Said Gabrielle Blair, quoted in "Gabrielle Blair Would Like a Word With Men/After 16 years of making a name for herself as a blogger and home decor expert, Design Mom has written her manifesto — about reproductive health" by Kase Wickman (NYT).
The NYT article seems to be a reaction to the fact that a book Blair created out of a 64-post-long Twitter thread has debuted at No. 2 on The New York Times’s paperback nonfiction best-seller list.
Here's the Twitter thread, and here's the book: “Ejaculate Responsibly: A Whole New Way to Think About Abortion.”
Now, my readers may be saying tough luck for Althouse. She could have written a book called "Don't Be a Splooge Stooge," but Blair got to the best-seller list first. Of all my unwritten books, that's the one I'm least sad about not devoting a year of my life to.
Blair's point isn't exactly the same as mine. I was responding to the argument that men — because they don't have the right to choose to end a pregnancy — shouldn't have to pay child support for children they didn't want. I said both men and women have a right to decide what happens within their own body, and, anatomically, for men, the right ends when he ejaculates. You need to exercise care and control while you can. You can't extend your power into the sovereign domain of the woman's body, and, if your child is born, it deserves the economic support of both of its parents.
Blair addresses opponents of abortion. She's mad at abortion opponents who are male and who go after women for failing to adequately guard their body from pregnancy. Men need to focus on what men can do, which is to insure that they never impregnate a woman. If you had to never impregnate a woman, you could, she says. Read the book — or the Twitter thread — to see her advice in full. In short: Unless you want to create a new life — or unless you've had a vasectomy — you should never ejaculate into a woman's vagina.
She does not address the one circumstance that led to my "splooge stooge" series: The woman retrieves a used condom from the trash and uses it to impregnate herself.
By the way, Blair has 6 children. The first tweet in her "ejaculate responsibly" series is:
I’m a mother of six, and a Mormon. I have a good understanding of arguments surrounding abortion, religious and otherwise. I've been listening to men grandstand about women's reproductive rights, and I'm convinced men actually have zero interest in stopping abortion. Here's why….
Why is she "convinced men actually have zero interest in stopping abortion"? Because they keep ejaculating into women's vaginas!
What should male abortion opponents do?
Stop protesting at clinics. Stop shaming women. Stop trying to overturn abortion laws. If you actually care about reducing or eliminating the number of abortions in our country, simply HOLD MEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
It gets really intense and punitive. I was just saying men owe child support. Blair says:
What if there was a real and immediate consequence for men who cause an unwanted pregnancy? What kind of consequence would make sense? Should it be as harsh, painful, nauseating, scarring, expensive, risky, and life-altering… as forcing a woman to go through a 9-month unwanted pregnancy?
In my experience, men really like their testicles. If irresponsible ejaculations were putting their balls at risk, they would stop being irresponsible. Does castration seem like a cruel and unusual punishment? Definitely.
It's a thought experiment.
But is it worse than forcing 500,000 women a year to puke daily for months, gain 40 pounds, and then rip their bodies apart in childbirth? Is a handful of castrations worse than women dying during forced pregnancy & childbirth?
Put a castration law on the books, implement the law, let the media tell the story, and in 3 months or less, tada! abortions will have virtually disappeared.
This argument also works as a cure for all sorts of misbehavior. The government could cut off the hands of thieves and execute tax evaders. But, obviously, Blair isn't really coming after you with pruning shears.
Can’t wrap your head around a physical punishment for men? Even though you seem to be more than fine with physical punishments for women?
The "punishments for women" come from nature. We're the ones with the self-punishing anatomy (if you want to characterize pregnancy and childbirth as punishment).
Okay. Then how about this prevention idea: At the onset of puberty, all males in the U.S. could be required by law to get a vasectomy.
Reverse your vasectomy if and when you decide you want to be a father. There's your right to choose. I mean it would be if you were choosing the vasectomy, but Blair envisions forced vasectomy.
Again, it's a thought experiment. Blair is trying to come up with ideas that lie within the power of men, to give something for men to do instead of trying to control women. Men can get a vasectomy. But she wants to express anger and outrage at men for directing their efforts at the things women do to their bodies, so she's jacking up the aggression and visualizing cutting off men's testicles and forcing vasectomies on little boys.
And there is a market for this book, so some people are finding these visualizations interesting, funny, or exciting.
123 comments:
How about injecting women who come of age with Norplant. No pregnancies, and it lasts for years. Since WE are the ones who get pregnant, it really is up to US to protect ourselves. Murdering your baby isn't a good answer. Especially when there are so many ways to stop it first. And if men are so icky, why are you having sex with them??
And there is a market for this book, so some people are finding these visualizations interesting, funny, or exciting.
Flip the genders. Women are forcibly surgically sterilized at puberty and have the procedure reversed when they decide to have children.
Will the same people find that funny or exciting?
Would that thought experiment get published at all?
Now, my readers may be saying tough luck for Althouse. She could have written a book called "Don't Be a Splooge Stooge," but Blair got to the best-seller list first. Of all my unwritten books, that's the one I'm least sad about not devoting a year of my life to.
ha ha ha
wow
you rock Althouse!
It sounds so unfair for women. So let's be unfair for men.
Doesn't sound like she's ever had to deal with children.
Blair addresses opponents of abortion. She's mad at abortion opponents who are male and who go after women for failing to adequately guard their body from pregnancy. Men need to focus on what men can do, which is to insure that they never impregnate a woman.
The only way to "insure" that we men "never impregnate a woman" is to never have sex with a woman.
