REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Ron Paul and 'Honest Rape'...

POSTED BY: KWICKO
UPDATED: Thursday, February 9, 2012 06:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4206
PAGE 1 of 2

Sunday, February 5, 2012 7:15 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)





Quote:

Just in case there was any question, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is no friend to women. The latest evidence came during an interview on CNN where he told Piers Morgan that only in cases of “honest rape” would he consider abortion acceptable, and even then in he would just advise the woman to go to the emergency room for “a shot of estrogen.”

“Honest rape”. So, where do we begin?

I guess I would start by asking Paul to follow-up on just what exactly constitutes an “honest” rape. What kind of evidence would we need to show a lack of consent? Does a woman need to have signs she resisted? How much resistance counts before a rape goes from being “fraudulent” to being “honest”? Can spousal rape ever be “honest”? What about other forms of familial rape? What exactly is the bright line here?

Assuming we get some clarity from Paul on the parameters of “honest” rape, I’ve got a few logistical questions also. I’m assuming part of the investigation into whether or not a rape was “honest” would include an exam to collect evidence to support or negate the claim– a rape kit. We will need to have this evidence processed and processed QUICKLY in order to make sure we get that shot of estrogen in time. In order for that to happen, I’m assuming Paul is going to make sure that local law enforcement is fully funded and staffed to process those rape kits. How will this expansion of law enforcement be funded? And what about those women who don’t live in close proximity to a hospital or clinic? Do we have law enforcement come to them with doctors?

About that shot of estrogen. What exactly is this shot of estrogen supposed to do? Paul is purportedly an ob/gyn, so he must know a shot of estrogen won’t do a thing to prevent fertilization and implantation. So what’s that shot for?

I’m not sure what is the most dangerous aspect to come from Paul’s statements here: that his platform is built on a criminal disdain of women or as a doctor he doesn’t know his ear from his elbow.





Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/ron-paul-what-exactly-is-an-honest-rap.htm
l#ixzz1lWpWUDPx


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 7:22 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yeah, I heard that one while changing channels (if it's Morgan, I usually keep going). Pretty amazing, huh?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 7:36 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Yep.

Paul's interventionist stance on abortion sure seems at odds with his supposed libertarian leanings.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 7:40 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



That's crazy man Ron Paul. He'll make 2 or 3 good points, and then come out with a complete curve ball, baffling everyone.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 7:54 AM

DREAMTROVE


Careful, you're feeding the Raptor.

Surely Obama's boots are clean enough, your drool is probably hurting them.

Oh, I had a lot of snarks lined up, but seriously? I mean, seriously? Are we even going to go there? No wonder I don't come back here.

Okay, I've known a number of women who had consentual sex and then decided it must've been rape after they got pregnant by the logic of basically "I was being careful, if I got pregnant, it must've been rape" or sometimes as low as "we're not together anymore so it must've been rape.

That said, a law like this is going to cause a lot more of that, and also, it's not logical. If a human being is a human being than it does not matter how it came about. There's a town in brazil that's entirely populated by creations of Joseph Mengele in some mad scientist nazi lab. They're part of the species now.

Rape can get people pregnant, against their will, that's one of the reasons why we don't want rape in our society. That doesn't mean we kill the child. That's just logically inconsistent. If it's a human child it's not okay to kill it.

Dr. Paul is too far to left on this issue

Srsly, tho, he already said he wouldn't make any laws on this, because he's a libertarian. So basically what you're nitpicking is when he might actually *perform* an abortion, which I don't think he has done.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 7:57 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Yep.

Paul's interventionist stance on abortion sure seems at odds with his supposed libertarian leanings.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Hello,

He doesn't believe in the Federal government intervening in issues of abortion, so he's non-interventionist there, too.

I don't agree with his stance on abortion. At all. But since he doesn't want to empower the Feds to legislate against it, I don't consider him as dangerous as those who do want to give the Feds that power.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 8:05 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Careful, you're feeding the Raptor.



Umm... huh?

Seriously, I'm missing your meaning here.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 9:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

If a human being is a human being than it does not matter how it came about
Shudder...



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 10:17 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

He doesn't believe in the Federal government intervening in issues of abortion, so he's non-interventionist there, too.

I don't agree with his stance on abortion. At all. But since he doesn't want to empower the Feds to legislate against it, I don't consider him as dangerous as those who do want to give the Feds that power.

--Anthony



No. He wants the states to prosecute doctors who perform abortions.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/


This would pretty much require overturning Roe v. Wade, which the Federal government would have to do via Constitutional amendment. Seems interventionist to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 10:34 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Geez, its frightening that Obama is considered to have performed so poorly as Pres, meaning that one of these nutbags might actually gain power.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 10:59 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Geez, its frightening that Obama is considered to have performed so poorly as Pres, meaning that one of these nutbags might actually gain power.




Ron Paul is an island unto himself. He attracts the fringes of both parties, which insures him a small but animated and loyal following. As a member of congress, he's in good company with a fair amount of nuts and loose cannons. Regardless, at his age, it's extremely unlikely he'd ever achieve national appeal for office.

