I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Whoa. Good for me!
2nd in the hearts of his bloggomen?
Of course, I'm supposed to be working, but I learn so much more here.
Money vs. knowledge. What to do, what to do.
Talk about being paranoid.
Controlling women's reproductive rights means that some women will have unintended pregnancies. This will increase the number of women who don't complete their education. The more women with family responsibilties and little education, the more the republicans see a pliable electorate. The children born by unintended pregnancies will have fewer opportunities and will be more likely to enlist in the military, work at Wal-Mart.
That "as" should be "has" I think. Otherwise; this is spot on. Sick fucks. Stay out of my goddamn womb.
If people are allowed to have sex simply because it's pleasurable, then the complete moral breakdown of society is close at hand.
Indeed, I understand that Rick Santorum is sponsoring research at NIH to genetically remove the nerves that make sex pleasurable. This way the act can be reduced to what Ricky and the rest of the religious right view it as: A distasteful but necessary action to be undertaken only to reproduce.
And to make all of them feel better about their loveless, soulles, and sexless marriages.
One should not forget about the adverse effects on men's sexuality.
As if the possibility of inadvertedly impregnating someone who can't have access to Plan B doesn't place a burden on heterosexual men.
Freakonomics
the book points out that the increased was with which women could cancel unwanted pregnancies was correlated with the decline in in crime over the past 20 years, because fewer women were having to have babies of which they could not adequately care...
aside:
WHAT THE ROSIE RED FUCKING HELL IS THIS???
Jonah Goldberg commentating in place of Dan Schorr?
that's IT...ghey never get another fuckingf dime from me...not one, red, fucking cent, ever again...
jeezis h fucking christ on fire.;..
Yeah, WGG. I choked on my conrflakes when I heard that, too. But at least he gets to prove what a complete waste of carbon he is with statements like "When you stay the course to China, you go over a lot of different terrain."
of COURSE they oppose Plan B ... because sex is diiirty ...
... unless you're married ...
... and then it's an obligation (NOT to be enjoyed) ... just lie back and think of England
I'm not so sure about this plan B over the counter... there must be a way to make sure people know it's heavy duty medication - if this country had easier access to health care across the board, you would take it under a physician's "supervision".
that's IT...ghey never get another fuckingf dime from me...not one, red, fucking cent, ever again...
unfortunately, that's exactly what they're going for. Defund it completely.
Obviously, the wide availability of emergency contraception across the civilised world isn't enough for BushCo.
One problem here is that there's no national equivalent of 'behind the counter' sales; it varies from state to state. And there's the whole issue of fundie pharmacists that makes BTC sales even more problematic. Gah.
Oh, and the Concerned Women for America can go and douche themselves.
Jonah Goldberg commentating in place of Dan Schorr?
I'm shocked! SHOCKED to find a GOP operative at public broadcasting ... because god knows Juan Williams isn't right-leaning enough to make CPB happy ... Tucker Carlson ...
I don't know why they don't bring Dan Bartlett in house and be done with it ...
Jonah Goldberg commentating in place of Dan Schorr?
Instead of Nice Polite Republicans, a Noxious Pudgy Republican.
This is exactly the argument I've been making for years with the "more moderate" abortion/anti-choice crowd.
When they say that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape or incest they're essentially saying that only if the woman is "innocent" of being a dirty whore who gets what she deserves. It's a punishment for having sex.
Because if it's "an innocent baby" why is the baby who is the result of rape or incest any less "innocent" than the one conceived during consensual sex?
I heard a story on NPR earlier this summer about this and pharmacist "morality". Thing that pissed me off is that these wingers don't accept the idea that implantation is required for pregnancy. Nonono, if the egg's been blessed by spermish contact, it's a human being, and anything that prevents it from proving us right about that is abortion and murder and bad and stuff.
Acorns = oak trees to these, uh...nuts.
It's generally stupid to conclude that the opposition is just "sick bastards." It's a lazy conversation stopper. They revolve their definition of life around CONCEPTION (not pandagon's implantation). If you interfere with that process after it has begun, with the intention of ending that life, they call it killing.