Is that the plan? I know I'm a man, and I'm not supposed to say anything about this sacred subject of getting rid of unwanted children. But I would like to humbly suggest, that if all men everywhere bow down to the feminist movement and agree that we will insure that we "never impregnate a woman,"
most women would hate that shit!
and humanity would die out, completely die out
with the exception of a few rabid and crazed females who raid the sperm banks and run off with the splooge stooge storage tubes.
The feminists are like, "we have a plan!"
no sex again!
beautiful plan, ladies
I'm keeping my cock and balls, thanks
Maybe the NYT can run an article with a headline that says something like
Our Plan Is To Take Your Cock and Balls When You Are Six -- And You Cannot Stop Us
I imagine that the single most effective way to avoid pregnancy is to simply avoid intercourse as a recreational activity. Just a mind experiment, of course. That would get the job done, and nobody gets their balls cut off. Abortionist would then have to study podiatry or or veterinary science.p.
- Krumhorn
Women are the ones who wire men to like pussy. Abstractly there's nothing to recommend pussy. It's the one who had the kid last that's responsible for the wiring.
If you had to never impregnate a woman, you could, she says.
Allegedly there was a Christian who believed Jesus when he suggested ripping out your eyeball if it caused you to sin.
And he ripped off his cock and balls.
My suggestion, in 2022, is that this follower of Christ, is very likely in heaven now, in a big way. He's in heaven because he attempted to follow Jesus as best he knew how.
But (obviously), he made a huge mistake. It is a horrible misinterpretation of scripture to think that men are obligated (because of our lust) to rip off our cock and balls.
Jesus loves us and does not want us to harm ourselves.
So, despite our lust and our hunger for women, Jesus Christ does not want us to cut off our balls and cocks. (I could go all "testicles" and "phallus" if I wanted to impress the scientists on the thread).
Nor does Jesus want us to cut off the balls and cocks of our six-year-old children.
I mean, we could pretend that a Christian from the 4th century (or whenever) is the only person who's ever made a mistake. Or maybe somebody in the NYT would like to tell us if they really want us to castrate our little boys. Because of that evil lust thing that causes girls so much pain.
You fucking idiots. Women have sons. And brothers. And fathers. Women like men. This is why, despite your fucking name, feminists, most women want nothing to do with you.
Try to be a humanist! It will make you nicer people! I swear!
Oral and anal solves this problem.
If the NYT is still trying to stop the red wave tomorrow, it's screwed the pooch (again).
Your fucking Woke editors are beyond childish.
They were badly indoctrinated in Ivy League classrooms where no Republican is allowed to mock the shit out of them. (Legally, Republicans could mock the shit out of them, of course, but this tiny number of people are hugely outnumbered and are terrified, and are hunkering down like little rabbits just trying to get the diploma).
So then you graduate from the Ivy League, and you get a job at the NYT, and you are convinced that you are a smart fucking woman, and no man will stop you
And you get the shit embarrassed out if you in public.
If you want to avoid public embarrassment in the future, NYT, you might write some sort of fucking editorial about how there ought to be more Republicans in the Ivy League.
Just to keep the woke damn feminists from embarrassing the fuck out of your newspaper.
I like newspapers. I wish they weren't losing their minds. I doubt I'm ever going to give you money again. You might talk to some capitalists about fund-raising strategies.
But this idea you have of just following your Woke Sisterhood to Control All Men is about the shittiest idea a capitalist ever came up with. (And I know you are the NYT and so no capitalists are allowed to work there. Frankly I'm surprised men are allowed in the place).
All white men! Out! Now! This is an estrogen-zone and you don't have enough! (You black men can stay, we love you, but don't say shit to us).
How about: Women Don’t Spread Your Legs?
"Of all my unwritten books, that's the one I'm least sad about not devoting a year of my life to."
Lovely.
Like idiocracy points out, only responsible men take these steps.
The magic sentence: "I've been listening to men grandstand about women's reproductive rights, and I'm convinced men actually have zero interest in stopping abortion."
The magic sentence takes what maybe one person has said or done and generalizes it to all members of a target group.
She's mad at abortion opponents who are male and who go after women for failing to adequately guard their body from pregnancy. Men need to focus on what men can do, which is to insure that they never impregnate a woman.
I always appreciate an argument where the hypocrisy is built right in. Men can’t tell women what to do says the woman who wrote a book telling men what to do. Prior to pregnancy, women have all the same choices men have. After pregnancy, men have none of the choices women have. For equality.
Anyone who calls abortion "reproductive health" is a lying shotweasle and should be publicly mocked.
Also, a little Christian commentary...
the word "if" is very important in what Jesus is saying.
This is Matthew 5:27
Concerning Adultery (I would read this broadly to include any sex crimes).
You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
The Israelis, everybody knows what bad-asses the Israelis are, the Israelis would fuck you up if you committed adultery.
Strangely, this stone-the-whore rule only seemed to affect women. In the cafe thread I talk about Jesus defending a woman accused of adultery.
You might ask yourself, what happened to the man? Did she commit adultery by herself? Isn't the man supposed to get the rock too? This problem doesn't seem to have occurred to the men who want to stone the whore to death.
I'm pretty sure Jesus saw the problem there (among other things). As we all know, I'm a big fan of the man.
If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
When I was a kid, I was like this. "Tear my eyeball out? I'm not doing that shit! I know Jesus is right on everything, but I don't understand this at all. And I'm not reading anymore."
(Christianity is for adults).
Now that I'm an adult, and I've lived for many decades, and I've been to law school, which is a great way to avoid indoctrination and learn how to think, I would just simply say this...
The word "if" is very important.
If your right eye causes you to sin...
Sometimes men say
"my little brain got me in trouble"
blaming our penis
But God created our penis
Our penis is innocent.
Our balls are innocent, too.
