TN state senator: rape just isn’t what it used to be.
By on Feb 14th, 2008 at 11:00 am
TN state senator: rape just isn’t what it used to be.
Last week, after a debate on amending the Tennessee constitution to say that it doesn’t guarantee the right to abortion, state Sen. Doug Henry (D) stood up and reflected on how rape has changed:
Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, “Let’s don’t go forward with this act.“
Watch it:
Feministing writes, “Perhaps we should write Sen. Henry an email or two and let him know what has and hasn’t changed about sexual assault in this country?”
UPDATE: Volunteer Voters has more, including a response from Senate Democratic Caucus Spokesman Mark Brown.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
250 Responses to “TN state senator: rape just isn’t what it used to be.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
uh, hello? this guy is just classic idiot.
"let's not go forward"= "don't touch me, please"
February 14th, 2008 at 11:03 amYou know what hasn't changed? The idiocy of redneck Republicans. http://www.tshirtinsurgency.com
February 14th, 2008 at 11:03 amhow do guys like this get elected?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:04 amHow does he know what rape is and isn't? When was the last time he experienced it?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:05 amThere's this myth that people in earlier decades were so moral. All the girls were chaste virgins when they got married. Boys might fool around a little, but that was okay because they were good kids. There were no homosexuals. The races were happily segregated.
In reality, there was just as much teenage sex then as there is now. If a young girl got pregnant she might be forced into marriage with the boy. If that was not possible she would get a back alley abortion or be put into a home to give birth and give up the baby for adoption in secret. Homosexuals and inter-racial couples were the targets of hatred, bigotry, and violence. And many people turned a blind eye to these hate crimes.
I would hope that our elected leaders would govern based on the reality of then and now, but that would be far too much to ask. It is easier for them to wax nostalgic about a time that never was and rue how the kids these days are so much a problem.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:07 amFat old white men want to rule women, and have perpetual war and killing.
The abortion stance is nothing more than one more way to control women...if they cared about the sanctity of life they would not be killing Iraqi's and torturing would they?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:08 am... holy crap...
February 14th, 2008 at 11:09 amWOW. Just wow
February 14th, 2008 at 11:09 amFat old white men want to rule women, and have perpetual war and killing.
now, on the other hand, comments like this are just as bigoted and ignorant.....
February 14th, 2008 at 11:09 am"Blacks can't swim because they lack buoyancy." -- The Dodgers' Al Campanis.
Apparently, this is no country for old men.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:09 amHow does he know what rape is and isn’t? When was the last time he experienced it?
Comment by Evergreen2U — February 14, 2008 @ 11:05 am
Sounds like this guy needs to spend a week in a cell with some lifers. But then again, he is Republican, so he might actually like it.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:10 ami know some "Fat, old white men" who love other "fat, old, white men".....and they don't want to rule women, they don't want war, etc.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:11 amAppalling! It is time for this guy to step down and let someone more in tune with this century take his place. Does anyone know who we could get to challenge this guy in a primary some time soon?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:11 amSorry Wayne, but I think this guy is a Democrat.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:12 amApparently, this Bushman would not find it disturbing or support it being illegal to force sex on a prostitute, a cheating wife, or any woman who is sexually active (if you use the most restrictive definition of "chaste", which is "celibate").
Apparently, this Bushman believes that a husband can force sex on his wife and not be raping her.
Apparently, this Bushman does not consider sex with a minor to be rape. Or forcing sex with a male victim.
Apparently, this Bushman never learned the meaning of "no". Hopefully, he will at his re-election bid.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:12 amWaiting for Dinosaurs to go extinct. Holy crap what an idiot!
February 14th, 2008 at 11:15 amthe guy next to him just sits, unmoving...
the guy behind him, looks to be thinking "oh sh!t... "
this is the south... in general and stereotypical... but this is it...
February 14th, 2008 at 11:16 amthere's a reason why stereotypes happen...
And we wonder why Republicans are so comfortable cozying up to the Saudis....
February 14th, 2008 at 11:17 amSorry Wayne, but I think this guy is a Democrat.
Comment by Peter C — February 14, 2008 @ 11:12 am
Your right, geez this guy is out of touch and a woman hater, has all the qualification for a Republican.
TP make sure you state (R) or (D) even if its a Democrat.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:17 amFirst off, let's define "chaste", shall we?
morally pure (especially not having experienced sexual intercourse); "a holy woman innocent and chaste"
does this mean that defining rape does not include sexually active women?
Second, I wonder how Senator Doug Henry would define rape after he or a family member was forcibly penetrated against their will.
Third, I don't care what party affiliation Henry is. He's still an idiot, and should never EVER undermine the meaning of rape!
February 14th, 2008 at 11:21 amYes, TP, please include (R) or (D). This will show that we are willing to criticize even those of our own party when we see that they are wrong-thinking.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:23 amObviously an ex-Halliburton employee.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:24 amTP, nice job of responding quickly to the request to identify Doug Henry as a (D), even though he may and should have lost a great deal of support from true Ds because of this statement.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:26 amit's Tennessee. Most folks can't spell it that live there. They killed all the natives that gave them their name, so they have no heritage remaining that isn't deeply embarrassing.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:27 amthey don't care that their children are growing up without......
This guy should feel some serious heat for this comment. And we should help make sure he does feel the heat. Such comments aren't only insanely backward, they are beneath the office.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:27 amI admit, it's a little suspect when TP recognizes the party affiliation of the likes of Craig, and Haggert, but conveniently omits it when a Democrat is involved.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:28 amC'mon, let's not stoop to their level of misinformation. Ever.
Whoops.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:29 amParty affiliation was corrected before my post at #26.
My bad!
Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism
#5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:29 am"We need to go back to the good ol' days when ah could get me some without worryin' about some frisky li'l filly whinin' that "she said stop it"...
Ah mean, boys'll be boys, raht?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:32 am"Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, “Let’s don’t go forward with this act.“
That is the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've heard all morning.
(and yes, I know rape is horrible and that I am a sick individual)
February 14th, 2008 at 11:33 amSounds like this idiot is reminiscing about the good old days.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:33 am#26 I'm pleased as punch that they added the 'D', to show that we offer no aide and comfort to complete D-Bags of either party.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:35 amCongratulations to all who assumed this gentleman was a Republican.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:36 am#33 Well, it does fit the MO
February 14th, 2008 at 11:39 amoff the rape topic, but as to desiganting (D) or (R),
February 14th, 2008 at 11:39 amhas anyone else noticed all the (R) campaign commercials,
mostly local i suppose, who do not bring up that fact?
they just don't want to be associated with that brand these days...
imagine that...
Call or write this jerk:
DOUGLAS HENRY
D-Nashville
District 21 - Part of Davidson County
District Address
226 Capitol Blvd.
Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37219
Nashville Address
11 Legislative Plaza
Nashville, TN 37243-0021
Phone (615) 741-3291
Fax (615) 741-2380
Staff Contacts: Nancy Russell
and Irene Ward
sen.douglas.henry@legislature.state.tn.us
February 14th, 2008 at 11:42 amCongratulations to all who assumed this gentleman was a Republican.
Comment by IllTakeYouToTaskForThatRemark — February 14, 2008 @ 11:36 am
Point taken, especially about judging before you know all the facts.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:45 amAnd not that I'm defending it, but you do have to admit, with all the scandals regarding the politicians, especially the (R)'s and sex, it did appear that Henry was a Republican. Still doesn't make what he said any less idiotic.
If she has a spouse, she's not chaste, Doug.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:45 amThe smug was sure thick in here, and we were all getting ready for some good ol' Republican bashing.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:48 amCALL FOR ALL TN SENATORS TO CENSURE HENRY
sen.mae.beavers@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.andy.berke@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.diane.black@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.dewayne.bunch@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.tim.burchett@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.charlotte.burks@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.rusty.crowe@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.lowe.finney@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.raymond.finney@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.ophelia.ford@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.thelma.harper@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.joe.haynes@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.roy.herron@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.doug.jackson@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.jack.johnson@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.bill.ketron@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.tommy.kilby@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.rosalind.kurita@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.jim.kyle@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.beverly.marrero@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.randy.mcnally@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.mark.norris@legislature.state.tn.us; lt.gov.ron.ramsey@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.steve.roller@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.steve.southerland@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.paul.stanley@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.reginald.tate@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.jim.tracy@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.bo.watson@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.john.wilder@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.micheal.williams@legislature.state.tn.us; sen.jamie.woodson@legislature.state.tn.us
February 14th, 2008 at 11:49 amCongratulations to all who assumed this gentleman was a Republican.
Comment by IllTakeYouToTaskForThatRemark — February 14, 2008 @ 11:36 am
Well, it's a pretty natural assumption. If it walks like a schmuck and it talks like a schmuck..
February 14th, 2008 at 11:49 amStill doesn’t make what he said any less idiotic.
Agreed. It was an asinine statement.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:50 amA Democratic TN State Senator is more conservative than the majority of the Republicans in the US Senate. This is more proof that conservatism is obtuse, morally bankrupt, perverse, and dangerous.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:54 amWhat slimy rock did this freak crawl out from under?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:55 amjust because he RAN as a Democrat,
February 14th, 2008 at 11:57 amdoesn't mean he IS a Democrat...
CALL FOR ALL TN SENATORS TO CENSURE HENRY
Comment by rastaman — February 14, 2008 @ 11:49 am
Done:
Subject: Senator Henry's rape comment
The world is watching, will you vote to censure Senator Henry for his asinine comment about rape?
February 14th, 2008 at 12:03 pmhow do guys like this get elected?
Comment by darladoon — February 14, 2008 @ 11:04 am
A few years ago, we had a state representative here in North Carolina who said that women couldn't get pregnant as a result of rape. He said a woman who is "truly raped" doesn't get pregnant because "the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work." This was his justification for denouncing state funding for abortions for rape victims as unnecessary.
He was elected to one more term following this absurd statement before he retired. So people like this DO get elected. Boggles the mind.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:07 pmahh, so a non-chaste woman cannot be raped? interesting...
that'll go over well...
February 14th, 2008 at 12:10 pmHe's a discredit to his party, his state and his gender.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:11 pmThis goes back to that monster Napoli from South Dakota that said abortions she be exclusively for sodomized virgins.
