The Right’s War on Women

Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger

 
I don’t think Barry Goldwater would recognize Conservatism or his Republican Party if he was alive today. Conservatism used to mean belief in safe and sound economic spending and freedom for all from governments getting too large and too restrictive on personal freedoms. Recently we have seen Republicans offer up a brand new and dangerous definition of rape in an attempt to restrict abortions and to restrict government money being used to pay for them. Now we are seeing another Republican attempt to restrict the use of contraceptives under the guise of ending the alleged use of Federal funds to pay for abortions.

A recent article outlined the legislation proposed by Rep. Mike Spence of Indiana to eliminate the entire $327 million dollar budget for Title X. Title X is a program that provides funding for women’s health and family planning costs. “The measure would eliminate all $327 million in funding for Title X, a family planning program that began 40 years ago under President Richard Nixon. And while Planned Parenthood receives millions of dollars from the program, Title X funds cannot be used for abortion services. The money is to be used for noncontroversial family planning services, mostly for low-income families.”

Rep. Spence and his fellow Republicans are trying to defund Planned Parenthood because it receives millions from Title X funds to assist women in their family planning and health matters. In order to try to end abortions without testing the strength of Roe v. Wade in the courts, the sponsors and backers of this bill don’t care if low-income women suffer by not getting the health care that they so desperately need. Many of these same legislators also backed the repeal of the Affordable Health Care act which would also assist low-income women get affordable health care.

The proposed legislation would end all monies from Title X and the effects of those funds drying up could be catastrophic for women. “The pro-abortion-rights group NARAL said the legislation would lead to more unwanted pregnancies by cutting funding for contraceptives. “The new anti-choice House leadership now wants to take away birth control and cancer screenings from millions of American women and men,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL. “While these politicians attack abortion coverage from every angle, they now want to deny funding for birth control, even though that’s the best way to prevent unintended pregnancy. Americans will not stand for this blatant hypocrisy.” ‘

Is it just me or do I detect a pattern here?  What do these mostly male Republicans have against women? I was thinking of writing an article asking when America will have its own “Egyptian” moment, but maybe I should ask when will American Women have their “Egyptian” moment?

Source: Raw Story

Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger

360 thoughts on “The Right’s War on Women

  1. “noncontroversial family planning services”…Rep. Mike Pence

    I think what he means is giving women useful family planning information like, “You should tell your husband he should keep his pants on.”

  2. Thanks Kay. The Republicans then would be considered radical Democrats now by this crop.
    HenMan,
    I think another translation would be we Men want to control women as much as we can because they are second class citizens. That is how I read it!

  3. All of these men in congress who seem to know whats best for woman and their rights.I have a suggestion that has been on my mind for a while. All these people who seem so against a womans right to chose,Have a registry of these people set to take care of these children so there will be no need for and abortion.

    In other words put up or shut up.

  4. I like that idea eniobob. I think we could also withold the viagara from the male members of Congress and the Senate and I think we may get their attention. No pun intended.

  5. A scenario:

    A sorcerer visits the maternity ward of a hospital, going from new mother to new mother, and offering them any or all of the following:

    – A job they would not otherwise be able to have.
    – Loads of money.
    – Freedom to enjoy her life without obligation.
    – Never having to see the father (who is abusive) again.
    – A cure for her terminal illness.

    And to complete the spell, she must merely sacrifice her newborn child.

    Is it a “war on women” to say the hospital should be kicking the sorcerer out the door? Should the hospital gladly invite the sorcerer into every last room rather than be accused of denying the women such opportunities? Is any mother who accepts the offer just exercising her rights?

    The abortion question ALWAYS comes back to this: when is the being growing within the womb not yet a child? At birth you clearly have a newborn baby and nothing, NOTHING excuses the mother or her doctor from killing it, even the mother’s own life.

    So track that same life back in time and point to where you think it hadn’t yet developed a right to live. Is there any logic behind your selection, or is it arbitrary? Is it a “war on women” that much of the population, many women included, disagree loudly with your assessment? That they might themselves have an issue with your “war on babies” and their right to live?

  6. The last clause in the proposed anti-abortion, anti-birth control legislation reads:

    “None of the above restrictions shall apply to any mistresses, call girls, hookers, bimbos, or lap dancers associated with any United States Senator or Member of the House of Representatives”.

  7. rafflaw,

    They just want to keep gals barefoot and pregnant, doncha know.

    Here’s John McCain being questioned on the issue of contraceptives for women and Viagra:

  8. It is a War on Women by Republican men who seem to hate women almost totally–except for (as stated above) any mistresses, call girls, hookers, bimbos, or lap dancers associated with any United States Senator or Member of the House of Representatives. Immaculate conception hasn’t happened for a few thousand years. Thus, there is a man in the equation of any baby that may possibly be aborted. It takes two to tango. Thus, anytime there is an abortion, the man who fertilized that egg should be held equally culpable; and, DNA testing will help to identify the man involved easily. If you lock up the woman and doctor involved in an abortion, then lock up the offending man who contributed to the situation with his sperm. As for contraception, it is presently legal and should be treated like all legal prescriptions including Viagra. If contraception were to be made illegal only for American women, the women of American should resort to the Lysistrata solution. That should be fun.

  9. From The American Independent (2/10/2011)
    DeGette, Pelosi see chance to seize on public opinion against GOP abortion bills
    http://www.americanindependent.com/169050/degette-pelosi-see-chance-to-seize-on-public-opinion-against-gop-abortion-bills

    Excerpt:
    Colorado U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the series of Republican anti-abortion bills introduced in the House this month presents pro-choice lawmakers with an opportunity to shed light on the motivations driving such bills. They said that, given the facts, the mainstream American public and complacent lawmakers will not only rally against these specific bills but also more readily stand guard against similar future efforts to cut back on women’s rights.

    The GOP bills– three of them at last count– would appear to have little chance of passing the Democratic majority in the Senate and even less chance of escaping a veto from the president.

    On a conference call with reporters, though, Pro-Choice Caucus leader DeGette focused on the rhetoric around the bills, which she said has so far been shaped largely by the Republicans sponsoring them. She said reporters keep writing that the bills are about cutting federal funding. That’s only true up to a point, she said, and it’s mostly a smoke screen.

    “They want to take this much further out. These bills are really about limiting women’s rights to reproductive care.”

    Reproductive care, beyond access to abortion, includes at very least providing counseling on sexual health and pregnancy and providing access to birth control that prevents pregnancy and defends against sexually transmitted diseases. It also means providing regular medical checkups that screen for diseases like HIV and breast and cervical cancer and that also ward off the onset or limit the advancement of other conditions that might reduce fertility.

    DeGette is gearing up for debate as soon as next week, for example, on the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act put forward by Indiana Rep. Mike Pence. Title X provides federal money for family planning.

  10. Elaine-

    As that video clearly showed, John McCain is a sad, pathetic shadow of that courageous young man of integrity who refused early release from a North Vietnamese P.O.W. hellhole unless all his fellow prisoners were also released.

    Today he has no fixed principles other than “what do I need to say or do to stay in the Senate”. He couldn’t answer the reporter’s questions because he hadn’t seen the poll numbers or gotten the G.O.P. talking points to see what the answer should be.

  11. HenMan,
    Hilarious! You did forget Congressional pages though!
    Elaine,
    Great video. I especially liked the one showing McCain as the “maverick” that he. What a goof. He belongs in Arizona with that thinking and his voting record. Maybe we can get Arizona to secede from the Union if Texas goes. Sort of a Two birds and one stone concept.
    Bonnie,
    I liked that idea. If the Republicans ever succeed in making all abortions illegal, then your idea would be a great response.

  12. Good catch Pete on the huge amount of money would be saved by screwing womens health care.
    Hen Man,
    I truly think McCain had a Senior moment there! Did you see his eyes? He was afraid to even open his mouth. It was the classic deer in the headlights moment. Or if your prefer, the Dan Quayle in the headlights moment.

  13. ShireNomad: “The abortion question ALWAYS comes back to this: when is the being growing within the womb not yet a child?”

    With all respect due, no, it doesn’t. The debate in law always comes back to the Forth Amendment regarding privacy. That is the basis for Roe v Wade. The Court has always applied a balancing test that involves viability as well as the health of the mother but the issue still boils down to privacy at its heart. If it didn’t, any state or the federal government could prohibit all abortion.

  14. Excellent article! I’m in Indiana and the proposals the republican led State legislature have come up with are outrageous.

    Governor Mitch Daniels usually tries to stay away from social issues but this is his last term. I believe our next governor will be Mike Pence and you’ve heard some of the draconian things he wants to do.

  15. Circle City,
    Thanks! You have our condolences, but to be honest I would prefer Pence in Indianapolis than WAshington, D.C. Maybe you can lead an uprising in the Hoosier State to prevent Pence from winning the governor’s race.

  16. Shirenomad:A sorcerer visits the maternity ward of a hospital, going from new mother to new mother, and offering them any or all of the following:

    – A job they would not otherwise be able to have.
    – Loads of money.
    – Freedom to enjoy her life without obligation.
    – Never having to see the father (who is abusive) again.
    – A cure for her terminal illness.

    And to complete the spell, she must merely sacrifice her newborn child.

    Is it a “war on women” to say the hospital should be kicking the sorcerer out the door?
    ________________________________________
    Other Societies do not make it an either -or- situation.
    These Repuglicans do not care about babies…they care about money-war-control and they couldn’t care less if women are beaten, raped, forced into prostitution or economic slavery, if children are starving or stolen for sex-traffic or other abuses.
    They may however dislike the loss of future soldiers or enslaved workers to keep the ranks of thier money grubbing machines swollen.

    I think Viagra should be outlawed. I think there has been a steady decline in rational behavior and thought processes and an increase in violence since this drug has been available.

  17. Have you noticed that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn’t want to fuck in the first place?

  18. I’m glad this issue is getting so much attention. It does not make any sense that a party so against abortion would support a bill that would create a situation that will lead to increased demand for abortions.

    Everytime I read a response to similar blog posts I am appalled at the responses coming from these “pro-life” people.

    The more attention we can bring to these issues the more the inhumanity of these people will be exposed.

  19. I was unemployed and uninsured for two years. As a woman in her late 40’s, regular OB/GYN check ups and annual mammograms are vital to my over all health. I couldn’t afford the services of a private physician, so I went to my local Planned Parenthood who provided me with the health care specific to my needs. I thank goddess for PP during that time!

    Contrary to the lies the GOP would like people to believe, PP is not an abortion factory, as the article Elaine M posted correctly points out. Abortions represent a small fraction of the services it provide. But the Right does not allow facts to get in the way of its need to destroy the rights and lives of women, particularly women who rely on entities like PP. Defunding PP and other entities that provide women with comprehensive reproductive health care is nothing more than a direct assault on women, our health and our rights. It seeks to ensure that women are firmly relegated to second class status whose only purpose in life is to be brood mares. For a party that consistently whines about limited government, it certainly has no problem with government interfering with my rights, my privacy and my health.

  20. Stanford Liberal: The republicans have declared war on Planned Parenthood as they did on ACORN. I think Planned Parenthood is in a better position to defend themselves but who knows what will happen if they are able to severley cut their funding.

  21. Conservatives Suggest Planned Parenthood May Be Criminal Enterprise

    I suggest that conservatives may be moralizing assholes attempting to force their religious beliefs upon our populace by force of law in contravention of the 1st Amendment. If conservatives want to moralize, they should go to church. Ours is a secular government and it is secular by design. The issues around Planned Parenthood are related to a woman’s health and her choices about her health. If her choices offend your conservative religious ideals? Too damn bad. If you want a theocracy? Move to Saudi Arabia.

    Oh, that’s right. They don’t use the same book of magical and wishful thinking as your lot do! What is a theocrat to do?

    I suggest you keep your “morals” at home and church and off the bodies of women who may not share your religious beliefs and/or delusions.

  22. I am just curious, why is OK to give money to this but not to business?

    You don’t like money going to subsidize business, I don’t like money going to subsidize death. You know that some of that money gets used for abortions.

    We should have to check mark a box on our 1040 form:

    subsidize business [ ]
    subsidize death [ ]

    you get to pick if where you want your tax dollars to go.

  23. Maybe because your opinion of what constitutes “death” is based on a fairy tale, not science, and that your moralizing is simply an attempt to force your religion upon those who may not share your religion by force of law in contravention of the 1st Amendment.

    As to business? We shouldn’t subsidize business in the form of bailouts. It’s simply corporate welfare. Your question, however, poses a false dichotomy. A woman’s health and choices regarding her health are not the equivalent of a business.

  24. From Woosty: “Other Societies do not make it an either -or- situation.”

    And neither do we. Acts that are undeniably murder may still be excused by reasons of justifiable homicide or necessity. If the situation the woman has been placed in is truly atrocious, then I excuse an abortion on THOSE grounds, NOT by pretending a child is not really a child.

    Also, a general point of advice: If you want me to believe you’re the side of logic and reason, don’t use a slur to describe the other side.

    From Lottakatz: “With all respect due, no, it doesn’t. The debate in law always comes back to the Forth Amendment regarding privacy. That is the basis for Roe v Wade.”

    And it was notably NOT the basis of Planned Parenthood v. Casey 15 years later, which instead upheld the right to an abortion based on stare decisis (that is, “we prefer not to change our minds, lest we be seen as fallible and inconsistent”).

    That said, yes, the Roe court said that abortion is an act covered under privacy… provided the fetus is not a person.

    “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.” – Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 156-57 (1973)

    And if the fetus is still not a person until 24 hours after it leaves the womb, then the sorcerer’s bargain is also an act of privacy, especially if it saves the woman’s life. (If you prefer, make it an actual medical procedure where the woman needs a blood donation, and there is a handy package containing her blood type right there!) If we say the fetus has no provable personhood until it speaks and proves its intelligence, or until it is 13 and arguably able to survive without support, or at some other point of your choosing, why, the woman could practice being a mother for a while, THEN decide she has not the time or resources to raise a child, and so exercise her privacy and liberty by sending the overgrown fetus to a doctor for euthanasia.

    But regardless, under Roe, absolutely the debate comes back to “is the fetus a person?” Arguing that privacy is the only factor forgets the key caveat I quoted.

    I remind you, by the way, of another Supreme Court case where personhood was considered. And the Court found in Dred Scott that, no, the black man was not a person with rights, and that the government did not have the power to impose its beliefs otherwise (which had no basis outside the morals of those pesky Republicans) to deprive an honest slaveowner of their property, or their right to use it as he saw fit. (Like Roe, a 7-2 decision.)

    George McKenna has spoken far better than I could on this subject, and I highly recommend his essay. I’ll close by quoting from it: “[Stephen A. Douglas] ruled out of order any debate on the morality of slavery. That was a ‘religious’ question. It had no place in a constitutional debate, and we had no right to judge other people in such terms. In one of his debates with Lincoln in 1858, Douglas scolded his opponent for telling the people in the slave states that their institution violated the law of God. ‘Better for him,’ he said, to cheers and applause, ‘to adopt the doctrine of “judge not lest ye be judged.”‘” http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95sep/abortion/abortion.htm

  25. question….

    I know there is a separate Federal health insurance plan for our representatives and the families of our representatives. Does this plan cover abortion? Any type of birth control? Viagra? Mammagrams? Pap smears? Male checkups for testicular cancer?

    Any of the things these ‘reps’ want taken out of the healthcare plans for citizens?

    And what are they trying to ram through in the dark that this public fight around abortion is so important now???

  26. “Also, a general point of advice: If you want me to believe you’re the side of logic and reason, don’t use a slur to describe the other side.”

    Sound advice that applies to so many of the comments on this site.

  27. BelgianBrain,

    Are you going to give credit where it is due for that joke?

    Some of us here know almost every George Carlin routine by heart.

  28. Just briefly, let’s take the notion of personhood to it’s logical conclusion.

    All fetuses are persons with the rights and privileges associated with that status. That being the case, the death of ANY fetus is a potential homicide. Therefore, every miscarriage, every death of every fetus-person, shall be ruled upon by a coroner to determine whether that death was caused by someone else, or can be ruled either accidental or an “act of God”.

    Any pregnant woman who takes a drink, does any drug, engages in behavior deleterious to the fetus-person, can be held liable. Then we can look into other risky behaviors and what punishments might be necessary. A woman who owns cats might be held liable for toxoplasmosis. And so on.

    Shall we really bring on the pregnancy police? I’m sure the Christian Taliban in this country would have no problem with that, but really, the fetus-as-person argument is just ridiculous.

  29. Swarthmore mom

    “Stanford Liberal: The republicans have declared war on Planned Parenthood as they did on ACORN. I think Planned Parenthood is in a better position to defend themselves but who knows what will happen if they are able to severley cut their funding.”

    Thankfully, PP has more monetary resources than ACORN. But, pulling critical government funding will still deliver a severe blow. It is moves like this that make my blood boil.

    —————————————————————

    Christian Conservative:

    “You don’t like money going to subsidize business, I don’t like money going to subsidize death. You know that some of that money gets used for abortions.”

    The government does not pay for elective abortions already. Only in cases where the Medicaid recipient’s life is in danger. You can put that stinky red herring away now.

    —————————————————————

    ShireNomad:

    A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation. At that point, it has a 20 to 35% chance of survival. Most abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of gestation. In very rare cases are they performed after said 12 weeks, and in those instances, it is usually for a variety of factors including, but not limited to chromosomal abnormalities or the fetus is sucking the life blood out of the mother and is jeopardizing her life. Until a fetus is viable outside of the womb, the fetus cannot be a separate, living and breathing being.

