If you have a womb, it's not about you. It's just inside your body, but it's the sovereign domain of somebody else — kind of like the Vatican and Italy.
Tschida, criticized, defended his position: “I’m not going to apologize for saying that. I think that’s exactly what it’s there for. It welcomes in a new life and that’s what it’s there to do, to nurture and sustain that life.”
Tschida, criticized, defended his position: “I’m not going to apologize for saying that. I think that’s exactly what it’s there for. It welcomes in a new life and that’s what it’s there to do, to nurture and sustain that life.”
Well, there are too many apologies these days. But is he right? "The womb is the only organ in a woman’s body that serves no specific purpose to her life or well-being." What about the appendix?
In any case, you spend a lot of time and energy on this organ, which — until you're old — reminds you of its existence every time you menstruate. What's that? Oh? You don't menstruate, Brad? Well, then, maybe be a little circumspect explaining our bodies to us.
But wait! I was going to stop reading this article in the middle. Democracy almost died in darkness. I looked ahead and was completely surprised to see that Tschida was paraphrasing someone else — quoting a woman:
In an email sent Monday to legislators, Tschida referenced an episode of a podcast featuring a professor who supported abortion rights debating with a woman who held antiabortion beliefs. Although Tschida told local media that he did not recall the name of the podcast, the Republican noted how the professor asked his antiabortion guest whether a woman should have to “sacrifice her organs because someone else told her to do so.” After thinking on the question, Tschida wrote, the woman expressed her opinion that “the womb is a place set aside for another person who arrives as a result of a choice of a man and a woman to procreate.”
“That single factor has struck me since I heard that commentary,” Tschida wrote.
Notice that the antiabortion guest on the unnamed podcast expressed her idea in terms of choice: "the womb is a place set aside for another person who arrives as a result of a choice of a man and a woman to procreate." Someone who favors access to abortion could agree: Yes! The womb is reserved as a place for the person who arrives because the woman has invited it to take up residence. She can also choose to allow the unchosen arrival to continue to occupy the place, but that's her choice.
The "special place" argument works in favor of abortion at least as well as it works against.
Posts
114 comments:
What's that? Oh? You don't menstruate, Brad? Well, then, maybe be a little circumspect explaining our bodies to us.
This comment and dismissal of argument based on who's arguing brought you by: The Party of Science!
I don’t think it does work just as well. Except in cases of rape, the woman is pregnant because she chose to engage in the act that leads to pregnancy (that is what choice looks like). She didn’t invite someone in such that she can simply ask them to move somewhere else if she changes her mind. No, her guest cannot move somewhere else and that is not what she’s doing. The guest has to be killed, killed by her host, who invited her in in the first place. See, that’s where all your arguments fall down—abortion isn’t about choice. Sex is about choice. Abortion is about taking responsibility for the consequences of that choice after the choice has been made.
That said, the quote sounds incredibly stupid. You can always rely on some obscure Republican to say something that can be used to make all Republicans sound crass and stupid. (Of course, obscure Dems do that too, but the media protects stupid Democrats as enthusiastically as it excoriates stupid Republicans.)
What about the appendix?
The appendix is believed to serve as a safe holding area for productive bacteria, ready to repopulate the intestines after colon flushing bouts of diarrhea…
let's say i have a house, out in the country..
a person (invited? Uninvited?) is there. I ask them (might be two) to leave..
They point out, that it is night, and there is a blizzard going on. -20 temps, winds, snow.
IF i kick them out into the cold.. They WILL die of exposure..
Do i have a legal right in Wisconsin to kick them out? I don't in Iowa.
In Iowa, i have to wait until conditions change, OR i get them a ride.. To do otherwise is Manslaughter
See where i'm going with this? Property rights are Trumped by life and limb
Reading the headline, I did so out loud to my wife; I thought it awful and sad to see it said by a Republican. Just reading the line, I did originally think it must be a pro-abortionist concept, as it suggests the womb is unnecessary to a woman. In my view it is a part of what defines a woman from a man (harkening back to Senate committee exchange). I get why it is striking and thought provoking, because the sanctuary notion and it being the place for the child is an interesting line of thought. Still, this is a line of discussion that makes me want to get past abortion being the thing that affects our politics, when economics and diplomacy is bringing us so much misery just now. Let woman be woman and quit trying to discuss the value of their womb. Men don't like hearing about the value of their penis, so have empathy.
# Tim Maguire's excellent comment.
>"You don't menstruate, Brad? Well, then, maybe be a little circumspect explaining our bodies to us.
But wait!...I looked ahead and was completely surprised to see that Tschida was paraphrasing someone else — quoting a woman"<
Those two sentences are instructive.
"The choice", for the most part, is to have unprotected sex the natural consequence of which is pregnancy.
The other "choice" is homicide of the unborn child. Pro-abortion women are either lying or are in denial about this using the absurd, unscientific "clump of cells" hogwash to evade moral responsibility for this choice.
More hyperventilating about some nobody from nowhere who says something idiotic.
Which is worse? The nobody from nowhere who says something idiotic that no one would ever know about? or The people who perpetuate and spread what he said?
I think some folks put the clitoris in this category as well. No purpose hence it can be removed.
The pro-choice faction would be much farther ahead if they could get every woman to call her pre-delivered baby a fetus.
Shame women for having baby showers rather than fetus showers.
Make others ask: "Do you know the assigned sex of the fetus?"
Stop others from expressing any pre-birth happiness for a pregnancy which can be terminated at any time.
This would be a more fair and equitable world and make choosing something better-supported in our culture.
Case in point.
Everyone is less informed and more in the dark about the world for having read and given any thought and consideration to this Washington Post story.
The womb is magic!
It can change a baby into a fetus -- and then back again within seconds!
All based on the immediate feelings of the mother.
There are times when "I'm not a biologist" is actually the right thing to say.
I think some folks put the clitoris in this category as well. No purpose hence it can be removed.
It has a purpose, which is exactly why some cultures mutilate girls.
It is interesting to see, however, legislative proposals to outlaw the practice kind of dying out in light of all the cheering for surgical transitioning, which involves doing the same thing.