I'm not sure I agree with the NYTs that this book is about "reproductive health"
...and yet they hate incels.
Also, if you think I'm full of myself, and a big sinner and a hypocrite...
Well, it gets pointed out to me in Bible study. More than once! Usually I figure it out myself because Jesus is talking to me.
And me and my three degrees get embarrassed by people who don't have high school diplomas.
Bible study is an education. Mock it if you want to. But if you haven't done it, you're ignorant as fuck. And you really don't know what you're talking about.
Who is taking the time to write a book about contraception post Roe??? It's the same world! And I can guarantee NO ONE IS ORDERING THIS BOOK!!! I've yet to hear it in the news or social media.
Now reverse the sexes and talk about the dark side of female sexuality:
- The successful use of the "nuts and sluts" defense in many thousands of cases, where the woman was found to be insane and manipulative.
- Women who regard sexual conquests as esteem building and pressure unwilling men to action.
- Women who aggressively sleep their way to the top. The Hollywood casting couch didn't begin with Harvey Weinstein, nor did it begin with with Roman Polanski in 1977. See ancient Rome.
- Women who manipulate a second man as a side resource and keep them dangling as long as man #1 sticks around.
It takes two to tango.
While it's true my dick has led me places I wouldn't even go with a gun, this still sounds an awful lot like shaming.
Books off our bodies!
I thought you said that you had to work today St. Croix... .
Ahhh the woman who calls herself a Mormon so she can bash the Church from the left and has more notoriety with the left. I saw this thread originally. Her views on sex don't really leave her husband looking good.
I've gained new perspective since the splooge stooge brouhaha all those years ago. So many people try to reinvent the fidelity and trust of marriage to modern sexual ethics. It won't work.
I study the Bible plenty. Every time I go to a hotel and take a dump looking for something to read. The Gideons never let me down.
"Men need to focus on what men can do,"
You know what men can do? We can vote and participate in representative democracy, just like women.
"reproductive health"
Not sure a pro-abortion writer is going to make any converts with that trope. Who came up with that, anyway? Seems like a term Althouse might want to investigate, if she hasn't already done so. Since abortion prevents reproduction and destroys the health of at least one human being, it always seemed an odd choice.
"Unless you want to create a new life — or unless you've had a vasectomy — you should never ejaculate into a woman's body."
Is that so?
Mormon mother of six heartily endorses bukake.
For those wondering whatever happened to Laslo...
If the consequences of unwanted pregnancy are so clearly and unfairly arrayed against the err..birthing person, perhaps they are the potential stooge for submitting to unprotected sex.
But while we're at it, refer back that ridiculous article posted here a while back bemoaning MEN sabotaging condoms.
Upside down world continues.
NY State literally allows infanticide.
Abortion has become ghoulish child sacrifice. I’m beginning to suspect that covens of witches are pulling up to the backs of hospitals and clinics to collect the baby parts and blood for their boiling cauldrons.
The time to say “No, you can’t have any more!” to women is now.
I stopped being bullied by rotten women decades ago. You want to exchange insults about irresponsibility, I’ll tear you a new one.
“Stop whoring! Keep your panties on! Stop spreading your legs.” I tell them.
Shame the bitches. Don’t put up with them.
I lived in Woodstock, NY for 45 years. The streets are full of kids virtually abandoned by whoring, rotten women who bounce from one man to another. They can take their lectures about responsibility and shove them up their stinking cunts.
I wonder how many people were unplanned and initially unwanted pregnancies? I bet it's a pretty high percentage. Of all the times you've made love, how many times did you do it intending to create a child?
She sounds angry and more than a bit wacky. Nobody is “forcing 500,000 women” to get pregnant and carry to term. Such insane straw-woman argument is not going to change any minds. Her punishment theme is ridiculous and extended too far. She provokes thought all right. In conclusion I also think her NYT ranking is probably bullshit pre-election issue manipulation and she’ll disappear from the rankings by Thursday.
It does take two to tango after all. The old saying is new again?
A modest proposal. An abortion costs, say $800.00. Promise the guy half that amount if he manages to eject out of the airplane before he releases his bomb load.
It can't be that hard. Male porn performers do it all the time.
Everybody comes out ahead.
There used to be an entire cultural apparatus for avoiding unwanted pregnancy: chaperones, coming courting to the girl's house, seeing the girl at the church or square dance. The car and the pill changed all that. Abortion is not birth control. There is a significant risk of becoming sterile. After being careless some girls realize they cannot abort, too emotionally ripping.
There is also a premise that the boy has no interest in the fetus. Not true.
When I was a young lad my Dad gave me Rule # 1, Don’t Fuck Crazy Chicks. It’s the best advice I’ve ever gotten.
Tango almost never results in pregnancy.
This woman must have had one or more terrible pregnancies and childbirth experiences. I loved being pregnant (for one thing, sex gets even better because of increased blood flow), and my body was definitely not "torn apart" by childbirth. Plus there's the whole "I have three kids whom I cannot imagine being without, for whom I would walk into fire, and who, because they exist, have the chance to do something great for humanity" thing.
I sort of agree philosophically with getting both men and women to be responsible in how, when, and with whom they participate in sexual activity that can lead to pregnancy, but good golly, Miss Molly, is she saying that avoiding the need for abortion is a "whole new way to think about abortion"? Because that's a very old and normal pro-life way of thinking about abortion.
Admittedly I don't know any pro-life person who would also engage in speculation about bodily mutilation, even as a thought experiment. Being pro-life and all.
The author's way of presenting these thought experiments is kind of troubling... It sounds, from the excerpts, a lot more like gleeful malice then an attempt to be helpful.