Yeah, the sodomized virgin exclusion~
February 14th, 2008 at 12:12 pmGeez -- can we count up the myths Doug Henry is alluding to here?
1) Only virgin women can be raped. Any other woman deserves to be sexually assaulted.
2) Husbands cannot rape their wives. They are entitled to sexual intercourse with their wives, even if they have to use force.
3) Sexual assault is no big deal nowadays because everybody has sex anyway.
Methinks Doug Henry lives in a time long ago when rape was not considered to be a crime against the rape victim herself. It was a crime against her husband (if she was married), or against her father (if she had never been married). And no crime at all if she was widowed or divorced.
Sexual assault is assault. No matter whom it happens to. Doug Henry needs to learn this.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:16 pmThis goes back to that monster Napoli from South Dakota that said abortions she be exclusively for sodomized virgins.
Comment by Guido OBGYN Lover — February 14, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
Kind of hilarious, when you consider that the sex acts the term "sodomy" generally refers to cannot get anyone pregnant.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pmCongratulations to all who assumed this gentleman was a Republican.
Comment by IllTakeYouToTaskForThatRemark — February 14, 2008 @ 11:36 am
Are you as willing to give (sincere) congratulations to those who indicated that he was a Democrat, encouraged TP to make that clear, and nonetheless took this guy to task for his remark? I noticed that you criticized the lack of party identification BEFORE you criticized the Senator's comments themselves.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:21 pmDoug Henry should be shipped out to a remote village in Saudi Arabia.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:22 pm"Fat old white men want to rule women, and have perpetual war and killing."
now, on the other hand, comments like this are just as bigoted and ignorant…..
Comment by darladoon
Speaking as a fat old white man, darladoon, unfortunely comments like the one above are justified. I expect "christians" to speak out against the theofacist wing of the republican party. I held Keltoi's feet to the fire a few weeks back when he tried to skate by, jumping off the bush bandwagon now that the ride is almost over. By the same token, I'm responsible for speaking out when my fat old white brethern bring shame upon me. and this yahoo has indeed brought shame on old fat white men everywhere. Orson Wells is rolling over in his piano box.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:23 pmPer #55 Doug Henry was here
February 14th, 2008 at 12:24 pmNo kidding, didn’t that state elect Al and Al Gore Jr to the Senate a few times? Hooo…what a bunch of inbred Dummies.
Comment by Cheap Rot-gut Gin — February 14, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
Isn't it funny and kind of sad that Cheap Gin has to reach back at least eighteen years to find some way to tie this thread to Al Gore?
February 14th, 2008 at 12:27 pmWell then, I say we throw this sicko christofascist sexist pig in a room filled with sadistic ass-rapist for a couple of days and see how he thinks about it then...
....oh wait, he's a republican, it would fulfill his fantasises...never mind.
Buck Fush
February 14th, 2008 at 12:28 pmDemocrat in name only, he is from the South.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pmDon’t believe TP, or any previous poster, made it clear exactly why a Tennessee State Senator is quoted on rape when the topic of discussion is an amendment to the state constitution to say that the right to abortion is not guaranteed.
Is this the usual attack the person rather that attack the person’s viewpoint? Democrats do seem to specialize in this type of argument.
As to the character of this particular politician, who knows?
Sophisticated news people, such as those in Nashville, delight in finding the real characters in state government. It’s easily done – in most every state.
This site:
http://www.tnrtl.org/human_life_issues/human_life_issues_abortion_lies_and_myths.htm
Shows that that rape is the cause of a very small portion of the abortions.
Perhaps TP could have made a more accurate title that, “TN state senator: rape just isn’t what it used to be.â€
If the topic in Senator Henry’s debate were reasons to allow abortion, wouldn’t a better title be, “Would you kill 40,000,000 unborn to insure that 400,000 products of rape are destroyed?â€
Then it would only be 31 unborn destroyed daily instead of the 3100 unborn destroyed every day since RvW.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:34 pm#40 CALL FOR ALL TN SENATORS TO CENSURE HENRY
No thanks... I still prefer legislative bodies to do some legislating. Leave the toothless chastising to the media.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:35 pmIf the topic in Senator Henry’s debate were reasons to allow abortion, wouldn’t a better title be, “Would you kill 40,000,000 unborn to insure that 400,000 products of rape are destroyed?â€
Yes. I don't care if it's 30 trillion. You are talking tissues. If it cannot sustain itself outside of the mother's body, it is not a life. It has the potential for life. VASTLY different things.
And no matter what your belief, you are discounting women who are raped. And to that I say F()CK YOU.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pmPerhaps TP could have made a more accurate title that, “TN state senator: rape just isn’t what it used to be.â€
---
Are you arguing that given the context of an abortion amendment to the TN Constitution, what the Senator said wasn't COMPLETELY INSANE?
February 14th, 2008 at 12:40 pmCan anyone translate WTF bitbit is saying in #63?
February 14th, 2008 at 12:41 pm#67 ~ Translated ~ Ah kain't read Row vurses Wayde.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:43 pmSexual assault is assault. No matter whom it happens to. Doug Henry needs to learn this.
Comment by missmolly — February 14, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
A little OT, but none the less relevant, IMO... how come Halliburton can force women raped while working for the company into arbitration? Since when was a potential violent felony something that could be privately arbitrated? What's next, murder cases forced into "binding arbitration"?
BTW, missmolly, certain issues aren't really partisan in nature. This really shouldn't be seen as a GOOP/Dem or con/lib problem. It's more of a "stupid vs aware" sort of thing, no?
February 14th, 2008 at 12:43 pmHey bitbit, here's another one for you:
Bobby Knight, then of Indiana, told a television news magazine, after being questioned about his controversies, said it's like a women being raped. If there's nothing you can do about it, you might as well just lay back and enjoy it.
Now, do you happen to see anything wrong with that statement?
February 14th, 2008 at 12:47 pmIf the topic in Senator Henry’s debate were reasons to allow abortion, wouldn’t a better title be, “Would you kill 40,000,000 unborn to insure that 400,000 products of rape are destroyed?â€
Aborting a clump of cells is not "killing" an unborn. Abortion is legal and is not murder or killing. Deal with it.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:49 pmAborting a clump of cells is not “killing†an unborn.
Amen, bruddah! Praise.... ;-)
February 14th, 2008 at 12:58 pmIt's the battle of definitions, Dr matt.
"Right To Life" vs "Pro-Abortion"
"The Death tax" vs "The Estate Tax"
Now, it's "the unborn" vs "the embryo".
It's called "framing the argument".
It just sounds so much better to talk about the rights of the unborn than the rights of the zygote, or the embryo.
Look out when the righties talk about extending rights to embryos. Talk about losing control of your own body to someone else's agenda.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:00 pmI'm still waiting for the repuglycans to start in with the rights of the undead... (cheney)
February 14th, 2008 at 1:04 pmBTW, missmolly, certain issues aren’t really partisan in nature. This really shouldn’t be seen as a GOOP/Dem or con/lib problem. It’s more of a “stupid vs aware†sort of thing, no?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — February 14, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Exactly. Sexual assault is wrong, and with the exception of a few idiots on both sides, both parties and ideologies agree. So it really does boil down to "stupid vs. aware".
Funny thing -- I can remember a time in our culture when everybody thought torture was wrong, too, and the very idea that it could be "debatable" or "controversial" was ludicrous.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:05 pmLook out when the righties talk about extending rights to embryos. Talk about losing control of your own body to someone else’s agenda.
It's already started when they want to charge someone with double homicide when they kill a pregnant woman. Talk about a slippery slope.
The vast majority of people living in poverty in America are single mothers. Another way to get people into a slave type of situation. Slaves to corporations. Slaves to feed a child. Impoverish everyone so they are happy with crumbs.
What did the Romans do? Bread and circus. The MSM provides the circus and the corporations provide enough for bread.
We ARE Rome.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:08 pmOnly the unthinking believe in the unborn.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:09 pmand the very idea that it could be “debatable†or “controversial†was ludicrous.
Comment by missmolly — February 14, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
Not only ludicrous, but abhorrent...
February 14th, 2008 at 1:10 pmAre you as willing to give (sincere) congratulations to those who indicated that he was a Democrat, encouraged TP to make that clear, and nonetheless took this guy to task for his remark? I noticed that you criticized the lack of party identification BEFORE you criticized the Senator’s comments themselves.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — February 14, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
I did not criticize the lack of party identification.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:10 pmI’m still waiting for the repuglycans to start in with the rights of the undead… (cheney)
Comment by RUCerious — February 14, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
That's not really an issue, RUC, because currently the undead decide which rights get observed and which don't.
Now, in '09, the rights of the undead might become a battle cry for the Right, since (hopefully) the new administration will be seeking to prosecute.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:10 pmI'm a fat ols white man old enough to remember Strom Thurmond as a Democrat, of George Wallace as a Democrat, of Lester Maddox as a Democrat, of rows and rows of racist white folks a Democrats simply because they could not join the party of Abraham Lincoln. They were a blight on the Democratic Party, and when they left they were a blight on the Republican Party.
See? I have no problem saying that. I have no problem deriding a Democrat or calling for his censure. To be sure, it makes us weaker tactically. But Republicans, with their blessed solidarity, keep Mark Folrys, Larry Craigs, Duke Cunninghams and dick Allens in their midst. Solidarity means no ideal matters asmuch as power. Small government? Fiscal responsibility? Rule of Law? anti-illegal immigration? Traditional Christian morality? Individual Democrats will betray Democratic principles, but Republican solidarity makes ALL Republicans betray their principles. And when you have a leader like George Bush, it makes ALL Republicans loo like fascist, orrupt,, clueless incompetents, because they throw out their ideals (such as they are) for The Party. It happened with Reagan, who turnedAmerica into a debtor nation and ran like a rabbit from Lebanon, and it happened far worse with George W. Bush.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:11 pmWE went from a world leader to a world pariah, from an economic leader to a sick man of the global economy, and from a champion of freedom to a torture state with a secret police.
And this betrayal of Republican values was cheered on ecstatically and voted in lock step.
You watch: everybody's going to form up behind John McCain, and vociferously deny their public hatred for them. Ann Coulter said she'd campaign for Hillary if McCain was the nominee--but she'll support him now.
Martin Luther King marched against Democrats, and was set on by Democrats. I've never forgotten that. I've also never forgottenthat it was a Southern Democrat, and not the idealisting Northern grandson of a bootlegger Democrat, that made the voting Rights Act areality.