He is what he is.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 11:07 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Good, because he would be an insane president.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 11:47 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:That doesn't mean we kill the child. That's just logically inconsistent. If it's a human child it's not okay to kill it.


There is a reason they are called zygotes and then fetus while still in the womb. Until a fetus can survive outside the womb on its own the mother's rights to her body are a higher priority.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 12:21 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"I've known a number of women who had consentual sex ..."

Was that 'known' in the biblical sense?

OK, aside from that unfortunate phrase you used, how did you know, exactly, that what happened was consensual? And how did you know, exactly, what their thought process was while they decided to un-make it consensual? Are you a mind reader? Do you have sworn statements attesting to both the nature of the sex and the false claim of rape?

Just curious how you know these truthy things to be facts.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 2:25 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Careful, you're feeding the Raptor.

Surely Obama's boots are clean enough, your drool is probably hurting them.




Huh. One can't criticize one candidate without drooling over another? In which case, DT, why are you licking Ron Paul's boots? Or is it his boots you're licking?

Quote:


Oh, I had a lot of snarks lined up, but seriously? I mean, seriously? Are we even going to go there? No wonder I don't come back here.



You lie. You just came back here. It's a bit of an oxymoron to post claiming that you don't come here. Careful, one might get the idea you're a hypocrite!

Quote:


Okay, I've known a number of women who had consentual sex and then decided it must've been rape after they got pregnant by the logic of basically "I was being careful, if I got pregnant, it must've been rape" or sometimes as low as "we're not together anymore so it must've been rape.

That said, a law like this is going to cause a lot more of that, and also, it's not logical. If a human being is a human being than it does not matter how it came about. There's a town in brazil that's entirely populated by creations of Joseph Mengele in some mad scientist nazi lab. They're part of the species now.




And you of course have cites for this? I've seen "The Boys From Brazil", but apparently didn't realize it was a documentary.

Quote:


Rape can get people pregnant, against their will, that's one of the reasons why we don't want rape in our society. That doesn't mean we kill the child. That's just logically inconsistent. If it's a human child it's not okay to kill it.



Good thing it's not a human child, then. A fertilized egg is a child in the same way that a pecan is a forest. Stop eating nuts, DT - you're deforesting the world!


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 3:26 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

He doesn't believe in the Federal government intervening in issues of abortion, so he's non-interventionist there, too.

I don't agree with his stance on abortion. At all. But since he doesn't want to empower the Feds to legislate against it, I don't consider him as dangerous as those who do want to give the Feds that power.

--Anthony



No. He wants the states to prosecute doctors who perform abortions.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/


This would pretty much require overturning Roe v. Wade, which the Federal government would have to do via Constitutional amendment. Seems interventionist to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Hello,

To be more precise:

"Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."

And

"The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police."

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 3:39 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

He doesn't believe in the Federal government intervening in issues of abortion, so he's non-interventionist there, too.

I don't agree with his stance on abortion. At all. But since he doesn't want to empower the Feds to legislate against it, I don't consider him as dangerous as those who do want to give the Feds that power.

--Anthony



No. He wants the states to prosecute doctors who perform abortions.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/


This would pretty much require overturning Roe v. Wade, which the Federal government would have to do via Constitutional amendment. Seems interventionist to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Hello,

To be more precise:

"Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."

And

"The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police."

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner





Sounds quite like he's in favor of abortion for the rich, then. After all, if a state like, say, Texas outlaws abortion, and a rich Texas girl finds herself unexpectedly "in the family way" as they used to say, her family can still quite easily send her to somewhere like, say, California, where abortion is still legal, and no harm, no foul.



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 3:53 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

He doesn't believe in the Federal government intervening in issues of abortion, so he's non-interventionist there, too.

I don't agree with his stance on abortion. At all. But since he doesn't want to empower the Feds to legislate against it, I don't consider him as dangerous as those who do want to give the Feds that power.

--Anthony



No. He wants the states to prosecute doctors who perform abortions.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/


This would pretty much require overturning Roe v. Wade, which the Federal government would have to do via Constitutional amendment. Seems interventionist to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Hello,

To be more precise:

"Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."

And

"The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police."

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner





Sounds quite like he's in favor of abortion for the rich, then. After all, if a state like, say, Texas outlaws abortion, and a rich Texas girl finds herself unexpectedly "in the family way" as they used to say, her family can still quite easily send her to somewhere like, say, California, where abortion is still legal, and no harm, no foul.



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill



Hello,

You encapsulate the very problem to giving this power to the states. People of means will take abortion vacations to neighboring states. Poorer people will either have a child they are not prepared to care for (either materially or emotionally, depending on the situation,) or will opt to pay discount butchers for the service.

However, I view his position as far superior to those who wish to outlaw abortion at the Federal level. And that's a prevailing desire on the Right.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 6:21 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike, sorry, the negativity of this place gets me down. I can't think that most of the folk here could be rescued from drowning in a ditch without intentionally spitting on the person who dragged them out.