Ignoring their stated main concern and dismissing them as sick bastards makes you sound as bad as them. They ignore your concerns about women, you ignore theirs about nascent life. Two sides of the same coin.
Acorns = oak trees to these, uh...nuts.
I like that, Ntodd! I'll have to remember that phrase.
Marcel, as I understand it (do you?), the pill doesn't stop the process after conception. It prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg, before conception has occurred.
So what's the problem?
Spare me their pathetic concern for an unborn child when they could give two cents (not even) for it once it's born.
If you interfere with that process after it has begun, with the intention of ending that life, they call it killing.
Well, that's because they're fuckwits. It's not unusual for fertilised but unimplanted eggs to be expelled during menstruation. I'd like to see the wingnut brigade try to accuse menstruating women of aborting their pregnancies.
(And what emergency contraception does, basically, is induce a period.)
They argue that the drug predisposes women to rejecting sperm, which is an "abortion".
I'm only an ignorant GWDPA - would someone explain what on earth this is supposed to mean?
I didn't have it right. It prevents implantation.
"Thing that pissed me off is that these wingers don't accept the idea that implantation is required for pregnancy."
Pardon me, NTodd, but why should they? Clinical definitions are about implantation because that's the first point at which the doctors can tell whether a woman's pregnant. The interaction between the fertilized egg and the uterine lining gives off telltales that can be picked up by pregnancy tests. But between sex and implantation, we don't know WTF is going on in there - no such telltales are being produced that we know of. If there's 3 days between fertilizatrion and implantation, we don't know if the egg was fertilized 20 minutes after sex, or two days afterwards. We really have no clue.
And accordingly, we have no clue how oral contraceptives (including the MAP) really work - do they block fertilization, or do they prevent implantation? Hell if we know.
But there's never been any disagreement that fertilization, not implantation, is the point at which a new being, distinct from its parents, physically originates.
Whether or not the fertilized egg/implanted egg/embryo/fetus/etc. is the moral equivalent of you or me or Hugo Chavez at a given point in its development is the real question. The Catholics and fundies believe that's so from the moment of fertilization onward. You and I think that's stupid, and that's where the real disagreement is.
I say again.
This isn't about any 'babies'.
It's about fucking.
The Catholics and fundies believe that's so from the moment of fertilization onward. You and I think that's stupid, and that's where the real disagreement is.
Um, no. The 'disagreement' is imagining that it's anyone's business other than the owner of the body undergoing the 'implantation' or the 'fertilisation'.
And you wonder why I am concerned with mulch....
The Catholics and fundies believe that's so from the moment of fertilization onward.
They can believe whatever they want and not use this pill. That's their right.
What is not within their right is to dictate to someone who believes differently that she can't use it.
There are the pharmacists as I recall who won't fill prescriptions for any birth control, because they believe birth control to be a form of abortion.
In the real world where most of us live, shit happens, even among married people. The morning-after pill will prevent abortions.
And it shouldn't be difficult to obtain, either.
Can you imagine if one of the Bush daughters slipped up? 'Think there'd be a shotgun wedding at the White House?
Me, either.
This is one statement where I completely agree with the feminist/left-wing position. Exactly right. Only neurotic, sexaphobic sickos would oppose plan B. Nothing would make these people happier than for every episode of casual sex to end in irreversable pregnancy or AIDS.
Please excuse me if I'm disappointing certain parties on this board who have been just a little loosey-goosey about throwing around the word troll.
If the weight of the studies shows that the pill is NOT an abortifacient, then that is the political tack to take. Difficult to prove, but there should be some counterweight to the por-lifers who claim it is. It will never convince the ideological wingers, but that shouldn't be the target audience.
And pie says: "Spare me their pathetic concern for an unborn child when they could give two cents (not even) for it once it's born." Which is just the kind of lazy generalization I'm talking about -- lobbing bombs at the wingers while alienating potential allies. There are tons of people who are "pathetically" concerned about the unborn child who work tirelessly for social justice, and who even vote Democrat to help that happen. And there are tons more who would if they weren't routinely called "pathetic" and "sick bastards" for protecting something they see as ultimately important.