    —————————————————————-

    Paul Thomson:

    Well said. Allow me to add that since a very large number of first pregnancies end in miscarriage, I’d say God is the King of Abortions.

  30. Stanford Liberal: It does mine to, but once Boehner replaced Nancy Pelosi, it was sure to happen. The republicans have made cutting family planning services and eliminating abortion a priority. Some states have fast tracked anti-abortion legislation.

  31. BIL,

    “Maybe because your opinion of what constitutes “death” is based on a fairy tale, not science”

    Really? Was that supposed to be an argument? When is death a fairy tale death vs a scientifically defined death?

    The respect I have towards all life has nothing to do with my religion. I don’t subscribe to any religion.

    If we can keep a fetus alive via artificial support is it not viable and therefore protected IAW the holding in Roe v Wade?

    StamfordLiberal,

    “A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation.”

    That’s not true.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-tiniest-survivor-How-miracle-baby-born-weeks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html

    “Because this bright, beguiling toddler was born at just 21 weeks and six days into her gestation”

  32. “Also, a general point of advice: If you want me to believe you’re the side of logic and reason, don’t use a slur to describe the other side.”~ Shirenomad
    _______________________________________
    You are absolutely right, my discourse has become shoddy and I don’t care for name calling either. Apologies.

    —————————

    From Woosty: “Other Societies do not make it an either -or- situation.”

    “And neither do we. Acts that are undeniably murder may still be excused by reasons of justifiable homicide or necessity. If the situation the woman has been placed in is truly atrocious, then I excuse an abortion on THOSE grounds, NOT by pretending a child is not really a child.”~Shire nomad
    ———-
    Yes, we do. That is what this conversation is about….further erosion of rights and more hardship placed on the backs of women. It is nothing about whether or not YOU excuse abortion. The ramifications of these political posturings go ***far***beyond***abortion***. If you need a comparison, how about those who blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors call themselves ‘Pro-Life.”

  33. HenMan
    1, February 13, 2011 at 7:05 pm
    The last clause in the proposed anti-abortion, anti-birth control legislation reads:

    “None of the above restrictions shall apply to any mistresses, call girls, hookers, bimbos, or lap dancers associated with any United States Senator or Member of the House of Representatives”.

    ======================================================

    You nailed that one

  34. Blouise,Buddha, Woosty et al,
    Great job this morning dealing with the religious right that seems to have reappeared. I do like the idea of getting to pick where my tax money goes to, but it is interesting what the Right would pay for and what the Left would pay for.
    Someone earlier stated that they didn’t like stare decisis because if it wasn’t for stare decisis, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned by now. I am paraphrasing, but I think I got it right. If the Republicans who are waging this back door approach to end all abortions had really wanted to end abortions, couldn’t they have done that during the Bush years when they controlled both houses of Congress and White House? They need abortion to be legal to keep the religious right stirred up. One more Republican boogey man that we are supposed to worry about.

  35. Swarthmore mom

    “Stanford Liberal: It does mine to, but once Boehner replaced Nancy Pelosi, it was sure to happen. The republicans have made cutting family planning services and eliminating abortion a priority. Some states have fast tracked anti-abortion legislation.”

    I agree – I can guarantee that John of Orange and his buddies were chomping at the bit. The Right is already drafting bills in the CT legislature to force women to have an ultrasound prior to having an abortion but since the legislature and the governor’s office are firmly Democrat, the chances of passage are slim to none.

    —————————————————————–

    BBB:

    ““A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation.”

    That’s not true.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-tiniest-survivor-How-miracle-baby-born-weeks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html

    “Because this bright, beguiling toddler was born at just 21 weeks and six days into her gestation”

    Did you bother reading the whole post? You, either willfully or not, skipped over the following sentence:

    “A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation. At that point, it has a 20 to 35% chance of survival.”

    I never said it couldn’t happen. What I did say was that statistically, its chances are slim. Common sense would then dictate that since a fetus has a 20 to 35% chance of survival at 23 weeks, the percentages for survival would drop for each week prior to 23 weeks.

  36. Check out some of the comments to this editorial and you will see how we got to where we are,Talk about eating your own.

    Obama Isn’t Trying to ‘Weaken America’
    Some conservatives call the president the political equivalent of a suicide bomber: so consumed with hatred that he’s willing to blow himself up in order to inflict casualties on a society he loathes.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132631175113322.html?mod=WSJ_comments_MoreIn_Opinion

  37. Stamford liberal: Sorry I referred to you as Stanford Liberal. I know where Stamford is. Have driven through there on vacation. The legislature here in Texas is passing the legislation requiring the sonogram and Gov. Perry is all for it.

  38. eniobob,
    that was an interesting link. He was way too nice in his dissection of the nonsense that the Right wing tries to pawn off as facts. He did do a good job in mentioning some of the biggest offenders, but he missed a couple .

  39. Swarthmore mom:

    No problem, it happens all the time :)

    Stamford used to be a sleepy little hamlet way back in the day but since it has grown as much as it has, and is so close to NYC, it’s considered part of the NY Metro area. Hell, even my own state government considers this part of CT more NY than CT!

    I’m sorry to hear what they’re doing in Texas, but it doesn’t surprise me. Particularly where Perry is concerned. I’m sure he’s foaming at the mouth in the hopes of destroy those damned “liberal” policies.

  40. I realize that left-winger women are very stupid and get themselves pregnant when they didn’t want to be, yet expect to get a do-over.

    And I realize that a good many of them are so ugly and evil that even their men don’t even want anything to do with their spawn. It also appears that the lefty men are so ugly and evil their women want nothing in remembrance of the engagement.

    It is understandable that lefties cannot tolerate what happens after they copulate with each other. I get it. It is a disgusting thing all around and their reaction to it is the evidence.

    And, though its good politically, from my standpoint, that such stupid, ugly, and evil people are not reproducing, it s still not the little ones fault.

    But Title X is unconstitutional anyway.

    Congress had and has no authority to pay for non-military womens medical services. Not under Nixon and not now.

    It is not an enumerated power and unconnected to the general welfare and defense.

    And if people cared about what happened to these stupid lefty women they could get good state programs to help with the problem. Especially the problem with left-wing women being too stupid to get the birds and bees story.

  41. Stamford Liberal,

    “Did you bother reading the whole post? You, either willfully or not, skipped over the following sentence:”

    Quoting yourself from your previous post “A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation. At that point, it has a 20 to 35% chance of survival.”

    “I never said it couldn’t happen. What I did say was that statistically, its chances are slim. Common sense would then dictate that since a fetus has a 20 to 35% chance of survival at 23 weeks, the percentages for survival would drop for each week prior to 23 weeks.”

    Are you honestly trying to say that you did not say a fetus was not viable prior to 23 weeks? What part of your statement “A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation” says that it is less viable under 23 weeks? You must not know the difference between “not viable” and “less viable”. You stated that at 23 weeks “it has a 20 to 35% chance of survival”, but, by your own statement, you ruled out viability prior to 23 weeks.

    If you didn’t mean what you said, accept the correction. Following it up with “I never said it couldn’t happen” when your own words said “A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation” makes you a liar in the face of evidence to the contrary. Following it with “What I did say was that statistically, its chances are slim” is just another lie.

    You’re searching for wiggle room where none exists.

  42. BBB,

    If you can’t live outside the womb?

    You’re not alive.

    You are, to the extent you are anything more than just a grouping of cells, a potential, but not an actuality.

    You may not subscribe to a religion.

    You certainly don’t subscribe to logic either.

  43. BBB:

    No wiggle room and no need to call me a liar, sport. I just didn’t think I’d have to s-p-e-l-l out for you that at 23 weeks, chances of viability are nil and anything before 21 weeks is well, nil. Sorry, I thought you were smart. Obviously not. My bad. Therefore:

    A fetus is LESS VIABLE outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation. At that point, it has a 20 to 35% chance of survival.

    There, all better?

    —————————————————————–

    Taliban Tootie:

    Other than point out what an angry and bitter white woman you are, there’s really no need to respond to the rest of the vomit you call a post.

  44. BIL,

    “If you can’t live outside the womb?

    You’re not alive.”

    Now who’s resorting to fairy tale in lieu of science? It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive. It meets the scientific criteria for life. Just because you don’t desire to recognize it as life doesn’t make it any less living.

    “You certainly don’t subscribe to logic either.”

    Screw you!

    It’s not surprising that Stamford Liberal would mimic your ways.

    Stamford Liberal,

    I just didn’t think I’d have to s-p-e-l-l out for you that at 23 weeks, chances of viability are nil and anything before 21 weeks is well, nil.

    Nil; nothing; naught; zero

    Now I understand. Like BIL, you make up your own definition for words.

  45. Awwwww.

    “Screw you.”

    I’m so . . . laughing my ass off at your inability to understand basic biology, BBB.

  46. I’m laughing my ass off at you for laughing about your ignorance of biology.

    A human fetus, biologically speaking, is both human and alive.

  47. This is really getting interesting now.
    Tootie, have you checked out the out of wedlock pregnancy rates in right wing states as compared to left wing states? You are in for a surprise. Furthermore, if you don’t want pwople to call you names, don’t call lefty women and lefty men stupid. Just a suggestion.
    BIL and Stamford,
    The Republicans and Tootie and BBB really want to protect their fetuses, but if they get sick after they are born, let someone else take care of them.

  48. rafflaw
    1, February 14, 2011 at 1:37 pm
    Blouise,Buddha, Woosty et al,
    Great job this morning dealing with the religious right that seems to have reappeared. I do like the idea of getting to pick where my tax money goes to, but it is interesting what the Right would pay for and what the Left would pay for.

    =====================================================

    Re religious right … I view answering their claims on this blog as a form of welfare on my part. I’m sure they’re posting for peanuts so if I respond they get to write back, make a little more “egg” money … I’m a softie that way …

    Besides, they’re all probably looking at cutbacks due to the money Breitbart is going to have to redirect to the lawyers handling his civil suit.

  49. rafflaw,

    “The Republicans and Tootie and BBB really want to protect their fetuses, but if they get sick after they are born, let someone else take care of them.”

    Why move the goal posts, rafflaw? If you had a valid argument, I doubt you would feel the need.

  50. BBB,

    When I can go out to lunch with a fetus or buy a car from them?

    Then we can talk about them being human and alive.

    Until then?

    A fetus is a growth until it is born or able to live outside the womb. It has been that way in the animal kingdom since the evolution of placental mammals. You’re insistence that they are humans with rights until they are able to live without the support of the mother’s body is simply wishful thinking.

    Here’s a hint:

    potential \pə-ˈten(t)-shəl\, adj.,

    1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality

    actual \ˈak-ch(ə-w)əl, -sh(ə-w)əl; -chü-əl, -shü-\, adj.,

    1: existing in act and not merely potentially

    Now get a clue, Wish Boy.

  51. “Your insistence”

    Pardon the sloppy homonym.

    I blame the excellent Snicerdoodles I got for Valentine’s Day.

  52. rafflaw:

    “The Republicans and Tootie and BBB really want to protect their fetuses, but if they get sick after they are born, let someone else take care of them.”

    Exactly. Champions of the unborn, kick the already born to the curb. Then they piss and moan when these kids eventually become wards of the state.

  53. BIL,

    What’s the matter? Legal precedent and accepted definitions too much for you? Wasn’t it the Supreme Court in Roe who declared that a viable fetus had rights?

    You want to see potential human life? Take a look at a sperm and an ovum. Shortly after that; it’s human and it’s alive.

    Please don’t hold back with the insults. They are indicative of the acceptance of defeat. That’s the reason you always resort to ad hominem attacks.

  54. I don’t give a shit what you think, B.

    You lost that right, Tautology, er, BBB.

    Did I say I had a problem with the sliding scale of Roe v. Wade? No. Because I don’t as a matter of legality. Roe defined viable as “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid”. The key part of that is “OUTSIDE THE MOTHER’S WOMB”, half-wit. Until then? A fetus is not a human any more than you are.

    So instead of sticking premises into my statements that aren’t there? I think you can figure out where to stick them. You should be able to. It’s the same place you store your head.

  55. “I don’t give a shit what you think, B.”

    Oh, but you do. You just like to think that by saying you don’t some people will believe you. How’s that working for you?

    “You lost that right, Tautology, er, BBB.”

    Lashing out?

    More insults. Please. The solo practitioners need more to laugh at.

  56. Stamford Liberal
    1, February 14, 2011 at 4:56 pm
    BBB:

    I’m wounded. I will now go cry in the corner.

    ================================================

    I’ll bring you a nice cup of tea … you will gird your loins and return to the fray :!:

  57. Multiple personality syndrome
    ———————————-

    It’s Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    Even something as common as a typo Bubba blames on something other than himself. Today it was “Snicerdoodles”. At other times it’s the cat or trying to eat while typing. It is NEVER, NEVER, Bubba.

  58. BBB,
    I am not moving the goalposts. I don’t need to because the war on women has been very easy to expose. You moved the goal posts when you tried to create a new definition of viability. Roe V. Wade is still the law of the land until the Republicans have the stones to try to pass through Congress a bill overturning it or challenging it in court. Of course, I think I said earlier that they had their chance during the Bush years when they controlled both houses and the White House and they didn’t even try. Why? Because they know most people are in favor of the womens right to choose and the Religious right wouldn’t have any reason to vote anymore for Republicans if the abortion boogey man was no longer there.

  59. Blouise:

    “I’ll bring you a nice cup of tea … you will gird your loins and return to the fray”

    It’s been one of those days but you have just allowed me the first, genuine smile of the day!

  60. my but you are a salty bunch.

    Buddha, may I say your greenness is like the grass of the Pompous as the cows wander and deficate delivering nourishment and vitality to so many of us who watch you blow viate in the wind.

    I remain your humble servant,

    PC

  61. Buddha Is Laughing
    1, February 14, 2011 at 5:47 pm
    Since Blouise is bringing the tea, I’ll share my cookies.

    They are quite good.

    ===================================================

    The “special” ones, I hope … Stamford Liberal deserves a real pick-me-up

  62. From Huffington Post (2/14/2011)
    Republican Lawmakers Face Grassroots Pressure Over ‘War On Contraception’
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/republican-war-on-contraception_n_822843.html

    EXCERPT:
    WASHINGTON — Women’s-rights activists are taking the fight to preserve family-planning funding outside the Beltway, calling on grassroots activists to pressure their representatives into maintaining the Title X program.

    Enacted in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act, the family-planning program was designed to focus on low-income Americans. The preventive-health services it provides include information and access to contraception, earning the ire of social conservatives.

    Though there is no mention of Title X in President Barack Obama’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2012, Republicans have placed a high priority on cutting the $317 million the program received in FY 2011 appropriations, which would effectively eliminate it. The stopgap budget proposal the GOP released last week includes no money for the program, and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has introduced separate legislation to “deny Title X funds to Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider.”

    The abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America launched a campaign on Monday to mobilize activists in six districts where abortion-rights advocates lost to “anti- or mixed-choice representatives” in November’s midterm elections. The campaign targets Republican Reps. Charlie Bass (N.H.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Chris Gibson (N.Y.), Richard Hanna (N.Y), Nan Hayworth (N.Y) and Steve Stivers (Ohio).

    NARAL is also stepping up pressure on longer-serving members, including Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.) and Republican Reps. Judy Biggert (Ill.), Charlie Dent (Penn.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Rodney Frelinghuysen (N.J), Leonard Lance (N.J), and Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.).

    “And where is your alleged ‘moderate’ representative on this?” reads the email going out to activists in Stivers’ district. “We don’t know. Rep. Stivers has said nothing of this proposed cut, and it’s very possible that he could choose to vote for an anti-choice budget that decimates family planning.”

    “Politicians who campaigned on the promise of focusing on jobs and the economy need to be held accountable if, at the first possible opportunity, they join with John Boehner to launch a full-fledged war on contraception,” NARAL President Nancy Keenan said. “It is the height of hypocrisy for anti-choice politicians to seek to abolish a program that helps prevent unintended pregnancy and thus reduce the need for abortion. How many jobs will be generated by eliminating women’s access to birth control?”

  63. rafflaw,

    “You moved the goal posts when you tried to create a new definition of viability.”

    Support your claim with a quoted comment.

    Viability has changed since Roe. Surfactant, along with improved prenatal and neonatal care are responsible.

    The preferred method of change is by educating the public. It’s working too.
    http://www.oregonlive.com/hovde/index.ssf/2009/05/poll_shows_more_people_identif.html

    “The Gallup Poll that found 51 percent of American adults now call themselves pro-life rather than pro-choice on the issue of abortion.”

    You’re losing the battle. One would think that if you had a valid argument you’d be able to gain support. Instead you are losing support for you position.

    People of your ilk rely on ignorance and the sale of false claims. When there is no other life involved, I couldn’t give two shits what a woman does with her body.

  64. Blouise & Buddha:

    Many thanks for the good cheer and willingness to share ;)

    I feel better!

    —————————————————————

    Elaine M:

    Thanks for the HuffPo article. I just made a donation to NARAL!

  65. “Republican Lawmakers Face Grassroots Pressure Over ‘War On Contraception’” (from Elaine’s post)

    Want to bet these guys are going to turn tail and run from this war …

    “Politicians who campaigned on the promise of focusing on jobs and the economy need to be held accountable if, at the first possible opportunity, they join with John Boehner to launch a full-fledged war on contraception,” NARAL President Nancy Keenan said.