As for Ron Paul, he's mentioned it a hundred times, and there's no way you can make the case that he would ban abortion but to cherry-pick lines from his speeches for the purpose of attacking him, the only point of doing so being that you're supporting someone else. It's not that you have a genuine credible gripe with the man, it's that you're making one up for the purpose of defending someone else. In this case, I'm damned sure you're not doing it for Gingrich or Romney, so I concluded it was for Obama, even though I know you don't like Obama, because at times you can be blindly partisan.

If I wanted to attack Ron Paul, I'd do so on the environment, which I think is his weakest issue.

This issue is another one of the areas that I disagree with Dr. Paul on. I am opposed to killing children, and I know the other side is emotionally invested in their position for the obvious reason, and I really don't care. I'm not going to call it murder because murderers I can tolerate. But as to Paul's position, thing is, it's painfully obvious that Anthony is correct. Ron Paul's position has been made very clear many times. I'm not defending that position because I think it's not very defensible, except from a point of getting rid of the concept of law, but I concur with Anthony that he holds it.

It would be hard to ban abortion without creating some monster regulatory force which would then preside over medicine, but I can't morally not do so without also lifting a ban on murder, which I suppose would be the next logical step, which I'm afraid would result in a perpetual vigilante crime war, but I suppose that's a step up over police state. Ultimately, there has to be a better solution.



Magon,

Obama is not considered to have performed poorly, he *has* performed poorly. He handed 16 trillion dollars in cash to the same people who wrecked the economy under Bush; he radically expanded the Bush era police state policies to levels that represent more govt. interference in the daily lives, by many reports posted here, of americans than any other us govt; and he has started military conflicts in seven countries. I'd call that a disaster. Now if he were on my side on fracking, or any major environmental, human rights, civil liberties or economic issues, just one, I might cut him some slack.



Kiki,

Your life called, it misses you.


Nick,

How classic. I knew someone would say that, I just expected it to be a girl. You will find one day that they actually don't want you deciding their rights for them. That said, I disagree, it's not her body. It's her daughter's body. I don't think that it's okay to kill a child because of something her parents did. If it were okay, I think we would see a lot more family blood wars taking out next of kin, which I guess is what Obama has been up to the last four years.


Niki,

What, you have a problem with that? You think some human lives are worth more than others?


Geezer,

I really doubt it.


Rap,

Ridiculing Paul or portraying him in a radical light based on out of context remarks only serves to support a rival candidate, which, this being primary season, benefits you far more than it benefits him.


Anthony,

I'm sure you're right.


Life is sacred, flower life, bunnyrabbit life, slime mold life and human life. If you have a choice and you opt to take a life for your own selfish can that's an evil act. If you kill your own kin the gods of evolution are judging you and despising you at that very moment.

But no one ever seems to stop and ask how much of their own choices are really their own. Are y'all sure that no white supremacist like the minions of Margaret Sanger and Marie Stokes didn't talk you into it? We none of us are the masters of our own judgment all of the time. The biggest trick to not being evil is to know the words of devils from those of angels, and to ultimately be able to sort out which is which, and hopefully not make any rash decisions while your working it out.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 7:49 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Rape can get people pregnant, against their will, that's one of the reasons why we don't want rape in our society. That doesn't mean we kill the child. That's just logically inconsistent. If it's a human child it's not okay to kill it.


While I agree that killing the kids is a detriment to society, on the other hand, pregnancy and child birth can be dangerous. In the very least it reduces the amount of heavy lifting and other work a woman can do, which impacts her ability to support herself and therefore survive.

I can't really say that forcing a woman to birth a child that they had no say in conceiving, considering the many dangers, is fair to the mother.

This is why I think science ultimately needs to fix this problem, by offering survival for the kids without forcing anything on the woman.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 8:02 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Magon,

Obama is not considered to have performed poorly, he *has* performed poorly. He handed 16 trillion dollars in cash to the same people who wrecked the economy under Bush; he radically expanded the Bush era police state policies to levels that represent more govt. interference in the daily lives, by many reports posted here, of americans than any other us govt; and he has started military conflicts in seven countries. I'd call that a disaster. Now if he were on my side on fracking, or any major environmental, human rights, civil liberties or economic issues, just one, I might cut him some slack.



Unlike your comments on my country, I hesitate to comment on Obama's performance in that I don't live in the US and don't have personal experience of his policies, so that is why I worded it the way that I did.

My understanding is that it seems a fairly untenable position to be in, President elected just in time for the GFC, the US deeply enmeshed in a number of costly, pointless wars, and a hostile congress that blocked much chance of him introducing change. I'm not sure whether he has done a good enough job or not, but his task of 'fixing America' was pretty impossible.

Re your position regarding rape strikes me as the ultimate in male arrogance. A woman having been through the trauma of rape must then have NO CHOICE but to give birth to her rapist's child if she falls pregnant. Ever been pregant, DT? Ever given birth? Do you know how hard it is, what an emotional and physical toll it takes on a woman. In your world, you would punish the victim, who you, in your god like manner, would also have made proclamation on whether her rape case was worthy. Reading what you right makes me want to regurgitate my lunch.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2012 8:03 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike, sorry, the negativity of this place gets me down. I can't think that most of the folk here could be rescued from drowning in a ditch without intentionally spitting on the person who dragged them out.