A hierarchy of legitimacy to speak upon topics based on biology seems foolish and skirting on the edges of some very unpleasant territory. Foolish, and irrational. Oh dear.
I think he’s wrong about the function of the uterus for the woman. It’s a safe holding area for hysteria to be released to restore the nervous system after bouts with male domination.
Hysterectomies on demand???
Ann Althouse said...
Cute.
Tim nailed it. So to speak.
Tschida is also the genius who questioned the election which he won and the GOP swept statewide (because Trump was on the ballot).
I mean how dumb can you get. The time to contest an election is when you LOSE, dude.
The womb is the only organ in a woman’s body...
What a transphobic thing to say!
It's an indirect response to the violinist analogy.
Blogger gilbar said...
let's say i have a house, out in the country..
***********
Let's say you have a body that is your own, that is literally you, it's not a "house, out in the country", and maybe let's lighten up on these hideous analogies. There's no analogy necessary to discuss bodily autonomy, unless you're trying to distance the discussion from the reality.
The only thing that can save the Democrats this year is guys like this shooting their mouths off about their deepest convictions regarding women's wombs. God knows, he's famous now.
He had the opportunity to stay silent, but not the wit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGPudL_GQ3Y&t=1s
See from about 12:45.
"Stephanie, I made the uterus for a different purpose."
My uterus helps me find things that have been lost or misplaced in my house.
You can live without an appendix and without a uterus. You can live without both kidneys, and Joe Biden proves you can live without a brain.
The quote is badly constructed. I don't even think the first part of it makes any sense- the uterus clearly has meaning for the lives of most women since most women do, in fact, have children eventually, and children are definitely important to the lives of those women. It would be like saying the penis has no specific purpose to the lives of men. However, I do get his intent in saying it, and people can disagree with that intent, but there isn't anything particularly obnoxious about it either. Typically, WaPoo focuses on the inartful sound-bit part and tries to use it to downplay the meaning of the second part. Tschida is an idiot for not putting more thought into what he is saying, but it might not have mattered anyway. In any case, no one will be talking about this tomorrow.
"GOP lawmaker: Womb has ‘no specific purpose’ to a woman’s ‘life or well-being'"
It's good to have kids. It really helps with the life, and well-being attributes.
“The "special place" argument works in favor of abortion at least as well as it works against.“
True.
How does a wom(b)man get an uninvited guest to un-occupy the womb?
She commits murder.
If an abortion advocate could agree and shake it off as trivial- my will over (theirs’) I’d be impressed.
You don’t appreciate mansplaining, obviously.
“Well, obviously.”
Yet, it’s just fine to bully the “uninvited”.
"I think he’s wrong about the function of the uterus for the woman. It’s a safe holding area for hysteria to be released to restore the nervous system after bouts with male domination."
That does accord with my experience.
From a physiological point of view, the uterus probably is counterproductive. Of course, from the evolutionary point of view, a woman is a support mechanism for a womb. Perhaps that's what Ketanji Jackson should have said.
"A woman is a support mechanism for a womb". That would have calmed everybody down some.
it is also the scrotal sac in differently chromosomals vertebrates?
Yes its crude.
But
He was just quoting someone else. This is a yuuuge part of media. One saying something iffy, then the rest quoting it. The quote is cover to spread the lie.
But
This Republican repeated it, and technically, its true. It is the only organ a woman has that does not contribute to the woman's life. It can be, and is regularly, removed for prophylactic reasons.
This is another event the leftist media will use as shorthand for Republicans saying wild, stupid stuff. Never saying exactly what is so wild and stupid.
I just listen to two millennial women on CNN go on and on about how evil Tom Cotton, and Ted Cruz are evil and dangerous. Never once giving a single example. They just argue for their conclusion, not bothering to debate exactly what past actions are evil. (To be fair, demanding fealty to the Constitution, is evil to leftists)
"The pro-choice faction would be much farther ahead if they could get every woman to call her pre-delivered baby a fetus."
This reminds me of an infuriating statement made by a female doctor, maybe a year or so ago, that got some publicity. She stridently asserted as absolute incontrovertible medical fact that the being growing within a woman's uterus MUST be referred to as "the products of conception."
I guess that makes it easier to perform abortions.
The uterus helps people ask for directions when lost, but prevents them from folding maps, picking a restaurant, or changing the oil in their cars.
The appendix is believed to serve as a safe holding area for productive bacteria, ready to repopulate the intestines after colon flushing bouts of diarrhea…
=========
Q: and equally useful after 'purging' for colonoscopy?
The uterus has another function---it is part of the entire apparatus that delivers sexual pleasure to women. Women who have had hysterectomies often note a reduction in sexual satisfaction.
"The womb is reserved as a place for the person who arrives because the woman has invited it to take up residence."
Correct. Pregnancy is the result of choice. It is women exercising agency, 99% of the time.
"She can also choose to allow the unchosen arrival to continue to occupy the place, but that's her choice."
She can. If the law allows, she may even be permitted. But it makes abortion the only act of uninvitation that involves killing the invitee.
After Dobbs, it's not just her choice. The rest of us get a vote.
Jupiter said...from the evolutionary point of view, a woman is a support mechanism for a womb.
Men and women are just the egg and sperm's way of making more eggs and sperm.
The splooge stooge. The womb-bank with "benefits". Casting couches. Equal and equitable social constructs.
Men, women, and 10 year-old girls without dignity, agency, and an ethical religion to normalize human life as a negotiable commodity.
One step forward, two steps backward.
Demos-cracy is aborted at the twilight fringe. 10 year-old girls are raped in darkness.
after bouts with male domination
Sex in diverse positions with shared/personal responsibility, for pleasure, with foreknowledge of invitation to a baby. Face-to-face with mutual respect.
Sexual relations with penetration through alternate holes in a socially liberal climate.
An elective abortion, a human rite performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes, a wicked solution. Rape happens on a casting couch, to a girl without consent, before an abortion chamber flushes the "burden" of evidence, in darkness with braying approval.