I stood--and stand--with Martin Luther King and not with George Wallace, even though Wallace is a Democrat. And I stand against Doug Henry.
It's not so hard when you have principles.
The smug was sure thick in here, and we were all getting ready for some good ol’ Republican bashing.
Comment by IllTakeYouToTaskForThatRemark — February 14, 2008 @ 11:48 am
-------------
I did not criticize the lack of party identification.
Comment by IllTakeYouToTaskForThatRemark — February 14, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
True. The troll reveled in the lack of party identification.
"The smug is thick in here"? Who does that sound like? Anyone?
February 14th, 2008 at 1:13 pmThere is an element of miswired aggression in almost all bad behavior around sex, IMO. We've only been out of the jungle, so to speak, for 10,000 yrs or so. Any mammal, like humans, w/ both eyes on the front of its head is a carnivore, genetically, and therefore a predator.
I would have to assume rape is a form of misdirected predation.
Considering just how many LEGITIMATE outlets humans have for this sort of energy, rape is rather inexcusable, no?
February 14th, 2008 at 1:14 pmAborting a clump of cells is not “killing†an unborn. Abortion is legal and is not murder or killing. Deal with it.
Comment by Dr. Matt — February 14, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
So when is a human a human? Is a building a building when all that exists is a blueprint and a cornerstone? Those who argue that a human is a human from the moment of fertilization would say it is -- even if all that exists is the cornerstone (the fertilized cell) and the blueprint (the DNA within that cell).
I say that's not a building. I suspect I'm not the only one.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:15 pmTrue. The troll reveled in the lack of party identification.
“The smug is thick in here� Who does that sound like? Anyone?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
You're not just asking, are you, Ralph?
February 14th, 2008 at 1:16 pmThe text of an e-mail I just sent:
"Senator Henry,
I do hope that you’ve been a law-abiding citizen so that you never find yourself in prison.
If you do, you are likely to drastically revise your definition of 'rape.'â€
February 14th, 2008 at 1:18 pmAborting a clump of cells is not “killing†an unborn. Abortion is legal and is not murder or killing. Deal with it.
Comment by Dr. Matt — February 14, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
That statement holds whether you want the child or not, right?
February 14th, 2008 at 1:25 pmTrue. The troll reveled in the lack of party identification.
“The smug is thick in here� Who does that sound like? Anyone?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
So now I'm a troll? Explain.
Who does that sound like? I'm not following your line of though.
You're out of line here.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:29 pmComment by Ms_Joanne — February 14, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Aborting a clump of cells is not “killing†an unborn. Abortion is legal and is not murder or killing. Deal with it.
Comment by Dr. Matt — February 14, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
More justification for the “Culture of Deathâ€
The product of pregnancy – clump of cells – is always a human being. Or more simply put, as Al Gore said in one of his campaign speeches, “Every time there’s an abortion something dies.â€(paraphrasing)
Believe it would have been more accurate and more honest to have said, “Every time there’s an abortion someone dies.â€
You may have noticed that bitblt doesn’t usually use “killing†or “murdering†a baby to describe an abortion. bitblt believes that abortion is worse that “killing†or “murdering,†and he believes there’s not a word in the English language that adequately describes what is done. So bitblt uses “destroying the unborn.â€
bitlbt says murder when the one killed has a history. bitblt says unborn when the one killed had only a future.
bitblt, and many other conservative Christians, considers Genesis 1:28 – the prime directive – “…be fruitful and multiply…†an invitation from the Creator to participate in creation. (Creator is the term used by Christ in Matthew 19.)
When one destroys an unborn is one in essence telling the Creator that his invitation is rejected or wasn’t very important?
February 14th, 2008 at 1:30 pmWhen one destroys an unborn is one in essence telling the Creator that his invitation is rejected or wasn’t very important?
Comment by bitblt — February 14, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Sorry, but that's ridiculous.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:35 pmComment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
Sorry, but yer comment doesn't make any sense.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:36 pmWhen one destroys an unborn is one in essence telling the Creator that his invitation is rejected or wasn’t very important?
Comment by bitblt — February 14, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Nope.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:37 pmThe smug was sure thick in here, and we were all getting ready for some good ol’ Republican bashing.
Comment by IllTakeYouToTaskForThatRemark — February 14, 2008 @ 11:48 am
Yeah, I KNEW I'd heard that phrase before, and from another concern troll, too.
most people tend to assume that those who don’t agree with them have something wrong with them. There is an unreasonably high amount of this here. The smug on this site is also unreasonably high.
Comment by Ike_Skelton — February 6, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
---------
*cough* *cough* Man, the smug is thick in here!
Comment by Ike_Skelton — February 6, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 1:39 pmWhen one destroys an unborn is one in essence telling the Creator that his invitation is rejected or wasn’t very important?
Comment by bitblt — February 14, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Crom, the gloomy god of the Cimmerians really doesn't give a shit.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:41 pmSorry, but yer comment doesn’t make any sense.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — February 14, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
Of course it does. If an unwanted child is just a clump of cells, then a wanted one is the same.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:41 pmGotta wonder if Ike is related to Red?
February 14th, 2008 at 1:41 pmIf an unwanted child is just a clump of cells, then a wanted one is the same.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
And...?
Is there something more to your argument, or is that it?
February 14th, 2008 at 1:42 pmComment by bitblt — February 14, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Uhm, did you take your meds, sir? You're referring to yourself in third person. VERY creepy. (Like your posts.)
February 14th, 2008 at 1:43 pmIf an unwanted child is just a clump of cells, then a wanted one is the same.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Hate to disappoint you, but that doesn't make any sense, or serve any purpose.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:43 pmWhen one destroys an unborn is one in essence telling the Creator that his invitation is rejected or wasn’t very important?
Comment by bitblt — February 14, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
DAMMIT! And all those years that my spawning seed hit the "reservoir" end of latex condom? Was I destroying the unborn?
February 14th, 2008 at 1:44 pmWhat about now? After my "big V", am I destroying my destroyed unborn? Yikes, I'm so confused.
Yes, Ms_Joanne, it is rather creepy.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:44 pmLet's face it, DRxJ, yer a veritable "mass murderer" by those standards!
February 14th, 2008 at 1:45 pmIf an unwanted child is just a clump of cells, then a wanted one is the same.
Comment by uptighy righty — February 14, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
No, an unwanted child just won't get medical coverage from the right.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:46 pmDRxJ, after the big V you're supposed to curl up and die. Sex is for procreation purposes only AND you're not supposed to enjoy it.
Get with the program, will ya! Sheesh. ;-)
February 14th, 2008 at 1:47 pmNo, an unwanted child just won’t get medical coverage from the right.
Neither will a wanted one.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:48 pmIf an unwanted child is just a clump of cells, then a wanted one is the same.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
And…?
Is there something more to your argument, or is that it?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Do pro abortionists refer to their unborn children as clumps of cells until they are born? Do they show ultra sounds of their clumps of cells to their families? Do they tell people they feel the baby kick or is it just a clump of cells moving around? Do they grieve the loss of a clump of cells in the event of a miscarriage? Planned or not, the child is either a child in both cases or it's not.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:48 pmNo, an unwanted child just won’t get medical coverage from the right.
Comment by DRxJ — February 14, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
That's as good a way as any of avoiding the point. ;)
February 14th, 2008 at 1:50 pmDo pro abortionists refer to their unborn children as clumps of cells until they are born? Do they show ultra sounds of their clumps of cells to their families? Do they tell people they feel the baby kick or is it just a clump of cells moving around? Do they grieve the loss of a clump of cells in the event of a miscarriage? Planned or not, the child is either a child in both cases or it’s not.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
I don't know, I don't know any pro abortionists. I don't know any amateur abortionists, either.
Again -- do you have a point?
February 14th, 2008 at 1:52 pmI don’t know, I don’t know any pro abortionists. I don’t know any amateur abortionists, either.
Again — do you have a point?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
Also an excellent dodge. ;)
February 14th, 2008 at 1:54 pmDRxJ, after the big V you’re supposed to curl up and die. Sex is for procreation purposes only AND you’re not supposed to enjoy it.
Get with the program, will ya! Sheesh. ;-)
Comment by Ms_Joanne — February 14, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
You also are not allowed to be creative about what goes where and with whom. Which is kind of about that not enjoying it part.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:56 pmAlso an excellent dodge. ;)
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
So, apparently... you don't have a point, or else I'm guessing you would have stated it by now.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:58 pmPlanned or not, the child is either a child in both cases or it’s not.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
A zygote is a child? If I give you a box of transistors, capacitors and a speaker, do you have a radio?
February 14th, 2008 at 1:58 pmSo, apparently… you don’t have a point, or else I’m guessing you would have stated it by now.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
Boy, you're a hard grader, ralph.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:59 pmThat’s as good a way as any of avoiding the point. ;)
Comment by uptighty nightie — February 14, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
ummm, you actually have to HAVE A POINT in order for it to be avoided.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:59 pmJust sayin'
:-)
Also an excellent dodge. ;)
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
So, apparently… you don’t have a point, or else I’m guessing you would have stated it by now.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
The point is quite clear. But don't worry about what anyone is thinking about your failure to address it. No one expects anyone who is pro abortion to ever do so. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of it. ;)
February 14th, 2008 at 2:02 pmA zygote is a child? If I give you a box of transistors, capacitors and a speaker, do you have a radio?
Comment by gummitch — February 14, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
No answers from gum either? Shocking! ;)
February 14th, 2008 at 2:04 pmThe point is quite clear. But don’t worry about what anyone is thinking about your failure to address it. No one expects anyone who is pro abortion to ever do so. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of it. ;)
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
In other words, you don't actually have a point, but if you did, it would be obvious and anyone who disagreed with you would be a hypocrite.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:05 pmPlanned or not, the child is either a child in both cases or it’s not.
Comment by upright left
You can call it whatever you want, buddy. The woman has to make the decision. Pure and simple.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:05 pmThe point is quite clear. But don’t worry about what anyone is thinking about your failure to address it. No one expects anyone who is pro abortion to ever do so. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of it. ;)
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
Y'know, maybe it's just me, but when someone challenges me to state my point, I find that the bets way to shut them up is to 'yknow, state my point.