Too many of the Republican sheep don't realize that their views on unborn life don't have to lead to the theo-fascism of the Dobsonites. But one of the reasons for that is the vindictive abuse they get from people like atrios and pandagon (and you too, pie).
The figures I've read estimate that 50-80% of fertilized eggs never implant or spontaneously abort with the first few weeks. Unless a women is specifically checking for pregnancy, out of fear or hope, she probably won't even know she was "pregnant."
What the hell kind of intelligent designer sets up a system that "kiils" up to 80% of the lives "he" creates?
There was a theory dropped not all that long ago that every sperm held a tiny human being. The woman was only a planting ground. Contraception denied the man his right of having his progeny. Damn selfish women.
Oh, Marcel, you're just so, so -caring-.
And hopelessly misinformed, but that's okay. We -care- what you believe, even if it's foolish, pompous and rebarbative.
Now. Please go away and proselytise amongst those who also care. As you do.
Thanks for the link! And there's no evidence, y'all, that EC prevents implantation. It prevents sperm from meeting egg. It just does so after the guy's done his part and I think, more than anything, that's what pisses off the wingnuts.
Marcel, give me a break. If these people can't persist in social justice because their widdle feelings get hurt, they haven't much commitment, have they?
When my youngest sister got pregnant, she tried to find help at various agencies, so as not to burden my retired parents, starting with the Catholic Church we were memberss of. They looked at my large family, figured it was it was our responsibility, and in essense told her to get lost.
If the union steward hadn't bent the rules to get her on my dad's medical coverage, my sister couldn't have afforded medical care. I was also living at home at the time, and I kicked in to buy clothes and other things for my sister and the baby, and also took a lot of care of my niece in that year we were all together.
So I know for a fact that the Church and all too many of its members are far more willing to fund and fight political campaigns to actually get hin the trenches and work. Those I've known who have are far too busy at their work to worry about anything we might say.
In fact, considering how shorthanded and strapped for cash they are, they might well ring in with agreement to our pointing out the hypocrisy.
There are tons of people who are "pathetically" concerned about the unborn child who work tirelessly for social justice, and who even vote Democrat to help that happen
Tons of people? Wow. And do these tons tell women what they can do with their bodies?
I'm talking about the people who inflict their narrow beliefs on others and don't work tirelessly for social justice, marcel.
I find it hard to believe that those who see the plight of children born to unwed mothers are actively campaigning to prevent such a pill from being made available.
Marcel:
Spare us your worthless theories on what the prudes actually are talking about.
It's about fucking. That's it. Pregnancy is punishment for fucking.
These people are sick, twisted, and need to be told in no uncertain terms that their uptightness and the desire to impose it on others will be opposed. I don't care HOW much they're squicked by the thought of two people having sex because it's fun. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
And there's no evidence, y'all, that EC prevents implantation.
It looks like the juries still out on what it actually does do, but if it prevents fertilization, then there goes the fundies' argument.
And yeah, I was so mean to you, marcel.
Waaaaaahhhhhhhh!
GWPDA: misinformed about what? Or is this more bomb lobbing?
Concern for the unborn = Cheap sentiment.
pie, i'm not offended or hurt or anything. It's just that I expend a lot of effort trying to convince non-ideological religiously motivated pro-lifers (there are plenty) that they are not logically forced by that to vote Republican. You folks just make it so much tougher.
non-ideological religiously motivated pro-lifers
Huh?
Amanda's right, but her argument would sound a lot more credible if she could spell "abortifacient."
Kids are sorta cute, and babies are even cuter, so a fetus must be cuter still, and the cutest thing of all in baby Jeebus eyes just hasta be a teensy weensy little 6-cell blastocyst.
Awww, so cute!
pie;
"non-ideological religiously motivated pro-lifers"
a) pro-life: they think human life begins at conception and that it needs to be protected. They don't see a woman's control over her body as extending to killing another human being.
b) religiously motivated: they think a) because it in line with their religious convictions.
c) non-ideological: they only take a) as ONE part of their faith, not all of it. They are against legislating morality, but they will support legislation that is framed as protecting human life (wingers exploit this). They are fine with contraception.