Beta cuck Republican men are doing what men can do. That is use all of their powers to try and dominate women. But women are like Mercury. Then you Incels whine and cry when you can't get a bye your leave let alone laid.
"Men need to focus on what men can do,..."
I don't disagree with her on this. I've always felt this way. If you're not willing to stick around for the duration, keep it in your pants. It is particularly bad in certain communities that have a very high rate of single parent 'families' and men with multiple baby mamas. And it is a killer for entire communities when it comes to that.
That said, she gets pretty extreme when it comes to cutting off man-parts. But I caution her to be patient. The women's movement and it's extreme spinoffs such as gender fluidity and wokeness, have spawned a generational shift on how men are to behave, think, and act. And as it turns out, the drugging of a couple of generations of young boys, along with the shaming of masculinity, the preaching of toxic masculinity, the over-stressing of the wonderfulness of women while constantly harping on the evilness of men, has created a generation of Beta Boys. Testosterone levels are dropping precipitously across all Western nations. Boys are not turning into men, but turning into themselves and staying boys, even as the grow older. Dropping out of school, staying at home, making no progress in their lives.
So, in the not too distant future, I'm not sure impregnating women callously will be the first issue on any woman's mind. They'll be looking for a few good men.
Althouse,
of your child is born, it deserves the economic support of both of its parents.
That's a fine principle. Now let's bring "Baby Moses" laws into the discussion, along with issues around the presumption of paternity.
A lot of 'feminist' fiction seems to fantasize about hurting men. 'The Power' by Naomi Alderson is the latest example but there are many others.
I think G.K. Chesterton said, 'A good novel tells us the truth about its hero but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author.'
I thought you said that you had to work today St. Croix...
Yes, but sometimes I play hooky!
(When I was a kid I would sneak out of Sunday School and walk over to the drug-store and get a coke and read comic books instead. Hell raiser fourth grader! That was me).
Should it be as harsh, painful, nauseating, scarring, expensive, risky, and life-altering… as forcing a woman to go through a 9-month unwanted pregnancy?
There is this mental virus women have that men are injecting these nano explosives into their vaginas during sex and that women constantly die at huge rates from pregnancy.
This stat is as true as the 'thousands' of unarmed black men gunned down by cops: bogus if you look into it even a little bit.
Madam Moron...excuse me, Mormon, Maria Kang would like a word with you about how terrible and disfiguring pregnancy is.
https://honey.nine.com.au/latest/maria-kang-fit-mom-whats-your-reason-picture/c2a34a57-e8cb-4d0a-8267-bf5731e0dc20
We can all laugh at the Christian in the 3rd century (or whatever century it was) who damaged himself out of guilt and shame.
But our 21st century thought leaders
might ponder if any people in our era
have damaged themselves out of guilt and shame
and you might also wonder
if the AMA and all the rich doctors are profiting from this.
Breaking into your uterus in order to scrap out the baby you created might damage your body, you know.
Tearing the balls and cock off a 6-year-old who was caught wearing a dress might be a mistake, you know.
Instead of putting your anger out there against the males who had sex with you
or the person who aborted you
or the universe who doesn't love you
you might try asking the Lord for help. Ask God to forgive your sins and heal you. Because we're all sinners, and we all make mistakes (sometimes very ugly, very bad mistakes)
But the amazing thing about Christianity is that you can be forgiven for the biggest atrocities.
"Amazing Grace" was written by a slave-trader.
This woman believes in Joseph Smith, his mysteriously disappearing gold tablets, and the book he wrote while staring into his hat with stones in it. Nothing she says need be taken seriously.
I wonder how many people were unplanned and initially unwanted pregnancies?
I was. My dad (I'm 57) still resents me to this day because I was conceived.
If I had been conceived eight years later I probably wouldn't be here today.
Another dang manifesto. You'd better have a cabin in Montana to go with that manifesto, lady!
One of the great things about being or thinking like a Democrat woman is getting to reduce killing babies to a political, as opposed to moral, issue.
Actually, one of the great things about being a Democrat and a moral relativist - and I would argue that the two go hand in hand - is being able to reduce everything to a political issue.
Human embryology and logic hold that human life begins at conception. The unborn are innocent having had no opportunity to be otherwise. Consequently, abortion kills an innocent human being. That is a moral issue. I don't know, but I'm guessing that act is not consistent with Mormonism, so why is she telling us she's a Mormon?
As for men holding forth about abortion, it is certainly appropriate for honorable men to oppose homicide of the innocent.
I read somewhere that the guy who got his penis cut off while he was sleeping
John Wayne Bobbitt
tried to become a stand-up comedian.
That's awesome. God bless you, brother. Take your pain and make art of it. Make some comedy if you can.
I have no opinion on whether he raped his wife or not. But if you read this story
buried way deep in it, is this little nugget
She had an abortion, however, after finding out she was pregnant, saying later that she wanted to have the baby but John told her he didn't think she could handle a child. She was too afraid to keep it, she said.
I read elsewhere that she cut off his penis on the anniversary of her abortion.
Howard (6:57): "I study the Bible plenty. Every time I go to a hotel and take a dump ...."
Howard kurzgesagt!
As others have pointed out, in most cases, both sides have the ability to decide when and if tab A goes into slot B and whether it stays there for the duration. If a pregnancy happens the man and the woman are on the hook for the result. Full Stop.
Society has decided that casual sex is a good thing and somehow still wants to blame the men for the monster it created.
Abortion is the evil option to an earlier bad choice. Consequences for bad choices should be appropriate to discourage the bad choice. Women bear a much higher consequence, but men can be legislated into bearing a larger burden in such a way as to discourage the initial bad choice, but that does not include physical or chemical castration unless he is a multiple offender or uses force or coercion.