But apparently, all the rage among the kids these days is instead to insist that their point is clear, and then blame others for not getting it.
Maybe that works too, I don't know...
February 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pmI know quite a few people who use the word 'smug' in that manner. Your quotations prove nothing.
Now, the real question is why you are so concerned with Ike_Skelton?
February 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pmComment by missmolly — February 14, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Recommend (2) | Report Abuse
lol I think sodomizing a Reoublican will actually in fact get that Republican pregnant.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pmYou also are not allowed to be creative about what goes where and with whom. Which is kind of about that not enjoying it part.
And let's not even get into discussions of orifices. ;-)
No one expects anyone who is pro abortion to ever do so.
Why do goopers insist on butchering the English language?
We have made points. We disagree. Cells and tissues are not children. Period. Nothing else to discuss.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pmFurthermore, gum...bacteria in the air, water and soil are alive organisms. Do you think upright left has ever used medication to kill them? Cleaning products to kill them?
Cause you know, they are a clump of cells, therefore, bacteria are children.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:08 pmmost people tend to assume that those who don’t agree with them have something wrong with them. There is an unreasonably high amount of this here. The smug on this site is also unreasonably high.
Comment by Ike_Skelton — February 6, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
———
*cough* *cough* Man, the smug is thick in here!
Comment by Ike_Skelton — February 6, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
Whoa, I've been gone for days and you still manage to bring me up! Stop stealing my lines troll!
February 14th, 2008 at 2:11 pmIn other words, you don’t actually have a point, but if you did, it would be obvious and anyone who disagreed with you would be a hypocrite.
Comment by gummitch — February 14, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
No, if an unwanted child is a clump of cells, then a wanted child is also a clump of cells and should be teated as such. Anyone who calls an unwanted unborn child a clump of cells in order make it ok to abort it, but refers to a wanted unborn child as a baby is a hypocrite. Sorry, but hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether or not we agree. ;)
February 14th, 2008 at 2:11 pmSomebody probably ought to poop on Senator Henry... Even if he isn't a Republican.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:12 pmSeriously though, the smug bit was used on South Park, so I'm sure that millions of people use it as I used it.
I take some people to task for assuming that a gentleman who made some inappropriate remarks is a Republican and I'm suddenly labeled as a troll? You sir, are out of line, and I may just take you to task for that too.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:14 pmComment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
So it all comes down to what words we use to describe it?
Scientific facts have no role in the discussion? Oh, wait -- silly me -- trying to make a point by appealing to "scientific fact".
Look, upright, if it makes you feel better to convince yourselves that pro-choice people are "hypocrites" because they recognize the difference between a child and a zygote or a blastocyst, knock yourself out.
There STILL doesn't appear to be a point in your rant, other than language matters.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pmNo, if an unwanted child is a clump of cells, then a wanted child is also a clump of cells and should be teated as such. Anyone who calls an unwanted unborn child a clump of cells in order make it ok to abort it, but refers to a wanted unborn child as a baby is a hypocrite. Sorry, but hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether or not we agree. ;)
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
Your making a false correlation. An unwanted child is not a clump of cells. A clump of cells is a clump of cells. A child is a child. You see?
What is being aborted is a developing clump of cells. The term "unborn child" is a political term intended to load up emotional value. That's why you refuse to use terms like zygote or blastula and insist on calling it a "child" regardless of its state of development.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:17 pmHey, that was a really good quot4e you dug up on me!
Lets just say it again.
Most people tend to assume that those who don’t agree with them have something wrong with them. There is an unreasonably high amount of this here. The smug on this site is also unreasonably high.
Was true then, is true now. Troll me, it's so predictable it's sad. Anyone who has different ideas on this site is labeled a troll. I was labeled a troll because I support nuclear energy. Now, regardless of what I say I'm either a troll or an ever popular concern troll.
Take a step back and look at yourselves for a minute.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:19 pmNo, if an unwanted child is a clump of cells, then a wanted child is also a clump of cells and should be teated as such.
Comment by uptighty nightie — February 14, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
Freudian slip?
Anyone who calls an unwanted unborn child a clump of cells in order make it ok to abort it, but refers to a wanted unborn child as a baby is a hypocrite.
Actually, a zygote is a clump of cells, a fetus is semi-functional body of tissues and organs, that is still reliant upon it's host (mother), and a baby is an entity only after it's birth.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:19 pmSo I ask, what's your point?
I take some people to task for assuming that a gentleman who made some inappropriate remarks is a Republican and I’m suddenly labeled as a troll? You sir, are out of line, and I may just take you to task for that too.
Comment by IllTakeYouToTaskForThatRemark — February 14, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
No. You are assumed to be a troll because of the way you took people to task. Many real progressives here take fellows to task all the time. WE seldom accuse each other of being "smug" like you did, whether you are "IllTakeYou" or "Ike".
It's called being a concern troll and it's a well-known gambit around these parts. As is adopting multiple handles/ (Although registration has slowed that down a bit, it's clearly not stopped it entirely.)
February 14th, 2008 at 2:20 pmComment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
You know, bud, if there was actually a chance that you might answer the question if I were to put it in the terms that you want, I'd do it for you. Of course, we both know that you'd just move on to the next dodge like the grammar one or the cleaning products one. We all know that most people who are for (pro) abortion have referred to unborn wanted children as babies. The hypocrisy of your position has been noted. That's all that matters.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:22 pmI find it interesting that Ike Skelton shows up here within minutes of a week-old quote being posted to show its similarity to language used by another poster online at the time.
Quite a cozy coincidence.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:22 pmI can take people to task for their idiotic actions any way I feel. I'm not now, nor have I ever been Ike_Skelton. Quite a cozy coincidence that he showed up just in time for us to be compared indeed. I don't know what a concern troll is. Thank you for your off-base assumptions about me.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:24 pmThe hypocrisy of your position has been noted. That’s all that matters.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Actually, for something to "matter" you have to prove it, not merely repeat it.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:25 pmActually, a zygote is a clump of cells, a fetus is semi-functional body of tissues and organs, that is still reliant upon it’s host (mother), and a baby is an entity only after it’s birth.
So I ask, what’s your point?
Comment by DRxJ — February 14, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
Replace clump of cells with "semi-functional body of tissues and organs" in comment 106 and answer the questions. ;)
February 14th, 2008 at 2:25 pmI don’t know what a concern troll is. Thank you for your off-base assumptions about me.
Comment by IllTakeYouToTaskForThatRemark — February 14, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Thank god for the internets, huh?
February 14th, 2008 at 2:26 pmReplace clump of cells with “semi-functional body of tissues and organs†in comment 106 and answer the questions. ;)
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
There are no organs in a zygote. Nor tissues. You could start with a basic biology class and work forward from there.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:27 pmWe all know that most people who are for (pro) abortion have referred to unborn wanted children as babies. The hypocrisy of your position has been noted. That’s all that matters.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
two points; one, I find it awfully convenient that it's MY fault that you won't post what you claim is a "clear point". So much for taking responsibility for your words and actions.
two: I don't know ANYONE who is "pro abortion". No one wants MORE abortions. People who are pro choice simply recognize that women will get pregnant unintentionally, and some of them, for various reasons, will want to terminate the pregnancy. We believe that it's best to make that procedure, when it must happen, as safe as possible for the woman. We don't think that criminalizing those women is the best way to reduce the incidence of abortion.
You think that making those women criminals is the best way to deal with the problem.
THAT is where we disagree.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:28 pmActually, for something to “matter†you have to prove it, not merely repeat it.
Comment by gummitch — February 14, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
You are quite the master of avoiding the issue. Very impressive. ;)
February 14th, 2008 at 2:28 pmQuite a cozy coincidence.
Methinks not.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:29 pmReplace clump of cells with “semi-functional body of tissues and organs†in comment 106 and answer the questions. ;)
Comment by upmynightie, righty— February 14, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 2:29 pm.
ummm, okay
A zygote is a semi-functional body of tissues and organs, which is false.
so, what's your point
I can take people to task for their idiotic actions any way I feel.
Comment by IllTakeYouToTaskForThatRemark — February 14, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Of course you can. No one is saying you can't.
What you're forgetting is that humans naturally make judgments about their surroundings based on the information available to them.
Other posters here are our surroundings on this forum, and the only information we have to form judgments is the language that they use.
So, yes, you can take people to task any way you want. And if you sound like a concern troll while you're doing it, people who judge that you're a concern troll.
That's the way it is.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:31 pmThis is all about the mythical concept of a 'soul'.
No, Not the James Brown version! Dammit! Focus.
Religion. and Politics. And Theocracy.
There.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:31 pmAnd Crom, the gloomy Cimmerian God could give a shit less.
Wait! According to uptighty righty, if the zygote is a fetus, then the yolk of an egg is really a chicken. Ahh, the simple life of an alternate reality.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:36 pmtwo points; one, I find it awfully convenient that it’s MY fault that you won’t post what you claim is a “clear pointâ€. So much for taking responsibility for your words and actions.
two: I don’t know ANYONE who is “pro abortionâ€. No one wants MORE abortions. People who are pro choice simply recognize that women will get pregnant unintentionally, and some of them, for various reasons, will want to terminate the pregnancy. We believe that it’s best to make that procedure, when it must happen, as safe as possible for the woman. We don’t think that criminalizing those women is the best way to reduce the incidence of abortion.
You think that making those women criminals is the best way to deal with the problem.
THAT is where we disagree.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @
I disagree with a lot of what you post, but I've never seen a post that implies that you are lacking in comprehension. You well know that my point is that it is hypocritical to say that an unplanned pregnancy is nothing but a clump of cells if you refer to the unborn child of a planned pregnancy at the same gestation as a baby. I fully accept that our society has decided that it is acceptable to kill unborn children. Majority rules. That doesn't make it ok to be hypocritical about it. If an unwanted baby is a clump of cells, then a wanted one is too. To refer to them any differently is hypocritical.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:39 pmWait! According to uptighty righty, if the zygote is a fetus, then the yolk of an egg is really a chicken. Ahh, the simple life of an alternate reality.
Comment by DRxJ — February 14, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Your ability to avoid the issue is well established. Now, how about those questions? ;)
February 14th, 2008 at 2:42 pmWhat an immense turd that guy is.
Further comments here.
See also Dubya's Valentine for you all.