Especially in the upcoming generation, there are tons of such people. Calling them monsters does not help.
It's just that I expend a lot of effort trying to convince non-ideological religiously motivated pro-lifers (there are plenty) that they are not logically forced by that to vote Republican. You folks just make it so much tougher.
Marcel
Go, Marcel, because you've got a "plenty" of people to convince and they're certainly not going to hear you if you're sitting around talking to people like us. They don't come here and sully their beautiful minds with intelligent discourse.
And if you don't understand that people who want to nix Plan B really just want to punish women for engaging in sexual activity, you need to brush up on your critical thinking skills.
fly fly fly fly agent marcel.
sanctimonious.
fine with contraception, but life begins at conception.
They love sex, but abstain.
So they think others should do the same.
So they punish them if they fall.
Last post. I'm not a troll. Read eschaton every day. Agree with most of it.
The people aiming to nix planB are cynical bastards who exploit the people i've been talking about by telling them it's about saving lives and not about legislating morality.
Showing how they're being used actually involves engaging them and not attacking them.
Keep lobbing the bombs if it makes you feel better. But when the votes keep coming out the other way, shoulder your share of the burden for killing the discourse.
Marcel,
I don't think those people are nearly as naive as you do.
They need a justification that isn't "you should be punished if you fuck, you slut" so they rationalize this as "saving live", when it's pitfully obvious that "saving life" has nothing to do with it.
Especially in the upcoming generation, there are tons of such people.
And from I can gather from those in the upcoming generation, including my daughters and their friends, there is absolutely no desire to change current laws that allow choice. Tons of them feel this way.
Tons.
don't you damn liberals get it?
SEX IS A SIN WHEN WOMEN HAVE IT!
and they need to be punished by God by conceiving a child so the pain of childbirth will teach them a lesson for their evil ways.
when men have it, well, that's just plain fun...and .....a very big AND the man should not have to pay child support for the child.
I overheard those remarks almost verbatim from a car salesman arguing against abortion while getting my car worked on a few weeks ago.
what a maroon.
a dangerous maroon.
This is what happens when you let virgins make decisions about reproductive rights.
1. Gary Frazier is right--it's about fucking, plain and simple. They don't want anyone to have sex of any kind, not ever. And if you do have it, you better not enjoy it and/or be punished for it. (Does Jesus really say this anywhere?)
2. I don't listen to NPR too much anymore--it's just too-too for me most of the time. BUT WHAT'S THIS ABOUT DANIEL SCHORR? Did he retire or what?
marcel sounds like the same Concern Troll that was bopping around here last night under various names. Rants a bit about how we need to show more concern for not making others feel uncomfortable, belittles the fact-based arguments we produce, then blames us for losing elections. Then of course the final comment to those who have been arguing with him, often implicit, but occasionally explicit: Suckers!
The opposition to Plan B makes no sense. It can be shown to have reduced abortions, including those of rape victims. Yes, the morning-after pill has health risks but so does practically every single medication out there.
It is indeed about controlling sex. Because whoever controls sex controls women and indirectly a vast chunk of the social life of a society. That's why the churches have always tried to control sex.
Sex is dirty, shameful, and is in fact the Original Sin. All these sluts who have sex deserve to suffer the consequences. How dare they refuse to produce children when the Divine Sacred Erection places seed inside their bodies???
Do these trollops actually think they have any other purpose in life than to produce more Sacred Phalli and wombs?
( I really shouldn't go against the last post, but...)
Why must you think I'm a troll? I'm not flaming or being rude. Or is it just that I disagree and am thus unwelcome in the echo chamber?
Echdine says Plan B reduces abortions, but a lot of people think Plan B *is* an abortion. The task is to explain them why it's not, ideally by forwarding some evidence (which Amanda, much to her credit, did).
What "fact-based" arguments have i belittled? Make others feel as unfomfortable as you want, but not by randomly insulting them.
(Good riddance, I know, but unlike a place like, say, TPM, the self-righteousness here really gets to me.)
government student loan consolidation government student loan consolidation government student loan consolidation. guang dong hotel shanghai guang dong hotel shanghai guang dong hotel shanghai.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