    The Orange Man is going to have trouble keeping his “Rhythm Method Brigade” in formation.

  66. BBB:

    it does go to individual rights. And they are right about an embryo being potential life. Abortion is an act of horror during the later term, I don’t see how anyone could put scissors in the back of the skull of a baby human. .

    And I agree with you that human life begins at conception but you don’t sacrifice the actual for the potential. And it pains me to say that. But to make abortion illegal is not the purview of the state. It is for ones individual morality to determine the best course of action for their life.

    I would certainly council any of my peers to have the child and put it up for adoption but it is not my place to tell a 20 year old woman what she should and shouldn’t do.

    Morality and decency have been so distorted.

  67. BBB:

    “People of your ilk rely on ignorance and the sale of false claims. When there is no other life involved, I couldn’t give two shits what a woman does with her body.”

    That’s funny because it appears that the pro-unborn/anti-once-it’s-born certainly doesn’t shy away from ignorance and the sale of false claims. Now, let me see, where did I see some of the bullshit the anti-once-it’s-born are pushing. Now, mind you, this is just a sampling of information that is available. Should you require more information to be spelled out for you, just let me know:

    http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-nyc-considers-making-crisis-pregnancy-centers-come-clean/

    http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v25n1/abortion-black-genocide.html

    People of YOUR ilk rely on fear, violence, and lies, sport.

    MY body, MY decision, not YOURS, not GOVERNMENTS.

  68. “I’m sure they’re posting for peanuts so if I respond they get to write back, make a little more “egg” money … I’m a softie that way …”
    ———————————————-
    people get paid for this?

    They get PAID for being assholes???? Well, isn’t that the magic bus….

    Who ever started the scientific criteria of life drivel…. they forgot it includes the ability to maintain homeostasis…which I can assure you a 23 week old fetus can not do. As science advances, the ability to mechanically aid the potential and actual viability of that wee group of cells also changes. What doesn’t change, is who will be paying for it….and the potential for extraordinary and catastrophic illness increases in an inverse relationship to that man altered point of viability. There is no better chooser in life than nature. A woman has a biological imperative that only she knows…and the conditions necessary for her to reproduce are based on both internal AND external factors. The abusive environment lauded by the right wing is not conducive to either children OR other, fully viable, currently here, natural and necessary things.

    poo head

  69. Chan L.

    Let me correct you on a few points.

    1. I never said I wanted to change the law as it currently stands. It is the holding of the Court in Roe v Wade that established a variable that would change with viability.

    2. Though I defend unborn life, I don’t tell other people what they can or cannot do. I educate them. I let them know that contrary to the bullshit they are fed by the pro-choice crowd, the unborn fetus is, as an established fact of science (much better established than that of climate change caused by society), that an unborn fetus is human (the DNA is human) and it is life (biological life).

    An unborn fetus is a potential person, but it is an active human life.

  70. “I think the reason conservatives want all these babies to be born is that they simply like the idea of birth. That’s why so many of them have been born again. They can’t get enough of it.” (george Carlin)

  71. BBB,

    As you know, Roe was based on the holding in Griswold. And while Griswold is a jurisprudential mess, it did have the right outcome albeit based on the wrong idea.

    The rights of the individual within the social compact are paramount. Your argument that advances in science that will eventually make a fertilized egg a ‘viable human’ ignores the boundaries set forth within the social compact. Without the first trimester DMZ, so to speak, your policy necessitates the exercise of power over an individual’s right of self ownership and determination. That is tyranny per se.

    I’ve seen you make this argument before. Argumentum ad absurdum?

    You tell me:

    Morpheus: What is real. How do you define real? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. This is the world that you know. The world as it was at the end of the twentieth century. It exists now only as part of a neural-interactive simulation that we call the Matrix. You’ve been living in a dream world, Neo. This is the world as it exists today…. Welcome to the Desert of the Real. We have only bits and pieces of information but what we know for certain is that at some point in the early twenty-first century all of mankind was united in celebration. We marveled at our own magnificence as we gave birth to AI.

    Neo: AI? You mean artificial intelligence?

    Morpheus: A singular consciousness that spawned an entire race of machines. We don’t know who struck first, us or them. But we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun. Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate it seems is not without a sense of irony. The human body generates more bio-electricity than a 120-volt battery and over 25,000 BTU’s of body heat. Combined with a form of fusion the machines have found all the energy they would ever need. There are fields, endless fields, where human beings are no longer born, we are grown. For the longest time I wouldn’t believe it, and then I saw the fields with my own eyes. Watch them liquefy the dead so they could be fed intravenously to the living. And standing there, facing the pure horrifying precision, I came to realize the obviousness of the truth. What is the Matrix? Control. The Matrix is a computer generated dream world built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into this.

    Neo: No. I don’t believe it. It’s not possible.

    Morpheus: I didn’t say it would be easy, Neo. I just said it would be the truth.

  72. BBB:

    I agree that an embryo or a fetus is indeed human life. Anyone that says otherwise is short on gray matter.

    I also think education is the way to go. If women could see a sonogram I imagine more of them would not have the abortion and put the child up for adoption.

  73. BBB,
    I think maybe you are misunderstanding me or I didn’t make myself clear. Roe v. Wade determined what viability means for the law. I am happy that doctors may be able to use pulmonary surfactants to aid in the breathing of pre-term fetuses or infants, but it doesn’t relate to what goal posts the Supreme Court put up in Roe v. Wade as amended by the Casey case. When the court moves the goal post then you will have something to crow about.
    I saw that Gallup poll that you mention and their has been a change in the numbers, but a Pew Research poll still has the pro choice numbers ahead of the pro-life numbers. http://people-press.org/report/549/support-for-abortion-slips
    According to the Supreme Court, your definition of life is not the law of the land. I care for everyone’s life, including the woman’s life. I try hard for someone of my “ilk”. How are you defining “ilk”? I don’t suppose it is complimentary.

  74. “I also think education is the way to go. If women could see a sonogram I imagine more of them would not have the abortion and put the child up for adoption.”~Chan
    ———————–
    I agree. The problem is that education is not the same as scare tactics and manipulation. Counseling needs be done respectfully and by properly trained medical personnel and $$$ support for ANY choice the mother makes…for care, the birth, the abortion, the FOLLOWUP needs to be made available. Education needs to be conducted in a way that ALL the possible choices are made known…so an informed CHOICE can be made by the mother. Enough with the divisive double standard crap.

  75. Chan L.,

    “I also think education is the way to go. If women could see a sonogram I imagine more of them would not have the abortion and put the child up for adoption.”

    How about all you guys “getting educated” about how and when to use prophylactics? We wouldn’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancies and abortions if you fellas took a little more responsibility!!!

    ;)

  76. Bob Esq.,

    Doesn’t it strike you funny that the social compact didn’t interfere with the protection of unborn life until nearly 200 years after it was adopted? Wasn’t abortion after quickening illegal at common law? Doesn’t quickening mean “coming to life”? And wasn’t quickening the only available method of knowing that an unborn life existed?

    I guess our social compact would need to have the word “created” better defined. (Can we please get past the definition of “natural-born citizen” first?) :)

    Argumentum ad absurdum? No. ad nauseum. Yes.

    “Your argument that advances in science that will eventually make a fertilized egg a ‘viable human’ ignores the boundaries set forth within the social compact.”

    I don’t know where it will eventually end up. I have yet to accurately predict the future. 200 years ago, I doubt most would think abortion would eventually be legalized.

    “Without the first trimester DMZ, so to speak, your policy necessitates the exercise of power over an individual’s right of self ownership and determination.”

    Our scientific knowledge about unborn human life has greatly increased since Roe. I doubt the same judges could arrive at the same conclusion if they were to rely on currently established facts regarding fetal development.

  77. Bob,Esq.,

    Well said.

    ———————————————————–

    Wootsy’s still a Cat:

    Education is key but it needs to start before conception, not after. Many parents don’t want the responsibility of teaching anything outside of abstinence; The Right throws a hissy fit at the mention of proper sex ed being taught in our schools; The Rabid Right wants to take birth control completely out of the equation. So, where does that leave us?

    I also think sonograms should be a woman’s choice. It should not be forced on women through legislation.

  78. rafflaw,

    The Court in Roe determined that viability includes that assisted by artificial means. As those artificial means improve, the minimum period of gestation decreases. The holding in Casey is evidence of just that effect. The Court understood that viability has changed, and that changed the time when the state’s interest effected the woman’s rights.

    “How are you defining “ilk”?”

    I don’t know any people from Rafflaw or Rafferty, so I must be conforming to the currently accepted usage. I was not aware that the usage could be complimentary or not.

  79. “I also think sonograms should be a woman’s choice. It should not be forced on women through legislation.” StamfordLiberal

    Oh I agree 1000%…and I agree with you on education starting waaaaaay before conception, before sexual activity is even better! …which is another reason the attack on Planned Parenthood is bizarre…it’s NOT about abortion at all…abortion is simply the fulcrum used to sway peoples emotions. Education decreases abortions, education empowers women, education is easier, less expensive, more effective…who and why keep young women in the dark?

  80. Elaine:

    Maybe women should be educated about how to say no. Then a condom wouldn’t even be necessary.

    My girl friend used to tell me no. I have quit asking. No planned or unplanned pregnancies around these parts.

    Just say no to copulation or coitus wont beat us.

  81. ShireNomad,

    “But regardless, under Roe, absolutely the debate comes back to “is the fetus a person?” Arguing that privacy is the only factor forgets the key caveat I quoted.”

    My response to your posting was 3 sentences long:

    “With all respect due, no, it doesn’t. The debate in law always comes back to the Forth Amendment regarding privacy. That is the basis for Roe v Wade. The Court has always applied a balancing test that involves viability as well as the health of the mother but the issue still boils down to privacy at its heart. If it didn’t, any state or the federal government could prohibit all abortion.”

    You argue as if I did not incorporate the viability and health of the mother in the equation. I did. You are putting the cart before the horse. The viability/health statements were qualifying factors to the heart of the decision. The heart of the decision was not viability but privacy, it moved from there to qualifying factors regarding the balancing of the states interest in preserving life (viability) as well as the health of the mother.

    I suspect from your postings that you want life to be determined from conception. Unless Roe is overturned or the entire of medical knowledge about human reproduction is thrown out that won’t happen. To conflate Roe with Dred Scott does not move me. If I were to give the cases any equivalence I would argue that to force all pregnancies to term would be to work an indentured servitude or slavery on women because the state finds the potential life of a fetus is of more value than the actual life of woman. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits that.

  82. Chan L.
    1, February 14, 2011 at 8:14 pm
    Elaine:

    Maybe women should be educated about how to say no. …

    ===============================================

    And men

  83. Chan L.
    1, February 14, 2011 at 8:14 pm
    Elaine:

    …..

    My girl friend used to tell me no. I have quit asking.

    …………

    ============================================

    Had you had the proper control of your own sexual urges she wouldn’t have had to say no because you wouldn’t have asked. Fathers used to teach this to their sons back in the good ol’ days. Many still do.

  84. Chan L.,

    Why is it that you only recommend “education” for women on these sexual issues–and not men? It appears to me that you have a double standard. You seem to think only women are responsible when they get pregnant. If a woman doesn’t say no–a man can’t put on a condom? You don’t think a male should take any responsibility–or any precautions in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies…or the spreading or contracting of STDs?

  85. Blouise,

    No, see the way this works is men always like sex, but only bad women like sex. The rest just put up with it when they need things from men. Or at least that’s what T.V. taught me.

  86. Gyges,

    Women like sex–but not with male weasels who look upon women as second class citizens and as beings who should be subservient to men. Women like sex with REAL men–you know, the guys who are self-confident, respectful, treat women as equals, and who care what we have to say.

    ;)

  87. Woosty’s still a Cat
    (Really like your new Avatar- I enjoy that you change yours)
    question….

    I know there is a separate Federal health insurance plan for our representatives and the families of our representatives. Does this plan cover abortion? Any type of birth control? Viagra? Mammograms? Pap smears? Male checkups for testicular cancer?

    Unless there is a special, secret exemption for Senators and Representatives, the President, staff etc. no plan offered to federal employees contains a provision for abortion coverage, that is prohibited by the Hyde Amendment.

    The language in most of the plans is kind of fuzzy though when you get to emergency care. Most emergency care is covered with language that leads one to suspect all necessary care will be covered, so if a medical abortion were necessary as emergency treatment one suspects it would be covered. But we are dealing with insurance companies and crazy laws so who knows.

    As to the other aspects of women’s and men’s health you asked about, it depends on the plan contents. There is a choice among insurance plans. The specific checkups you asked about are not prohibited and are included in some plans. The members of the federal workforce, depending on the coverage they buy, can have access to the kinds of health maintenance that poor women will be denied if the attack on Planned Parenthood funding goes through.

  88. Chan:

    “Maybe women should be educated about how to say no. Then a condom wouldn’t even be necessary”

    That has to be one of the most sexist and pig-ish comments I have ever seen posted here. Congrats, kid. You’ve managed to surpass my already low opinion of you.

    “My girl friend used to tell me no. I have quit asking. No planned or unplanned pregnancies around these parts.”

    My guess is she recognized your, uh, short-comings. Smart girl.

  89. BBB: “Our scientific knowledge about unborn human life has greatly increased since Roe.”

    Irrelevant. Advances in science do not determine where we draw the line morally and legally.

    “Everyone must admit that if a law is to be morally valid as a ground of obligation, then it must carry with it absolute necessity. [One] must concede that the ground of obligation here must therefore be sought not in the nature of man, nor in the circumstances of the world in which man is placed, but must be sought a priori solely in the concepts of pure reason; he must grant that every other precept which is founded on principles of mere experience-even a precept that may in certain respects be universal-in so far as it rests in the least on empirical grounds-perhaps only in its motive–can indeed be called a practical rule, but never a moral law.”

    If I had a dime for every time I’ve posted that quote…

  90. rafflaw:

    You wrote:

    “Tootie, have you checked out the out of wedlock pregnancy rates in right wing states as compared to left wing states?”

    The chap at the link below isn’t a right-winger, but seems to have,apparently, done a decent job with the stats provided by Guttmacher. You can click on the html or download the spreadsheet at his page and take a look at the numbers he collated.

    I agree with the author of that article that red states tend to have higher concentrations of blacks and Hispanics (who have the highest unwed mother rates when compared to whites). This is especially true in the South. Mississippi has more a percentage of blacks than Vermont and since blacks have the highest unwed mother rate…and so on and so forth. Naturally, education has to do with this issue but you weren’t talking about that either. You are just pouncing on conservatives, Christians, or GOPers.

    You have simply decided, then, that this is a matter of conservative values. Or perhaps you have been duped by left-wing knuckleheads in the media who hate right-wingers and will do and say anything, including misrepresenting the data, in order to attack them. For instance, the New York Times?

    This is unfortunate. In this case it is more likely that the results we are looking at are greatly impacted by racial mix and concentrations. We see this more clearly the closer we look. Detroit, a blue CITY/state, does not hav the same amount or rate of unwed mothers as Portland, Maine (also a blue city/state). This is a high black population compared to a high white population of two blue states. Detroit’s rates are probably higher than most cities in the South with low black populations. You are barking up the wrong tree and it looks like a bunch of high-paid dogs led the way.

    I realize we are only supposed to celebrate the diversity leftist cram down our throats, but are forbidden to notice or be willing to discuss frankly what that actually looks like in reality, even if there are scientific or demographic trends we can examine.

    http://www.occams-razor.info/2005/10/red_vs_blue_myth_vs_reality.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

  91. Notes on George Carlin.

    Notice how Carlin thinks I’m responsible for other peoples kids. What kind of person has babies they know they cannot take care of and expect others to?

    Only a leftist moron.

    Carlin thinks GOPers are only interested in fetuses when they become soldiers?

    But it is Democrats who led the nation in a century of war: ww1 and 2, Korea, and Vietnam. It was the Republicans who were the dreaded “isolationists”.

    A carbon atom can never become a fetus. Only an anti-intellectual and unscientific leftist or primitive thinks otherwise.

    Leftists don’t get the birds and bees story. Carlin actually thinks a sperm can become a fetus. This is a scientific impossibility. No matter how long a sperm sits alone by it self, and no matter how many billions of sperms sit around by themselves, they can never ever become a fetus.

    And it is false that religious people caused all the violence in the past. Most wars are over limited resources. And the most deadly murderers were last century: the godless communists.

    I guess maybe the reason left-wingers are so stupid about this issue is because they take their marching orders from a foul-mouthed comic.

    I wish Carlin had been aborted. His mother, clearly, made the wrong choice.

    Oh that’s right, Carlin knows the truth now.

    Regrets, regrets, regrets.

  92. “Bob,Esq. 1, February 14, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    The first trimester DMZ is a necessity to preserving the social compact.”
    ———————–
    Bob, How do you define DMZ and social compact as related to abortion? I’ve not heard them used this way before…

  93. Elaine M:

    I concur with Blouise, timing is everything! And, thanks for the CDC link – very interesting.

    ————————————————————-

    Woosty’s:

    LOL – I think Taliban Tootie needs more than just a good shrink but that was very generous of you nonetheless!

    ————————————————————-

    Taliban Tootie:

    I’m sure George Carlin’s spinning in his grave because of what you think of him. What ever will he do?!

    “I wish Carlin had been aborted. His mother, clearly, made the wrong choice.”

    Well, I could say the same about you but, I’m not Christian, so I won’t. Clearly, spouting such flowery sentiments are reserved for your kind. You know, good, God-fearing folks such as yourself.

