She about went ballistic....
To paraphrase James Taranto, "The Lonely Life of Granholm." She's right in that the government should leave our bodies and medicine cabinets alone. Just like she should have left the poor citizens of Michigan alone by never running for governor.
"However, abortion is legal in this country, and you can't require people who are undergoing a perfectly legal procedure to be physically assaulted just because you don't approve of their choice.
Change the law, but don't sexually and medically assault women because you disagree with them."
I may be unclear on this issue but... how does the doctor get the baby out without interacting with the woman's vagina?
Granholm is obviously too stupid to understand why Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred" skit was funny. She beclowns herself, with delicious obliviousness.
However, abortion is legal in this country, and you can't require people who are undergoing a perfectly legal procedure to be physically assaulted just because you don't approve of their choice.
Why does anyone think this language is a winner? Why make a relatively simple procedure sound like a big, scary assault?
First, people against this procedure would be just as against a completely non-invasive procedure. Say, instead of an ultrasound, the woman going in for the abortion had to watch a CGI video of her baby going through an age progression from embryo to college graduation, hugging the mom and thanking her for all she'd done. I suspect hat would be just as objectionable, but in no way physical.
More importantly, an abortion is a very invasive procedure. The idea that a woman may be shocked by having something inserted prior to an abortion really just reinforces the idea that she is ill-prepared for what she's about to go through. "Oh, I didn't want anything inserted into my vagina. I just came here for an abortion".
It actually detracts from the point that women are strong enough to handle the abortion.
Finally, there was nothing in the law that required the ultrasound to be transvaginal. That was just made up to scare women/make women sound like Fainting Friedas.
Just argue the principle.
I don't get the need to call a human embryo a "human being" or "person."
You love the baby, you say baby.
To create distance and prep yourself for the abortion, you say fetus. This is basic Orwell. Baby is the love word, fetus is the kill word.
In the Carhart opinions, when the baby is outside the womb, the unelected dictators writing our rules still use the "fetus" word.
If you're outside the womb, you're not only a person, you're a frickin' citizen, man.
"Ensure fetal demise" is what Dr. Gosnell said as he killed newborns in his abortion clinic.
Don't kid yourself. We've killed innocent babies under Roe v. Wade. If you doubt this, read either of the Carhart opinions, which describe infanticide in graphic detail.
Do the woman and the embryo discuss and agree about the day's activities they will enjoy together or what the woman is going to eat or what book or music she might purchase?
Babies don't do any of that stuff. You want to kill babies? Can I call you "baby-killer" now, or would you object to that? And if you would object, why? That baby's not talking. You're not discussing Shakespeare. That baby is inferior!
The Supreme Court is removing the inferior people from our society. What could possibly go wrong with that?
If fetus is completely dependent for survival on the woman, how are they equal? They simply aren't.
Under your theory, since men are bigger and stronger than women, we get to rape them. Pagan logic takes you in some evil directions, doesn't it?
Try to understand that if somebody is weaker than you, or more vulnerable, that does not mean they have less moral worth.
"The State requiring vaginal inspections thing isn't a political winner."
I agree, I think.
I can also *easily* see our mandated insurance mandating mandatory pap smears and pelvic exams. How much money is saved by early detection and do you have a right to say no?
I don't think those are mandatory anywhere now, but it's likely difficult to get treatment for any complaint in that quarter without a doctor inspects your vagina first.
When I got a new doctor that's the first thing he wanted me to do, even without any pelvic-area complaints whatsoever.
Somehow I still think if a man murders a prematurely born baby he will go to jail.. even with an all male jury.
However, abortion is legal in this country and you can't require people who are undergoing a perfectly legal procedure to be physically assaulted
What I like to do is put on my scary doctor's mask, and go out in the streets at night. "Give me your money or I'll sonogram you!"
I am arguing the principle.
States are pushing for more nonsense regarding ultrasound testing and are finding greater pushback as a result.
You can't legally require a woman to look at an ultrasound screen even if an ultrasound is medically necessary for any procedure. Yet a faction of the prolife crowd wants to insinuate itself via the state into what would normally be between a woman and her doctor under any other circumstances. If the ultrasound is medically necessary, the only person who MUST view it is the doctor (and perhaps other medical personnel aiding in the procedure). There is no necessary reason for a woman to view the ultrasound. None.
And the really bizarre thing is, the SAME people who are all het up about Obamacare and government mandates re BC, are the same ones who want the state to mandate not just these kinds of tests, but also mandate that the woman view the ultrasound when that has ZERO medical value at all.
And, the way the law was written did indeed indicate transvaginal ultrasounds, if they didn't mention them by name.
The reason the law wasn't passed was because of this language -- this language would have removed the decision to go with either a regular sonogram or a transvaginal sonogram from the doctor and patient.
Also, it's certainly reasonable to not want something unnecessarily inserted into your vagina and yet understand that a procedure requires something to be inserted into your vagina.
That's like saying, well, we were going to do the hysterectomy anyway, so we all had a little fun shoving dildos up your vagina first. Don't be such a fainting Freida -- we were going to put stuff up there anyway, you big baby. Clearly you're not emotionally ready to have your cancerous uterus removed!
Fedka,
You seriously think they'd want her? Oh, I know they're being all polite and not saying anything, but I betcha they're all thinking, "Whew! Did we ever dodge a bullet!!!"
"There is no necessary reason for a woman to view the ultrasound. None."
I don't think there is any real illusion that this is anything but an attempt to reduce abortions. The idea (on both sides!) is that a woman who sees the little bean with it's beating heart, will decide that it is something other than a meaningless mass of cells.
Are there mandated "education" requirements for other procedures? It may not be viewing an ultrasound, but can I get a belly-band if the doctor agrees I'm fat, while absolutely refusing to read and sign off for informed consent?
Pro-life people are saying, shouldn't you know what you're actually doing? Pro-choice people are pushing for ignorance, on the one hand saying that abortion is trivial, and on the other proving that they, too, believe that if a woman sees that little bean with a heart beat, she'll decide that it's not quite the minor procedure that the pro-choice lobby insists it is.
"That's like saying, well, we were going to do the hysterectomy anyway, so we all had a little fun shoving dildos up your vagina first."
Only if the doctor moans and rubs her clit while inserting the sonogram wand.
Seriously?
I agree that the requirement isn't a political winner, but the hyperbole is remarkable.
"The reason the law wasn't passed was because of this language -- this language would have removed the decision to go with either a regular sonogram or a transvaginal sonogram from the doctor and patient."
The legislation was odd. Most abortions in North America are done in the 1st trimester, but the legislation read like the abortions were all late 1st or 2nd or 3rd trimester.
Regular sonograms don't see detail in the 5-9 week zone, but that's the time most women abort. In the earlier weeks the doctor must use a trans-vaginal to see the heartbeat.
"Pro-life people are saying, shouldn't you know what you're actually doing?"
I'm not sure this is a political winner, either for the election or from a culture of life perspective.
An option to have the test -- sure that could work. But state requirements are not a good way to persuade. And most def don't insist on vaginal insertion if you want to persuade someone to change their ideas voluntarily.
Again, IMHO
I don't think it's a great law either, but it can be argued about reasonably. States legislate and mandate all kinds of interactions between service providers and providees. States license medical doctors. If a doctor were providing unsafe abortions, we would want the state to step in. So acting as if this is some sort of unprecedented idea is a nonstarter.
As is the the whole "assault" ridiculousness.
Saying "It was unnecessary and an obvious attempt to get women to think twice about having an abortion" is enough. Some people want women to have to think twice, and some don't.
Anga2010,
"Is the technician fondling my testes a woman?"
OK, time for my vasectomy story. It's all over and done and I'm recuperated, and it's time to have to have a sperm count so they can see if it worked. (Aside: if it didn't work, there was NO WAY I was going to let them have a do-over; having learned that the reason medical school takes as long as it does is to the doctor can learn to say, "You may experience some discomfort for a few days" with a straight face.)
Anyway back to my story: so I walk into the office with my sample in the little recepticle, and the receptionist, who is very young and very VERY cute--no, wait: even cuter than that--beams at me and says, "How fresh is it?"
This Republican war on women has been the best thing that could've possibly happened before the election.
Except that it wasn't a Republican war on women, but a Democratic war on the Roman Catholic Church, and it appears to have been intentionally initiated by the Obama Administration in order to take the public's eyes off of the economy and gas prices, as well as energizing the leftist feminists and get some of the moderate women to doubt the Republicans.
But, always keep in mind that this was started by the Administration, and is being perpetuated by the Democrats in order to win political points.
Actually that would be a darn funny skit (that SNL would never do, but the Onion might...)
It follows a Vatican black-ops team as they sneak into dark bedrooms to retrieve condoms out of the night-stand and oral contraceptives from medicine cabinets. Then they can bless the bed and sneak out.
Except, since it's a humor thing, the people in the bed always wake up. It would be extra funny if they were always some variation of non-reproductive couples and then the commandos (the condom commandos!) could do a "Oh! Nevermind!" and scoot.
There could be a Nun commando team in a contest with a troop of Friars, always going to greater lengths to sneak into ever more secure and outrageous places to get rid of the contraceptives (ala "Don't mess with the Zohan") and sabotaging each other.
This is my read on American culture.
Americans don't like the government telling them what to do. It plays out different, but the state forcing people to do stuff is generally not popular.
Not a good idea to insist on cameras up vajay jays.
I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Spread em!
I have to agree that forcing women to undergo an ultrasound is over the top. Mandate literature if you want. Mandate a waiting period if you want--heck, there's a waiting period for guns, even though guns are actually protected under the Constitution. But forcing a medical procedure just for purposes of dissuasion? C'mon, that's messed up.
You want to be in my wallet? Then I get to be in your vagina.
Maybe that slogan will get them to actually start thinking about how cavalier they are about using government force to get me to pay for things.
Blue@9 -- Your argument comparing the fetus to Negro slaves is absurd. The point was as obvious back then in 1855 as it is now. An embryo can not survive without the mother, but the slave could survive and in fact thrive quite nicely without the master.
No, the point Blue was making is that both slavers and pro-abortionists use the excuse that their victims are sub-human.
Jennifer Granholm spouting another desiccated vagina monologue: Yet one more reason to embrace Islam.
Sharia looks more and more attractive as the new civility blossoms in this Age of Hope and Change.
(And would it be impolite to call this power-worshiping buttinski a fascist?)
Sharia looks more and more attractive as the new civility blossoms in this Age of Hope and Change.
And its not like Jennifer Granholm would notice the difference. She already thinks men are Taliban.
Why do liberals alway use incredibly flawed analogies to try to these arguments?
Jennifer think her vag requires other peoples money to function properly.
I think there's a word that describes people in that profession.
I think the "war on women" hysterical over-reaction is hurting the Democrats. Because the only people screeching about "SLUT!" are the Democrats at this point.
Republicans are talking about how adult women should pay their own medical bills and take full responsiblity for their reproductive organs. This isn't the extremist view that the abortion uber alles crowd thinks it is.
Liberal NARAL types don't seem to get that their argument that there should be endless subsidy for their private parts is a big fail right now.
It also failed to distract the issue from Obamas attempt to violate the Constitution with an Executive Order to buy the votes of liberal women.
This is all the libs have to show Obama is "better". They certainly can't argue on the success of their policies for re-election.
So, please. Keep banging on that high chair with your spoon, while flinging your Cheerios around.
However, abortion is legal in this country, and you can't require people who are undergoing a perfectly legal procedure to be physically assaulted just because you don't approve of their choice.
Well, then lets do a background check and then make you wait 10 days before you have an abortion.
Thats a Constitutional restriction on a Civil Right that is actually IN the Constitution. It can be applied to civil rights that have emanated from some penumbra, I think.
Look, this is really about Female Chauvinism and Female Supremacy. Left-Feminists want to run the nation like they run their henpecked partners; by being passive-agressive bullies using their sexuality to gain undue sympathy in order to manipulate and shame people into line. They will step on other people rights to do so.
"...[Y]ou have to procure an affidavit from a sexual partner verifying that you are indeed incapable of an erection..."
I imaging that's coming up any day now.