As for Ron Paul, he's mentioned it a hundred times, and there's no way you can make the case that he would ban abortion but to cherry-pick lines from his speeches for the purpose of attacking him, the only point of doing so being that you're supporting someone else. It's not that you have a genuine credible gripe with the man, it's that you're making one up for the purpose of defending someone else. In this case, I'm damned sure you're not doing it for Gingrich or Romney, so I concluded it was for Obama, even though I know you don't like Obama, because at times you can be blindly partisan.

If I wanted to attack Ron Paul, I'd do so on the environment, which I think is his weakest issue.



Really? I "don't have a credible gripe with the man"? How very condescending of you. I have LOTS of credible gripes with the man, from his ties to white-supremacist organizations to his stance on abortion to his stance on disaster relief, and more.

Quote:


Are y'all sure that no white supremacist like the minions of Margaret Sanger and Marie Stokes didn't talk you into it? We none of us are the masters of our own judgment all of the time.



So how sure are you that no white supremacist group like Stormfront or American Third Position (A3P) talked Dr. Paul into his stances on issues? There are some ties there that are a bit cozier than most people might think, not to mention his infamous newsletters.

But I suppose if you can tolerate murderers as you said, you'll happily abide a few white supremacists as well...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 6, 2012 3:47 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
To be more precise:

"Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."

And

"The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police."



However, the Roe v. Wade ruling is a de facto acknowledgement that the Federal government is in the business of applying the ninth and tenth amendments to allow abortion. The only ways to "get the Federal government out of it" is to either get the Supreme court to overturn Roe v. Wade, legislate the Roe v. Wade protections out of existance and hope the legislation itself is not declared unconstitutional, or pass a Constitutional amendment declaring that the Federal government and courts can have no say in abortion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 6, 2012 4:03 AM

DREAMTROVE


Byte,

True, but so can abortion. As a general rule, in developed countries, abortion deaths exceed childbirth deaths, in poorer nations it is the reverse, but in both cases figures are fairly close.

But this is a healthcare issue. If someone's life is in danger you would deal with it on a case by case basis. Consider if you had a set of conjoined twins with a 50% chance of survival, and if you separated them you knew that the chances would be 75% and 25% respectively. That would be a tough choice, and something people have to make for themselves.

What I don't want to see is the heathcare aspects conflated with the moral political position. I think science has really caught up with this one. All childbirth deaths are now considered 100% avoidable, but all care is not available in all places, so it's more of a logistical problem than a scientific one. As for what to do with the baby, there is always more demand for infants than supply in adoption. Older kids, not so much.


Magon, did I ever comment on the job Gillard was doing? Or the job Howard did? I doubt it, but if I did, I would feel free to do so. Obama's bad job effects the entire planet. Everyone has a right to comment. He has essentially claimed jurisdiction over the entire planet, so I think the world should be allowed to vote on him.

Quote:

Ever been pregant


This is just idiocy. You're getting emotional and that is clouding your ability to communicate. My genetic status in no way invalidates me in commenting on the killing of children.


Mike,

You have a point about Nazis and Ron Paul, though not re: abortion, as they are lefty and pro-choice for the obvious reason: you can't have a white america without selectively controlling births, or killing or forcibly exporting the minorities which make up a decent percentage of the country, and you know stormfront is not going to sacrifice 100 million white lives to that civil war, even with their racism if they give themselves an insane kill ratio, they would still have to consider 10 million white deaths, and they wouldn't be willing to do that.

They do however like Ron Paul, even if they don't agree with him, because they know he would leave them alone.

Of course I have to tolerate white supremacists, it would be impossible to hold to a libertarian/anarchist position if you didn't. Once we are all free to do our own thing, I know that they will group into little separatist colonies and make jew-free zones or whatever, but that's their right as humans, and as long as they actually separate from the rest of us, I don't really care what they do. If they come to my door to be nazis, that's a different matter.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 6, 2012 7:46 AM

CAVETROLL


On Roe V Wade, and setting aside the crazy and "whether or not it is a life";
This cuts straight to the point of privacy. Do you, in consultation with a medical professional, have the right to decide what happens to your body? We are on the cusp of medical innovation that offer the chance for the blind to see, the deaf to hear and the lame to walk. Do you want all that thrown away because of someone's adherence to religious dogma? That's one step from outcasting people born with red hair and the left handed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 6, 2012 7:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


There is a saying that goes: If men could become pregnant, then abortion would be a sacrament.

Women still bear the highest burden of child-rearing, and the total burden of child-bearing and birth. Given that women have the responsibility, they should have the authority, and nobody ELSE who is not prepared to take on the task of raising the child should have a say in what happens.

I would love to see a law which says that the man who impregnates a woman becomes 100% responsible for supporting her during her pregnancy and 100% responsible for supporting the child after birth. If that law were in place and fully enforced, we would be having a very different discussion. Partly as result, I think, of men being far more careful when and where they put their penises.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 6, 2012 10:38 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:



Magon, did I ever comment on the job Gillard was doing? Or the job Howard did? I doubt it, but if I did, I would feel free to do so. Obama's bad job effects the entire planet. Everyone has a right to comment. He has essentially claimed jurisdiction over the entire planet, so I think the world should be allowed to vote on him.