  94. So Tootie,
    your answer to why the Red states tend to have a higher teen pregnancy rate than blue states is due to your claim that they have more minorities?? Wow. So you are blaming it on blacks and hispanics. The Republican, god fearing whites didn’t have anything to do with it? You claim to be a Christian, and in that case I will ask you what I have asked before. WWJD?

  95. W=C,

    “Bob, How do you define DMZ and social compact as related to abortion? I’ve not heard them used this way before…”

    What I call the ‘DMZ’ is essentially a restatement of the necessity of the existence of the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights within a social compact.

    Basically, mankind is born into nature with ALL rights. Then, in order to better protect those rights, mankind enters into a social compact; giving up some of those rights to better protect the remainder. In order to ensure that the contract between society and mankind does not become illusory, the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights becomes paramount. The exercise of power over an alienable right is termed ‘usurpation’ while the exercise of power over an inalienable right is ‘tyranny.’

    Thus in the words of Locke:

    “AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”

    Per the issue of abortion, you have two competing rights; the rights of the individual v. the rights of the yet to be born.

    Per the rights of the individual, the social compact bars the state from promulgating laws that exercise power over the individual’s right of self-ownership.

    Locke: “Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every [one] has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.

    (At this point I usually illustrate the differences between duties of virtue and duties of right to bring the vagueness of the problem into specific relief; regardless…) When the state promulgates a duty to the self as if it were a duty to the state, it necessarily exercises power over the inalienable right of self ownership and therefore commits tyranny. This is what happens if the state is allowed to prohibit abortion entirely; it turns the citizen of the United States into Property of the United States to be manipulated and disposed of without limit by whoever is in power.

    The first trimester, existing as I called a DMZ, preserves the social compact in that it gives the citizen ample time to exercise the right to determine a life course before the state enters the picture and says ‘we now represent the interests of the unborn.’

    Without that window, there is no social compact. You could say, there’s just the Matrix.

  96. Stamford Liberal:

    How do you know I am sexist? Because I said if women would say no there would be fewer pregnancies? I guess the answer to that is there would be fewer pregnancies.

    But then my great grandmother lived with us and she used to tell me when she was a young woman you didn’t have men up to your room unless you left the door open and told the land lady. She also said that if a woman doesn’t want to you aint gonna.

    Maybe she was a sexist and assumed men were pigs and unable to control themselves, I doubt it because she is my fathers mother and he told me to keep it in my pants until I was married.

    I think I will take my grammy’s opinion over yours, I know she was a lady. I doubt anyone says the same thing about you unless they want to get in your pants and have a bottle of Boons Farm and a plastic cup handy.

  97. rafflaw:

    here is an excerpt from an article:

    “Differences by Race and Ethnicity
    Large racial/ethnic differences exist in the percentage of births to unmarried women, with
    non-Hispanic white women and Asian or Pacific Islander women being much less likely
    to have a nonmarital birth. In 2005, 69.5 percent of all births to non-Hispanic black
    women, 63.3 percent of births of American Indian or Alaskan native woman, and 47.9
    percent of births to Hispanic women occurred outside of marriage, compared with 25.4
    percent for non-Hispanic white women and 16.2 percent for Asian or Pacific Islander
    women (preliminary estimates). (See Figure 1)”

    link to article:

    http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/pdf/75_PDF.pdf

    I dont know if this is a politically motivated web site or not.

  98. Chan L.,

    Chan L.
    1, February 15, 2011 at 8:38 am
    Stamford Liberal:

    “I think I will take my grammy’s opinion over yours, I know she was a lady. I doubt anyone says the same thing about you unless they want to get in your pants and have a bottle of Boons Farm and a plastic cup handy.”

    *****

    It is evident from that comment that you are no gentleman.

  99. Elaine:

    here is what Stamford Liberal said:

    “My guess is she recognized your, uh, short-comings. Smart girl.”

    I think turnabout is fair play. Or do you adhere to the old fashion notion of women are inferior to men? You want to be treated like one of the guys until you cant take it. Most of you cant.

    And so we feminize men so that women wont feel insecure. You may be as smart as we are, although one of your own (liberal Larry Summers) wondered out load about the lack of women in math/science/engineering, but most of you are not as physically robust as we are and are not able to handle stress as well as we do.

    Ever wonder why they have male and female events at the Olympics?

    Your response was pretty old fashioned Elaine. You sure you are a liberal?

    You know what the funniest thing is? Tootie would never have insulted me based on the size of my penis, she would have insulted my ideas. You may not agree with her but at least she knows where the “beef” really is.

  100. Bob Esq.,

    Locke? Are you forgetting the fundamental principles of Locke?

    “But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence : though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not another’s pleasure : and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice to an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.”

    “They who allege the practice of mankind, for exposing or selling their children, as a proof of their power over them, are with sir Robert happy arguers; and cannot but recommend their opinion, by founding it on the most shameful action, and most unnatural murder human nature is capable of. The dens of lions and nurseries of wolves know no such cruelty as this: these savage inhabitants of the desert obey God and nature in being tender and careful of their offspring: they will hunt, watch, fight, and almost starve for the preservation of their young; never part with them; never forsake them, till they are able to shift for themselves. And is it the privilege of man alone to act more contrary to nature than the wild and most untamed part of the creation? doth God forbid us under the severest penalty, that of death, to take away the life of any man, a stranger, and upon provocation and does he permit us to destroy those he has given us the charge and care of; and by the dictates of nature and reason, as well as his revealed command, requires us to preserve? He has in all the parts of creation taken a peculiar care to propagate and continue the several species of creatures, and makes the individuals act so strongly to this end, that they sometimes neglect their own private good for it, and seem to forget that general rule, which nature teaches all things, of self-preservation; and the preservation of their young, as the strongest principle in them, over-rules the constitution of their particular natures. Thus we see, when their young stand in need of it, the timorous become valiant, the fierce and savage kind, and the ravenous, tender and liberal.”

    Locke is talking about a natural state. There is nothing “natural” about induced abortion. I’m sure Locke would approve of abortion to save the life of the woman, but I doubt he would join in on the chanting of “it’s my body and I’ll kill what is in my possession if I desire to”.

  101. “Basically, mankind is born into nature with ALL rights. Then, in order to better protect those rights, mankind enters into a social compact; giving up some of those rights to better protect the remainder. In order to ensure that the contract between society and mankind does not become illusory, the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights becomes paramount. The exercise of power over an alienable right is termed ‘usurpation’ while the exercise of power over an inalienable right is ‘tyranny.’”~Bob, Esq
    ——————————————————
    Giving up rights is not the same as having them wrenched from you. That said, is it fair to say that the ‘social compact’ is defined and protected by the laws set forth in the Constitution? And what does the Constitution say is to be done when tyranny or abuse of inalienable rights occurs…at the moment abortion is an inalienable right (once removed) and rape is a very clear abuse, other abuses not so clear but certainly present.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is, the argument is not just about abortion…it is about keeping abortion safe and obtainable through proper channels so that the inalienable right to our own bodies is not tyrannically usurped…by physical force, by emotional force, by economic force, by psychological force….and so on….No?

    ‘Cause if it’s o.k. to wrench the physical ownership of people away from themselves whether they like it or not, despite the consequences to them….theres a few cute lookin lil boys in the neighborhood….

  102. Chan L.,

    You’ll have to fault me for using a form of logic akin to yours. You appear to believe that a woman is only a true lady if she always says “no” to a man when asked to have sex. I assume a true gentleman would never respond to a woman the way you did…no matter what she may have said to you.

    From reading your comments, I’ve inferred that you’re a sexist. Maybe you can prove otherwise. Let’s look at some of our previous comments:

    Chan L. 1, February 14, 2011 at 6:50 pm
    BBB:
    I agree that an embryo or a fetus is indeed human life. Anyone that says otherwise is short on gray matter.
    I also think education is the way to go. If women could see a sonogram I imagine more of them would not have the abortion and put the child up for adoption.

    Elaine M. 1, February 14, 2011 at 7:09 pm
    Chan L.,
    “I also think education is the way to go. If women could see a sonogram I imagine more of them would not have the abortion and put the child up for adoption.”
    How about all you guys “getting educated” about how and when to use prophylactics? We wouldn’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancies and abortions if you fellas took a little more responsibility!!!

    Chan L. 1, February 14, 2011 at 8:14 pm
    Elaine:
    Maybe women should be educated about how to say no. Then a condom wouldn’t even be necessary.
    My girl friend used to tell me no. I have quit asking. No planned or unplanned pregnancies around these parts.
    Just say no to copulation or coitus wont beat us.

    Elaine M. 1, February 14, 2011 at 8:32 pm
    Chan L.,
    Why is it that you only recommend “education” for women on these sexual issues–and not men? It appears to me that you have a double standard. You seem to think only women are responsible when they get pregnant. If a woman doesn’t say no–a man can’t put on a condom? You don’t think a male should take any responsibility–or any precautions in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies…or the spreading or contracting of STDs?
    *****

    I have not as yet received a response in regard to the questions I posed to you on February 14, 2001 at 8:32 pm.

    *****

    Chan L.
    1, February 15, 2011 at 9:13 am

    “And so we feminize men so that women wont feel insecure. You may be as smart as we are, although one of your own (liberal Larry Summers) wondered out load about the lack of women in math/science/engineering, but most of you are not as physically robust as we are and are not able to handle stress as well as we do.”

    *****
    Larry Summers is a liberal? Who knew? Larry certainly ain’t one of my own!

    Women can’t handle stress as well as men? How did you determine that? Or is that just a preconceived belief of a young sexist?

    Chan, ever wonder why some men are so sexist?

  103. BBB: “Locke is talking about a natural state. There is nothing “natural” about induced abortion. I’m sure Locke would approve of abortion to save the life of the woman, but I doubt he would join in on the chanting of “it’s my body and I’ll kill what is in my possession if I desire to.”

    I’m not appealing to the authority of Locke; nor seeking his advice or consent per particular situations. I merely used Locke’s words to set forth the schematic of the social compact; the conditions which are required for its continued existence.

    Your repeated pleas to craft laws based on ‘the circumstances of the world in which man is placed,’ much less ‘what Locke would think’ falls on deaf ears.

    Again:

    “Everyone must admit that if a law is to be morally valid as a ground of obligation, then it must carry with it absolute necessity. [One] must concede that the ground of obligation here must therefore be sought not in the nature of man, nor in the circumstances of the world in which man is placed, but must be sought a priori solely in the concepts of pure reason; he must grant that every other precept which is founded on principles of mere experience-even a precept that may in certain respects be universal-in so far as it rests in the least on empirical grounds-perhaps only in its motive–can indeed be called a practical rule, but never a moral law.”

    The only way you win this argument is to ignore the underlying parameters of the social compact. And once you do that; it’s game over.

  104. I have played that James Brown song on here before. It is dedicated to those who wanted to get rid of Pelosi. She stopped this legislation from even getting a hearing. I worked on a health and welfare committee at one time, and witnessed the harm these people can do when they take over a legislative body.

  105. Swarthmore mom,

    “I worked on a health and welfare committee at one time, and witnessed the harm these people can do when they take over a legislative body.”

    And take control over women and their bodies.

  106. W=C: “Giving up rights is not the same as having them wrenched from you. That said, is it fair to say that the ‘social compact’ is defined and protected by the laws set forth in the Constitution?”

    First comes the social compact; then comes the laws of your state and your state constitution; then comes the U.S. Constitution. Any constitution is merely a more ‘firm’ expression of the social compact.

    W=C: “And what does the Constitution say is to be done when tyranny or abuse of inalienable rights occurs…at the moment abortion is an inalienable right (once removed) and rape is a very clear abuse, other abuses not so clear but certainly present.”

    I don’t understand the question. Once removed?

    W=C: “I guess what I’m trying to say is, the argument is not just about abortion…”

    Absolutely not; one’s gender does not afford any more or less rights. (See that Kant quote again)

    W=C: “it is about keeping abortion safe and obtainable through proper channels so that the inalienable right to our own bodies is not tyrannically usurped…by”

    It’s not about keeping abortion safe; that’s merely incidental to preserving the inalienable rights that exist a priori. Always keep the irrefutable argument out front

    W=C: “Cause if it’s o.k. to wrench the physical ownership of people away from themselves whether they like it or not, despite the consequences to them….theres a few cute lookin lil boys in the neighborhood….”

    Not sure what you mean here either.

    Let’s just say when the Right attempts to convince you that they’re making some morally/legally superior argument for outlawing abortion in the first trimester, they’re full of shit like a gaggle of Christmas geese.

  107. Elaine:

    you will notice that the implication in my statement is that it is the woman’s choice, not the mans.

    But anyway, I probably am a sexist. But I don’t really care. It hasn’t hurt me. I hold doors open for the ladies, hold their chairs, pay for their dinner and movie. Accept no means no and I also appreciate my girlfriends mind. She is brilliant, oh and by the way she is conservative although not religious.

    She thinks liberal guys are too feminine, she likes to hunt and fish. She was raised on a farm in Montana and rides and ropes as well. She has a lot of spunk, she once [on a trip to Denver] kicked a homeless guy in the ass for grabbing her coat and asking for some spare change. I had to hold her back she was so pissed off.

  108. Elaine, This was in the early eighties. I had to watch their gory films and listen to testimony from Dr. Bernard Nathanson. I will always choose the pro-choice legislator over the anti-choice legislator whether he or she is corporatist or not. It is because of the work I did and what I witnessed that I vote this way. It is vary rare these days that one finds a pro-choice republican. Their platform is ant-abortion with few exceptions, and it will soon have no exceptions.

  109. another question….when a governing body refuses to enforce the existing social compact in favour of an as yet unagreed upon one….what is that called?

    and what can we expect to happen in it’s occurrance?

  110. Chan,

    “you will notice that the implication in my statement is that it is the woman’s choice, not the mans.”

    Psst, that’s the problem. It’s BOTH partner’s choice.

  111. Elaine:

    Suffix-ist

    Added to words to form nouns denoting:
    One who follows a principle or system of belief.
    Marxist, deist
    Note, these are related to -ism, e.g. Marxism, deism

    A member of a profession or one interested in something.
    botanist, psychiatrist, one who studies psychiatry

    So I am a definite believer in sex even though Buddha thinks I dont get any and I am definitely interested in sex, what young guy isnt? So based on this, yes I would say I am a sexist.

  112. “She has a lot of spunk, she once [on a trip to Denver] kicked a homeless guy in the ass for grabbing her coat and asking for some spare change.”

    Chan L.,
    Yep, that sounds just like someone who’d be your girlfriend. What is so amusing about you conservative, macho types, is how many of you refuse to fight in wars you started.

  113. “She thinks liberal guys are too feminine”~Chan

    bwaahahahahahaha!

    …did she say this to you?

    bwaahahahahahaha!

    …did you buy it?

    bwaahahahahahaha!

    ……….oh, I needed that……………….

  114. Chan,

    Speaking as a woman, I’d prefer to have a man who treats me as an equal and respects my opinion than a man who holds doors open and pulls out chairs for me.

    I wonder why your girlfriend thinks liberal guys are too feminine…because she believes no liberal men hunt and fish??? Is that what she thinks makes a man a man…hunting and fishing? Is that how your “brilliant” girlfriend judges men?

  115. W=C: “another question….when a governing body refuses to enforce the existing social compact in favour of an as yet unagreed upon one….what is that called?”

    Tyranny.

    W=c: “and what can we expect to happen in it’s occurrance?”

    Hopefully nothing violent.

  116. Bob Esq:

    “The man who . . . closed the door of philosophy to reason, was Immanuel Kant. . . .
    Kant’s expressly stated purpose was to save the morality of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice. He knew that it could not survive without a mystic base—and what it had to be saved from was reason.
    Attila’s share of Kant’s universe includes this earth, physical reality, man’s senses, perceptions, reason and science, all of it labeled the “phenomenal” world. The Witch Doctor’s share is another, “higher,” reality, labeled the “noumenal” world, and a special manifestation, labeled the “categorical imperative,” which dictates to man the rules of morality and which makes itself known by means of a feeling, as a special sense of duty.”

    Why would you quote a religious mystic who would have been horrified with the idea of abortion in defense of abortion? That doesn’t seem rational, but that isn’t surprising since Kant doesn’t care much for reason.

  117. Bertram Scudder (B.S.): “Why would you quote a religious mystic who would have been horrified with the idea of abortion in defense of abortion? That doesn’t seem rational, but that isn’t surprising since Kant doesn’t care much for reason.”

    Kant was a religious mystic? Sounds like the ravings of an Ayn Rand junkie.

    Try refuting the argument in lieu of defaming the man.

  118. Mike Spindell:

    I am a conservative and I have served. But correct me if I am wrong, most of our wars were started by liberals and then the rank and file liberals ran to Canada. Or they get jobs and send civilian/military technology to our enemies. Think GE and Clinton.

    Not all conservatives are chicken hawks.

  119. OS,
    I did see that article. It is amazing. The Religious Right has gone off the deep end on this one. This is a group that claims that they respect life, but it is ok to murder a doctor who is doing his/her job! This is an example of what the American Taliban looks like.