Both a woman's womb, and a man's sperm ejaculated, play integral roles in her, his, and human longevity, and the only known universal fitness function.
A woman is like and unlike every other woman. A man is like and unlike every other man. Choose wisely, and be responsible for your choices, ladies and gentlemen. Demos-cracy is aborted at the twilight fringe.
Why is it idiotic? It’s the WaPo that crafted a well intentioned statement that, if heard in its entirety, makes sense.
Does a womb define a woman? Yes? What is a woman?
To use those 1:1,000,000 Democratic arguments- what about those women who aren’t born w/out a womb? Is she no longer a woman?
I always thought that wast a stupid statement.
To say the purpose of the uterus in a woman is to nurture and protect her unborn child?
That it serves no other purpose?
If it’s more complicated than that- so is killing that unborn child.
Why is it idiotic? It’s the WaPo that crafted a well intentioned statement that, if heard in its entirety, makes sense.
Does a womb define a woman? Yes? What is a woman?
To use those 1:1,000,000 Democratic arguments- what about those women who aren’t born w/out a womb? Is she no longer a woman?
I always thought that wast a stupid statement.
To say the purpose of the uterus in a woman is to nurture and protect her unborn child?
That it serves no other purpose?
If it’s more complicated than that- so is killing that unborn child.
Maybe Lia Thomas “cab be a little circumspect explaining our bodies to us.”
Woman to wom(b)man.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/trans-swimmer-lia-thomas-nominated-woke-upenn-ncaa-woman-year-award/
Arturo Ui said...
***********
Hi, Freder!
This must be Sockpuppet Saturday.
Engaging in unprotected sex is the invitation. To me, this idea makes abortion look even worse. You give sanctuary to a new being and before the new being can can take a breath on his/her own, worse than un-employed as it were, the nasty landlady evicts it into a garbage can. How uncompassionate can a woman be?
As I understand it the womb is not a big truck but is a series of tubes.
And, if used as the object of a preposition it is properly spelled whomb.
Also, from the evidence available it is clear that Althouse has opened her front door to a visitor to her residence at least twice.
How can we treat foreign migrants better than an unborn baby?
I think Congresswoman AOC would back me up on this 🤔
Your gender is being erased, with the cooperation of your most gullible cohort, but orange man bad is the problem, a freak show like brinton, actually presents itself as a woman,
Did you have a point? Arturo ? You never have had one before, so i don't pay much attention.
you SEEM to be saying, that if someone is within some distance of you, THEN it's fine to murder them?
gilbar said...
Did you have a point? Arturo ? You never have had one before, so i don't pay much attention.
you SEEM to be saying, that if someone is within some distance of you, THEN it's fine to murder them?
********
Yes, I did have a point, and a clear one at that (bodily autonomy vs stupid house analogies), but you would have to be able to read to understand it. We all know you would rather just invent someone else's point for them rather than learn to read.
I'm taking some time off. The endless hair-splitting, the lawyering of stories that don't need it. The stridency of lecturing men in stories like this one.
I've had it. I like the commenters, but I'm done with Ann for a while. I'm deleting the bookmark.
You have the capacity to be thoughtful and interesting, but also remarkably twee and supercilious.
Arturo Ui (Freder): "Yes, I did have a point, and a clear one at that (bodily autonomy vs stupid house analogies), but you would have to be able to read to understand it. We all know you would rather just invent someone else's point for them rather than learn to read."
Freder, why are you responding to a written post and writing a message to someone you claim cannot read?
That is gadfly/Inga-level stupidity, which is sayin' somethin'.
Now that we have dealt with that, can you answer the following questions:
1) What is a woman?
2) When does life begin and what is the scientific basis for your answer?
3) At what point should the law protect human life?
Thanks in advance for being a dolt.
You give sanctuary to a new being and before the new being can can take a breath on his/her own, worse than un-employed as it were, the nasty landlady evicts it into a garbage can.
In the best case, the invitation is summarily withdrawn... capitol deja vu?... and the visitor is evicted to a metal slab or other sterilize environment. However, in hundreds of thousands of cases, the choice precedes a progressive condition, where the landlady or government-licensed agent will hold a blade... a scalpel to her throat, a "bullet" to her head, and other methods of capital conviction without due process (e.g. witch hunt, warlock trial, trial by press), with accompanying treatments to remove a body of evidence, thus enabling repeat offenders of rape... rape-rape, non-consensual incest, casting couches, friendship with "benefits", day after regrets, and other first-order forcings of human "burdens".
Men and women are just the egg and sperm's way of making more eggs and sperm.
Eggs and sperm are just carriers of carbon atoms blueprint for organizing the universe.
“ You don't menstruate, Brad? Well, then, maybe be a little circumspect explaining our bodies to us.”
One needn’t be a hen to judge an egg.
Also, speaking of explaining your body to you, your appendix is not an organ.
It’s a safe holding area for hysteria to be released to restore the nervous system after bouts with male domination.
Hilarious. "Hysteria" is the right term, certainly. It might be hard to find a "dominant male" in Madison, though. I like Jason's explanation.
Blogger Jason said...
The uterus helps people ask for directions when lost, but prevents them from folding maps, picking a restaurant, or changing the oil in their cars.
There is an even longer list of its functions. Starting with always winning arguments.
On the plus side, the unoccupied womb does seem kind of neutral in the pursuit of happiness. Not like the engorged penis. That little fucker is absolutely committed to subverting any chance of enduring happiness. I suppose there are problems associated with the enlivened clitoris, but they are nothing like those associated with the engorged penis.
I hate to admit it, but Jason hits this one right out of the ballpark. As it were.
The uterus actually serves some purpose in regulating hormones in unison with the ovaries. Sure, without any other medical intervention, women can live without a uterus. Men can also live without penises. Both can live without the organs that produce sexual pleasure. Do we really require sexual pleasure? Do we require hair? No, but the human race needs these things to survive.
Maybe not the hair.
How did this get so weird?
Absent the womb, women are just smaller and weaker men. So, really, once you subtract that, they're pointless and inferior.