1. All pregnancies go to term unless there is danger to the woman
2. both parties fully responsible for the result of pregnancy
3. No man forced to care for a child he was not the donor to.
4. Boys who were seduced by women are not held responsible.
Anecdote. My mother got pregnant as a teen and put the child up for adoption to an unknown couple. 60 years later she flew to Boston to spend time with her first born and see her two grandsons. It was a good trip. My half sister had a great life is is a wonderful person. Abortion is evil.
I'm convinced men actually have zero interest in stopping abortion.
I'm a man.
I feel like I say too much about it!
Let me know if I need to double my output.
Thanks, hillbillies.
Why shouldn't men have an opinion on abortion? The same party complaining says men can have babies.
My pro-life book, by the way, was not read by any publisher.
They wouldn't look at it.
It was not read by any agent.
They wouldn't look at it.
I had to self-publish. I got one reader review. Then she took it down.
I mailed out free copies to about 100 people, including the entire Supreme Court, every appellate judge on Trump's list, every Senator on the judiciary committee.
I did what little I could.
I really do care. If I talk about abortion in public I will start crying. You can laugh at me, but that's what will happen. If you have some theory that males have no feelings, you're wrong.
The NYT has a powerful platform and they are on the wrong side of this.
I love Althouse because she has always kept me on her platform (except that time we all got booted).
If you want to actually do journalism, lady, talk to some male pro-lifers and find out why they say what they say. It's not rocket science. And it's far better than fantasizing about violence and killing people.
A man tried to kill Brett Kavanaugh earlier this year.
You want to see an ugly and mean and selfish human heart? Look in a fucking mirror.
I think the body sovereignty argument has some value and force. But as soon as one goes there, the male-female privileging of who gets to speak vanishes. If it's your body, by what right does some other woman get to have an opinion about the abortion, or about abortion in general either? Why would some random woman on the telly have more say than a man, even the father? Yet this keeps coming up over and over. It is an emotional rather than logical argument, and I have to think it derives from the feeling that "women are always left holding the bag on everything" attitude. I see no reason to regard such people as eligible to be in a logical discussion, whether thy be male or female (because some males will make this male-ineligibility argument as well).
I think this also ignores the significant prolife support from females, trying to paint the picture as a male-female divide. I suspect there is a fantasy that if men were disallowed from the discussion, prochoice legislation everywhere would be automatic.
I think there are answers to the body sovereignty argument, but I am not including them here, as I think they muddy the water.
I've been listening to women grandstand about men my whole life. Deal with it, sistah.
How about equal opportunity forced sterilization after the 2nd abortion. Male or female, your DNA being involved in 2 or more elective abortions would indicate an inability to manage your fertility. For men it wouldn't matter if the two+ abortions were by the same woman or different women. DNA test the aborted fetus and then judicially apply the remedy to stop unwanted pregnancies among the irresponsible.
"Society has decided that casual sex is a good thing and somehow still wants to blame the men for the monster it created. "
Yes, the periodic news reports greeted with great concern that teens are having less sex are an indication. In my teen years, teenagers having less sex would never have made the newspaper as they don't print good news. Instead we got crisis reporting that fewer young people are engaging in promiscuous sex and there's fewer future workers to support the aging population.
Finally. Someone else makes the point that men cheer for abortion precisely so they may behave irresponsibly. How could women believe they’re not being played? Again.
Howard is off his meds again. I guess that is in anticipation of tomorrow night.
Lots of insults but not much thinking.
Years ago, I met a young woman patient with some surgical problem I don't remember. She was a grad student at UC Santa Barbara, as I recall. She was 27 and told me she had had 7 abortions. She was on Medicaid, of course. A role model for feminism.
"Beta cuck Republican men are doing what men can do. That is use all of their powers to try and dominate women. But women are like Mercury. Then you Incels whine and cry when you can't get a bye your leave let alone laid."
You should stick to Porn-Hub where your kink fantasies about Republicans are portrayed.
"Of all my unwritten books, that's the one I'm least sad about not devoting a year of my life to."
I'm stealing this.
Antinatalism and nonreproductive rights move onward and upward.
But by all means ejaculate responsibility.
And guard your precious bodily fluids with your life.
I dismiss the Mormon multimama's notions. Because she is a Mormon and I am not, and because she is not a man and I am.
Good points, interesting post.
BTW, it's "ensure", not "insure". Perhaps you have an OED take on it.
Regards,
Marcus B. THEOLDMAN
(getting ready for Hurricane Nicole)
Howard at 4:05 AM on the sunrise thread: "Sitting here gulping coffee at zero Dark Thirty before a predawn swim with my provaccine libtard friends not reply ng on molecules for health and vitality. Instead hard physical labor and exploring nature with friends. Not sour to the world...."
Howard at 8:02 AM on this thread: "Beta cuck Republican men are doing what men can do. That is use all of their powers to try and dominate women. But women are like Mercury. Then you Incels whine and cry when you can't get a bye your leave let alone laid."
Congratulations Howard. Your Serenity Now / One With Nature BS lasted about 4 hours!
That's gotta be a new record for you laddie. I assume you are just lashing out over the looming demise of all your Team Groomer/Child Mutilation/Inflation-Denialist policies.
You're in Boston right? There have got to be alot of therapists available there.
I'm not a theologian but ...
Fetuses are innocent, not having a chance to do anything yet. So if they are aborted, their souls should go directly to heaven, to live for eternity in the presence of God in unimaginable happiness. So to maximize the total happiness in the universe, there should be lots and lots and lots of pregnancies and quick abortions.
(I would like to thank Peter Singer for providing an example of following the logic and going where no one else wants to go.)