Oh no, but you have enlightened me (sic) many times on the political state of my country, being that you are an expert on that as well. every one has the right to comment, but I prefer not to make an idiot of myself by assuming that I know a whole lot of stuff that I clearly don't.

Quote:



This is just idiocy. You're getting emotional and that is clouding your ability to communicate. My genetic status in no way invalidates me in commenting on the killing of children.




And describing abortion as killing children is not emotional communication. Pot meet kettle. I don't think you know what you are talking about. I think you have no empathy for women, or understand abortion, pregnancy or rape which are ALL emotional issues, like it or not.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 6, 2012 10:57 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Niki,

What, you have a problem with that? You think some human lives are worth more than others?

Of course I have a problem with it. I'll let Cave answer for me:
Quote:

Do you, in consultation with a medical professional, have the right to decide what happens to your body? We are on the cusp of medical innovation that offer the chance for the blind to see, the deaf to hear and the lame to walk. Do you want all that thrown away because of someone's adherence to religious dogma? That's one step from outcasting people born with red hair and the left handed.
I do think it's male arrogance, and some people's desire to have control over others. Obviously I don't think some human lives are worth more than others, but I also do not consider a zygote or a fetus before a certain term to be "human life", I consider them "POTENTIAL human life".

I also agree with Sig. It's easy for men to have the opinion that "all life is sacred" so a woman MUST bear a child, but if men were forced to be responsible, it WOULD be different. As it is, the LAW says they SHOULD be responsible, but all they have to do is walk away...which so damned many do...or rape a woman and walk away; that way they've satisfied themselves without any responsibility for the consequences.
Quote:

He has essentially claimed jurisdiction over the entire planet
Ahhh, so great to have your amazingly over-the-cliff statements back. Nobody else comes CLOSE to spouting the idiocy you do and claiming it to be the truth.

Kiki asks a question and you come back with
Quote:

Kiki,

Your life called, it misses you.

Hey DT, your life called; it misses you. All those ignorant souls out there who need eddicating called; they need your wisdom. We don't. And we don't need your misogynistic attitudes, either.

The plain fact is, we're already AT a place where the rich can get abortions and the poor cannot. Abortion is impossible to achieve--despite it being the law of the land that women DO have that choice--in the majority of the country. Even doctors who provide it do so under threat of their lives. People who don't want women to be able to choose have found myriad ways of MAKING it impossible for them. So much for democracy.

May you come back as a poor woman and get raped, THEN you can speak with authority. Until then, your opinion means no more than anyone else's, less than any woman's, less than ANY woman who's born a child, and far less than that of any woman who's been raped and is faced with the actual problem.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 6, 2012 11:17 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Quote:

Rap,

Ridiculing Paul or portraying him in a radical light based on out of context remarks only serves to support a rival candidate, which, this being primary season, benefits you far more than it benefits him.



To be honest, I didn't even bother trying to track down this 'honest rape' stuff, given how the media takes comments out of context , as a rule, when it's a Republican , yet are dumb, deaf and blind to what ever a Democrat says.

Ron Paul is more spot on accurate on 2/3 of what he says than any other candidate out there, but it's the 1/3 that he's wrong on that worries me. And he's not just a 'tad' off on that 1/3, but over the Left field wall, through the parking lot, across the street and well into the next county wrong.

That's why I didn't parrot the 'rape' stuff, as I really don't care what he said. He's a doctor, and probably knows more about what he's saying than most folks. My concerns with his platform go well beyond any out of context comment.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 6, 2012 11:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What I find stupid beyond belief is the notion that "all human lives are worth saving"... unless, of course, they interfere with making the highest profit possible, are Muslim, black or brown, female, poor, or convicted of a crime. (PLEASE SEE RAPPY'S QUOTE ABOVE)

This whole discussion has to do with the male and powerful reserving for themselves the authority to decide what is "human life" and what it is worth. Because the reality is, we trade real human lives away every single day... every day that people die from lack of health insurance, every day that people die in our useless feckless STUPID wars, every day that a woman dies from childbirth, or a child dies from starvation, or a prisoner is executed. Every single day, some general or CEO or politician decides that THIS human life "isn't worth" preserving.

Spare me the sanctimonious crap, please, about the sanctity of human life. The only thing that is sacred is the power of the already powerful.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 6, 2012 2:51 PM

DREAMTROVE


Rap,
I concur about the media. You can see it here on the board: Many dems cannot resist the urge to attack someone who is on the other side. The media halls are staffed with people who came as young academics, and as such are overwhelmingly well trained loyal democrats if not socialists. It's not surprising that they crank out copy attacking anyone who might challenge their programming.

About Ron Paul I also agree, though there are a couple points of that 1/3 we might differ on, there are many which we would agree. I think that at this time it's good to have a strong ideolical voice like his to speak to his core beliefs as libertarian, free market, and probably isolationist.