The current plethora of formerly male transgender types dominating "women's" sports pretty much demonstrates this fact.
What is really going on here is the subversion and destruction of a functional society. The sad reality of it is, we need women to be women, creating and raising the next generation, and we need men to be men, doing what they've always done, serving as the expendable "scratch monkeys" for human society in general.
The root of the angst here is that people don't want to believe that biology constrains culture, and that you can only deny biology for so long before the Gods of the Copybook Headings show up and demand their due. We've been making believe that there's no intrinsic difference between male and female for so long that we've totally forgotten why traditional societies were set up the way they were. Our culture has been acting out a grand-scale iteration of Chesterton's Fence, with regards to sex roles. We're about to see all that play out to the final idiotic point of lunacy.
If you look at the fertility rates of all the "advanced" nations, the facts are clear: The idea of egalitarian sex role setups are non-tenable across the breadth of a society. The fruits of this are visible across Europe, Asia, and now the US. The future belongs to those who show up for it, and there are broad swathes of society that just ain't going to show.
It isn't a value judgment, either: It's a raw fact of biology. If you remove females from the contributory breeding pool the way we have, through economics and social changes, the kids to replace the previous generations aren't going to get born. The oh-so-enlightened woke ain't doing the job, and likely won't get it until they're starving in their freezing old-age hovels that they are going to be relegated to, because the kids who would have been there to pay the taxes for their socialized lifestyles won't have been born in the first place. And, given their predilection for banning technologies they don't like, there won't be any slack in the coming economies of the world to support these losers. Hope they enjoy the life they've made for themselves, because the coming generations aren't going to be like them or want to sacrifice anything at all to their needs in their dotages. That support will likely be reserved for the parents of the kids who were actually born...
You worship Moloch, don't be real surprised when he's the only one who shows up for your retirement party.
I don't say these things because I hate women. I hate the stupidity of these people who've been acting as if we've somehow overcome the realities of our sexual dimorphism, when the raw and unpleasant fact is, we still live within those limits. Until we're modifying our genome through engineering or some other means, and making women actually the physical equals of males, we're where we are. Until there are substitute wombs to implant with our children, we are where we are. Until we lengthen human life to the point where it makes a difference, we are where we are.
(cont.)
And, where we are is still well within the parameters our "unenlightened" ancestors lived inside, circumscribed by biologic facts that say "women are smaller and weaker" and "women as a whole either participate in creating the next generation of society, or they pay the price when that society inevitably collapses due to a lack of participants".
Our elders did not "set things up" in any conscious way. They simply followed the path of "what works", and that's why there were the rules and values of old. Those unpleasant rules of society were what worked, winnowed down by harsh experience. If those rules didn't work, then they would have been abandoned, if only because the people following them would have died. Cultural features and social mores are not there because some random "patriarchy conspiracy" held a meeting and decided to "oppress women", they're there because those things worked. They weren't "fair", and they weren't "equitable", but they did work--Or, we would not be here.
Manifestly, from looking at the fertility numbers? What we're doing? Ain't working. Deal with that however you like, but deal with it you will.
Let's not ignore the Sack if Douglas.
It's like the fake zipper on your suitcase that, when you get it completely unzipped, your suitcase is still closed.
Thanks to the unremembered commenter who suggested the Netflix comedian Helen gadsby Douglas a few weeks back.
Batshit crazy but funny as hell.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Rabel said...
"And, if used as the object of a preposition it is properly spelled whomb
And, if speaking of a hippopotamus fart WHOOOOOM!!
John LGBTQBNY Henry
the nasty landlady evicts it into a garbage can
This is an interesting analogy worth exploring further. Under what circumstances is it legal, is it ethical, is it moral, to elect abortion of a tenant invited, no longer wanted?
Twee: British, excessively or affectedly quaint, pretty, or sentimental.
Hmm. OK.
"What's that? Oh? You don't menstruate, Brad? Well, then, maybe be a little circumspect explaining our bodies to us."
How incredibly trans-phobic to assume that because he's a man, he doesn't menstruate.
Yes, what the candidate said was mind numbingly stupid.
The appendix. Some guesses are that, if our ancestors had chowed down on something the vultures wouldn't touch, they'd get the runnies. The appendix would reboot the gut.
As in, when you get a strong antibiotic at the pharmacist's place, they throw in a probiotic to refurbish the gut flor and fauna.
Not getting this help is more dangerous to a population than occasional peritonitis, which may, anyway, occur after age of most likely reproduction.
The brain that works feelings-first benefits children but not the woman.
In any case, you spend a lot of time and energy on this organ, which — until you're old — reminds you of its existence every time you menstruate.
Ann, I hit menopause in my early thirties, more than twenty years ago. Is a 32-year-old woman an "old" woman? I can just see myself sitting, all wrinkly, on the porch, my walker beside me. Except that even at 54 the porch and the walker aren't necessary, and the wrinkles are still not there. Who'd'a thunk?
Practically speaking, the distance between menarche and menopause is from 20 to 25 years. Which means that the very large majority of female humans aren't even capable of getting pregnant.
Jason's link to YouTube is informative.
Note the other part of the original analysis that did not get paraphrased. The claimed right to bodily autonomy and therefore to abortion was, FIRST, compared to the right NOT to donate a kidney, or to connect a tube to a woman who donates her body as a life-support metabolic mechanism to sustain the life of another. Perhaps, even, the "other" is or will be a valuable, precious, and irreplaceable fellow human being. The woman morally can't be compelled to donate her kidney or liver or whatever to another's life.
The issue that the uterus has a different purpose than a kidney is a response to an argument.
The other issue to consider: What if a woman had been involuntarily tubed up to provide life support to another precious human being. If she managed to cut herself free, or got a sympathetic doctor to cut her free, and the other survived regardless, most of us would morally see the outcome as a good thing. Even a miracle. But in the case of abortion of "an unwanted child", when the procedure cuts a woman free from a fetus, and the unwanted child survives ... The infant's survival is regarded not as a miracle but a serious problem.