St. Croix,
Consider asking your young tattooed potential birthing unit if ze is fully jabbed, because fertility and still birth issues.
I was. My dad (I'm 57) still resents me to this day because I was conceived.
Gahrie, that's very unfortunate. Same for your brother? FWIW, the two of you made my high school years much more entertaining.
I’ve always thought that restricting abortion was the main way to reinforce the responsibility of men.
A society in which it is understood that Women and Children Can Be Careless but not Men wouldn’t have many abortions.
That’s not our society.
Look, the question is, "Is abortion murder?". Answer it as your reason directs. But if your answer is "Yes", the next question is, "Under what circumstances should murder be legal?".
So, whatever happened to the criminal allegation of rape... rape-rape h/t Whoopi culture? The witch hunts, the warlock trials, the baby... fetus... fetal-baby [American] prohibitions?
All's fair in lust and abortion? The "burden" of humanity h/t Obama.
How does democracy (i.e. gang) vote?
Feminists, masculinists, and social progressives want to keep women and girls affordable, available, and taxable, and the "burden" of evidence aborted, cannibalized, and sequestered under the Twilight Amendment to the Constitution.
Ladies and germs, informed consent, safe sanctuary, and shared responsibility follow with first choice. Love wisely... and avoid back... black holes... whores h/t NAACP. The Pro-Choice ethical religion denies the dignity and agency of women and men, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities under Diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism), Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE) doctrine.
Civilized society has a compelling cause to discourage the performance of human rites (e.g. murder or demos-cracy planned in darkness) for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes.
#HateLovesAbortion
Glad your paying attention peanut. Tough love, Drag-O You remember what it was like when you played the Richard Gere character with Clarence Thomas as Gunny Foley beating you silly with a feather boa...
"Look, the question is, "Is abortion murder?". Answer it as your reason directs. But if your answer is "Yes", the next question is, "Under what circumstances should murder be legal?"."
Actually, the question is who decides what to do about a pregnancy. Those who support access to abortion are not saying they think it isn't murder or that they think it is but it should be permitted. They are saying we don't get to the question unless the pregnancy is inside our own body.
There are sometimes threshold questions that take priority over more substantive questions, such as when a court decides whether it has jurisdiction or Congress decides whether it has an enumerated power.
It takes two to fertilize that egg....
If a man is FORCED to pay child support because of YOUR choice, the man SHOULD have a choice about the birth of HIS child. Fair is fair. Otherwise, stop sleeping with men you don't plan to have a future with.
Gahrie said...
I wonder how many people were unplanned and initially unwanted pregnancies?
I was. My dad (I'm 57) still resents me to this day because I was conceived.
If I had been conceived eight years later I probably wouldn't be here today.
11/7/22, 8:40 AM
Same for my younger brother, which is WHY I am pro life. I can't imagine life without him, and if abortion was legal then, he would have forced my Mom to have one.
Gahrie said...
I wonder how many people were unplanned and initially unwanted pregnancies?
I was. My dad (I'm 57) still resents me to this day because I was conceived.
If I had been conceived eight years later I probably wouldn't be here today.
11/7/22, 8:40 AM
Same for my younger brother, which is WHY I am pro life. I can't imagine life without him, and if abortion was legal then, he would have forced my Mom to have one.
You can't extend your power into the sovereign domain of the woman's body, and, if your child is born, it deserves the economic support of both of its parents.
You are extending your power to the sovereign domain of my body when you decide that I have to send the pay that I created with my body to that kid.
No one's body is their "sovereign domain". If ti was, there'd be no war on drugs, and there never would have been any sort of Covid mandate.
So the argument fails because it's completely divorced from reality
Blair addresses opponents of abortion. She's mad at abortion opponents who are male and who go after women for failing to adequately guard their body from pregnancy. Men need to focus on what men can do
Sorry, but you can't make that argument while failing to also make the argument that "women need to focus on what women can do."
You don't want to get pregnant?
1: Don't have sex
2: Don't have sex without effective birth control
Either those admonitions apply to both parties, or they apply to neither
And one of the reason why the pull out method doesn't work is that men leak out semen before ejaculation. So in addition to the argument being garbage, it's entirely ignorant of biological reality.
Ann Althouse said...
Actually, the question is who decides what to do about a pregnancy. Those who support access to abortion are not saying they think it isn't murder or that they think it is but it should be permitted. They are saying we don't get to the question unless the pregnancy is inside our own body.
The baby inside your body is a genetically distinct, separate human being.
Society has the right and power to protect people from other people who want to kill them. Even their parents
So no, once the being inside the womb is judged to be a living human being, the fact that that baby is temporarily dependent upon mom does not give mom the right to murder the baby, and does not preclude society for choosing to protect that baby from a murderous mother
If you actually care about reducing or eliminating the number of abortions in our country, simply HOLD MEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
I'm entirely in favor of holding EVERYONE responsible for their actions, both male and female.
it's why I've always supported a "rape exception" for abortion laws. Because in that case the woman did not chose to put herself in that situation.
But you can NOT claim that it's immoral to hold women responsible for their actions, but it's right to do so to men.
If a woman shouldn't be held responsible for the baby she helped to create, then neither should the man.
if the man should be so held (and I think he should be), then so should the woman.
One rule for everyone
When is any killing murder? When is it manslaughter? When is it negligent homicide?
When is it condign punishment? When is it laudatory heroism?
Human beans are good at nothing if not salami-slicing reality.
For myself, if I call abortion murder, all I've accomplished is to give something I can't prevent a tag. And it won't change anyone's opinion or action.
puke daily for months, gain 40 pounds, and then rip their bodies apart in childbirth
Oh give me a fucking break
This [histrionic bullshit] is why we can't have nice things, like women's suffrage
This woman believes in Joseph Smith, his mysteriously disappearing gold tablets, and the book he wrote while staring into his hat with stones in it. Nothing she says need be taken seriously.