Cavetroll,

It is not your body, it is that of a very small child.


Niki,

Then it is democracy, as I'm sure more people believe as I do than as you do.


Sig,

Are you any better than you suppose men are?

I think you have conflated me and Rap. Rap has not to my recollection ever come out as pro-life. Those words were mine, and I stand by them.

Absolutely I will defend the children against those who seek to harm them, just as I would the whales or the squirrels. The Taoist love of life is so solid a belief that I feel no emotional investment in it. If I feel anything here, it's pity, for I know that one day of reckoning must occur for any woman who has killed her children, and when she has to face that, imagine the pain that would come. No wonder they hold dear to their position to the point where they support and advocate the slaughter of over a billion innocents and endorse organizations with open nazi ties, to fulfill a white supremacist or other pro-death agenda... it's all they can do to keep that day of reckoning at bay.

It's also why you guys can't leave well enough alone. You need to justify your position, it's why you rant. All this tirade is a response to my one off snark to Mike about Dr. Paul's internal inconsistency, which y'all might have noticed ended in an . Jes sayin...



That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 6, 2012 3:09 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Strange ... DT my editor indicated you posted 4 times with a total of 116 lines, while, till now, I posted once and a total of 8 lines (1 of them a quote). I think your life misses you a lot more than mine misses me, and your rants are far more ranty than mine, or anyone else's. "You need to justify your position, it's why you rant." I hope I don't need to point out the irony of this.

Oh, BTW, you didn't answer my question. You claim to KNOW that women had consensual sex and THEN claimed it was rape. How do you know, oh truhty one? It's a simple question.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 6, 2012 4:25 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Absolutely I will defend muslims against those who seek to harm them, just as I would the whales or the squirrels. The Taoist love of life is so solid a belief that I feel no emotional investment in it. If I feel anything here, it's pity, for I know that one day of reckoning must occur for any soldier who has killed muslims, and when he has to face that, imagine the pain that would come. No wonder they hold dear to their position to the point where they support and advocate the slaughter of over a billion innocents and endorse organizations with open neo-nazi ties, to fulfill a armageddon or other pro-death agenda... it's all they can do to keep that day of reckoning at bay.
So I substituted "muslim" for "children" because the idea that one would focus on a specific set of humans over any other is just weird. Also, why are you so concerned about the karmic debt of women? Shouldn't you be just as concerned about the karmic debt of any number of others?

Also, IMHO a fetus is not a child. It is the beginnings of a child... a potential child, a proto-child, if you will... but not yet one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 6, 2012 7:13 PM

BYTEMITE


That's true, and statistically women are fertilized much more often than any embryos actually IMPLANT. Ten to twenty percent of KNOWN pregnancies will end this way, and for obvious reasons it's unknown how many unknown pregnancies end this way. It's by no means guaranteed that fertilization means an infant that can survive to adulthood.

But at the same time, I can't help but feel some of this my be a culture clash, or maybe a new paradigm versus the old. Definitely, in a culture with a derth of young children and worries about the future of the "tribe" (whether conscious or not) or a higher risk of childhood mortality, there will be more importance placed on fetuses.

Abortions happened all throughout history, in fact I recall that the medieval English had a rule that anything goes before the "quickening" of the child (the first time it moves autonomously in the womb), after which it's considered a living person. But it's never exactly been accepted until recently.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 6, 2012 7:15 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

No wonder they hold dear to their position to the point where they support and advocate the slaughter of over a billion innocents and endorse organizations with open nazi ties, to fulfill a white supremacist or other pro-death agenda... it's all they can do to keep that day of reckoning at bay.


As noted above, DT, I can point out the exact same things in you and your positions. Your beloved so-called "libertarians" are much more closely aligned with neo-Nazis and white supremacists than Planned Parenthood is. And your beloved Ron Paul is right there in the thick of it.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:40 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:



Cavetroll,

It is not your body, it is that of a very small child.






It's not a very small child. What nonsense.

Starting off as a zygote



and ending up as a fully developed baby over 9 months.

In the mean time it takes on some very strange forms, but most importantly it cannot survive outside the womb until at least 24 weeks, and even then it takes enormous medical intervention to survive and mostly suffers some sort of damage.

So it isn't a tiny child, its a group of cells that begin to form a person.

Interestingly, pro choicers and many in the medical profession have been trying to develop ways of terminating the foetus earlier, when it is really not much past the zygote phase, but of course this too has been blocked at every turn by evangelistical pro lifers.

I note also that would be parents who go through IVF procedures often produce more embryos than they need, and it is common place for them to be destroyed. no one hardly mentions this, and I guess its because a lot of so called pro lifers who picket abortion clinics find themselves using IVF clinics and just accept that it is okay in those circumstances.

Additionally, poor women are not the only ones to procure abortions. There are many reasons why a woman may wish to abort a fetus, poverty and rape are only a couple of reasons.

As I have said before if you are opposed to abortion, don't have one. Let others let their conscience decide for THEM>


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 4:36 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:



Cavetroll,

It is not your body, it is that of a very small child.





It's not a very small child. What nonsense.