  120. Jason Roberts,
    Most of our wars are started by liberals?? Let’s review with the most current ones first, Iraq, AFghanistan, Republican.
    Of course you would have to confirm how you are defining war since we haven’t had a declared war since WWII. World War II wasn’t started by the US and we responded after being attacked, so that one would not be a Liberal who started it. Korean War which was a police action by the United Nations that we were involved in as a member of the UN. Vietnam is a little trickier because we actually started sending “advisors” to Vietnam during the Eisenhower administration, but our involvement increased under both Democratic and Republican regismes. (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon…you may recall that Nixon ran twice for president as a so-called peace candidate but he increased the bombing and made the incursion into Cambodia during his adminstration)
    As you can see from this quick review, your claim is not accurate.

  121. women need their rights….so their 10 year old daughters don’t become fodder for the loins of self-deceiving men.

  122. Bob Esq:

    Why not answer the question?

    Was he religious or not? Seems to me he was. Would he be against abortion or not? Seems to me he would be against it. So why would you use a religious philosopher to argue against abortion?

    Seems to me you are underscoring my point.

  123. rafflaw:

    neither are yours. We didnt start Afghanistan. Iraq was a bad idea. What about Kosovo?

    Nixon was trying to get us out of a bad situation. As for WWII, we could have stayed out of that war as we could have stayed out of WWI.

    A few advisors is not 500,000 troops.

  124. Bertram Scudder (B.S.): Why not answer the question? Was [Kant] religious or not? Seems to me he was.

    First, what’s the relevance? Whether or not he was religious does not alter his metaphysics of morals. Second, if he was religious, he sure did spend an incredible amount of time attempting to find proof for the non-existence, and existence, of God.

    B.S.: “Would he be against abortion or not? Seems to me he would be against it.”

    Perhaps, but he’d still have to reconcile his view within the confines of the social compact and his distinction between duties of virtue and duties of right. And unfortunately, without an immense amount of intellectual dishonesty, he wouldn’t be able to do so without preserving the first trimester as a duty of virtue zone.

    B.S.: “So why would you use a religious philosopher to argue against abortion?”

    You obviously never read Kant have you.

    B.S.: “Seems to me you are underscoring my point.”

    Come back when you’ve read the Critique of Pure Reason.

  125. Chan,

    And how would you define “alarmist?” As a professional who studies alarms…a person who is interested in alarms? Maybe as one who follows a system of belief in using alarms?

    ;)

  126. ‘Although it is still a radical idea in our day (which accounts for the stalking of patients, bombing of Clinics and the killing of medical personel)these women realized that control over one’s reproductive system was essential for survival. Women who found themselves pregnant had very limited options (there were no laws against firing pregnant workers or dismissing students and child support payments were very lax in enforcement by modern standards)and Jane sought to change that system. ‘ ~ http://www.amazon.com/review/R3PPV431U8OQF9/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3PPV431U8OQF9

  127. Jason,
    First of all, if we could have stayed out of WWII we could have stayed out of Afghanistan after being attacked. You can’t have it both ways.
    Iraq was more than a bad idea, it was started over lies and oil. Lies from a Republican President.
    Kosovo is not even close to being considered a war since we did not lose one single life in combat. We lost more brave souls in Grenada under Reagan, but I don’t consider that a “war” either. The mention of advisors in Eisenhower’s time was to give you perspective. Nixon wasn’t trying to get us out of war in his first term even though he ran on a peace platform both times. He increased the bombing and started student riots when he expanded the War to Cambodia. As to WWI, Wilson kept us out of the war during his first term, but after repeated German u-boat attacks on our merchant ships and their proposed alliance with Mexico, Wilson had no political choice but to declare war on a country that was attacking us already.

  128. Bob Esq.,

    How is it that you choose the first trimester to be IAW the social compact? Better yet, how does the decision of the Court influence the social compact?

  129. Buddha IL:

    “Spoken like a true virgin and someone who knows squat about women, Chan.”

    And I guess you drive the ladies crazy? Who gave you the snicker-doodles? Probably Glen Close:

  130. Bob Esq.,

    Point 1: The first trimester must have some significance for you to rely on it. What is that significance?

    Point 2: Isn’t change tot he social compact supposed to be controlled by the majority? Does the Court interfere with that?

    Why is it that all these things that you consider to be part of the social compact were not protected by that compact until centuries after the compact was established?

  131. Swarthmore,

    I can’t stand Glee. If you were to ask me “what’s the perfect example of your statement ‘everybody has bad taste’?” I’d point out the popularity of Glee. The show’s guiding philosophy seems to be that all music should all be as sugary and mass produced as soda.

    That was cathartic.

  132. Gyges:

    good for you, you are on your way to becoming a conservative. None of the ones I know even watch Glee. Maybe someday you will be able to quit hiding in plain sight.

  133. BBB: “Point 1: The first trimester must have some significance for you to rely on it. What is that significance?”

    One, a line must be drawn so as to preserve the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights and the consequent validity of the social compact. Two, the arguments traditionally made for the first trimester work in agreement with the aforesaid necessity to preserve the social compact.

    I don’t understand; do you want me to reinvent the wheel?

    BBB: Point 2: Isn’t change tot he social compact supposed to be controlled by the majority? Does the Court interfere with that?

    Are you fucking kidding me? The social compact draws the lines where society cannot exercise any power whatsoever. What books have you been reading?

    BBB: “Why is it that all these things that you consider to be part of the social compact were not protected by that compact until centuries after the compact was established?”

    What are you talking about? The argument was always there.

    What; are you upset that I’m making a simple argument that’s been there all along like unclaimed freight in a depot?

    Give it a break.

  134. Gyges, I understand what you are saying. When your daughter is 22, and she wants you to watch a program with her, you probably will watch it. Now that my daughter isn’t living at home again, I still watch it knowing that she will call and ask me what I thought of it. I think it sends out a message that many high school students don’t receive – it is okay to be gay. My son in Colorado refuses to buy a TV.

  135. Chan,

    You seem to view the term “liberal” as a pejorative.

    Let’s check out a few of definitions of the word “liberal.”

    Adjective

    – Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, dogmas; free from bigotry.

    – Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded

    ***
    Noun

    – A person who has liberal ideas or opinions.

    (Note: I took those definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.)

    *****

    What do you think is so bad about having liberal views or being a liberal? Do you think it unwise to be open to new ideas for progress? To be tolerant and broad-minded? To be free from bigotry?

  136. Otteray Scribe:

    I was just going to post an article from Salon.com on that very subject.

    I truly do not get how the Rabid and Ridiculous Right can on the one hand call abortion murder, and on the other seek to pass laws legalizing the murder of an abortion provider.

    I don’t know about anyone else but, I can feel my brain pushing against my skull as every brain cell screams, “WTF??!!”

  137. Elaine: “What do you think is so bad about having liberal views or being a liberal?”

    “Leading Democrats is like herding Cats” — John W. Dean

    Trying to please everybody accomplishes nothing.

  138. Rachel Maddow may have liberal thoughts; but she marches along like a conservative. That’s what’s appealing about her.

  139. Chan,

    Please allow me to say: NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT POLITICS. If on

    Swarthmore,

    Eh, my wife enjoys it occasionally, I just go in the other room to read.

  140. Chan:

    “Stamford Liberal:

    How do you know I am sexist? Because I said if women would say no there would be fewer pregnancies? I guess the answer to that is there would be fewer pregnancies.”

    No, boy. You know exactly why I rightfully called you a sexist pig. If you are that dense that you need it explained to you, go back and read my post a few times until you do get it.

    “But then my great grandmother lived with us and she used to tell me when she was a young woman you didn’t have men up to your room unless you left the door open and told the land lady. She also said that if a woman doesn’t want to you aint gonna.”

    And this is supposed to mean something because … ?

    “Maybe she was a sexist and assumed men were pigs and unable to control themselves, I doubt it because she is my fathers mother and he told me to keep it in my pants until I was married.”

    Don’t know, don’t care.

    “I think I will take my grammy’s opinion over yours, I know she was a lady. I doubt anyone says the same thing about you unless they want to get in your pants and have a bottle of Boons Farm and a plastic cup handy.”

    Oh, child. Such an inexperienced and imaginative little puke you are! Thanks for confirming your are a sexist pig.

    I’ll take an educated guess as to why your girlfriend always kept the tweezers handy … and it wasn’t because she was plucking her eyebrows.

  141. Bob, Esq.,

    I asked Chan what he thought was so bad about being a liberal or having liberal views–not what he thought about Democrats.

    That said, Democrats being more open-minded and less likely to adhere to a specific dogma or party line isn’t necessarily the worst thing–IMO.

  142. Stamford Liberal:

    About the time you think they cannot sink any lower, they do. It makes one wonder what it will take for them to really hit rock bottom.

  143. Elaine,

    Just how many liberal republicans do you think there are out there?

    And I’m not against an open mind; just an indecisive one.

  144. Gyges:

    “Elaine, Stamford, et all,

    Did I call it or did I call it?”

    If we were in a bar right now, I’d buy you a drink :D

  145. Stepford Liberal:

    “I’ll take an educated guess as to why your girlfriend always kept the tweezers handy … and it wasn’t because she was plucking her eyebrows.”

    Why whatever do you mean by that comment?

  146. Otteray Scribe,

    Thanks for the links. One has to wonder about the mentality of people like SD state Rep. Jensen who sponsor such bills. Pretty soon some far-rightwingers will be proposing laws that will legalize the lashing or stoning of women who have had sexual relations outside of wedlock.

  147. Bob, Esq. I think all the liberal republicans live in Massachusetts. Romney was one of them. Now, he is strongly anti-abortion.

  148. Bob, Esq.

    Not all Democrats are liberals.

    In the past in my state, we had quite a few Republican politicians who were quite liberal/open-minded. They may have been fiscal conservatives–but they held more liberal views on social issues. That’s why I sometimes didn’t vote for a straight Democratic ticket in those days. It’s too bad we don’t have more Republicans like that today.

  149. Swarthmore mom,

    Okay, but you do understand the point I was trying to make I hope.

    A liberal view on being too liberal:

    Remember how pissed off Rachel Maddow would get every time the Obama Administration refused to move forward until they made ‘everybody’ happy?

  150. Otteray Scribe:

    At the rate they’re going to the bottom, it won’t be too long before they hit.

    What the SD legislature is trying to do just, literally, blew my mind. My eyeballs are still throbbing.

  151. Stamford Liberal:
    I believe Chan is an undergraduate, based on some previous postings. Should we expect anything else but sophomoric attempts a humor?

  152. Bob, Esq.,

    One can be decisive about the wrong things. Remember George “The Decider” Bush? He and Cheney and Rumsfeld were decisive and resolute about starting a preemptive war in Iraq. It would have been better if Bush had questioned himself and his advisors more about the wisdom of that decision.

  153. Elaine: “Not all Democrats are liberals.”

    I understand; but do I really need a Venn diagram to make my point?

    You asked a simple question of Chan and I interjected with a simple, and true, observation.

    One of the primary weaknesses of liberalism is indecisiveness. Another, as exhibited by the Obama administration, is this dumb ass desire to be liked by everybody.

    This is how good ideas die; failing to have the backbone to connect thought with action.

  154. Otteray Scribe
    1, February 15, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    Stamford Liberal:
    I believe Chan is an undergraduate, based on some previous postings. Should we expect anything else but sophomoric attempts a humor?

    *****

    What humor?

    ;)

  155. Chan,

    In re: The Ladies

    Hey, at least they let me touch them in those places forbidden to you, Oh Great Virgin of the Plains.

    And don’t underestimate the power of good food vis a vis getting laid. The way to a woman’s heart is though her stomach. Women love a man who can cook, especially if he can make their favorite dishes and throw in a wicked dessert.

  156. Bob, Esq.,

    President Obama may call himself a Democrat. I don’t consider him a “liberal” Democrat. I consider him more of a Republican on some issues. I have been upset with his constant attempts to appease Republicans, Wall Street, and for various and sundry other things–which I won’t go into now.

  157. Elaine: “One can be decisive about the wrong things. Remember George “The Decider” Bush? He and Cheney and Rumsfeld were decisive and resolute about starting a preemptive war in Iraq. It would have been better if Bush had questioned himself and his advisors more about the wisdom of that decision.”

    Really Elaine? Being decisive is bad because bad people can be decisive? Was Patton a bad leader?

    Bush should have consulted his advisers?

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_2230

    Come on; who are you kidding?

  158. Elaine,

    “Do tell what that ‘wicked dessert’ might be! You’re talking food, right???”

    Mostly. :twisted:

    I find pears poached in red wine and honey, served with chocolate sauce and a fresh mint garnish to be particularly effective.

  159. Bob, Esq.,

    BTW, I do think there is a difference between being indecisive and caving to the other party on particular issues. Caving/compromising is often done for political reasons/expediency–not because one is indecisve

  160. Bob Esq.,

    “One, a line must be drawn so as to preserve the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights and the consequent validity of the social compact. Two, the arguments traditionally made for the first trimester work in agreement with the aforesaid necessity to preserve the social compact.”

    I don’t consider you to be a stupid man, Bob. To say that a line must be drawn, while avoiding the rationale used to create that line is being disingenuous. You’re far too intelligent to not understand that there the line was not just created arbitrarily so that they would have something to work with.

    I think you know full-well that the line was based on quickening, and I think you know that quickening was the only way they had to identify signs of life in the womb. As such, the line used to distinguish between alienable and inalienable rights was based on the available evidence of life.

    If a child in the womb moves, and the mother feels it, there is life, and the line is drawn.
    If the child in the womb moves, and the mother does not feel it, does that life not exist?
    Does the social compact protect life or does it protect movement?

  161. bUDDHA IL:

    what would you recommend? Since you have a way with the ladies vis a vis snicker doodles which I did not get.

    How about mac and cheese with THC brownies for desert? I can cook it all in my room on a hot plate. I can cook the brownies in my dutch oven.

    What do you think?

  162. Chan,

    I think that’s a meal commensurate with all of your demonstrated skill levels. On second thought, maybe you should start out with ramen with a NyQuil/Rhohipnal chaser. That’s about your speed. However, you should be careful. You’re clearly spending too much time in your dutch oven and all the fumes have gone to your head.

    BTW, I didn’t make the Snickerdoodles. I can’t bake. They were a gift.

  163. Buddha Is Laughing
    1, February 15, 2011 at 2:35 pm
    Chan,

    In re: The Ladies

    Hey, at least they let me touch them in those places forbidden to you, Oh Great Virgin of the Plains.

    And don’t underestimate the power of good food vis a vis getting laid. The way to a woman’s heart is though her stomach. Women love a man who can cook, especially if he can make their favorite dishes and throw in a wicked dessert.

    ===================================
    Shush! … we do not want this dude procreating

  164. BBB: “I don’t consider you to be a stupid man, Bob. To say that a line must be drawn, while avoiding the rationale used to create that line is being disingenuous.”

    Are you kidding me? The rationale for the line underlies the entire theory of the social contract. Why do you think there’s such a crucial distinction between usurpation and tyranny; just for shits and giggles? What gives you the idea that I’m the creator of this theory?

    BBB: “I think you know full-well that the line was based on quickening, and I think you know that quickening was the only way they had to identify signs of life in the womb. As such, the line used to distinguish between alienable and inalienable rights was based on the available evidence of life.”

    I think you know full well that there’s a difference between the social compact and laws promulgated thereunder. Analytically speaking, under the social compact, slavery was impossible because exercising power over an individual’s right of self ownership is tyranny per se. Did laws exist respecting slavery and ignoring the social compact; yes — observe the fugitive slave clause. Are they valid under the social compact; CATEGORICALLY NO.

    Accordingly, I think you know full well that bringing up an old law for your new idea that you can exercise power over an individual’s right of self ownership carries zero weight whatsoever.

  165. Why does the ‘not-quite-Right insist on controlling women via their bodies rather than making it more possible for women to live decent lives in the first place? Don’t they know that abortion has more to do with resources and self determination in instances where consent has been ignored or a woman has been left to cope w/a situation alone?

    What sane woman would bring a child into this world right now?
    Not one who could not afford health insurance….not one who did not accept welfare as being liveable…not one who would have to spend 18 hours a dy just to afford subsistence and basic necessity and thereby never get to see her child…not one who gave a shit about the manner of life that child would be exposed to and forced to live….

  166. Buddha,

    I think a good chunk of the strength of our strong relationship is do to my wife’s sourdough waffles and my pan seared steak with improvised pan sauce.

    The secret to a good sauce is using homemade stock. Mine is (usually) gelatinous at room temperature.

  167. Gyges,

    Without a doubt. And sourdough waffles? Wow! What a concept! Does your wife have a single sister who can make those? ;)

  168. Woosty’s still a Cat,

    If I may …

    It is difficult for some to cope with the fast change in our scientific-technological society and what they view as a breakdown in moral order. The breakdown is not real but they view it as such and are desperately seeking ways to deny, ignore, or backup to a time less full of change and thus more predictable. Their old beliefs are taking a beating and this threatens their whole world and even, for some, their immortality. Their superstitious ignorance is the only tool they have so they strengthen it with hate for anyone who introduces or accepts change and fear of the steady pace change, in spite of all their efforts, continues to make. They rightfully sense that if they do not adapt, they will cease to be. Their numbers will decline as more and more learn to adapt to the reality of this scientific-technological society.

  169. Buddha IL:

    I know they were a gift, I assume from a female. So since you seem to have a way with the ladies I was asking for some help.

    Obviously you dont like my choices. However I dont think nyquil and ruffies are a good idea. Raman isnt bad though.

  170. Blouise of course you may, I’ve yet to read one of your posts that has done less than add intelligence to the discussion.
    I’m assuming you mean the ‘right’ are not adapting? I would disagree…they have adapted very well…at the expense of many!