Don't forget "married" several dozen women and teenage girls because God Told Him To Seek Out Sexual Novelty Amirite Guys
Two women in intersection passing by each other.
One walking to the aborti-bus stop, the other to an ultrasound appointment to see how her baby is progressing.
Out of nowhere, a wildly swerving car driven by Paul Pelosi side swipes them. Both miscarry.
Same charges? Life snuffed out or merely another man stealing a decision?
Howard, get back on your meds !
Fetuses are innocent, not having a chance to do anything yet. So if they are aborted, their souls should go directly to heaven, to live for eternity in the presence of God in unimaginable happiness. So to maximize the total happiness in the universe, there should be lots and lots and lots of pregnancies and quick abortions.
Peter Singer is a dumb fuck.
Don't play God.
Basic rule for Christians, Jews (and Muslims, too, I hope!)
But it's really a good rule for atheists who don't believe in God. Atheists think shit like, "God can kill people so I can kill people." Atheists are incurious morons who have no interest in the universe. In general I try to play nice with atheists. Many of them are sweet and unhappy about death and their future of decaying in a box.
But the atheists I loathe are the ones who want to kill people to make the world a better place. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Singer. And the fact that Singer is in the Ivy League, as opposed to some fucking bunker somewhere, does not make him a stronger mind.
If I were in your class, people would beg for their money back. Professor Singer, without a doubt, you are anti-human and your university is a death squad waiting to happen.
Sorry, I meant to say birthing units.
Damn it!
I was. My dad (I'm 57) still resents me to this day because I was conceived.
Gahrie, that's very unfortunate. Same for your brother? FWIW, the two of you made my high school years much more entertaining.
Nope. My parents were married in December of 1964, and I was born in June 1965.
Don't forget "married" several dozen women and teenage girls because God Told Him To Seek Out Sexual Novelty Amirite Guys
ha ha ha
I think feminism is destroying traditional marriage and building a society where one NBA player impregnates 9 women and they all have a separate house.
Just like the Mormons used to do!
Many women are negating and destroying the family, and baby-making, and instead are pursuing the seduction of rich people and celebrities, in the hopes that Feminist Court will award them money, money, and money.
The most fascinating part of the documentary The Red Pill for me is how the men wanted children and the feminists wanted dollars.
Note that feminists have defined the unborn baby as non-persons. And the Supreme Court created a $1 billion market place for baby parts. Create a baby = make $$$$$.
I am reasonably certain that our first woman President will be a Republican. And she will definitely be pro-life, and will fight this fight a lot better than any man. I thought Sarah Palin was going to be it. Now I think it might be Kari Lake.
The threshold between heroism and murder occurs legally around six weeks, later in some faiths, when baby meets granny in state, if not in process: baby is immigrating to life, while granny is emigrating from.
That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution in progressive philosophies is neither a good nor exclusive choice to relieve "burdens" of choice or preference.
Sorry, I meant to say birthing units.
Absolutely, no mystery, no dignity, no agency, and social progress through political congruence.
walter
that was funny
So far Charlotte has not become a pronoun hellhole.
Also, I'm vaccinated.
It's fine with me if she is, or is not.
Atheists are incurious morons
apologies for that
Yes. With just a little bit of planning and an ounce of responsibility, the vast majority of unintentional pregnancies can be avoided.
She says women only have about 24 days per year they can get pregnant. Maybe, then, they should avoid sexual encounters during those ~24 days? She also likes the "pull out" method which is apparently 96% effective at avoiding pregnancy. Cool. Ladies, to the extent you can avoid fucking, avoid it on the days you're ovulating and tell your partner to ejaculate somewhere other than inside your vagina. I think that most men would be willing to accommodate that kind of request. And, of course, there's no reason why a dude shouldn't put a sock on the pickle when having casual sex.
So some feminist chick gets "tired" of something men do, or that she is perceiving men to do. She attempts to establish some sort of bona fides by pointing out she has 6 kids.
Whatever.
It's not a particularly interesting article or book concept. It's just the same feminist man-hate as always, and as is frequently done it's wrapped in high dudgeon about being allowed to kill unwanted humans. Even her porn fantasies about castrating men etc are derivative of other feminist scribblers who wanted to shock their audience. Nothing original. Nothing interesting. Nothing of note to contribute to the ongoing debate about abortion.
I won't throw shade because she's Mormon. She's in the NYT and compared to the fantasies spun up in that liberal media trash, anything believed by devout Mormons (which she clearly is not) is well within the realm of believability.
Finally. Someone else makes the point that men cheer for abortion precisely so they may behave irresponsibly. How could women believe they’re not being played? Again.
Been saying this forever. The great and lauded Sexual Revolution gave men exactly what they wanted: women open to the zipless f*ck, and no consequences.
Two points about that statement: 1. The original feminist idea was merely that women have sexual desires that they too would like to indulge, and that it ought to be their decision how, when, and with whom to indulge them. It's morphed into women pretending to (yes, that's right, a lot of the time - not that we don't enjoy sex but our arousal pattern is not like men's hair trigger) want whatever kind of sex the guy they're interested in wants, whenever he wants it, because if they don't give it to him, some other chick will. Sex was our one currency and we gave it up.
And 2. It used to be that most men expected consequences and therefore went along with the rules - primarily that access to sex was in the woman's control. Even men who were not in themselves moral might still take a pause because of those consequences. Now, young men know that they can get any woman who's interested in them not just to make out a little, but to have literally whatever kind of sex they, the young men, want. So the ones who continue to live by the old rules, and thankfully there are still quite a few, are doing it not just because of the potential consequences but because they're good guys, raised by good parents.