I wouldn't say it's either. It's not a part of your body because it's a distinct lifeform with a different set of DNA, and it can sometimes spur the mother's antibodies into attacking it.

And it's not a child, it's the potential to BECOME a child, but it is alive, which is an important consideration for me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 8:10 AM

HKCAVALIER


Thank you, Magons and Signy, for making the point so eloquently. I wonder if it doesn't come down, like so much abject craziness, to deep seated misogyny. The pro-choice argument, as I see it, does boil down to there being a period when the developing embryo is a part of the mother, a part of her body. So, all babies were once, in the strange absolute logic of fear, female!!! Male anti-abortion types therefore insist on the absolute personhood of the fertilized egg, because they cannot abide ever being a part of a female body.

Of course, the argument against this notion of mine is that abortions have been performed in all cultures throughout history without much controversy (even in Taoist societies--claiming that anti-abortionism is somehow a tenet of Taoism would be laughable if it were remotely funny), even extremely misogynistic ones. I find it most fascinating that anti-abortionism is entirely a product of the 20th century.

One would think that the most profound evil in the world, accounting for the deaths of thousands of innocents every year would have been noticed some time before now. I mean, slavery, though practiced for much of human history, has always been controversial. Plenty of folks just knew that slavery was evil. Same with pedophilia. Even loaning money at interest has had its vehement critics down the ages.

But there's no push back against abortion until modern times. None. It was a non-issue. I'm not saying individual people, most notably the women resorting to the procedure themselves, didn't have some very negative feelings associated with saying no to the developing life in the womb, just that there has never been anything remotely like public outcry over the matter. But now it's a genocide. Weird.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 8:30 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:



Cavetroll,

It is not your body, it is that of a very small child.






It's not a very small child. What nonsense.

Starting off as a zygote



and ending up as a fully developed baby over 9 months.

In the mean time it takes on some very strange forms, but most importantly it cannot survive outside the womb until at least 24 weeks, and even then it takes enormous medical intervention to survive and mostly suffers some sort of damage.

So it isn't a tiny child, its a group of cells that begin to form a person.

Interestingly, pro choicers and many in the medical profession have been trying to develop ways of terminating the foetus earlier, when it is really not much past the zygote phase, but of course this too has been blocked at every turn by evangelistical pro lifers.

I note also that would be parents who go through IVF procedures often produce more embryos than they need, and it is common place for them to be destroyed. no one hardly mentions this, and I guess its because a lot of so called pro lifers who picket abortion clinics find themselves using IVF clinics and just accept that it is okay in those circumstances.



Much in the same way it was just fine for Rick Santorum's wife when she had her own late-term abortion, but now he says it's not okay for anyone else. All zygotes are equal, it seems, but some are more equal than others...

Quote:


Additionally, poor women are not the only ones to procure abortions. There are many reasons why a woman may wish to abort a fetus, poverty and rape are only a couple of reasons.

As I have said before if you are opposed to abortion, don't have one. Let others let their conscience decide for THEM>




"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 8:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Why has this not appeared yet?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 9:22 AM

BYTEMITE


HKCav: Huh? Fetuses have their own genetic code and as I said can be attacked by the mother's antibodies.

Abortion has been happening for millenia. But it was hardly accepted. Again, see the English law about Quickening, and also look at the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath was such that pregnant Greeks would carry to term then leave their infants at the city gates (hoping for adoption or a slave-owner to take them in) or on a mountain (to kill them).

I agree though that it's not really society's place to choose FOR women one way or another. Rather, it's society's place to develop the technology to fully gestate infants that are unwanted for whatever reason, and to not pile consequences on people for what is already a difficult choice.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 10:08 AM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Byte,

I know about the "quickening" laws. Such laws explicitely show that abortion was an accepted practice.

I was unaware that the greeks forbade the practice of abortion. Hilarious (not really) that they promoted real infantacide in its place!

And I was talking about the "absolute logic of fear." A different genetic code doesn't in itself suggest that the embryo is not part of the woman's body, does it, a part with a mixture of the father's dna? Sometimes the embryo is reabsorbed into the mother's womb, no?

We eat all kinds of living matter with different genetic codes and incorporate them into our bodies. At what sub-atomic level does the broccoli stalk cease to be a broccoli stalk and become me?

Anyway, I was talking about the crazy that leads men to abhore abortion all of a sudden, not sayin' it were rational. Not the strongest argument I ever made, but I thought we was all just talkin' here.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 11:01 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I know about the "quickening" laws. Such laws explicitely show that abortion was an accepted practice.


Ehh... It wasn't a felony before a certain time, meaning the person who caused the abortion would have to pay reparations. But acceptable...?

I mean, in some places that also used quickening, it was still a misdemeanor if the fetus were merely formed.

Quote:

A different genetic code doesn't in itself suggest that the embryo is not part of the woman's body, does it, a part with a mixture of the father's dna?


I don't see how else you'd delineate it. Sometimes the mother's own body even rejects it because of the different DNA. It's unique from your other cells, even your uncombined haploid daughter cells. It represents a potentially new combination of genes, the loss of which may be detrimental to society.