As tim maguire said, "Sex is about choice. Abortion is about taking responsibility for the consequences of that choice after the choice has been made." Which is why pragmatic anti-abortion people make an exception for rape or where there wasn't a realistic choice ("Uncle Phil").
Yeah, Brad sounds like an idiot.
Is it OK to think that highly-credentialed members of the gentry class who drone on about transwomen being women are idiots, too? Even if they are children who have never been responsible for anything productive--let alone anything reproductive--in their lives? How about if they are college professors? What if they are Black? Does that give them additional moral authority? I have heard that some highly-credentialed members of the gentry class think that--and some public school teachers, too.
Idiots are everywhere.
@ cfkane1701 - I know this may seem mean but you're sounding like a snowflake. Snowflakery is not good on the left and it's not good on the right.
William said...
“I suppose there are problems associated with the enlivened clitoris, but they are nothing like those associated with the engorged penis.”
Good point. I can’t recall ever reading a news story in which an enlivened clitoris, snapping a selfie, took one step back too many while preening on the rim of, say, the Grand Canyon.
(bodily autonomy vs stupid house analogies),
But where does one's bodily autonomy end? Say you are a woman, you get pregnant, and you decide to have the baby. Two weeks after the baby's birth, your partner up and leaves (this happened to someone close to me). Your bodily autonomy is very definitely still being threatened by the existence of this baby - not in exactly the same way as during pregnancy, but you are not the master of your days, nights, eating and sleeping and bathroom schedules... That baby relies 100% on you to survive.
In that regard, what's different about the born baby versus the unborn fetus? The fact that infanticide makes just about everyone shudder doesn't clarify the issue of whether a woman who's decided her bodily autonomy is being too much interfered with has the right to stop that interference. If you use "bodily autonomy" as your justification for unlimited abortion access, you have to answer this ethical question.
And the house analogy that ticked you off so much addresses tim's point that the choice, the initial and (in a healthy society) most important one, happens before the pregnancy: did you or didn't you tender an invitation, however half-hearted, however unlikely you thought it was that it'd be accepted? Your after-the-fact regrets about the unexpectedly accepted invitation notwithstanding, you gave the invitation. How is that analogy not useful in understanding what really happens when a woman chooses to abort or not abort, having already decided to have sex, an act that can and often does result in pregnancy?
Drago said...
Now that we have dealt with that, can you answer the following questions:
1) What is a woman?
2) When does life begin and what is the scientific basis for your answer?
3) At what point should the law protect human life?
**************
You first, cupcake.
Also, I don't know who "Freder" even is.
Which is why pragmatic anti-abortion people make an exception for rape or where there wasn't a realistic choice
Casting couch? Child grooming? Friends with "benefits"? Immigration reform with collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout? Trans/neo-females in the mist? Which was why the pro-abortionists spoke truth through projection, displacement, and tried to indulge diversity dogma to paint a rape... rape-rape culture, then a #MeToo progression, and an apology for the wicked solution and 10 year-old rape... rape-rape, all of which have recoiled spectacularly in public spectacles. Some, Select [Baby] Lives Matter (BLM)
A woman and man's choices: sex or abstinence, contraception in depth, adoption (i.e. shared/shifted responsibility), compassion (i.e. shared/personal responsibility), and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation.
Perhaps the social progressives wants to expand the scope of self-defense to include social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes, and capitol hill heroes who elect to take affirmative action and proactively abort perceived "burdens" after an invitation summarily withdrawn, a riot forced, and an unarmed entity with a uterus attempting to calm, then escape the elicited violence. Select conspiracy, indeed.
The uterus helps people ask for directions when lost, but prevents them from folding maps, picking a restaurant, or changing the oil in their cars.
There is an even longer list of its functions. Starting with always winning arguments.
A gentleman defers to a lady, in good faith, when possible, within reason.
takirks joins Temujin on the short list of essential posters here. Not that I don’t always read Drago and Achilles without agreement and a savage delight, but takirks’s posts today really hit it out of the park.
If you buy in a flood zone, it would be prudent to take out some flood insurance.
Same if you are interested in vibe man of TikTok fame.
#ImJustSaying
Today's women, in general, seem to defy who they are. What they are. Repulsed even.
Those'60's feminists sure did one helluva job in executing the Long March.
Arturo Ui writes, "You first, cupcake."
The most tragic (i.e. hilarious) aspect of Arturo's weltanschauung is how easily he's rhetorically defeated. No battle is more easily won than when the enemy commits ritual suicide.
Or, to quote the newly appointed sheriff of Rock Ridge, Don't nobody move, or the n____r gets it!
Yes, I did have a point, and a clear one at that (bodily autonomy vs stupid house analogies), but you would have to be able to read to understand it. We all know you would rather just invent someone else's point for them rather than learn to read."
Arturo what is exactly your point? Is it that woman have a special limited bodily autonomy to abortions or full autonomy over their bodies? Do men have limited or full autonomy over their bodies? I gather some of the readers and commenters on this blog are male Vietnam and Cold War era veterans who might have chosen to opt out had they had bodily autonomy.
The landlord/tenant and squatter analogy fails simply because one does not have the right to kill a squatter or tenant to remove them off your property unless it is in self-defense.
Abortion has been and for the foreseeable future be a regret sex matter in most instances so the argument becomes at what point do we willfully recognize the humanity of the fetus and say from this point no mas.
A lot of women after hysterectomy experience vaginal prolapse. Helping prevent the vagina from falling out is important.
Blogger Donatello Nobody said...
takirks joins Temujin on the short list of essential posters here. Not that I don’t always read Drago and Achilles without agreement and a savage delight, but takirks’s posts today really hit it out of the park.
I agree. Those are great comments. I guess Ann deleted my comment as it was not sufficiently obsequious.
The landlord/tenant and squatter analogy fails simply because one does not have the right to kill a squatter or tenant to remove them off your property
from Old English morĂ°or (plural morĂľras) "secret killing of a person, unlawful killing,"
Murder to clear a "burden", an invited tenant no longer wanted (e.g. capitol (sic) murder), may happen in darkness, in privacy, is a human rite discouraged in civilized societies.
Notice we spend all our time focused on women's "issues", neh a word abut the real struggles of the boys/men that lay waste in a society structured by women.
Oops: *with* agreement and savage delight.
Drago (to Arturo):
"Now that we have dealt with that, can you answer the following questions:
1) What is a woman?
2) When does life begin and what is the scientific basis for your answer?
3) At what point should the law protect human life?"
Arturo Ui: "You first, cupcake."
LOL
As expected.
I would expect more facts from the purported medical professionals here to explain reproductive biology and hormones. Instead, there's a bunch of buffoons who still think women alone are responsible for unplanned pregnancy. "Keep it in your pants, buddy" is not rocket science.
Are the commenters getting dumber, or just more regretful that they failed to form meaningful relationships with women and present themselves as capable of fathering children? Either way, they are clearly more unhinged than most of the women, and men, I know.
Instead, there's a bunch of buffoons who still think women alone are responsible for unplanned pregnancy.
It seems to me that we are now, have been for some decades, and probably will continue to be, in a time in which women want (and to a very great extent, have) robust social and employment equality with men, but that the older biological facts still pertain:
1. Women are generally smaller and physically weaker than men.
2. A woman with a baby on board or in arms is vulnerable.
3. A woman with a child or children is vulnerable.
4. Men's sex drive tends to be pretty central to them - more so than many women's.
So - even though we act as if we only have sex when we want to, I suspect there's still a good bit of "give him what he wants so he'll stick around," and a lot of it that happens at a not-quite-conscious level. Sure, men should keep it in their pants unless they are willing to participate in having a child, but they're not super-strongly wired for that and we're not super-strongly wired for the zipless f***.
Hence contraception is still typically the girl's or woman's responsibility. She's going to bear the consequences, one way or another. It's an is/ought problem.
Drago said...
Drago (to Arturo):
"Now that we have dealt with that, can you answer the following questions:
1) What is a woman?
2) When does life begin and what is the scientific basis for your answer?
3) At what point should the law protect human life?"
Arturo Ui: "You first, cupcake."
LOL
As expected.
************
Ok, I'll bite.
1) A type of human being whom you have never even kissed.
2) The Bible says at first breath. This is my sincerely held religious belief, don't you dare challenge it.
3) See above.
AI: "Ok, I'll bite.
1) A type of human being whom you have never even kissed.
2) The Bible says at first breath. This is my sincerely held religious belief, don't you dare challenge it.
3) See above."
LOL
It took you that long to come up with that?
Once again, as expected.
My appreciation to both Donatello and Michael, for their kind words. I'm a little baffled by the approbation, because from my point of view, I'm merely stating the obvious... At least, to me.
But, then again, the rest of you monkeys have always puzzled me and been a subject of fascinated study on my part. I am an outsider, being both a bit of an autistic type, and a social outcast, lacking the instinctive nous to be able to function well in the moment with the glib and the usual run of socially "ept" people.
As such, perhaps I've got an insight into things that others lack, because I'm a stranger to the water they live in and breathe, not knowing or recognizing it as water. Might be an advantage, in some ways; in others, it's a bit of a burden, never fitting in, always saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.
The essential insight I think I've made, however, might be important. There's an externality to things in any social grouping, a mechanistic set of things that most of the rest of you absorbed with your mother's milk, the unspoken and unwritten rules of society. You can work these things out, somewhat, and when you do? You rapidly realize that they're the way they are because of the brutal realities when a bunch of semi-savage monkeys try to interact and build a working society and civilization, all entirely unaware of what they're doing.
Feminists and other idiot social theorists start out from a theory of persecution: They don't like the way things are, and reacting against some entirely hypothetical "daddy figure" they mostly hate, they begin what passes for thought amongst them with sheer malignant hatred, blaming that imaginary over-daddy as being responsible for that which makes them miserable. Much of which is actually entirely imaginary.
The reality is that it's a lot healthier to start out from the premise that society and its rules are a vast imperfectly arranged machine. The rules, mores, and values of that society are what they are not through some hypothesized group of freakishly evil and hateful Daddies getting together and making them during some conspiratorial meeting back in the "old days", but through the evolutionary process of things being tried and discarded over the generations going back to when we abandoned the forests for the savannahs of ancient Africa. If it didn't work, the people who tried it died. What remained was winnowed down through the same processes that our biology uses, in an evolutionary manner. If an innovation worked, it was kept. If it did not serve, it went away. Mostly, I repeat, because those that espoused whatever idiocy it represented died out.
(cont.)
Y'all might want to review the history of the Shakers and the Oneida Colony. Both represented excellent examples of this, and their fates are likely the same ones soon to befall a lot of other Western socialism.
So... Society as a machine, in order to explain the how and why of its workings. Analyzed from this perspective, the "oppression" of women ye olden dayes begins to present a different sort of picture than the one presented by foolish people making believe in the evils of Dear Old Daddy. You start to look at the whole of it, and a lot of it begins to make much better sense, particularly the role of women themselves in enforcing the various strictures that were in place for other women. After all, what is in the interest of an older woman, no longer fertile, and who needs someone to care for her in her old age? Does she want a trail of successive uninvolved males impregnating her daughters, or does she want one man who will be tied to her for life, enslaved to the needs of her daughter and her grandchildren? You wonder why women in Middle Eastern cultures are so driven to pass on nasty things like clitoridectomies? That's it, right there: Enlightened self-interest. And, I will point out for the blind, not the interest of some supposed "patriarchy", either. Purest self-interest, meant to bind the wombs of her daughters to her purposes, which ain't got sh*t to do with her daughters childish drive for sexual self-gratification.
Same-same with a lot of Western cultural features. Women weren't "valued" enough to be educated? Hmmm. What are functional reasons such a stricture might be in place? D'ya suppose the horrendous rate of death during childbirth, pre-Semmelweis, might be a reason? After all, the resources of society "in the olden days" weren't infinite; would it make rational sense to subject a young woman to the rigors of the educational process then extant, if were to die in childbirth somewhere along the line before society got it's return on that investment? If analyzed from that standpoint, the idea of educating a woman pre-Semmelweis begins to look more than a little foolish, and entirely wasteful of resources they simply didn't have enough of.