Well, St. Croix,
I haven't specifically seen data that teases out a parental combo platter of MRNA..but I doubt it's good.
Carry on.
Jamie, that's a pretty gynocentric view. The young gals do largely seem to gravitate to the "bad boys" and all that goes with that.
Seeek a balanced view of this.
Women have final say.
Own it.
She's advocating no sex before marriage.
The Dems should take that and run with it.
Nothing I could say about abortion could add to this thoughtful discussion.
I'm only here to reiterate it's the New York Times "bestseller" list.
To get an abortion after 10 weeks, you should need to get an IQ test proving you are too stupid to have used all the multiple options available before that, so you have to score under 50.
I've heard hundreds of Democrat abortion ads over the last couple months, and not once has the fetus been mentioned or even alluded to. I wonder if they even no what an abortion is.
If I steal your wedding ring and swallow it, is it mine now, and my decision alone what to do with it. It's in my body. Wait, we are not talking about an inanimate object. That's right - we're not.
Walter, they've studied this.
I wish the anti-vaxxers would remember that Trump gets all the credit for the vaccine program.
Oh..the sperm quality as measured by quantity and motility in 33 donors.
That sounds like a complete assessment St. Croix. Yup. GMO sperm gonna run its race.
Now about the dysmennhorea, increased miscarriages and still births your young tattooed jabbed gal will risk....
Then there are the finding regarding those that are born.
No worries!
---The Gideons never let me down. [Howard]
We go to different hotels. No Gideon Bibles in the last half-dozen I have stayed at. At least one a Marriott. They are gone, gone, gone. What gives? Those Bibles perform a precious function. To be read when needed, even if that's only 1 in 100 hotel visitors. Plus Howard. He says.
"Gabrielle Blair Would Like a Word With Men/After 16 years of making a name for herself as a blogger and home decor expert, Design Mom has written her manifesto — about reproductive health"
Gabrielle Blair, keep your laws off my body. Aside from her control issues, her motivation isn't about reproductive health; it's about NOT reproducing. Stated differently, population control. Her manifesto is a corollary of the Communist Manifesto.
Can I say too how stupid it is to quit talking about "abortion rights" because they are polling badly, and the night before the elections you publish all these op-eds (in NYT, WaPo, USA Today) about "castration wrongs."
Think about that for 10 fucking seconds.
You want women to stop thinking about abortion rights, and start thinking about castrating men.
First off, any man who reads this shit, or hears about it, votes Republican.
Any woman who wants to get married one day, get pregnant one day, have children one day, votes Republican.
The number of people who want to castrate men is under 1%. You literally are giving 99% of the field to the Republicans. You'll be fucking lucky if most voters don't read this shit. Because if they do, you fucking dummies, they go even more red.
No Hispanic men will vote for you.
No African-American men will vote for you.
And no woman who wants a man, a wedding, a marriage, and a baby will vote for you.
So you better fucking hope your article reach is limited as fuck, you stupid damn leftists without a clue.
“So no, once the being inside the womb is judged to be a living human being, the fact that that baby is temporarily dependent upon mom does not give mom the right to murder the baby, and does not preclude society for choosing to protect that baby from a murderous mother“
Yes, a human embryo is alive and human, so it is a living human being. But human beings do not have an absolute right to life. If a living human being poses a threat of death, grave bodily harm, and in some jurisdictions intrusions into one’s home (or even car/business), one is justified in using lethal self defense. Insofar as one agrees that the state should not stop you from killing someone under these cases, then it follows that the state should not bar abortion to save the life or health of the mother. If one can kill an intruder into your home/car/business, I don’t see why a rape exception wouldn’t be licit as well.
If abortion is a right in cases of life/health/rape, then a practical question arises. It isn’t enough for an action to be bad, but getting the state involved comes with trade-offs. Can the law be enforced without sacrificing other civil liberties? Can the legal system adequately distinguish between legitimate vs illegitimate abortions? Do the resources necessary to do so take away from more pressing issues? My suspicion is that they do not, but maybe an abortion ban that carves out the above exceptions could be worked out.
As far as only women having a vote on abortion, I find this to be a poorly thought out argument. Can only dog owners advocate for a ban on dog fighting? Only immigrants get a vote on immigration law?
There are those wanna-be birthing units who want a birth product so much they kill the presumptive birthing unit while (non-sterily) extracting. I remember one in Milwaukee not so, so long ago.
@ anon2 - What a great and reasonable comment.
Yes, yes; men have responsibilities and women have rights, we've all heard it--so boring.
She puts a hole below the waterline of the "abortion is just about preserving women's bodily autonomy" argument with the castration and forced vasectomy suggestions, though--doesn't seem like she's all that concerned with bodily autonomy per se (just, again, women's "rights" above all).
Here's the rub, though (sorry): that's not a deal she'd actually take. The trade would be making abortion illegal in exchange for forced vasectomies or for castration as a judicial punishment for causing an unwanted pregnancy. But we KNOW she wouldn't accept making abortion illegal, even if those other conditions existed.
It's just a more-extreme version of the funny exchange I saw several times after the Dobbs decision was announced. A pro-choice person would huffily say "well if abortion is legally restricted like you want then men are going to have to pay child support and also pay to support the woman while she's pregnant!" and pro-life people happily agreed. Yeah, that's, you know, that's a great idea.
Anyway a woman with a strident argument in support of the Media-approved position on a hot button cultural issue gets boosted (and likely gains considerable wealth) based on a cliched, mediocre argument--not exactly earth-shaking stuff, here.
Post a Comment