Quote:

Sometimes the embryo is reabsorbed into the mother's womb, no?

We eat all kinds of living matter with different genetic codes and incorporate them into our bodies. At what sub-atomic level does the broccoli stalk cease to be a broccoli stalk and become me?



By this logic, everything in the world is an extension of your body, provided you can digest it and use the compounds.

It's much simpler to define you as the collection of cells that share a common DNA genotype, regardless of whether the cells express the same phenotype. And you store daughter cells produced by meiosis that are not you, but that are not part of something unique until completed with another half-genome.


I don't think your conclusions are wrong, the problem I'm having is how you're getting there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 11:33 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Just a quick word about 'quickening'. Most first time mothers will not feel their baby move until quite late, around the 4 -5 months mark, but with subsequent pregnancies they feel movement much earlier. Weird, huh.

I never felt any movement until about 5 months, even though I had a bump by then.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 11:38 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:


I don't see how else you'd delineate it. Sometimes the mother's own body even rejects it because of the different DNA. It's unique from your other cells, even your uncombined haploid daughter cells. It represents a potentially new combination of genes, the loss of which may be detrimental to society.




But that is almost like the paradigm of time travel. If you don't exist in the first place, you cannot be a loss (except perhaps to your parents who may have had hopes and dreams for their children).

I hate all the 'pink fuffy bunny rabbits' nonsense about every fertilised egg being a precious protohuman. It just does not reflect any reality that I know, which involved (amongst other things) a fertilised egg growing into just junk dna, briefly alive, I suppose in its own way, but not in any way a future person.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 11:54 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I hate all the 'pink fuffy bunny rabbits' nonsense about every fertilised egg being a precious protohuman.


Please quote me wherever I said that an embryo will inevitably become a human, or that they are "precious." For that matter, I'd like to see me talking about "pink fluffy bunny rabbits," as I am one of the most caustic and unpleasant bitches you have probably seen here or anywhere else, and such a think is unlikely to come out of my mouth as anything except mockery like what you used here.

I did say that they represent a unique genetic combination that might be useful, and I said that they are a distinct lifeform. But for that matter, have you ever heard me say that life is the end-all of the universe and just soooo important?

It is *A* important thing, but I don't even think it has to be preserved at all costs. Ultimately, all we are is just chemicals, mildly more interesting than the clumps of goop and stew and other chemicals swirling around in the universe.

I am arguing, rationally I think, about human genetics and survival prospects, and for taking a third option which allows women control over their reproduction AND which preserves genetic material. What are YOU arguing about, or against? Have I said anything in particular you don't like? Do you not like my idea of developing technology to incubate viable aborted fetuses?

I mean, hell, I don't even LIKE babies. They're smelly and unhygienic, let alone noisy, co-dependent, and anatomically grotesque. I'm embarrassed I ever was one, and thank goodness for infantile amnesia.

Quote:

If you don't exist in the first place, you cannot be a loss


Don't exist? When did they stop existing? Before or after conservation of mass?

And I don't imagine the mothers who have lost them, even the ones who didn't want them, would agree with you.

Rather unfortunate turn of phrase.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:00 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Byte,

My personal opinion on the matter of embryos is that it's absolutely a special case. Neither fish nor fowl, neither separate nor a part. Definitely not viable as a separate being. There's no adequate analogy. A woman has an absolutely unique relationship to the life growing inside her. And an absolutely unique power to destroy that life, in a variety of ways. In my experience this "murder" does not impact the woman psychologically in any way resembling an unrepentant murderer. So, it's not murder, it's its own, unique phenomenon. And we, poor men (pity us!), are left well out of it a lot of the time. Some men don't like being left out, particularly when it comes to such an impactful decision. Other men, of course, skip town.

So, sorry about the broccoli. You're quite right about the daughter cells and such. My grasp of cell biology is largely burried in the past.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:07 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Definitely not viable as a separate being.


For now. Science will eventually catch up to the needs of society. That is the one thing that is inevitable, provided we don't blow ourselves up first.

Quote:

A woman has an absolutely unique relationship to the life growing inside her. And an absolutely unique power to destroy that life, in a variety of ways.


I'll give you that.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 5:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Thank you, Magons and Signy, for making the point so eloquently. I wonder if it doesn't come down, like so much abject craziness, to deep seated misogyny.


That's exactly what it is, and always have been - the issue ain't so much with womens rights, so much as it is that women HAVE rights, which is profoundly offensive to some, and thus they choose this as an end run to various legal protections in an effort to shove women back into "their place", which in their minds means subservient...

Once you understand that, begin to comprehend the mentality behind it, then all this crap starts making sense, in a pathetic and vicious kinda way.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 5:57 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

For me it has never been about the point when a collection of cells becomes a human being.

The human being that we need to protect is the mother. When the state plays with the idea of harvesting organs to keep someone alive, the state must be opposed.

And that is what it means to force a woman to term. She ceases to be a human and becomes a state-enforced incubator. Organ harvesting without the need to make an incision.

I believe in organ donation, but that's a decision for the individual to make.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:50 - 3410 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL