Althouse has always been a self-entitled, privileged, upper class woman who likes to preen about her pseudo-victimhood and responsibility while enjoying her life of luxury and lack of consequences.A defender said: "That is not true. She has never played a victim card. She has always been fair to both sides. She tends to take the other side in a devil's advocate kind of way, to see if people would react in same way if the names/parties were different. You must not read her blog."
Which caused somebody else to say:
You missed the "splooge stooge"* meltdown where she told all of her readers to fuck off and die, closed down comments and stayed drunk for 2 months and pouted. To say that she is emotionally unstable is an understatement. She is an alky on a decades long bender, someone who makes Hillary look sober and steady. The devil's advocate part might be right, if you leave out "advocate"....Finally:
Althouse is an Obamavoting cunt. There. It is said. It is out there....________________________
* Here's where I originally wrote "splooge stooge." It was in the context of saying men are responsible for the children who are born when they have failed to control where their genetic material goes. That was unrelated to shutting down the comments, which I had to do for a time because of a technical problem — later solved by some people at Blogger — that had made moderation next to impossible.
Posts
217 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 217 of 217Ann Althouse said...None of that is happening in the sovereign territory of the inside of the body.
Again you're saying "inside of the body" but you mean "womb."
I'll illustrate. Take a guy who works some physically difficult and/or dangerous job that pays a high salary in part due to the job's physical difficulty. He's on a fishing boat and gets frequently injured, grinds his joints down, etc. He's married and maybe has a kid or two. Maybe he's a bit of a stooge, knocks a woman up, whatever.
He's ordered to pay child support. The court looks at his wage and bases the child support order on that. After a while he's feeling worn down, keeps getting hurt, etc, and wants to quit that job and take another. No other job he can get pays anything like his old job (since it paid a substantial premium on account of the physical damage the job inflicted) but the court system says "too bad," he's got to keep paying the same amount. He can either keep his old job and suffer physically--inside his body!--or have his body, both the outside and the inside, placed in jail.
Bodily autonomy? Sovereign control over the inside of his body? Doesn't sound like it...
But I'm sure nothing like that ever really happens.
This is what we know. One, human life evolves from conception. Two, choice precedes conception. Three, terminating a human life is a natural right, and a legal rite under the state-established Pro-Choice Church. So, the question is if human rights violations can be tolerated when they are carried out in privacy (e.g. behind Planned Parenthood walls) and if they should be promote (i.e. normalized) by businesses (e.g. Planned Parenthood, sexual education), popular culture (e.g. Hollywood), state Churches (e.g. public schools), and government agencies.
The Constitution identifies two parties: the People and our Posterity. The rite of aborting "our Posterity" for causes of wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic indulgence, was conceived and birthed by the twilight fringe to promote political progress, female chauvinist ambitions, humanitarian pornographers' stables, anti-nativist and [class] diversitist civil rights businesses, abortion industry and clinical cannibals' Planned profits, and Democratic leverage.
Hate Loves Abortion
Several references already to instances where, by any reasonable understanding, we accept the government.violating the sovereignty of the bodies of its citizens (military draft, forced labor for child support, mandatory inoculations.) I'd also add for consideration the issues of drug use and contraband. How can the government prohibit the ingestion or inhalation or injection of chemicals into the sovereign territory of the individuals' bodies? And how can it, even with probable cause, search for contraband that an individual may have placed into a body cavity, wholly within that sovereign territory?
And now y'all know why this topic is a hot potato that caused the blog to blow up for a while.
There are some topics on which you will never ever change someone's mind. It is a waste of breath and in the best case scenario only causes some spirited debate. In general, people get angry, vitriolic and just downright mean.
Liberals have one view, libertarians another, religious conservatives, economic conservatives. It is not going to work and you will never win the argument.
I think the discussion has been pretty civil today DBQ, no? Changing minds may be too big of a goal for a blog discussion but you never know who might read something and see a different perspective that they haven't yet considered.
All I am trying to show is that it's all about power, not logic. But I am feeling this martini, so I will drop out.
@ C Stanley.
Yes. It has been civil, of the ones that I have read. I didn't read all of them. Very good discussions.
In the past there were some very vitriolic posters (that's my nice way of saying rude asses) who lacked the ability to have a decent discussion. It is great to see civil discussions with people bringing up valid points of view. You don't have to agree to be able to consider that perhaps the other person may have a point.
Much better than the name calling and other nastiness that can go on on other blogs.
I'm not chiming in on this one because it is futile and been there done that already. So I'll sit this one out. Plus it is pushing cocktail hour :-D
"the sovereign territory of the inside of the body." 1. Where exactly does the Constitution cover this? 2. It's an intriguing notion. Let's debate it and vote on it, like most civilized countries. 3. We don't generally approve of sovereigns killing innocent life within their sovereign territory. We certainly don't declare it a right. In fact, if a particular group of sovereigns kills such life by the millions, we might even be inclined to intervene. R2P and all that.
I don't understand why this debate becomes so explosive.
Sometimes it sounds as if some commenters want to be able to abort a child? I think I'm misunderstanding it. But unsure.
There's something depressing and sad about it. Children are a blessing.
But babies are being discussed as if they are perpetually unwanted. The culture of death. A lot of people would crawl through 7 hells for the blessing of a healthy child.
The "splooge stooge" chapter could be exhibit A in the case that plenty of men are also thin-skinned re:Paglia.
It's the price of fame, Althouse.
And, yes, I roll right past the ".... on sale now at Amazon links at Instapundit." Not much I buy because it is advertised on sale. But when I do need something (most near any product except food and automobiles in this county of 20,000 souls) I pull up Althouse and mash the Amazon button.
"A happy marriage, and no divorce, takes care of a lot of the sperm questions."
A few years ago, I read a report that, in paternity cases, 25% of the children had not been fathered by the husband.
One guy in Texas learned that none of his three kids was really his. He still had to pay child support.
The state is prime.
One abortion, the US is the only western nation that allows abortion to 20 weeks. I'm prochoice but think abortion should not be legal after 20 weeks. I would allow an exception for a hormone dependent cancer, not "the mother's health" which is bullshit.
FWIW, I find Prof. Althouse's comments very balanced - she always gives fair play to the opposing point of view. That might be a problem for some readers.
I freakin' love this blog.
Titus, I'm a straight guy who gets bjs. Women usually have to be coaxed in my experience. Sometimes it happens because they are on the rag. Can gay guys get a bj from a female? Mouths are pretty much the same after all.
Well Ann... anyone that defends the utter corruption and villiany of today's family courts is a cunned stunt. There's no nice way to say it. Women now have legal control over the reproductive process, they have access to abortion and even free contraceptives... they should carry the responsibility that goes along with it.
Ann Althouse said...
The mother also has consequences in that she is also legally required to support the child. And she bore all the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth.
4/20/17, 2:49 PM
Until she decides she doesn't. You left that part out. A woman is on responsible for their child until they determine the aren't.
As others have repeatedly pointed out. As soon as sperm leaves a man's body, he loses ALL control and the woman gains ALL the control. She can decide to abort. She can decide to give the new-born up for adoption or just drop the baby off at a church or fire station. She can decide to relinquish parental rights at any time and abandon the child.
That is a WHOLE lot of options given a 9 month investment and the flip side is 18 (or more) years of indentured servitude for the man all with him having NO choice.
Granted the "extreme" examples are the ones sited here but that is often where the rubber meets the road.
As a woman, you seem to see NOTHING wrong with this situation. As a man, I see all the injustice.
As a woman, you see abortion as a woman's right to control her body. As a man, I see the willful murder of a defenseless innocent that you come across as trivializing by describing possible internal angst suffered by the women.
Post a Comment