So...it's okay to shame women seeking an abortion into stepping into line by threatening her with unnecessary, invasive tests, or emotionally manipulative requirements if you're a prolifer, but if a woman stands up against what is clearly a deliberately degrading attempt to punish and assault women seeking abortion, it's not okay.
Look, I'm not advocating for abortion.
It's wrong, however, to do something evil in order to bring about good.
Invasively inserting objects into women's vaginas for no medical reason is evil. The intentions are supposedly good, but the act is evil.
The reason it's important to be graphic about exactly what this law would have required is because people don't think. They don't follow through on what exactly they've just allowed the government to do. And those same people will be the first to cry foul when that same government wants to do something similar to them -- when they're pregnant with a handicapped child and they're being emotionally manipulated by forced transvaginal ultrasounds and propaganda delineating what a terrible life they'll have caring for a handicapped child or what a terrible life that child will have so they'll "choose" abortion.
@Ms. Oopenheimer: war on women
Hey Ms.
Keep your ovaries out of my wallet.
"The legislation mandates that you watch images of your sperm on a monitor as a doctor describes the millions of pre-human lives you are about to end."
This is so convoluted. Men are ending "the millions of pre-human lives" every time they have protected sex, and they do it, in majority of cases, with agreement and active participation of their sexual partners. Which makes all women practicing safe sex partners in crime.
This kind of self-defiting "arguments" prevent the otherwise valid points reaching the target. They create an impression that except for pretty dumb emotional blackmail, there is no contention.
I didn't keep up with the insults (being called a babykiller) and other nonsensical responses about being dropped into a desert, etc., to my comments. So this post is a bit late in coming.
But this summarizes it:
"Fen said...
Blue@9 -- Your argument comparing the fetus to Negro slaves is absurd. The point was as obvious back then in 1855 as it is now. An embryo can not survive without the mother, but the slave could survive and in fact thrive quite nicely without the master.
No, the point Blue was making is that both slavers and pro-abortionists use the excuse that their victims are sub-human."
The tactic of treating the woman as a non-person, unable to decide what she is willing to do with her own body, is also making her sub-human. And I reject the idea that anyone has more rights than anyone else. The fact is that the embryo at early stages is not an independent person.
At some point in the future, when the woman is not needed for the gestation of human life, then all fertilized eggs can be brought to full term. I hope the antiabortionists will be ready to adopt them. In fact, why wait for the future? With all the people who are so adamant about innocent babies, why do we have any children in orphanages or living in foster care or homeless?
Finally, I didn't notice any of the comments offering any rational defense of the notion of calling a blastocyst a person. So yes, I can agree with allowing early abortions and restricting late term abortions
"The tactic of treating the woman as a non-person, unable to decide what she is willing to do with her own body, is also making her sub-human."
But she does decide. If she hasn't been raped, it was her decision. The embryo did not sneak up behind her and leap up her vagina.
So which treats women as "sub-human?" Expecting them to actually be sovereign over their own reproduction, or expecting that they can't really help it, can't be responsible for their actions and shouldn't be "punished with a baby?"
No one seriously argues that a *man* ought to have a post-conception do-over.
Try to draw the same picture of "sub-human" treatment while changing the sexes of the argument and it's pretty clear that pro-choice does not expect women to be full adults.
As for the argument that the fetus is not *independent*, there is no other place in our society where we judge the right to end a life on the fact that someone is not independent.
"But she does decide. If she hasn't been raped, it was her decision. The embryo did not sneak up behind her and leap up her vagina."
She doesn't decide everything. Where the embryo implants. She shouldn't have to wait for a tube to rupture.
And a lot of people are conflating embryo and fetus. Different stages of age. 5 days different from 5 weeks different from 15 weeks.
I don't think the life movement in the US does a good job at reaching out to change minds or hearts. Government mandates might make them feel like they are doing something, but that doesn't mean it works.
"She doesn't decide everything. Where the embryo implants. She shouldn't have to wait for a tube to rupture."
And if anyone was suggesting she ought to, that would be a problem.
Well, actually, mostly it's just people lying that the other side wants women to die, so I suppose it is a problem, it's just not a problem based on the truth.
Post a Comment