  171. Blouise:

    that was an elegant explanation of a large number of people on both sides of the political spectrum.

    I imagine they were saying the same thing when Gutenberg invented the printing press and Ford started mass producing cars. Probably talking about putting the poor scribe and the buggy whip maker out of business.

  172. You know this thread has been very enlightening. Lots of good things discussed that my professors have never talked about. I feel kinda stupid to tell you the truth.

    I have a question, can you all help me to become a liberal? Seriously, much more interesting than my professors (most of whom voted for Bush). I have, gleaned a few things; helping your fellow man, being for abortion (generally), liking art, being agnostic or an atheist, likes to read, open to new ideas, for gay marriage, accepting others at face value. In short the three A’s Altruism, Atheism and Acceptance. Is that a good start?

    I want to learn how to understand AAA better.

  173. Blouise:

    Your post of 3:52 reminded me of a Green Day song from “21st Century Breakdown”

    Sing us a song of the century
    It sings like American Eulogy
    The dawn of my love and conspiracy
    Forgotten hope and the class of 13
    Tell me a story into that goodnight
    Sing us a song for me

    Hysteria, mass hysteria!
    Mass hysteria!
    Mass hysteria!

    Red alert is the colour of panic
    Elevated to the point of static
    Beating into the hearts of the fanatics
    And the neighborhood’s a loaded gun
    Idle thought lead to full-throttle screaming
    And the welfare is asphyxiating
    Mass confusion is all the new age and it’s creating a feeding ground for the bottom feeders of hysteria

    Hysteria, mass hysteria!
    Mass hysteria!
    Mass hysteria!
    Mass hysteria!

    True sounds of maniacal laughter
    And the deafmute is misleading the choir
    The punchline is a natural disaster
    And it’s sung by the unemployed
    Fight fire with a riot
    The class war is hanging on a wire because the martyr is a compulsive liar
    When he said “it’s just a bunch of niggers throwing gas into the ….”

    Hysteria, mass hysteria!
    Mass hysteria!
    Mass hysteria!
    Mass hysteria!

    There’s a disturbance on the oceanside
    They tapped into the reserve
    The static response is so unclear now
    Mayday this is not a test!
    As the neighborhood burns, America is falling
    Vigilantes warning ya,
    calling christian and gloria

    I don’t wanna live in the modern world!
    I don’t wanna live in the modern world!
    I don’t wanna live in the modern world!
    I don’t wanna live in the modern world!

    I’m the class of ’13
    In the era of dissent
    A hostage of the soul
    On a strike to pay the rent
    The last of the rebels
    Without a common ground
    I’m gonna light a fire into the underground

    I don’t wanna live in the modern world!
    I don’t wanna live in the modern world!
    I don’t wanna live in the modern world!
    I don’t wanna live in the modern world!

    I am a nation without bureaucratic ties
    Deny the allegation as it’s written (fucking lies!)

    I want to take a ride to the great divide
    Beyond the “up to date” and the neo-gentrified
    The high definition for the low resident
    Where the value of your mind is not held in contempt
    I can hear the sound of a beating heart
    That bleeds beyond a system that’s falling apart
    With money to burn on a minimum wage
    I don’t give a shit about the modern age

    I don’t wanna live in the modern world!
    I don’t wanna live in the modern world!
    I don’t wanna live in the modern world!
    I don’t wanna live in the modern world!

    I don’t wanna live in the modern world! (Mass hysteria)
    http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/greenday/americaneulogy.html

  174. Chan,
    I realize you are being sarcastic, but it isn’t difficult to be a progressive or a liberal. You don’t have to be an atheist and most folks aren’t pro-abortion, they are in favor of women controlling their own bodies. If you are for equal rights for all, marriage should be open to all, not just heterosexuals. Taking care of one’s neighbors is a law or rule of most religions so that shouldn’t be hard for you. Stick around and we will make a convert out of you.

  175. The thing is, oppressing women does not just harm women, it harms everyone. The world they are ‘creating’ for their children will be so full of hate and venom….maybe even FROM their own children….it is just sad.

  176. rAFFLAW:

    Actually I was being serious with just a little bit of fun. You have to admit that looking in from the outside I am pretty close with my AAA abbreviation.

    And I was serious about my professors, we had some good discussions but nothing like this. Maybe a classroom doesn’t lend itself well to a truly free discussion.

  177. Chan,

    Of course a classroom at a school with a pre-ordained political and economic ideology doesn’t lend itself to truly free discussion.

    Most schools don’t operate under such a constraint. Certainly no good schools do. All ideas are welcome, but all ideas are challenged. Routinely and harshly. It’s a much more robust environment than one narrowly confined to a specific political end. That lack of constraint leads to better critical thinking skills and a broader base of knowledge. It’s the difference between driving a Ford Escort with a acceleration delimiter and driving a Ferrari 560. Going to a place like Hillsdale – or Regents, or Bob Jones, or (insert ideologically bent school of choice here) – does not provide a high performance well rounded education, but rather a low performance narrow band education.

  178. Chan,
    I think the altruism and acceptance of diversity part is ok, but most liberals are religious, but there are some atheists as well. Part of the diversity. Most classrooms can have a free discussion if the professor and/or school does not have an agenda.

  179. Woosty’s still a Cat
    1, February 15, 2011 at 4:53 pm
    I want to learn how to understand AAA better.~Chan

    http://www.aaa.com

    ======================================================

    Poor dude … i almost feel a little bit guilty but … naw … good one on you and :lol:

  180. Chan,

    Interestingly enough … it was the invention of the printing press by Gutenberg that led to hundreds of copies of Luther’s 95 theses arguing against the sale of indulgences being printed and passed all around Europe which eventually led to the Reformation. That bit of technological advancement put the world in turmoil and you can bet there were lots of disgruntled folk running around trying to get everybody to go back to the old ways … The Roman Inquisition was established in 1542 by Pope Paul III to suppress Lutheranism

    Fear of change has been with us forever … yet change continues to take place no matter how hard the superstitious and ignorant fight against it; no matter how many they slay.

    You are on the losing side, dude … a real education would teach you that.

  181. “The only constant is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.” — Isaac Asimov

  182. Blouise,
    You are right that an education that challenges you to think for yourself and not necessarily what others think is vital for all of us.
    Buddha,
    My life is a testament to Asimov’s rule! I have been repeatedly reinventing myself for a long time and I am sure that I am not done yet!

  183. It was also the invention of the printing press that led to the Catholic Church’s being able to increase the number of indulgences printed (Monks and Clerics used to have to do them by hand) that led to Luther’s protests etc. Irony is a beautiful thing.

  184. raff,

    There are very few people in the course of civilization I would find intellectually intimidating based on just raw brain power, but Asimov makes that list. He was a frighteningly smart man. Did you know he wrote most (if not all) of his books as first drafts? Like Mozart, he did it all in his head before he committed it to paper. He was also a wise teacher.

  185. Elaine,

    Yeah, she’s pretty and all, but then you’d have to be Welsh.

    So the question is Welsh culinary tradition or Italian culinary tradition?

    That’s hardly a fair contest. :)

  186. Buddha and raf,

    The night owls are still here … I’ve been out and am so damn tired I can’t see straight … good times though … going to check out some other threads … perhaps I’ll see you there :)

  187. Bob Esq,

    “I think you know full well that there’s a difference between the social compact and laws promulgated thereunder. Analytically speaking, under the social compact, slavery was impossible because exercising power over an individual’s right of self ownership is tyranny per se. Did laws exist respecting slavery and ignoring the social compact; yes — observe the fugitive slave clause. Are they valid under the social compact; CATEGORICALLY NO.

    Accordingly, I think you know full well that bringing up an old law for your new idea that you can exercise power over an individual’s right of self ownership carries zero weight whatsoever.”

    ======================================

    I really like what you wrote

  188. Blouise,
    I am still hanging out, but I took some time out earlier this evening to get ready for a field trip for a basketball game tomorrow night about 6 hours from home. See you on the other threads.

  189. Hey Otteray!

    What’s wrong with sophomoric humor? Are you trying to put me out of business? I warn you!- I’ll take my slapstick and go home. And my whoopie cushion,too! If this persecution continues, I’ll put your hand in a pan of warm water while you’re asleep. You have been warned.

    What? That comment was about Chan?… Oh….Well….Hmmmm….

    Never mind.

  190. Blouise:

    “You are on the losing side, dude … a real education would teach you that.”

    so tell me what the winning side believes.

  191. “So the question is Welsh culinary tradition or Italian culinary tradition?

    That’s hardly a fair contest.” :)
    ______________________________________

    Well Buddha I’d bet your mind could be changed with a good Oen Cymreig â Mêl ….;)

  192. W=c,

    I’m not saying there is noting of value in Welsh cooking, but we’re talking Italy here. They may not be able to run a cogent government since the turn of the last century? But those folks really know how to cook!

  193. FYI, Mike Pence, not “Spense”.

    I had no idea that de-funding Planned Parenthood was akin to a “war on women”. Just so you all know…Pence (not “Spence”) is moving to eliminate funds being given to PP through Title X…he’s not moving to eliminate funding for Title X…you know, in keeping with the spirit of not using tax dollars to fund the murder of babies.

    So it looks like Title X was not on the chopping block…actual medical care funding would still be available for women…you do realize that there are doctors outside of PP that can offer this care?

    Don’t worry, a woman can still hire a hit-man to legally kill a child nestled in the womb for as little as $300.

  194. BIL:

    “But those folks really know how to cook!”

    I still call tomato sauce gravy, and regardless what kind of pasta I’m making, it’s ALL macaroni!

  195. Buddha,

    They certainly do know how to cook! I actually learned how to cook from an Italian cookbook (Leone’s Italian Cookbook, 1967). My sister gave it to me when I was in college. Some of my favorite recipes in the book were for veal saltimbocca, veal scaloppine with chianti, veal rollatine, veal cutlet parmigiana, breast of chicken oreganto, chicken cacciatora, beef pot roast. I still cook most of those dishes today–but I substitute chicken for the veal. I’ve also adapted the recipes to my own taste.

    My husband makes the best eggplant parm and lasagna, pizza, stuffed squid, Italian wedding soup. He even makes homemade pasta. You don’t have to guess why we’ve been happily married for more than forty years.

    :)

  196. Craig,
    I am still not used to this iPad keyboard. The sentence should say “You may want to re-read the bill Pence proposed. It is removing all of the title x funds from planned parenthood.”.

  197. Craig:

    “Don’t worry, a woman can still hire a hit-man to legally kill a child nestled in the womb for as little as $300.”

    Who do you recommend? The Gambino family, the Genovese family or the Bonanno family?

  198. Buddha,

    I can not argue that Italian isn’t amazing…even better over there where the oil is as delicious as the wine…but I must admit to being fond of Celtic cooking…

    …but then there is French…

  199. rafflaw-
    I realize Pence wants to defund PP completely. PP is not Title X. PP *receives* money from the Title X fund.

    Here’s an analogy:
    I have AT&T phone service. I’ve budgeted $50 per month for phone service.
    I end service with AT&T and pick up service from Verizon for $50 per month.

    My budget hasn’t changed, only the payee.

    Like the analogy above, the budget (Title X) is unchanged. The payee changes…the analogy isn’t quite perfect as AT&T doesn’t also butcher children in the womb…but you get the picture. My analogy is morally neutral…funding PP is morally evil. I agree with Pence: remove PP as a service provider…there are other places that can do the job.

  200. Craig:

    “Don’t worry, a woman can still hire a hit-man to legally kill a child nestled in the womb for as little as $300.”

    That is about what it is. Suck that little bastard right out of the womb and knock his/her little head in and throw them in a dumpster. How many now 30 million, maybe that is why social security is underfunded and why we have up to 30 million illegals in this country. Nature abhors a vacuum.

    It is heartening to see that some people still retain a sense of human decency. But I wonder how many of these limousine liberals have had an abortion? Most likely they just want it available for people of color and the poor. Too many of them might spoil the grass at the club.

  201. Elaine M:

    you got that right, this country went down hill when women got the right to vote. Children would be more stable as well.

    One can only hope we can overturn the 19th amendment when we regain the house and senate. Overturn the 16th as well while we are at it.

    What else can we do? I know overturn Roe v Wade as well through a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Probably will have enough states. Come on 2012.

    Re-education wont be so bad. But don’t worry you will only have to go to church once a day. The rest of the time will be spent reading and listening to re-education tapes by Billy Graham and Rush Limbaugh 20 hours a day. You know how we like to use torture.

    Wow, when I think about it, I wouldn’t want to be a liberal in today’s climate.

  202. Craig and Teacher Spouse:

    Sorry to burst your anti-abortion bubbles but abortion represents a very small portion (6%) of the services PP provides. Gosh, what additional services you may ask? Allow me:

    Mammograms;

    Screening for and procedures to prevent cervical cancer;

    Infertility;

    Testing for and prevention of STD’s;

    Menopause education;

    Screening for and procedures to prevent ovarian cancer;

    Pap testing;

    HPV testing;

    Pelvic exams;

    Urinary tract infection testing;

    Birth control;

    Yeast infection testing;

    Sex education.

    These services are provided for women who lack health insurance and lack the funds to pay for a private OB/GYN.

    Now, I know this reality may be very hard to wrap your wee brains around but, please don’t hurt yourself in doing so.

  203. El Cid
    1, February 16, 2011 at 8:39 pm
    Elaine M:

    you got that right, this country went down hill when women got the right to vote. Children would be more stable as well.

    *****

    Your comment to me doesn’t make much sense. When did I suggest or imply that the country went down hill when women got the right to vote? What have you been smoking?

  204. /de-cloaking/

    Well Master, (Do you prefer Cid or Lord, or Master; Spanish/Arabic wasn’t my strongest study) I’m surprised you left the Thirteenth Amendment off your list but all in all, I appreciate the comedic nature of your posting and thank you for the Lol’s.

  205. Stammering Liberal,

    Try to get the talking points straight…PP likes to talk about how abortion only accounts for 3% of its services, not 6%.

    Also, you need to follow the money. Just because a particular service (i.e. baby murder) accounts for only “6%” of “service offerings”…that doesn’t mean the income associated with it is commensurate with that percentage.

    Abortion makes up 36.7% of PP’s revenue…6% sounds pretty silly when you use a real measure…when you say 6% (or 3%) and compare it to the actual revenue from abortion, it’s clear such a number is a misdirection.

    PP’s bread and butter is the blood of children. It accounts for approx $367,000,000 of their $1,000,000,000 in total revenue. PP is acknoweldged by all to be the largest abortion provider in the U.S…since Roe v Wade America has “legally” aborted 50 million+ children…and PP can be thanked for the lion share. But hey, your talking point says PP offers a buffet of services…pretty weak, and there is the blood of 50 million children crying out for justice.

  206. Lottakatz:

    I wasnt joking. The 13th amendment is a good one. We dont want liberals to be slaves, we just want them to learn that the rest of us are not slaves.

  207. Lottakatz:

    I wasnt joking. I am in favor of the 13th amendment and would not want to repeal that one. We dont want to enslave liberals, we just want them to understand that we are not their slaves.

  208. Craig

    Did you come up with that all by yourself? How cute, but, I’ve been called far worse by people much smarter than you. Yawn.

    Since you were too busy foaming at the mouth over one aspect of PP’s services, you missed the point of my post. What was the point? Allow me to reiterate – PP provides infinitely more services than abortion. I merely pointed out this very simple fact.

    See, PP provides a myriad of services specifically for women, you know, those breasts-vagina-hormone thingy’s we’ve got going on. Specific services that are not available from standard issue docs-in-a-box and services not needed by men. In particular, PP provides said services to women who cannot afford private healthcare, nor can they afford a private OB/GYN.

    I could very easy take your stats as fact – but I know better. I would like to see where you got your information from. And, preferably verifiable and from reputable sources. Although, it is highly unlikely that said stats will change my opinion of PP. But, feel free.

    In closing, until you suddenly and miraculously sprout a uterus, I will view your opinion as one from a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal with an overly inflated ego, an overly inflated sense of self and an embarrassingly inflated sense of machismo.

  209. Stammering Liberal,I did come up with that quip by my lonesome-

    I don’t think that, nor anything else I’ve said, displays any form of “machismo”. I bet about half of all abortions destroy what would otherwise grow into a woman (complete with uterus and all). I think murdering little girls is contrary to a woman’s health…it doesn’t take a vagina to know that, regardless of how long my arms may (or may not) be or whether my knuckles suffer callauses from constant dragging.

    Stammering Liberal: “I could very easy (sic) take your stats as fact – but I know better.”

    I’m not sure how you know you know this since you don’t know where I got my information…but somehow you “just know” (my wife has a uterus, and she’s not sure how you miraculously “know better”, either).

    Look at PP’s 2008 report (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR08_vFinal.pdf)

    If they performed as many abortions as they claim (305,310) and the average cost is $450 (this is a reasonable estimate), then that equals: $137,389,500
    Total revenue: $374,700,000
    Divide $137,389,500 by $374,700,000 and you get your percentage: 36.7%

    If I wanted to really demonize PP, I think I would have come up with a different number than 36% of their revenue comes from abortion…maybe I should have said 95% instead…but what we know is that 36% of their revenue comes from abortion. Yes, they offer a myriad of services, and although abortion makes up a small percentage of a meaningless measure it makes up the lion share of their profitability (the other large portion is government money). Follow the money.