Some of the same crap goes into things today: When you analyze the numbers, preferential treatment of women seeking to become doctors is utter stupidity, especially put against the monopoly that the AMA has on educating doctors, limiting their numbers. The unfortunate fact is that most male doctors are driven to long hours and entirely self-abusive work practices in order to "get ahead", while female doctors very often do not even begin to work the same amount of time, taking time out for family matters. Objectively analyzed, in a world where we limit the number of doctors produced everywhere, does this make a bit of sense? The number models the AMA works off of were established decades ago, when their profession was mostly male... And, signally, they haven't adapted. Wishful thinking, that.
You want to know why a society does something? Look to the environment, look to the history, and then consider why such a feature of that society might exist. And, don't go looking for some crazed hypothetical "daddy figure" you can berate and blame for it; if you think that the rules of society are governed by men, in the final analysis? Forget it; the ones you need to look at and blame are the actual reservoirs of culture and practice, the old biddies who run things behind the scenes.
(cont.)
There's a lot of feminism you can analyze as being directed not at men, but at the old women who used to be the social arbiters and enforcers. You can also analyze a lot of it as coming from women who just weren't all that good at being "women" under the old rules, unwilling and impatient to take their place at the top of the heap through surviving long enough to become grandmothers, and having enough of a base of grandchildren to really matter. You could also look at a lot of it as having come through sheer laziness, not wanting to achieve social power through breeding enough kids to be at all significant in the scheme of things.
It's never ceased to amaze me how many of these women can sit there and say that they were powerless and helpless, under the old rules. Or, that it was the men who did it to them...
News flash for ya, girlies... It was never the men. Men are, more-or-less, easily led around by their penises, when young. And, when old... And, who does that leading? Yes; the effective women who know how to do that leading, and what is really in their own long-term interests. What we have playing out before us in the conflict of women versus society's rules is more the conflict between younger women's sluttish short-term interests and the matron's long-term view of how things ought to be. We've been listening to the sluts and slatterns for the last few generations, and the final denouement is this crash in fertility.
Society is a machine. You do not listen to the concerns of the oil filter, when considering whether or not to change it out and discard the old one, because if you do, then the rest of the engine will suffer. The filter has a role; an essentially disposable one, but an essential role nonetheless. You do not listen to the oil filter, or look out for its interests, when considering the entire mechanism. And, that's precisely what we've been doing for the last hundred-plus years: Allowing the selfish interests of a minority to interfere with the functioning and longevity of the entire machine. The price to be paid for that will soon come due, when the entire engine seizes up and locks solid.
Which isn't to denigrate the oil filter, merely to observe that its selfish interests cannot be made superior to the whole, without disastrous consequence following.
You get down to it, you have to recognize that the sole unique and irreplaceable feature of a woman is that womb the feminists are so dismissive of. Short-term, the young woman can play-act at being a boy, but overall? Across the breadth and depth of society? If young women stop reproducing, what happens within the short span of a generation? Two? Three? Just how long does it take, for the effects of the majority of women abandoning their age-old and utterly necessary role as mothers to show up?
You can look around and see the beginnings of the effects, and they're not pretty. Expect things to get a lot worse, as time carries out its inevitable trip to the end of the ridiculous trend-line. Have fun, y'all... I don't think the majority of you will like the world that the activists have made for you.
7/17/22, 9:11 AM Delete
Blogger Drago said...
AI: "Ok, I'll bite.
1) A type of human being whom you have never even kissed.
2) The Bible says at first breath. This is my sincerely held religious belief, don't you dare challenge it.
3) See above."
LOL
It took you that long to come up with that?
Once again, as expected
****************
You must be the laziest commenter on Planet Internet. Demanding people answer your silly questions as the prelude to a dialogue, and when they do, farting out this simple braindead noise. Try harder.
Yes! The womb is reserved as a place for the person who arrives because the woman has invited it to take up residence
Did you chose to have sex? Then you invited the baby in.
Were you raped? Then report it to the police, take a Plan B, and get on with your life, hopefully while watching your rapist get severely punished.
But if you chose to have sex, then as a man you're choosing to give your sperm the chance to make a baby, and as a woman you're choosing to give your egg a chance to get fertilized and take up residence in the womb you provide for that purpose.
Don't want the womb used for that? Then get rid of it
Arturo Ui said...
Drago said...
Drago (to Arturo):
"Now that we have dealt with that, can you answer the following questions:
1) What is a woman?
2) When does life begin and what is the scientific basis for your answer?
3) At what point should the law protect human life?"
Arturo Ui: "You first, cupcake."
LOL
As expected.
************
Ok, I'll bite.
1) A type of human being whom you have never even kissed.
2) The Bible says at first breath. This is my sincerely held religious belief, don't you dare challenge it.
3) See above.
So:
1: You're a moron
2: You're a religious zealot substituting your religious beliefs for scientific understanding
3: So, you're agreeing that it's quite proper to legally defend human life, whenever we've decided that it begins.
Works for me.
So, heartbeat abortion laws are where we should be. Thank you for clearing that up, Arturo
Arturo Ui said...
Let's say you have a body that is your own, that is literally you, it's not a "house, out in the country", and maybe let's lighten up on these hideous analogies. There's no analogy necessary to discuss bodily autonomy, unless you're trying to distance the discussion from the reality.
If we had bodily autonomy, and the Biden Admin respected it, there would be no "Covid vaccine" mandates of any sort.
So GFY, Arturo. That ship has sailed, and you leftists were at the helm.
If we had bodily autonomy, then there could be no gov't restrictions on pain killer purchase, and the only restrictions on usage would be of the form "you can't drive when you're under their influence".
Could you stop the lies? No? If you give up the lies you have nothing left?
That's what I thought
n.n said...
Casting couch? Child grooming? Friends with "benefits"?