Cheers,
February 14th, 2008 at 2:46 pmmy point is that it is hypocritical to say that an unplanned pregnancy is nothing but a clump of cells if you refer to the unborn child of a planned pregnancy at the same gestation as a baby
Comment by uplift my rights — February 14, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Geez, let's start over again, shall we?
February 14th, 2008 at 2:46 pmNo one is calling an unplanned pregnancy a clump of cells.
No one is calling a planned pregnancy a clump of cells.
All pregnancies start off as zygotes, then develop to the stage of embryos (clumps of cells).
My opinion, is that abortions at this stage are not killing a "being", only tissues (or clumps of cells)
The next stage is the fetus, where my opinion is that as long as there is a heart beat, then we shouldn't terminate the pregnancy (an debate for another time)
Furthermore, one does not end a baby's life because a baby is defined after it's born, not before.
comprehende?
Now, what was your point
If an unwanted baby is a clump of cells, then a wanted one is too. To refer to them any differently is hypocritical.
They are both a clump of cells. One set of cells continues to the point where it can sustain its own life. The other does not.
No hypocrisy at all.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:47 pmYou well know that my point is that it is hypocritical to say that an unplanned pregnancy is nothing but a clump of cells if you refer to the unborn child of a planned pregnancy at the same gestation as a baby. I fully accept that our society has decided that it is acceptable to kill unborn children. Majority rules. That doesn’t make it ok to be hypocritical about it. If an unwanted baby is a clump of cells, then a wanted one is too. To refer to them any differently is hypocritical.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
BFD, you think it's hypocritical. I guess that gives you one more point on your morally superior scoreboard, huh?
Does it make that "baby" something other than a clump of cells that cannot live independently of the mother just because someone calls it a "baby" when it's two months along?
No. It doesn't change the biology one little bit. THAT is the kind of point I was looking for; not a semantic one, or a shallow moralistic one.
The point you've struggled so hard to make has no effect on the science of the question, nor on the morality of it (which is more complex). It's a simple shortcut that diminishes pro-choice supporters in your eyes and lets you feel that much better about yourself.
That's it.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:50 pmNo one is calling an unplanned pregnancy a clump of cells.
No one is calling a planned pregnancy a clump of cells.
Sorry, but that is exactly what I am doing. Yes, we can use biologically correct terms (I think you'll lose most people, especially those who don't believe in science to start with) but when you get down to the nitty grittiest of terms, you are talking cells, tissues, whatever. You are not talking a live, born child.
No disrepect D...I love ya. But we're going round and round semantically with someone who is doing nothing but chain yanking.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:51 pmYour ability to avoid the issue is well established. Now, how about those questions? ;)
Please feel free to point out where I avoided your point, (once you define your point).
February 14th, 2008 at 2:51 pmAnd just because you've refused to answer my question, does not mean that I have a well established reputation of avoidance. In fact, I pretty much have taken you to task as you've derailed the topic of this thread (to which I have participated)
In fact, I pretty much have taken you to task as you’ve derailed the topic of this thread (to which I have participated)
Comment by DRxJ — February 14, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Guilty as well.
(hangs head)
February 14th, 2008 at 2:54 pmMs Joanne,
February 14th, 2008 at 2:57 pmNo problemo.
My point, though not posted very clear, was that no one here was defining unplanned pregnancies as a clump of cells, while referring to planned pregnancies as a gestation of a child.
Darn phone interrupting my train of thought!
Comment by DRxJ — February 14, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Comment by Ms_Joanne — February 14, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
So neither of you would ever refer to an unborn child as a baby. You would insist that it is a fetus that is kicking, not a baby. It is not a child that is lost in a miscarriage, but a fetus. As long as it's never a baby before it's born, there's no hypocrisy. If the wanted fetus is afforded any higher status than the unwanted, it's hypocrisy.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:58 pmMy point, though not posted very clear, was that no one here was defining unplanned pregnancies as a clump of cells, while referring to planned pregnancies as a gestation of a child.
I, myself, thought everyone was quite clear. That was little more than an Abbott and Costello discussion of Who's On First with that bozo doing little more than, as said, yanking chains.
You didn't answer! (when, in fact, I don't know how many people did, in very clear, concise, and succinct terms)
Doncha just hate when that little four letter word comes into play? WORK! ;-)
February 14th, 2008 at 3:00 pmIn fact, I pretty much have taken you to task as you’ve derailed the topic of this thread (to which I have participated)
Comment by DRxJ — February 14, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
The topic had turned to abortion before I ever posted. I derailed nothing.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:01 pmIt is not a child that is lost in a miscarriage, but a fetus.
Finally, something we can agree. Because a baby is defined after it's born, then yes, a miscarriage is a loss of a fetus.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:04 pmI know exactly what card you're playing here, but it won't work.
Losing a fetus due to a miscarriage can be quite an emotional event, just as losing a baby after birth.
BTW, I've already offered that I believe we shouldn't terminate a pregnancy after a heart beat is detected. How is that hypocritical?
So neither of you would ever refer to an unborn child as a baby.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
WTF does it matter?
Does calling an embryo "a baby" make it any more viable outside the womb?
Why do you even think it matters that much what words are used?
February 14th, 2008 at 3:07 pmBFD, you think it’s hypocritical. I guess that gives you one more point on your morally superior scoreboard, huh?
Does it make that “baby†something other than a clump of cells that cannot live independently of the mother just because someone calls it a “baby†when it’s two months along?
No. It doesn’t change the biology one little bit. THAT is the kind of point I was looking for; not a semantic one, or a shallow moralistic one.
The point you’ve struggled so hard to make has no effect on the science of the question, nor on the morality of it (which is more complex). It’s a simple shortcut that diminishes pro-choice supporters in your eyes and lets you feel that much better about yourself.
That’s it.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
You're off base on the moral superiority comment. That's just your assumption. Why is it wrong to expect consistency in the terms applied to a wanted child (fetus) and an unwanted one. I never hear people offer to show ultrasounds of their fetus. It's always their baby. Just like women don't say the fetus kicks, it's the baby that kicks. I've never heard anyone grieving the loss of their fetus, but I've heard several grieve the loss of their unborn babies. Inconsistency in the instance is hypocrisy.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:09 pmDoes calling an embryo “a baby†make it any more viable outside the womb?
Why do you even think it matters that much what words are used?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
What you call it doesn't make it any more vialbe. The value that you attach to it makes the difference. If it's a baby when it's wanted, it's a baby when it's unwanted.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:14 pmWhat you call it doesn’t make it any more vialbe. The value that you attach to it makes the difference. If it’s a baby when it’s wanted, it’s a baby when it’s unwanted.
No, it's a baby when it breathes.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:15 pmSo neither of you would ever refer to an unborn child as a baby.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:17 pmYes, that is why a couple, happily expecting, state "We are having a baby", not "We have a baby"!
The value that you attach to it makes the difference. If it’s a baby when it’s wanted, it’s a baby when it’s unwanted.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Okay, then whether it's wanted or not, IT ISN'T A BABY.
It's en embryo or a fetus.
JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE CALLS IT A BABY DOESN'T MAKE IT A BABY.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:17 pmIf it’s a baby when it’s wanted, it’s a baby when it’s unwanted.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pmTrue, after it's born.
No, it’s a baby when it breathes.
Comment by Ms_Joanne — February 14, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
As long as you apply that standard to all pregnancies, there is no hypcrisy.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:21 pmWhat you call it doesn’t make it any more vialbe.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
As long as YOU apply THIS standard to all pregnancies, there is no hypocrisy.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:22 pmAs long as you apply that standard to all pregnancies, there is no hypcrisy (sic).
None here.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:23 pmComment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
Comment by DRxJ — February 14, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
So your answers to my original questions would be that you would offer to show an ultra sound of your fetus. You would say your fetus kicked, not your baby kicked. And you would refer to your miscarried child as losing the fetus, not losing the baby. If so, there's no hypocrisy.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:29 pmwhat was your original question?
February 14th, 2008 at 3:31 pm(banging head on desk)
Jesus Christ on a crutch. I'm done answering this f'in moron.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:33 pmSo your answers to my original questions would be that you would offer to show an ultra sound of your fetus. You would say your fetus kicked, not your baby kicked. And you would refer to your miscarried child as losing the fetus, not losing the baby. If so, there’s no hypocrisy.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Why is the language used so much more important to you than the science involved? You've acknowledged that it doesn't make the fetus one little bit more viable to refer to it as a "baby". Yet you're still trying to score some kind of point by insisting that others are "hypocrites" even though it doesn't affect the real question one iota.
Puzzling.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:33 pmWhat you call it doesn’t make it any more vialbe.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
As long as YOU apply THIS standard to all pregnancies, there is no hypocrisy.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
I agree. Viability is unaffected by whether you call it a child or not.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:34 pmI’m done answering this f’in moron.
Comment by Ms_Joanne — February 14, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
Agreed! And yet he still couldn't answer my question of how I was being hypocritical.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:38 pmOff to another thread!
I agree. Viability is unaffected by whether you call it a child or not.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Then why are you so hung up on what people call it?
February 14th, 2008 at 3:38 pmI’m done answering this f’in moron.
Comment by Ms_Joanne — February 14, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
Agreed! And yet he still couldn’t answer my question of how I was being hypocritical.
Off to another thread!
Comment by DRxJ — February 14, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
You guys are right. You got room in your car for me?
February 14th, 2008 at 3:39 pmThen why are you so hung up on what people call it?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Attention, my dear. Nothing more.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:39 pmWhy is the language used so much more important to you than the science involved? You’ve acknowledged that it doesn’t make the fetus one little bit more viable to refer to it as a “babyâ€. Yet you’re still trying to score some kind of point by insisting that others are “hypocrites†even though it doesn’t affect the real question one iota.
Puzzling.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
The language used is important because you imply no value by using "clump of cells" and, as others have done here, comparing an unwanted pregnancy to a tumor. If the product of a wanted pregnancy at the same period of gestation is celebrated and called a baby and grieved in the case of loss, it obviously has great value. If the unwanted baby is nothing but a clump of cells and no better than a tumor, why is the wanted child any different? If it's wanted it's worthy, if not it isn't?
February 14th, 2008 at 3:42 pmI’m done answering this f’in moron.
Comment by Ms_Joanne — February 14, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
Agreed! And yet he still couldn’t answer my question of how I was being hypocritical.
Off to another thread!
Comment by DRxJ — February 14, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
You guys are right. You got room in your car for me?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 14, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
It's much easier to avoid uncomfortable questions than to address them. ;)
February 14th, 2008 at 3:45 pmThe vast majority of people living in poverty in America are single mothers. Another way to get people into a slave type of situation. Slaves to corporations.
.
.
.
Comment by Ms_Joanne — February 14, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
“Irresponsible menâ€
“The vast majority of people living in poverty in America are single mothers,†is certainly a statement with which bitblt agrees.
But what makes a single mother? Generalizing here in the broadest possible way with a high degree of accuracy, bitblt would say, “Irresponsible men.â€
It’s just like the ProLife bumper stickers says: “Who loves abortion? Irresponsible men.â€
Some man manipulates a woman emotionally, gets what he wants, and then abandons her like yesterday’s tp. This, unfortunately, results in a single mother living in poverty or in a single mother-to-be aborting her unborn. The woman and her family live in poverty and all of society pays – welfare.
As bad as it is the young woman (usually young) may watch in horror as the emotional highpoint of her life passes by. Then, for the rest of her life there’s never enough of anything – never enough money, never enough companionship, and never a father for her children. Then as the kids get older they look for a way out of this “never enough†quagmire. They find someone, “fall†in love, and it’s wash, rinse, and repeat – ad infinitum.
Repeat the cycle. Poverty begats poverty. Irresponsible sex begats poverty.
Repeat the cycle because those involved didn’t respect marriage and didn’t respect themselves.
Some guy thinks the world revolves around a particular part of his body and others suffer the consequences – perhaps for generations.
This is the perfect recipe for making a society that’s not worth preserving.
Can’t society teach men to be sexually responsible, or is the best society can do is to allow abortion for the unwanted products of pregnancy, clumps of cells, unborn? Of course it’s the woman who gets the abortion and pays the price.
Well, society is teaching kids how to put a condom on a banana. Guess that’s something.
If bitblt were to speculate…perhaps Senator Henry is trying to say we have problems because women don’t respect themselves, and they - men and woman - don’t keep the sexual relationship in marriage.
Of course the Irresponsible Men continue to enjoy.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:05 pmComment by bitblt — February 14, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
Dude, I agree with you but you're just way too weird for me to deal with. Thanks for the thoughts, though.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:07 pmThe ones who find themselves in poverty teach their children to repeat the cycle.
(Caution: http://www.citizenlink.com is associated with Dr.Dobson’s Focus on the Family.)
http://www.heritage.org/ Research/ Abstinence/ bg1718.cfm
In young women who are sentenced to a life of poverty because of early sexual activity and early motherhood, what percentage do you suppose don’t finish their education because of their parental responsibilities?
February 14th, 2008 at 4:10 pmIn young women who are sentenced to a life of poverty because of early sexual activity and early motherhood, what percentage do you suppose don’t finish their education because of their parental responsibilities?
A staggering amount. And the government cut off their ability to get student loans and continue to get welfare so most are unlikely to do something at any point in their lives.
You can be very reasoned, but please stop channeling your inner Hannibal Lecther. 'k? :-)
February 14th, 2008 at 4:14 pmOh. Now this is an abortion thread?
Nice work handling the semantic stylings of the idiot "upright left."
Seriously, there are some great comments on this thread showing caring about the rights of women. Fantastic. :-)
February 14th, 2008 at 4:16 pmHiya, Zoo!!
A big THANK YOU for posting Countdown on The Zoo! MSNBC's site to view Countdown is whacked to find! They changed it so I can't go watch it when I travel...WHICH SUCKS!!
Great stuff there today.
Cheers!!
February 14th, 2008 at 4:18 pmThanks, Ms Joanne. Always glad to be of service!
Check into the Zoo now and then, and tell us where in the world you are on that day. Seems to vary quite a bit. :-)
February 14th, 2008 at 4:26 pmLOL! I am sure everyone would be thrilled with my whacked out travel schedule (and all for work!)
Next week it's Portland, OR. Woo hoo!
And I check you out daily. :-) I may not comment much, but I do read it all the time.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:27 pmSeriously, there are some great comments on this thread showing caring about the rights of women. Fantastic. :-)
Comment by Zooey — February 14, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
Hey Zooey!
February 14th, 2008 at 4:27 pmYou know me, I will always care about women (wink, wink)!
Seriously, tho, what Doug Henry said is absolutely atrocious. Rape is usually not even about pleasure, it's about over bearing power.
The Senator should get his head out of his 1930's a$$, or go join Ashcroft for the annual He-Man Woman Haters convention in Las Vegas!
Ms Joanne, say hi to my men when you're in Portland! :-)
DRxJ, you're a great guy. I've said before Mrs DRxJ is a lucky woman. These people and their stone-age ideas about women, violence, and reproduction are just sick power freaks.
Long time, no see! :-)
February 14th, 2008 at 4:36 pmbitbit must get his "facts" from UL. both are self-serving, ignorant liars.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:39 pmIf bitblt were to speculate…perhaps Senator Henry is trying to say we have problems because women don’t respect themselves, and they - men and woman - don’t keep the sexual relationship in marriage.
Of course the Irresponsible Men continue to enjoy.
Comment by bitblt — February 14, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
bitbit is a moron.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:40 pmLefty, that's what they do to you in Sunday School. I learned enough to know I'd be more "Christian" without their influence.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:41 pmI don't usually read bitbit's shit, but I did -- just this once -- and of course, you're right Lefty!
February 14th, 2008 at 4:47 pmZooey, You've got men in Portland? Can I have one? It's been a looooooong time! ;-)
Ok, silly overtired me. Off to sleepyland.
Night all...keep up the good fight!
February 14th, 2008 at 4:55 pmNext week it’s Portland, OR. Woo hoo!
Comment by Ms_Joanne — February 14, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
Portland? Nobody goes to Portland. Nothing here but a whole bunch of damned libruls.
I mean, nothing there. Not here, because that would mean I'm in Portland. And nobody goes to Portland.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pmMs Joanne, my "men" are my sons. :-)
February 14th, 2008 at 5:28 pmComment by Zooey — February 14, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
I know you've never referred to an unborn baby as a baby, zooette. ;)
February 14th, 2008 at 6:19 pmComment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
I had all the babies I wanted.
F_ck off, moron.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:23 pmbitbit must get his “facts†from UL. both are self-serving, ignorant liars.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — February 14, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Pat, how in the world are you, bud? When you address the issue, you'll also post a link to any lie the you associate with me, right? Thanks. :)
February 14th, 2008 at 6:28 pmZooey, I thought your men were in Idaho?
And I second the motion, FO btblt. You don't like abortions? Don't abort. And keep your fcking nose out of other people's business, Freak.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:28 pmI had all the babies I wanted.
Comment by Zooey — February 14, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
That's great. And you referred to them as fetuses right up until the day they were born, I'm sure.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:33 pmComment by nanlichi — February 14, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
My men have flown the coop, and found jobs and lives in Portland. :)
February 14th, 2008 at 6:50 pmComment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Who gives a shit? You've spent this entire thread arguing semantics -- as if it matters.
Like I said, f_ck off.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:52 pmRape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was.
Neither are TN state senators.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:12 amWho gives a shit? You’ve spent this entire thread arguing semantics — as if it matters.
Like I said, f_ck off.
Comment by Zooey — February 14, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
You need to check the meaning of the word semantics. If you place different value on a baby/fetus (call it what you like) of the same gestational age depending upon whether it's wanted or not, you are being a hypocrite. You say it's ok to abort a child before birth because it's not a child. If you treat a wanted unborn child as a child, you are a hypocrite. Just admit they are both children and our society has decided that the child is expendable if the mother doesn't want it. Otherwise, you are the one who is guilty of using semantics.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:15 amThat’s great. And you referred to them as fetuses right up until the day they were born, I’m sure.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
isn't that what a post embryo prebirth developing mammal called?
February 15th, 2008 at 12:21 amThat’s great. And you referred to them as fetuses right up until the day they were born, I’m sure.
Comment by upright left — February 14, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
isn’t that what a post embryo prebirth developing mammal called?
Comment by dbadass — February 15, 2008 @ 12:21 am
Sorry, but that dodge has been used repeatedly. The question isn't what it should be called. The question is whether those who are pro abortion place different value on a child/fetus that they want than one they don't want. If the aborted one is just a clump of cells, then you need to be offering to show ultra sounds of your clump of cells that you decide to keep. You need to say that your clump of cells is kicking, not your baby is kicking. There is certainly no need to worry about the health of a clump of cells, so no prenatal care is needed until the point of viability for your potential child.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:35 amWhy does it have to be that way? Seems to me that the two conditions are distinctly different and thus I would expect that people experiencing these scenarios would respond in differing ways.
Abortions legal. People prefer it that way.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:45 amI am pro-choice. That leaves open the possibility of NOT choosing to have an abortion.
Personally, I enjoy 'em. I have an abortion as often as I possibly can.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:54 amSure but don't you also Choose to keep one now and again to increase your welfare check?
February 15th, 2008 at 12:57 amNaturally. Gotta keep the brats around, so I can keep up my Cadillac payments. ;)
February 15th, 2008 at 1:02 amWhy does it have to be that way? Seems to me that the two conditions are distinctly different and thus I would expect that people experiencing these scenarios would respond in differing ways.
Abortions legal. People prefer it that way.
Comment by dbadass — February 15, 2008 @ 12:45 am
I've acknowledged that abortion is legal and a majority of our society has decided that they want the right to abort children. There is no argument there. And where is your science all of a sudden? Most abortions are performed because the child is unwanted. Had the pregnancy occurred at a more opportune time, it wouldn't have been terminated. The unwanted pregnancy is considered to be expendable, in the words of posters here, because it isn't a baby until it is born. But, in the case of a planned pregnancy, those who previously said it isn't a baby until birth are excited about the baby. They offer to show ultra sounds of the baby. They talk about the baby moving. They take various precautions to protect the baby from environmental and nutritional hazards. Suddenly that clump of cells that was so trivial as to be laughable is not so trivial after all. In fact, it is a baby. If a miscarriage occurs, the parents grieve the loss of the baby, not the fetus. The is no physical difference in the unwanted baby/fetus and the wanted one. It just makes it ok to abort the unwanted ones if you can convince yourself that they are somehow unworthy of life as compared to the ones you want. If you treat your unborn child or grandchild as just a fetus until birth, your support of abortion isn't hypocrisy. If your unborn child is valuable, worthy of protection and worthy of being grieved for in event of miscarriage, then your support of abortion is hypocrisy. I accept that abortion is and will remain legal. You ought to have the courage of your convictions if you support it.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:04 amI am pro-choice. That leaves open the possibility of NOT choosing to have an abortion.
Personally, I enjoy ‘em. I have an abortion as often as I possibly can.
Comment by Zooey — February 15, 2008 @ 12:54 am
At least this attempt to dodge the issue is new. ;)
February 15th, 2008 at 1:08 amI just disagree with your premise. The two scenarios are distinctly different and both emotionally charged. It makes perfect sense for people to have a different set of norms as the pyschology of the two are so divergent. I think you are trying to make an equivalance where there is none. Either that or maybe I just haven't entirely grasped your point
February 15th, 2008 at 1:11 amActually, the issue is the Senator from Tennessee missing the good old days when rape was really rape.
I have nothing to dodge.
Abortion is legal. If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she has the choice to abort it -- or not. Just because someone else on the planet might lose a pregnancy they wanted does not change the fact that the unwanted pregnancy is unwanted.
It really doesn't matter if you think any of us are being hypocritical. I don't care what you think.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:15 amI just disagree with your premise. The two scenarios are distinctly different and both emotionally charged. It makes perfect sense for people to have a different set of norms as the pyschology of the two are so divergent. I think you are trying to make an equivalance where there is none. Either that or maybe I just haven’t entirely grasped your point
Comment by dbadass — February 15, 2008 @ 1:11 am
So a twenty-four week old fetus can either be a baby or not depending on the psychological condition of the mother? You are trying to deny equivalence where it is obvious. The scenario makes a difference in whether or not the mother decides to have an abortion. The scenario makes no difference in whether it's a child or not. Wanting something doesn't change what it is. They are both babies or they are not. It makes it more difficult to advocate your position when you apply the same standards to a child you want and can feel as you do to one that is considered inconvenient. That's why you are trying to make them different when they are the same.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:32 amComment by upright left — February 15, 2008 @ 1:32 am
Yep, it's confirmed. You're a f_cking drone idiot.
Dismissed.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:35 amIt really doesn’t matter if you think any of us are being hypocritical. I don’t care what you think.
Comment by Zooey — February 15, 2008 @ 1:15 am
Will you consider this a valid response the next time you call someone a hypocrite?
February 15th, 2008 at 1:36 amCool! So you just want me to call it a kid. I think I get you now. What should we call spontaneous miscarrages?
February 15th, 2008 at 1:37 amWill you consider this a valid response the next time you call someone a hypocrite?
Comment by upright left — February 15, 2008 @ 1:36 am
I don't care.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:47 amCool! So you just want me to call it a kid. I think I get you now. What should we call spontaneous miscarrages?
Comment by dbadass — February 15, 2008 @ 1:37 am
I just want you to treat them the same. If the aborted fetus isn't worthy of consideration, treat the wanted one the same way until it is born. I dare say you will cause quit a stir if you insist on referring to your own child or grandchild as a fetus until birth. A spontaneous miscarriage is what it is. And if you don't grieve the loss of an unwanted child because it is just a clump cells, you shouldn't grieve the miscarriage of a wanted pregnancy because it wasn't a baby since it wasn't born.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:50 amWill you consider this a valid response the next time you call someone a hypocrite?
Comment by upright left — February 15, 2008 @ 1:36 am
I don’t care.
Comment by Zooey — February 15, 2008 @ 1:47 am
That's good to know.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:52 amA spontaneous miscarriage is what it is. And if you don’t grieve the loss of an unwanted child because it is just a clump cells, you shouldn’t grieve the miscarriage of a wanted pregnancy because it wasn’t a baby since it wasn’t born.
Comment by upright left — February 15, 2008 @ 1:50 am
The problem seems to be that you are making an assumption that the termination decision comes without grief. I think we can probably discount all that follows as this flaw is so obvious.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:57 amComment by dbadass — February 15, 2008 @ 1:57 am
Exactly. UL and it's kind live in a black or white, all or nothing world -- anything else makes them squirmy and uncomfortable.
The rest of us live in reality, where the hard choices contemplated and made -- and lived with.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:04 amThe problem seems to be that you are making an assumption that the termination decision comes without grief. I think we can probably discount all that follows as this flaw is so obvious.
Comment by dbadass — February 15, 2008 @ 1:57 am
If you attach any significance to the aborted fetus, then you must not be among those who use terms such as "clump of cells" and compare aborted fetuses to tumors. If so, you appear to be in the minority among the pro abortion posters on this site. My comments were directed to those who feel that abortion is no different than having a growth removed. My premise is that they have difficulty holding to that position when they must take it to it's logical conclusion.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:07 amExactly. UL and it’s kind live in a black or white, all or nothing world — anything else makes them squirmy and uncomfortable.
The rest of us live in reality, where the hard choices contemplated and made — and lived with.
Comment by Zooey — February 15, 2008 @ 2:04 am
Sorry zooey, but I'm perfectly comfortable with my position and the discussion. I know that abortion kills an unwanted child. Just as your sons were babies when you felt them move, aborted babies are too. The fact that they are unwanted doesn't make them any less babies than were your sons. I accept the fact that abortion is legal. Frankly, I worry for a child that would live with the mother who would rather have aborted him. That doesn't make it ok to pretend that the aborted children are any different than the ones allowed to be born.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:18 amLeave my sons out of anything you have to say to me.
Stop lecturing. You don't have any idea what anyone else goes through in life.
You know who has the most abortions? Women who already have children. Women who know that for whatever reason they cannot have another child, and that they must care for the children they already have.
Go ahead and get all emotional about the poor little "babies." It means nothing to anyone else.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:48 amLeave my sons out of anything you have to say to me.
Stop lecturing. You don’t have any idea what anyone else goes through in life.
You know who has the most abortions? Women who already have children. Women who know that for whatever reason they cannot have another child, and that they must care for the children they already have.
Go ahead and get all emotional about the poor little “babies.†It means nothing to anyone else.
Comment by Zooey — February 15, 2008 @ 2:48 am
You brought your children into the discussion. I'm not lecturing, I'm simply stating that you can't change the definitions depending upon whether a child is wanted or not and whether or not the mother can afford it. If finances are a valid excuse for an abortion, then lets be honest about it and stop trying to say the unwanted child isn't a child to make everyone feel better about it.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:52 amI'm getting all emotional? No, it seems you are the one who is feeling "squirmy and uncomfortable." If this hit a nerve, then so be it. It isn't emotional to point out that the hypocrisy of being excited about a "baby" of 24 weeks gestation that is wanted while calling the unwanted, aborted "baby" of the same gestational age "a clump of cells." You are being intellectually dishonest by saying things like "I don't care what you think" and calling names instead of acknowledging the obvious. That is your right, of course. But it weakens your position the next time you choose to accuse someone of hypocrisy.
I just disagree with your premise. The two scenarios are distinctly different and both emotionally charged. It makes perfect sense for people to have a different set of norms as the pyschology of the two are so divergent. I think you are trying to make an equivalance where there is none. Either that or maybe I just haven’t entirely grasped your point
Comment by dbadass — February 15, 2008 @ 1:11 am
While you may understand that, “…two scenarios are distinctly different…,†would you agree with the below quote in bold?
Block quote from
http://www.tnrtl.org/human_life_issues/human_life_issues_chronology_new_life.htm
Would this not be true of both a wanted and an unwanted pregnancy?
February 15th, 2008 at 9:33 amLeave my sons out of anything you have to say to me.
Stop lecturing. You don’t have any idea what anyone else goes through in life.
You know who has the most abortions? Women who already have children. Women who know that for whatever reason they cannot have another child, and that they must care for the children they already have.
Go ahead and get all emotional about the poor little “babies.†It means nothing to anyone else.
Comment by Zooey — February 15, 2008 @ 2:48 am
You may be right about who has most of the abortions – “Women who already have children.†– but that is only part of the story.
Single digit numbers are references at the link:
http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/bioethics/A000001338.cfm
February 15th, 2008 at 9:43 amStop lecturing. You don’t have any idea what anyone else goes through in life.
You are correct. But for most there are ways to avoid having to go through the worst parts of life.
Text of the bill be considered by the Tennessee legislators. Senator Henry was discussing an amendment to this bill.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 127
By Black
A RESOLUTION to propose an amendment to Article I, of the
Constitution of Tennessee, relative to abortion.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE OF THE ONE HUNDRED FIFTH GENERAL
ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONCURRING, that a majority of all the members of each house concurring, as shown by the
yeas and nays entered on their journals, that it is proposed that Article I, of the Constitution of
Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated
section:
Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding
of an abortion.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the foregoing amendment be referred to the One
Hundred Sixth General Assembly and that this resolution proposing such amendment be
published by the Secretary of State in accordance with Article XI, Section 3, of the Constitution
of Tennessee.
BI IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk of the Senate is directed to deliver a copy of
this resolution to the Secretary of State.
http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/asp/WebBillInfo/BillCompanionInfo.aspx?BillNumber=SJR0127
It would seem that this amendment is a remark on the obvious.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:57 amComment by bitblt — February 15, 2008 @ 9:57 am
Senator Henry’s amendment proposed on Jan30. Link is the same as above.
Amendment No. 9 to SJR0127
Henry
Signature of Sponsor
AMEND Senate Joint Resolution No. 127*
By adding the following language at the end of the first resolving clause immediately after the
language "abortion.":
The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators
to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, where the pregnancy has
occurred from rape or incest, or where the life of the mother is threatened, or in any
other circumstance.
The knee jerk on this thread was unbelievable.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:08 amMaybe some day we will have the tools to evaluate the DNA in amniotic fluid and find the gene that will turn the embryo into a raving Jesus freak if it develops into a baby and abort those clumps of cells immediately.
Why should society bear the responsibility of putting up with pious pricks?
February 15th, 2008 at 10:09 amMaybe some day we will have the tools to evaluate the DNA in amniotic fluid and find the gene that will turn the embryo into a raving Jesus freak if it develops into a baby and abort those clumps of cells immediately.
Why should society bear the responsibility of putting up with pious pricks?
Comment by nanlichi — February 15, 2008 @ 10:09 am
There is a way to deal with this situation that I believe you’ve overlooked. It’s as obvious as the off/on switch on your radio.
You don’t want to read about controversial topics, don’t read about them. (Paraphrasing Comment by nanlichi — February 14, 2008 @ 6:28 pm)
nanlichi doesn’t want to read contrary viewpoints, he shouldn’t read them. nanlichi doesn’t want to read bitblt’s posts, he shouldn't read them.
What could be simpler?
Perhaps nanlichi would be much happier not reading bitblt’s posts.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:33 amMaybe some day we will have the tools to evaluate the DNA in amniotic fluid and find the gene that will turn the embryo into a raving Jesus freak if it develops into a baby and abort those clumps of cells immediately.
Why should society bear the responsibility of putting up with pious pricks?
Comment by nanlichi — February 15, 2008 @ 10:09 am
If any has wondered, as bitblt has, what small, insidious steps lead a society to adopt religious persecution, you might want to pay attention to this post.
bitblt will be adding it to his, “Were there possible signs this was coming?†list.
Poster nanlichi has advocated killing Christians..
February 15th, 2008 at 10:34 amThe senator wasn't very eloquent but I know what he was trying to say, so have no problem with it.
As for abortion itself, lots of things in this country need to change to make the whole choice for abortion a moot point. I believe a lot of these things will change in the next 10-20 years socially, politically, and technologically. At that point there will be no need for abortions and that's when Roe v Wade will be overturned. Hopefully it'll be the last time government interferes with the rights of individuals in either direction. Government has no place in this argument, only needing to enforce the law that abortion, except for preserving the life of the mother, is murder. Having any other position on this matter other than the above is lying to oneself.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:37 amComment by nanlichi — February 15, 2008 @ 10:09 am
Lefty version of Michael Savage. ;)
February 15th, 2008 at 11:06 ambtblt might want to STFU. Nanlichi would say that not all Xians should be killed, that would be extreme. Nanlichi would say that Jesus freaks that want to jam their faith in other's lives should not be given any quarter.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:12 ambitblt understand that everyone wants to do what it is they do best.
btblt might want to STFU. Nanlichi would say that not all Xians should be killed, that would be extreme. Nanlichi would say that Jesus freaks that want to jam their faith in other’s lives should not be given any quarter.
Comment by nanlichi — February 15, 2008 @ 11:12 am
nanlichi appears to be wanting to “jam†his faith, or his lack of faith, into bitblt’s life without any second thought – as if this is some sort of right he has but bitblt doesn’t.
Isn’t this hypocritical on nanlichi’s part?
Or, is it the case that people who don’t believe anything can never be accused of being hypocritical because nothing is expected of them anyway.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:22 amMichael Savage? Now that one hurt UL. Take it back.
Most of the people I know are Christians and we have some good discussions about faith and/or absence of faith. My best hunting buddy is an evangelical Christian. And I understand the dislike of abortion. I have been party to that decision more than once, and it's always painful and never casual. In every case that the decision was made to abort the blastula, it was the right one.
I don't advocate burning the churches and shooting the ones that get out, but when a person uses their faith based positions to intrude in other's decisions then I will push back.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:34 amI have been party to that decision more than once, and it’s always painful and never casual. In every case that the decision was made to abort the blastula, it was the right one
Comment by nanlichi — February 15, 2008 @ 11:34 am
Why has nanlichi you "been party to that decision more than once," more that once?
February 15th, 2008 at 11:58 amI don't know btblt, I try to pray to Jesus just before I climax to make my seed infertile, but maybe he doesn't hear me? Isn't that the accepted method? He works in mysterious ways I hear.
Not that it's any of your business dickhead, but I am a compassionate person and a good giver of advice when it is asked. Friends of mine, and recently a friend of my college age sons have asked for my help in the decision.
The ask part is key, you might want to write that part down.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:16 pmAnd I am out of here. Been good chatting with you, but I have work to do. If I don't respond to any more inane posts, it's not that I don't love you.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:19 pmYou are correct. But for most there are ways to avoid having to go through the worst parts of life.
Comment by bitblt — February 15, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Typical assholierthanthou attitude.
Your argument is totally bogus, since there are no accurate statistics for the number of abortions BEFORE it was legal.
You and upright left need to learn to mind your own business.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:32 pmThe ask part is key, you might want to write that part down.
Comment by nanlichi — February 15, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
Exactly.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:34 pmComment by nanlichi — February 15, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
No, it’s not any of bitblt’s business, but this is an anonymous blog and nanlichi is an anonymous handle.
Posters neither know where nanlichi is, who nanlichi is, or if nanlichi is who he says he is. nanlichi could be lying.
You might try posting your comments as nanlichi’s comments.
nanlichi did bring up his experience in having made several decisions in this area without bitblt's prying questions.
But, sincere thanks for the answer. bitblt is not going to attack anyone for their previous decisions.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pmComment by nanlichi — February 15, 2008 @ 11:34 am
My comments didn't invovle issues of faith. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of referring to an unwanted pregnancy as a clump of cells while a baby/fetus of the same gestational age that is wanted has worth and somehow becomes "the baby" or "our baby" rather than the fetus or a clump of cells no different than a tumor. Zooey and dbadass were willing to acknowledge, like you, that it's a difficult decision. That, at least, is something. And I'm not advocating that abortion be outlawed. I accept that it is and will continue to be legal. I just fail to see how those who think abortion is ok can explain how the one baby/fetus is valued and the other is unworthy. If one truly believes that the aborted fetus is nothing but a clump of cells, how can the same person then celebrate the life of the wanted baby/fetus, talk about "the baby" moving and kicking and grieve for it in case of a miscarriage. I know several on this site have ridiculed the idea that women grieve after abortions.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:47 pmThe Savage remark was rather harsh. ;)
You and upright left need to learn to mind your own business.
Comment by Zooey — February 15, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
My original comments weren't directed to you. You addressed me. You are free to express your opinions, but no one is allowed to challenge them, especially when the conclusion makes you uncomfortable. Sorry, I had forgotten that unwritten TP rule. ;)
February 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pmYou are correct. But for most there are ways to avoid having to go through the worst parts of life.
Comment by bitblt — February 15, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Typical assholierthanthou attitude.
Your argument is totally bogus, since there are no accurate statistics for the number of abortions BEFORE it was legal.
You and upright left need to learn to mind your own business.
Comment by Zooey — February 15, 2008 @ 12:32 p
It’s a great day that the Creator has given us, isn’t Zooey?
Typical assholierthanthou attitude.
If there’s anyone who knows this attitude … it’s you Zooey.
Your argument is totally bogus, since there are no accurate statistics for the number of abortions BEFORE it was legal.
First, it’s not bitblt’s argument. It’s quoted from a link with a reference to a study.
Second, believe the point Zooey is criticizing was based on data after abortion became legal.
On the question of accuracy of statistics before abortion became legal you do make a good point. In fact the linked reference talks about the accuracy of the number of deaths caused by illegal abortions before abortion because legal.
Before RvW it was commonly said that illegal abortions caused 10,000-20,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. These estimates were used to justify making abortion legal.
Apparently the originators of this estimate have “fessed†up to real origin of these numbers.
These abortion advocates made the estimates up.
Now the best estimates on numbers of death from illegal abortion before RvW is 500 – 1000 per years.
This sort of suggest the question, “Would a country destroy 1,400,000 unborn a year to save 1000 women a year?â€
So, yes the stats on pre RvW abortions are sketchy at best.
Link in post
Comment by bitblt — February 15, 2008 @ 9:43 am
has references.
You and upright left need to learn to mind your own business.
This statement strikes bitblt with a particularly strong sense of irony. It’s the same sense of irony that bitblt feels when one anonymous poster calls another anonymous poster a name.
An anonymous poster on an anonymous blog tells another anonymous poster to mind their own business.
I mean, like, why bother?
Perhaps Zooey should start using third person if this discussion is so bothersome.
You are correct. But for most there are ways to avoid having to go through the worst parts of life.
Since Zooey didn't take well to this remark, does it mean that she thinks there’s no way to avoid the worst parts of life?
Are women condemned to suffer simply because they’re women?
Thought the, “Anatomy is destiny,†argument had be discredited.
It is bitblt opinion that the most advantageous situation for any woman is in a marriage with a husband who cares about her emotional, physical, and spiritual wellbeing. bitblt understands that this is idealist but sees it as the only “fix†and as the best advice.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:59 pmHearing something like this, especially from a political figure, FRIGHTENS me. How do people who are misinformed and so painfully close-minded get elected into these sorts of positions?? He is completely wrong in almost everything he said. First of all, rape is what it used to be... it's what it always has been! The act of rape is inclusive of ALL people who force some sort of penetration on another against their own will. Furthermore he said that rape is committed by some party other than the woman's "spouse." So, is he saying that a woman's own husband or partner is not able to rape her? When someone says "Lets don't go forward with this act," that is the same thing as "STOP," "I do not want to have sex with you," etc. If we really want to get technical, rape is not limited to women as he defined; men are raped too, although I believe he was speaking exclusively on behalf of abortion rights (let's hope). And, just as an aside...why don't we have women talk about these issues? It seems completely unjust for a man, who will never have to personally experience pregnancy or have the need to consider abortion, to speak and decide on behalf of all women. Clearly this man has no idea what he was talking about. If and when he ever speaks on this matter again, I hope that he takes these responses into extreme consideration (and learns something from them). Not only were his statements incorrect, but he could have easily offended rape victims with his ignorance.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pmDear #65 and others:
I am the woman in this ad. My mother was a victim of rape, and I am the result of it. I have lived my life not being embarassed about this fact, nor do I feel that I am any lesser of a citizen or person than anyone else. Do you disagree? Because of the circumstances of my conception, are you of the opinion that I deserved the death penalty? Please take this into consideration when you proudly proclaim that abortion is the obligatory solution for women who have already suffered the violence of rape. The additional violence of taking the lives of those in the same situation as I was does not erase or lessen the original violent act... it simply demeans the woman already suffering from a crime of our culture. Peace begins in the womb.
February 16th, 2008 at 2:07 am