    Part of PP’s services include adoption referrals…which was a fraction of 1/% of their service offerings…keep in mind, you (and PP) want us to think they offer a buffet of services…abortion makes up 3% of their services, but makes up 36% of PP’s revenue…certainly adoption, being a small fraction of their service offerings (like abortion) would be nearly a third of their abortion rate (if the numbers were commensurate)…no. PP’s own “fact sheet” (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact_ppservices_2010-09-03.pdf)lists their TOTAL number of adoption referrals as 2,405 for year 2008. for every 130 or so abortions PP provides, they give 1 adoption referral.

    There’s money in abortion…perhaps that’s why PP offers condoms with a higher rate of failure than many other kinds?

  210. Swarthmore mom,

    I looked up that story:

    From Daily Kos (2/17/2011)
    GA Legislator Wants to Create The Uterus Police to Investigate Miscarriages
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/17/946257/–GALegislator-Wants-to-Create-The-Uterus-Police-to-Investigate-Miscarriages

    Excerpt:
    They do this every session in the state legislature here in Georgia. Someone introduces a bill that would make abortion a criminal act. And, yes, this year is no exception. This year’s legislation was introduced by House Republican Bobby Franklin ( [ the same guy ]who wants rape victims to be called “accusers”). Franklin is one of the more, ahem, colorful members of the legislature, bless his heart. According to him, SCOTUS had no right to rule on abortion and thus GA can do whatever it damned well pleases. Oh, and you’d better be able to prove your miscarriage was natural or face felony charges/.

    Franklin’s H1 basically says that GA has a duty to protect all innocent life from the moment of conception until natural death (yet he also proposed a bill last session that would forbid the CDC from requiring mandatory flu vaccinations in a pandemic; apparently preventing massive deaths from a pandemic don’t come under the heading of protecting life). He announces that we all know life begins at conception, and that abortion is “prenatal homicide”. Furthermore, he states that a fetus is (or should be) a person under GA law, and thus entitled to equal protection under the law (yet gay adults shouldn’t be allowed to marry, according to Representative Franklin, under that same equal protection clause in the GA constitution).

    But not content with ignoring federal law on t he matter, he proceeds to take on the SCOTUS and Roe v. Wade. Just because SCOTUS can’t define when life begins, doesn’t mean that GA can’t,s since we all know it begins at conception. Because some idiot like him, who graduated from a damned Bible college and who isn’t a lawyer, obviously knows more about constitutional law than the Supreme Court. According to he esteemed but not terribly smart Mr. Franklin, the federal government is only allowed to handle five crimes–and murder isn’t one of them (yes, I know how ridiculous that sounds). Since abortion is murder of a “pre-natal human being” GA can and will criminalize it.

    According to this law, any human intervention other than delivering a living fetus is a crime. Every physician must make an equal effort to save the life of mother and fetus, but if the fetus does die after such an effort, it isn’t a crime. It allows an exception for spontaneous abortion AKA miscarriage–but only if there is no human intervention involved.

    That banging sound you hear is me beating my head against the stone wall of sheer stupidity.

    It goes on to state that any attempt to remove a fetus from the mother except to facilitate a live birth is murder. The doctor MUST do everything to save the life of both fetus and mother, but if the fetus doesn’t survive despite this, it’s not a crime. Abortion is now a form of murder.

    I can see so many issues with this bill.

    There are situations where you can’t save the life of both fetus and mother.

    * What if the woman learns that she has cancer and must terminate the pregnancy in order to get treatment? No exception for that in this bill.

    * What about a case where the woman is hemorrhaging, the bleeding can’t be stopped and the doctor must save her and abort the fetus? No exception for that.

    * What if she has a partial miscarriage, and is bleeding heavily. Must she wait until her body naturally ejects the dead fetus, even though carrying a dead fetus can lead to septic shock? Doesn’t sound like there’s an exception for that.

    * What if it’s an ectopic pregnancy? You cannot save the fetus and the mother in such a case.

    * What if the woman is told she’s carrying an anecephalic fetus with only a brain stem which will be non-viable outside the womb? Must she carry that fetus full-term?

    It gets worse. Franklin wants to create a Uterus Police to investigate miscarriages, and requires that any time a miscarriage occurs, whether in a hospital or without medical assistance, it must be reported and a fetal death certificate issued. If the cause of death is unknown, it must be investigated. If the woman can’t tell how it happened, than those Uterus Police can ask family members and friends how it happened. Hospitals are required to keep records of anyone who has a spontaneous abortion and report it. Yup, we’ve been waiting for someone to suggest this–and Franklin has.

    Link to the Bill:
    http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display.aspx?Legislation=31965

  211. I’m reposting the last paragraph of that excerpt of the Daily Kos article I posted above. I think EVERY woman should read it!!!!!

    “It gets worse. Franklin wants to create a Uterus Police to investigate miscarriages, and requires that any time a miscarriage occurs, whether in a hospital or without medical assistance, it must be reported and a fetal death certificate issued. If the cause of death is unknown, it must be investigated. If the woman can’t tell how it happened, than those Uterus Police can ask family members and friends how it happened. Hospitals are required to keep records of anyone who has a spontaneous abortion and report it. Yup, we’ve been waiting for someone to suggest this–and Franklin has.”

    **********

    Millions of women have miscarriages–through no fault of their own. It is a heartbreaking experience for most of them. Imagine the “uterus Police” investigating every miscarriage–and assuming women who suffer miscarriages may be guilty of a crime???

  212. Elaine,

    Sent your above link to a couple of “activist” friends in Georgia and received an immediate “Thank You” response.

  213. Craig:

    “I did come up with that quip by my lonesome-”

    Mommy must be very proud of your “creativity.”

    “I don’t think that, nor anything else I’ve said, displays any form of “machismo”.”

    Any man who believes they have the right to dictate to a woman what they can and cannot do with their body, particularly when they purport to be champions of the right of privacy, is a coward, hiding behind fake machismo in order to justify their piggishness. My comment stands.

    Abortion is a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor – that’s it. Not a decision to be made between a woman, her doctor and the bohunk standing there like a fool spouting of their definition of morality.

    “I’m not sure how you know you know this since you don’t know where I got my information…but somehow you “just know” (my wife has a uterus, and she’s not sure how you miraculously “know better”, either).”

    How nice. You’re wife is just as “bright” as you are. Congrats.

    “If they performed as many abortions as they claim (305,310) and the average cost is $450 (this is a reasonable estimate), then that equals: $137,389,500
    Total revenue: $374,700,000
    Divide $137,389,500 by $374,700,000 and you get your percentage: 36.7%”

    I appreciate the link, thanks. But, keep in mind that since the price of abortions can range, your calculations are a bit skewed. And, good. PP makes money. What company isn’t in business to do so? Or are government subsidies only supposed to be for companies that you approve of? LOL. At any rate, and as I’ve stated before, regardless, I am a firm supporter of ALL services provided by PP.

    “If I wanted to really demonize PP, I think I would have come up with a different number than 36% of their revenue comes from abortion…maybe I should have said 95% instead…but what we know is that 36% of their revenue comes from abortion. Yes, they offer a myriad of services, and although abortion makes up a small percentage of a meaningless measure it makes up the lion share of their profitability (the other large portion is government money). Follow the money.”

    Money that undoubtedly goes back into PP in order to provide free services for women unable to pay for them. You know, those lower income women who cannot afford insurance nor private doctors. In my mind, that is a good thing.

    “Part of PP’s services include adoption referrals…which was a fraction of 1/% of their service offerings…keep in mind, you (and PP) want us to think they offer a buffet of services…abortion makes up 3% of their services, but makes up 36% of PP’s revenue…certainly adoption, being a small fraction of their service offerings (like abortion) would be nearly a third of their abortion rate (if the numbers were commensurate)…no. PP’s own “fact sheet” (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact_ppservices_2010-09-03.pdf)lists their TOTAL number of adoption referrals as 2,405 for year 2008. for every 130 or so abortions PP provides, they give 1 adoption referral.”

    PP is in the “health services” business, not “adoption referral” business. But, given this information, I would think that even one less abortion would be enough to make you as giddy as a school girl. Instead of looking at this as a positive, you complain – waaa. Typical.

    “There’s money in abortion…perhaps that’s why PP offers condoms with a higher rate of failure than many other kinds?”

    There are a whole host of reasons why women prefer condoms to birth control pills, none of which you are privy to. Unless, of course, you can read minds. If so, do a little research and report your findings. I’ll wait with bated breath … lmao.

  214. I am weary of the anti-abortion, anti-birth control and anti-woman haters of this world. My religion believes that life begins at birth, when the breath of God gives life to the child. Why should another’s religion, that believes differently get the right to decide the issue?

    In Christianity and in Islam that are reasons why this misogynistic mindset exists. Many of those given voice by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea, were believers in the idea that women were evil temptresses and so through the history of Christianity there has been in many quarters a strident anti-women theme. As for Islam, even though their Prophet had a more advanced view of womanhood for his time (though very far from perfect), after his death the age old tradition of keeping women in their place and with it multiple wives for the well off, remained. Judaism too has its’ strain of the Mid-Eastern cultural bias against women.

    Many men fear women for the “power” they hold over them. In my opinion these are the men most likely to have bought into the myth that one’s sexual success defines manhood. How can they really love, or even sexually satisfy a women when they fear them psychologically? They secretly suspect and in fact they are bad lovers, simply because you cannot really have good sexuality, if the object of that sexuality, is perceived as someone to be feared/loathed?

    So where does that leave men like this? It leaves them trying to punish women for their own sexuality and trying to control there reproductive choices. At the same time I suspect that many of these men, with their psychological undertone of misogyny, take secret pleasure in their efforts to force women into being second class citizens, lacking the right to control their own bodies.

    Now it is true that many women too are anti-abortion and anti-women’s rights. How that fits in to my mind is that first we have the male-dominated fundamentalist propaganda, which they have bought into. Secondly, it might be their own fear, or dissatisfaction with their sexuality. Thirdly, for them it may well be the Stockholm Syndrome.

    In the pantheon of the anti-abortion movement, only the RCC to its’ logical credit believes that government assistance should be provided to unwed mothers. The Fundamentalist Christians in this country don’t want any assistance given and in that they expose themselves for the frightened misogynists they are. They care about babies up until their birth and then support governmental and social neglect of the child once it is born.
    This issue has never been about right to life and indeed some of the greatest supporters politically of the anti-abortion movement are totally amoral in their private lives. The issue is the need for males to completely dominate women as a means of alleviating their deepest fears.

  215. Blouise,

    IMO, there are too many politicians in this country who are batshit crazy! I can’t keep up with all the stories about nutty folks like Rep. Franklin and the bills they propose. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE???

  216. Elaine M:

    Thank you for the link! As Blouise did, I forwarded it to a few of my girlfriends.

    “Millions of women have miscarriages–through no fault of their own. It is a heartbreaking experience for most of them. Imagine the “uterus Police” investigating every miscarriage–and assuming women who suffer miscarriages may be guilty of a crime???”

    I’m always told by the anti-choice anti-women folks that miscarriages are part of “gods” plan. Going by Bobby Franklin’s logic, I guess that means god will be served with a few hundred-thousand arrest warrants every day.

  217. Stamford Liberal,

    I see you are engaging the “troll” … don’t get too attached for he doesn’t maintain an identity for long … usually there are three personalities … my favorite was the “jailbirds” … my second favorite was the “mercenaries” … my least favorite was the “mormons” (the verb in this case is purposely singular even though the noun is plural)

    I like putting him on a camel and sending him to the Biker Bar

  218. Elaine and Blouise,
    I did see that story about the Georgia Rep. who wants to set up the uterus police! This stuff is crazier than fiction.
    Mike S.,
    As usual, well said. This attack on women’s rights is based on religion and is a small example of what the American Taliban looks like. The Religious Right wants to return to the days when women were second class citizens. If that Georgia Rep. doesn’t convince you of that, nothing will.

  219. Stamford Lib said: “Any man who believes they have the right to dictate to a woman what they can and cannot do with their body, particularly when they purport to be champions of the right of privacy, is a coward, hiding behind fake machismo in order to justify their piggishness. My comment stands.”

    If assertions capped with psychoanalysis with a twist of conjecture meant anything, I guess you’d have something.

    We disagree as to whether the unborn are living persons…by simply appealing to your belief otherwise, you have merely made a statement of faith.

    Well, I believe the unborn are living persons. What makes your statement of faith any more weighty than mine?

  220. Blouise:

    Thanks for the tip – I know I should know better than to feed the trolls but I kinda get a kick out of the anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-women folks spinning their wheels trying to justify forcing their morality on everyone else. Then they whine about everyone else doing it to them. If it weren’t so laughable, it would be pitiful.

    I think I’m done with Craig at this point, any way. It’s getting old and getting boring. Need to find some new entertainment :)

    —————————————————————–

    Mike S:

    I bow to your common sense, reason and clarity.

  221. Elaine M.
    1, February 18, 2011 at 12:09 pm
    Blouise,

    IMO, there are too many politicians in this country who are batshit crazy! I can’t keep up with all the stories about nutty folks like Rep. Franklin and the bills they propose. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE???

    =============================================

    They’re scared … science and technology have overwhelmed them … the world changes daily in ways they can not comprehend and thus they feel as if they have lost control … so they attempt to gain some semblance of control by attempting to control others.

    I believe it’s partially culture but I think science will also eventually find that it is also DNA related. In other words, they can’t help it … they have a built in fear of change, of upheaval, of things being “different” from that which they experienced as a child.

    They were with us in the caveman days and in every century since. Yet they always end up losing for change continues to move ahead and with each discovery, each invention, they fall further behind.

    They don’t understand people who aren’t afraid of change, they can’t comprehend why anyone would work to invoke change … they railed against the flint as a fire starter, against any thought that didn’t pay homage to the sun god, against the idea that man could sail the oceans without keeping land in sight, against the “horseless carriage”, against electricity, against immigration other than their own relatives, against those who wished to depose the monarchy, against, against, against.

    They are deathly afraid of those who promote or welcome change and have spent centuries killing them. Yet change continues.

    Having no idea how to adapt, they try to remake everyone in their own image. Perhaps science and technology will discover a vaccine …

  222. Stamford Liberal,

    Oh I understand … sometimes I use them to sharpen my argument … even organize my thoughts and sometimes it’s just plain fun to tease them into righteous sputterings. I used to feel guilty about that until I realized that they should have to work for their pittance.

  223. Blouise,
    I think you are being too kind! I think most of them are afraid, but it isn’t science. It is a mix of religion, lack of intelligence and some of them are bats__t crazy as Elaine stated abve.

  224. Craig,

    Do you consider women who are alive to be “living persons?” Do you think that if a pregnancy puts a woman’s life at risk that the woman should have the right to try to save her own life?

  225. Mike Spindell,

    I am going to take the liberty of adding another “class” of men and women to your list.

    I know, intimately, several couples who have grappled with the reality of the availability of abortion. The sonogram shows that the fetus has severe problems … the doctors can predict serious problems, even death, if the child is brought to full term. What to do? They all opted to bring the fetus to full term. In each case the doctors warnings were correct and the newborn had severe problems.

    In the first case all those problems were corrected, thanks to the skill of the physicians and the advancements in medical knowledge and treatment. In two cases the problems could not be corrected (Down Syndrome)but all members of each family can not imagine life without the presence of these children. In the final case the child died within 3 days but the mother and father maintain that holding that child for those three days was the greatest blessing they have ever received.

    Although none of these men and women opted for abortion, all of them are pro-choice for never, in a million years, would they presume to tell any expectant mother or father what they should do in such a difficult situation. As one mother put it to me, “Only those who haven’t been there would be so cruel.”

  226. rafflaw
    1, February 18, 2011 at 12:54 pm
    Blouise,
    I think you are being too kind! I think most of them are afraid, but it isn’t science. It is a mix of religion, lack of intelligence and some of them are bats__t crazy as Elaine stated abve.

    ==================================================

    Perhaps, but isn’t religion often a tool for handling the fear of the unknown? As to science … those afraid of the change science brings to their lives have been killing scientists and those who support science for centuries. Perhaps they are no longer killing them in this country, instead they are trying to kill the ideas and deny proven facts by rewriting the books.

    As to batsh*t crazy … now you are making derogatory remarks about republican/teabaggers who are just trying to take back their country!

  227. Anonymously Yours
    1, February 18, 2011 at 1:22 pm
    Isn’t it the mantra of the Tea Party….What Rights? What Rights Do Women Have?

    ==================================================

    I have the right to call you so answer the damn phone!!

  228. Blouise,
    I think you are correct about religion being used as a crutch against the fear of the unknown. As to the second part, I think accurate is a better term than derogatory. But they both work for me! :)

  229. Blouise,

    I think some of these politicians have been whipped up into a frenzy–and the crazies are leading the charge. They’ve gotten caught up in the anti-abortion cause and are beginning to take things too far. Witnessing what’s going on in this country today, I think, makes it easier to understand what happened in Salem/Danvers, Massachusetts in the late 17th century. Care to join in a modern-day version of the Salem Witch Hunt, anyone?

  230. Elaine,

    Let me pose to you a question that has priority:
    If an unborn child is a living person, may a woman abort that child?

    Of the 50 million+ abortions which have been done in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade, how many were to “save the life” of the mother? If we postulated 5% that is likely higher than the actual number. So in the face of 45 million abortions, if the unborn are living persons should women have a right to abort them?