Not rape, unless she reported it as such before she knew she was pregnant
Rape
Not rape. "Regret" is not rape
People's organs are of no use to them after they die but the government doesn't have the right to confiscate your organs at death. Does it?
The idea that the government has the right to dictate what someone does with their body is the epitome of tyranny.
The notion that the uterus is separate from the reproductive organs of the body is absurd, the uterus is part of a system which produces hormones which have a direct effect on the life of a woman.
Rosalyn C. said...
The idea that the government has the right to dictate what someone does with their body is the epitome of tyranny.
You mean like vaccine mandates?
How about prescription drug requirements? Or the FDA just banning drugs outright?
A lot of those drugs cause changes in my organs, changes the gov't does not allow me to do.
All perfectly legal. Because the US government has NEVER recognized a right to control one's body.
And until you promise to vote against every single politician who ever supported a Covid "vaccine" mandate, or "vaccine passports", you need to STFU about how "dictating what someone does with their body is the epitome of tyranny".
Because you're a proud member of the Party of complete fucking tyrants
"What about the appendix?
--
These days, "What about the appendage?"
2 women walking down sidewalk.
One enroute to baby shower, one en route to aborti-bus stop.
A Kennedy kid swerves his car onto sidewalk, hits both, both miscarry.
Are the unborn worthy of enhanced penalty in both cases?
"Because you're a proud member of the Party of complete fucking tyrants"
Do you know what party I am registered? You might be surprised.
"And until you promise to vote against every single politician who ever supported a Covid "vaccine" mandate, or "vaccine passports", you need to STFU about how "dictating what someone does with their body is the epitome of tyranny".
STFU?? Do you have anger and control issues, Greg? Is this a case of keyboard rage or is this an example of toxic masculinity? Frankly, I didn't think that was real, but now I'm wondering. I don't recall ever being addressed in such a hostile manner, except for
transwomen activists.
Am I responsible if someone makes a dumb assumption? No.
As far as the vaccine mandate is concerned, it was reasonable when the theory was that vaccines would prevent the spread of an unknown deadly virus. But once we knew that vaccinated people also got infected and spread the virus the mandate was excessive and still is. So were the lockdowns. Only the elderly and immuno compromised needed to isolate themselves, certainly not young healthy people who were not dying of Covid.
Rosalyn C. said...
As far as the vaccine mandate is concerned, it was reasonable when the theory was that vaccines would prevent the spread of an unknown deadly virus.
1: We knew starting in September of 2021 that that was not true. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
The Biden* Admin Covid "vaccine" mandates were issued in Nov of 2021. The Medicare one was approved by 5 members of SCOTUS, including the 3 pro-Roe voters, in Jan os 2022.
Long after it was entirely clear that there is no justification for the mandates other than a lust for gov't power
2: Social Security is heading for bankruptcy because of decreases in the birth rate. If "your decision harms society" is justification for violating bodily autonomy, then the same grounds that justifies vaccine mandates equally justifies laws against abortion
3: You accuse us of engaging in "the epitome of tyranny", then whine that I have "anger issues"?
Look in a mirror if you want to see anger issues
I'm glad to see Greg The Class Traitor is capable of composing a somewhat measured response: no STFU's and proclamations about my political party affiliation this time. However he appears to be stuck in misinterpretation of my original post where I was clearly opposed to govt. control over the bodies of individuals. He appears to be deliberate in his need to accuse me of supporting government mandates and placing me in some camp which does not represent my views. I fail to see how characterizing a government which imposes its power on the bodily functions of its citizens as the "epitome of tyranny" has the same tone as making hostile and aggressive statements such as STFU and
As far as the quoted study, I did look at it and there is no proof that vaccines weren't effective, just statistical analysis
of a lack of correlation between percentage of population vaccinated and the rate of COVID infections. In fact the
authors conclude: "In summary, even as efforts should be made to encourage populations to get vaccinated it should be done so with humility and respect." They weren't suggesting that vaccinations were ineffective or useless, which you seem to claim in your comment. They weren't challenging or opposing govt. policy.
I recommend re-reading my original comment. I argued against the suggestion that an organ in the human body could be requisitioned or be the sovereign domain of someone other than the person it resides within.
Rosalyn C. said...
However he appears to be stuck in misinterpretation of my original post where I was clearly opposed to govt. control over the bodies of individuals
Did I miss the comments on previous posts where you slammed "Covid vaccine mandates" with the same fervor you showed here? If so, provide a link showing one from back then, and I'll apologize.
But it's my experience that 99.999% of the people calling laws against abortion "tyranny" voted for Joe "vaccine mandate" Biden and other pro-mandate Democrats.
As far as the quoted study, I did look at it and there is no proof that vaccines weren't effective, just statistical analysis of a lack of correlation between percentage of population vaccinated and the rate of COVID infections.
A statistical analysis that shows that "giving people the shots" fails to lead to a decrease in Covid transmission is pretty much solid proof that the shots don't decrease transmission on a population basis.
Which destroys the claim that the mandate is about protecting other people from you.
When you are pushing a policy of "we want to force everyone to do X, because it will cause Y", the burden of proof is on you prove that X (getting the Covid shots) actually does lead to Y (decrease in transmission of Covid to other people). You can't find any even remotely honestly done study that looks at data post Sept 1, 2021, and finds support for that claim
As for the last, I am a user of the scientific method, because I find it effective. I dont' give a shit about the claims of "scientists" that aren't actually backed up by experimental evidence.
The experiment says "the shots are shit" (and I've been replicating the experiments using the latest data over the last 9+ months. The results just get worse for the shots as time goes on, often giving "more shots == more disease / shopitalization". This isn't a one off thing). What the scientists say without any evidence is entirely unimportant
I recommend re-reading my original comment. I argued against the suggestion that an organ in the human body could be requisitioned or be the sovereign domain of someone other than the person it resides within.
If that were true, then you could sell your organs.
Which, last I checked, is blocked by Federal law. Everyone in the organ donation business gets paid, except for the donor
Post a Comment