    On to your question:
    I wonder why abortion is the first answer when a pregnant woman’s life is in danger? I happen to think medicine is a wonderful gift from God and doctors are more creative than just opting to murder babies. Medical advancement comes in the face of difficult scenarios. Why would you want to use the scenario of a woman’s life being in danger as your “proof” case?

    I have more faith in medicine than others, I guess.

  231. Elaine: “Care to join in a modern-day version of the Salem Witch Hunt, anyone?”

    Only 19 or so died in the Salem witch trials…50 million+ children have been murdered by “legal” abortions.

  232. Craig,

    I asked you a question. Can you answer it honestly?

    Are you suggesting that the life of an unborn child takes priority over the life of a woman who could die if her pregnancy isn’t terminated?

    A lot of people do a lot of talking about the sanctity of life. Some of those same people don’t appear to care all that much about the sanctity of women’s lives.

  233. “Abortion is a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor – that’s it.”~Stamford Liberal
    ===========================================

    I agree, because of the times. Normally I would include the fetus’s father (in cases outside of consent or when the man is a responsible, respectful and concerned towards the woman involved and not a misogynistic control freak or self serving creep).
    These days are becoming again what they have been in the past….a time to not even speak of the rape, or the mistake, or the negligence by ignorance or capitulation to fear, or especially the pregnancy but just to simply deal with it…

  234. Elaine,
    I answered you honestly. You did not answer my question.

    I’ll be generous: Let’s say of the 50 million+ children that have been aborted, 15 million were aborted to save the mother’s life.

    Are the extra 35 million+ justified if all unborn children are living persons?

    Not only did I answer your question, my question underscores the inherent weakness of justifying abortion for the sake of a mother’s life. I also happen to have more faith in ingenuity and medicine rather than revert to the barbarism of abortion.

    To turn your reference to Salem on its head, don’t you think killing innocent children for fear of a possible health goblin is a bit naive? By the way, abortion techniques allow for chemical burning (sort of like burning at the stake), beheading, and chemical induced abortions that lead to a woman delivering the body into a toilet…dangling the child from his/her umbilical chord.

  235. Blouise, Elaine M., rafflaw, et al:

    Study: Conservatives Have Larger ‘Fear Centers’ in Their Brains December 30, 2010

    British study shows conservatives’ brains tend to have larger amygdalas, which responsible for primitive emotions.
    Political opinions are considered choices, and in Western democracies the right to choose one’s opinions — freedom of conscience — is considered sacrosanct.

    But recent studies suggest that our brains and genes may be a major determining factor in the views we hold.

    A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other “primitive” emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate — the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

    If the study is confirmed, it could give us the first medical explanation for why conservatives tend to be more receptive to threats of terrorism, for example, than liberals. And it may help to explain why conservatives like to plan based on the worst-case scenario, while liberals tend towards rosier outlooks.

    “It is very significant because it does suggest there is something about political attitudes that are either encoded in our brain structure through our experience or that our brain structure in some way determines or results in our political attitudes,” Geraint Rees, the neurologist who carried out the study, told the media.

    http://www.alternet.org/news/149362/study%3A_conservatives_have_larger_'fear_centers'_in_their_brains/

    —————————————————————-

    Guess this gives credence to the phrase, “You can’t fix stupid.”

  236. It’s nice that research proves what is readily gleaned from casual observation.

    Namely that conservatives are fearful and liberals are fearless.

    I’ll quote Frank Herbert again if I have to. ;)

  237. Funny how anti-choice, anti-birth control, anti-women types whine that pro-choice opponents use fear …

    “By the way, abortion techniques allow for chemical burning (sort of like burning at the stake), beheading, and chemical induced abortions that lead to a woman delivering the body into a toilet…dangling the child from his/her umbilical chord.”

    Nah, nothing to see here, folks.

  238. “How can they really love, or even sexually satisfy a women when they fear them psychologically? ” Mike Spindell
    ===================================================

    Mike Spindell you sound like an exceptional soul and I think your wife(or S.O.) is one hell of a lucky woman….

  239. Craig,

    Here are my two questions again.

    1. Do you consider women who are alive to be “living persons?”

    2. Do you think that if a pregnancy puts a woman’s life at risk that the woman should have the right to try to save her own life?

    Your response: “On to your question: I wonder why abortion is the first answer when a pregnant woman’s life is in danger? I happen to think medicine is a wonderful gift from God and doctors are more creative than just opting to murder babies. Medical advancement comes in the face of difficult scenarios. Why would you want to use the scenario of a woman’s life being in danger as your “proof” case?”

    All you needed to do was to give me a “yes” or a “no” answer to each of my questions–but you weren’t willing to do that.

    BTW, I said nothing about abortion being the first answer when a pregnant woman’s life is in question, did I? Why did you infer that I had? I am pro-choice. I am not “pro-abortion.” Please don’t assume that I am.

  240. Christian Law Journal.

    Well there’s your problem right there. We have a secular government in this country. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    That includes Christianity.

    “Christian Law” is as big an oxymoron in this country as “Sharia Law”.

  241. Oh, I’m laughing with or without clicking the link and I’ve seen aborted fetuses before. I have a very high threshold of shock value. Even if I did jump through your lil’ hoop? I’d still be laughing because I’m laughing at you, “Christian Law Journal”. God isn’t American and Jesus didn’t write the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. They need to, indeed are required to, keep out of our legal system. Just like any other religion.

    If you’re against abortions? Don’t get one. Problem solved. But you should keep your religious dogma off of women’s bodies and their choices regarding their health. Coercion in forcing a woman to keep a pregnancy is as vile as coercion in forcing a woman to have a pregnancy.

  242. Randall Terry, I mean Craig,

    I see this bears repeating:

    Funny how anti-choice, anti-birth control, anti-women types whine that pro-choice opponents use fear …

    “By the way, abortion techniques allow for chemical burning (sort of like burning at the stake), beheading, and chemical induced abortions that lead to a woman delivering the body into a toilet…dangling the child from his/her umbilical chord.”

    Nah, nothing to see here, folks.

    ——————————————-

    And thy name is hypocrite … LMAO!

  243. rafflaw

    “Stamford,

    Nice article! Did the study look into any other body parts??”

    —————————————————————-

    Lol – I am so not going there … I just finished lunch and since it was so good, I’d like to keep it!

  244. “Coercion in forcing a woman to keep a pregnancy is as vile as coercion in forcing a woman to have a pregnancy.” (Buddha)

    Yes … I like that one … gonna put it in my arsenal of “Conservative/Repuiblican Rape Room Techniques and Procedures”

  245. I found this paragraph from Lottkatz’s post from The Raw Story particularly interesting:

    “Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called the measure a bill of attainder, a “legislative enacted penalty aimed at some person or organization that’s identifiable,” and decreed it unconstitutional.

    “I challenge anyone to say how this isn’t a bill of attainder,” Nadler said on the House floor. “This amendment is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts if it should pass.”

    Any of the scholarly lawyers here want to take a stab at this? :)

  246. Stamford,
    I am not one of the scholarly lawyers, but didn’t the Acorn defunding bill survive an appellate court test? I will have to check back on that. Besides, I don’t think this bill will make it through the Senate.

  247. rafflaw:

    That’s what I was thinking re: ACORN. I’m looking for info.

    I agree – but doesn’t the House control funding??

  248. Thanks for the link Lotta! I get it right every once in awhile.
    OS,
    I saw that the House passed the PP defunding bill. Thanks. I don’t think the Senate will pass it.

  249. I know, I know……..

    Either house can fund anything so long as the revenue is there….But any project calling for new funding….such as revenue enhancement…..must start in the house…. Most people would call that a Tax…..I prefer the colorful words…then people don’t know what they are doing….

    Hey what do you call an attorney with an IQ of 50? Your Honor…

  250. We need a news thread on the attack on produtive freedom. This is barely loading. I call an attorney with an IQ of 50 – someone who can’t pass the bar. Too many people stayed home in 2010. We had many arguments on this blog about what might happen. The worst is happening. I don’t see Tony C commenting here. At least the base is rallying now.

  251. What the hell manner of chaos and criminality is occurring NOW while the fundy right wing diddles around about Planned Parenthood.

    What constitutional freedoms and principles are they upholding?

    The mess they are making is going to bite their kids in the ass….

  252. Not sure if it was this thread or another that mentioned adoption and foster care. Here is a little tidbit from a local paper…http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/father-of-dead-girl-injured-boy-pleads-not-1264805.html

    strangely enough, the Child and Family Services dept. had been involved for quite awhile…you know, that group that like teachers are so incredibly underfunded…again, the concern for children in light of all the defunding in favor of corporate welfare is just twilight zone….

  253. “Mike Spindell:
    I am a conservative and I have served. But correct me if I am wrong, most of our wars were started by liberals and then the rank and file liberals ran to Canada. Or they get jobs and send civilian/military technology to our enemies. Think GE and Clinton.
    Not all conservatives are chicken hawks.”

    Jason Roberts,
    You are absolutely correct in the fact that many conservatives have been in the service and some have fought bravely. However,
    many of the most hawkish of politicians were conservatives who called for or started wars, but either didn’t serve, or avoided duty in harms way. As to your assertion that most wars were started by liberals, let’s look at the record:

    Revolutionary War: Were the founding fathers liberals?

    War of 1812: Was James Madison a liberal?

    Civil War: Was our first Republican President a Liberal?

    Spanish American War: Was Wm. McKinley a liberal?

    WWI: Yes one could call W. Wilson a liberal, even if he was a
    racist and anti-Jewish.

    WWII: FDR was a Liberal, but what would you have done after Pearl
    Harbor? Senator Prescott Bush’s bank provided some of
    the original Nazi Funding and was the sire and grand sire
    of two Republican Conservative Presidents.

    Korea: Harry Truman a liberal, with tremendous bi-partisan
    support.

    Viet Nam: JFK was far from Liberal and also was heroic in war.
    Richard Nixon served in the Pacific in WWII and
    supported the war.

    Granada: Reagan spent WWI as a documentary film narrator for the
    army far away fromthe front lines. Jimmy Stewart, Ted
    Williams, Bob Feller, Phil Rizzuto saw significant
    action.

    Nicaragua: George Bush, Sr. had a good military record but
    definitely started this war.

    Desert Storm: Bush, Sr. again

    Iraq 2: George Bush, Jr. was an Air National Guard deserter and
    to boot the ANG was known as a haven for rich kids
    avoiding conflict. Dick Cheney was too busy to serve in
    a war he didn’t believe in. This failure to serve was a
    general condition among Republican war supporters save
    for Donny Rumsfield, who was a Sgt; in WWII.

    Afghanistan: See above.

    I would say that it was about even between conservative and liberal war starters. Many liberal served the country valiantly in the Armed Services. However, when it comes to hypocritical partisanship, even a legitimate war hero like John Kerry was savagely disparaged by conservatives who never served.

  254. “If you’re against abortions? Don’t get one. Problem solved.”

    I wonder if that same principle would work with kidnapping and pedophilia?

  255. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    March 9, 2011

    Senate Rejects Defunding Planned Parenthood While House Escalates the War on Women Washington D.C.

    In reaction to today’s events on Capitol Hill, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued the following statement:

    “We commend fair-minded senators for rejecting the anti-choice House leadership’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and dismantle the nation’s family-planning centers,” said Keenan. “Unfortunately, the Senate action coincides with a War on Women in the House that continues to escalate. This extreme and far-reaching agenda is a wake-up call to Americans, who are realizing just how much time and energy anti-choice lawmakers are willing to expend attacking a woman’s right to choose instead of focusing on the jobs agenda that they promised Americans.”

    Today, the U.S. Senate rejected the extreme House version of the continuing resolution (CR), legislation that defunds preventive-health services at Planned Parenthood and zeroes out Title X, the nation’s domestic family-planning program. However, women’s access to family-planning services remains in jeopardy as Congress now must compromise on a final CR that will fund the federal government through the remainder of the fiscal year.

    Meanwhile, a House Ways and Means subcommittee scheduled a hearing on H.R.3, the extreme “Stupak on Steroids” legislation, for Wednesday, March 16. H.R.3 effectively blocks private insurance plans from covering abortion care in the new health-care system and imposes tax penalties on small-business owners and many other individuals who purchase private insurance plans that cover abortion care. The legislation now has 219 co-sponsors, enough votes to pass the House.

    Contact:
    Ted Miller, 202.973.3032

    http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/press-releases/2011/pr03092011_senate-cr.html

  256. Stamford,
    Thanks for the interesting and scary link. Stupak’s legislation is trying to make abortion illegal. How can he tell or madate to private insurance companies that they cannot include coverage for abortions? This legislation is startling evidence of the horrors that are in store for women if this bill gets passed and confirmation that women are considered second class citizens under the Religious Right. .

  257. rafflaw,

    “How can he tell or madate to private insurance companies that they cannot include coverage for abortions?”

    That’s what irks me. The Republican’s were so concerned about the nonexistent government takeover of healthcare, but have absolutely no problem with government dictating what coverage employers can (in order to get tax breaks) and cannot (lose the tax breaks) offer employees, even if the employees pay for it out of their own pockets.

    I simply cannot in any way, shape or form, wrap my head around it!

  258. Indiana Bill Would Force Doctors To Tell Women That Having An Abortion May Lead To Breast Cancer

    First Posted: 03/ 9/11 04:03 PM Updated: 03/ 9/11 04:03 PM

    WASHINGTON — Hundreds of protesters rallied at the Indiana statehouse on Tuesday in opposition to restrictive abortion measures that would, among other things, require doctors to tell pregnant women about a controversial theory that says having an abortion could lead to an increased risk of breast cancer.

    House Bill 1210, introduced by Indiana state Rep. Eric Turner (R), would make abortions illegal after 20 weeks. The Senate has already passed a similar bill, but it is awaiting action in the House.

    The bill would also require physicians to inform a pregnant woman seeking an abortion that the fetus could feel pain and require patients to view an ultrasound. A patient could get out of doing so only if she stated her refusal in writing.

    Turner was not available for comment on Wednesday, but he recently said, “The vast majority of both the Senate and House are pro-life legislators, and I think we truly represent Hoosier constituents.”

    But one of the most controversial portions of the bill is the part that would require doctors to inform women about the risks of abortion, including “the possibility of increased risk of breast cancer following an induced abortion and the natural protective effect of a completed pregnancy in avoiding breast cancer.”

    Indiana wouldn’t be the first state to promote this theory. According to the Guttmacher Institute, five states — Alaska, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia — currently include mentions of a link between abortion and breast cancer in written counseling materials.

    In 1999, Nevada Republican Sharron Angle — who was then in the state Assembly and recently lost the U.S. Senate race against Harry Reid — proposed a similar measure requiring doctors to make the abortion-breast cancer link.

    The American Cancer Society (ACS) and other major health organizations, however, have rejected this theory. In February 2003, the U.S. National Cancer Institute brought together “more than 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk.” They found that neither induced nor spontaneous abortions lead to an increase in breast cancer risk. In fact, the risk is actually increased for a short period after a woman carries a pregnancy to full term (i.e., gives birth to a child). According to ACS, these findings were considered “well established,” which is the highest level for scientific evidence.

    In June 2009, the highly respected American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice wrote, “Early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk were methodologically flawed. More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.”

    “I think that the pregnant lady needs to have every bit of information that she can,” Turner said in defense of the strict counseling requirements in his bill. “I think it’s important that she see an ultrasound image of her child before she elects to have an abortion. She can see that it’s a living being.”

    While some backers of the anti-abortion legislation turned out on Tuesday in Indianapolis, the Indianapolis Star reported that they were greatly outnumbered by opponents.

    For Planned Parenthood of Indiana (PPIN), which organized the rally, the fight is personal. House Bill 1205 would prohibit the state from “entering contracts with or making grants to any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed.” While many pieces of legislation in Indiana don’t take effect until July 1, after the close of the legislative session, this bill has an emergency provision — meaning it would take effect immediately upon passage.

    Planned Parenthood has 28 locations around the state. According to PPIN President Betty Cockrum, they serve 9,300 patients on Medicaid for a wide range of services including administering pap tests and STD treatment, providing birth control and giving annual exams. At PPIN’s other eight funded health centers, they serve 12,500 Medicaid patients. So if House Bill 1205 passes, PPIN estimates that approximately 21,800 Hoosiers would be affected.

    Indiana is also central in the national debate on abortion rights. On the federal level, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is leading a similar campaign against the national family planning organization.

    “We’re working as hard as we can to have the right conversations with legislators and leadership,” said Cockrum in an interview on Wednesday with The Huffington Post, adding that on the national level, one of their primary targets is Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). “I have to believe that Sen. Lugar is going to understand that taking family planning dollars away from existing health care providers to pay for birth control and pap tests isn’t good public health policy.” Indiana Right to Life, which supports Pence’s bill, also considers him a key vote. It recently sent an e-mail message to its supporters encouraging them to contact Lugar.

    Indiana Right to Life has hailed 13 measures introduced into the state legislature this session, calling it the “largest array of pro-life legislation in recent history.” The group’s website states, “The flood of legislation is a direct result of the dramatic change in leadership at the Statehouse following the November elections.”

    For now, these bills are all stalled. Indiana’s House Democrats left the state on Feb. 22 in order to prevent their Republican colleagues from reaching the quorum needed to push through anti-union legislation.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/09/indiana-women-abortions-breast-cancer_n_833388.html

  259. Use machine-controlled Blogging SoftwareThere are many software programs available that accomplishment to own, Alas in today’s world it’s of lilliputian more use than as a by-line.
    Ahmadinejad isunbowed on just now own blogs instead of websites.

Comments are closed.