Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Pro-Life Wingnuts

UPDATED BELOW
Far right-wing reactionary authoritarian cultists insist on choosing leaders who vow to place title of a woman's uterus into the hands of old white men. Other issues are of import, no doubt, but to lead the reichtard party, women simply must be constrained to forced childbirth, her choices of her body in the reproductive process is eliminated. To seek entrance as significantly authoritarian enough, Republican office seekers must seek title to the womb to cater to the rabid base they have founded their party upon.

Anti-abortion extremists claim abortion is murder. Yet none of them have ever tried to back legislation to prosecute women who have abortions. If abortion is indeed murder, then not advocating murder charges shows the hypocrisy of the argument. Clearly, they cannot even answer the question.

Allowing exceptions in the case of rape or incest means anti-abortion ideologues allow the murder of innocent fetus's only when they are victims of a crime.

Not allowing such exceptions forces young ladies to give birth to their brother, or wives to give birth to the murderer of their husbands.


To get the full benefit of the crushing weight of gravity forcing ideology into the concrete of legislation, watch this video of the world fanatical far-right authoritarian cultist loons want to re-create here in America.

We have been here before.

H/T Digby for the video.

UPDATE: A local insignificant blogger who attempts to bring traffic to his site by naming it in a bastardization of another site (how pathetic is that) took exception to my post. Yes, he is one of the many I named as "the rabid base they (republicans) have founded their party on."

This blastocyst worshipper insists on using the term "baby killer" and indeed advocates prosecuting the mother for "1st degree prenatal homicide" but quickly dashes behind the skirts of a judges robe for doling out sentences, but quickly dashes out to announce he "would treat it just like any other murder or manslaughter case."

Such "coat hanger law advocates" surely realize to investigate such cases would require forensic gynecologists armed with warrants to collect evidence. Does Red S. Tater really want us to be like El Salvador? They have a complete ban on abortion with prison sentences for women who get them illegally. Just like Red wants, no exceptions for abortion.

"In practice what is happening is a government death penalty imposed on women," said Pizarro, a gynaecologist. (sic)

Blastocyst worshippers entering a room on fire occupied with an unconscious woman and a petri dish full of blastocysts, by their words claim the petri dish is more worthy of saving, clearly the unconscious state of the woman is due to some moral failing, most likely drug or alcohol related.

Red quotes me:

"Allowing exceptions in the case of rape or incest means anti-abortion ideologues allow the murder of innocent fetus's only when they are victims of a crime.
Not allowing such exceptions forces young ladies to give birth to their brother, or wives to give birth to the murderer of their husband".

Red responds:

If he would have actually read the link to my blog that he used in his post, he would have noticed that Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter has called for a ban on all abortions- period and has introduced legislation every year for the past 10+ years on it. He is my candidate of choice for president.
No inconsistency here. (emphasis added)

Raped by your dad? Too bad, you will give birth to your brother. Raped by your husbands murderer? Too bad, the state forces you to give birth to a rapist. The pregnancy will kill you? Gee, that's tough.

Authoritarian cultists like Red hate freedom. Choices do not fit into their worldview. A cop on every street corner and a warrant for every womb would make America better how, exactly?

To take Red's argument to its logical conclusion:

Today we have more forms of birth control than we do ways to have sex. It is available for free and it is available for use even up to 24 hrs AFTER having sex.

Yet approximately 1.5 million unborn children are murdered by their mothers in this country every single year to the cheers of children hating white men like Kittenstomper.

Women are simply irresponsibly having unprotected sex. If they are raped, they should be flogged like they do in Saudi Arabia. One wonders how many potential "children" Red has doomed to reckless abandonment in his fevered masturbatory emissions.

10 comments:

One Southern Belle said...

Wow, Kittenstomper, you are HARSH...on a multitude of points, including:
1) Your name. Really, that's the best you could come up with? Gauging by your prolific writing, you don't appear to have a stunted vocabulary, though your choice of blog name would suggest otherwise.
2) C'mon, you can do better than lobbing perjorative terms like "old white men," "pro-life wingnuts," "authoritarian cultist," etc. etc. One of the first signs of a weak argument is the ad hominem attack. By employing that tactic, you are basically advertising the fact that your argument lacks substance. Put a fork in it--it damages your cause and it's been done WAY too many times.
3) While I don't necessarily agree with your fellow blogger Red with respect to appropriate exceptions for abortions, I also certainly don't believe that you support legalized abortion as a "women's rights" issue. If, indeed, you were truly concerned about what was in a woman's best interest, you would recognize abortion for what it really is for most women--a traumatizing event for which they will likely never forgive themselves. I'm always so curious why the pro-abortion crown is so adamantly opposed to mandatory counseling before abortions. Frankly, it's because they aren't so concerned with aiding women--they're concerned with aiding abortions.

You would also recognize abortion for what it is to men--yet another free ride--one more opportunity to skip out on any kind of responsibility--another chance to let the woman single-handedly shoulder all the burden.

Over the years it has been my experience that women who fiercly defend abortion do so as a way to advance their political careers, hoping to appeal to feamale voters. It has also been my experience that men who actively and vocally defend the practice do so in an effort to alleviate their own guilt. All too often it is the case that these men have had personal experience with an unplanned pregnancy and, as a result, sought the coward's way out.

The one lament I cannot abide from men is "It's her body, it's her choice." So Kittenstomper, spare me that speech. I've heard it too many times from too many men who want to cut and run, and call it women's rights.

Oilfieldguy said...

Southern belle,
You amuse me by clutching your pearls and heading for the fainting couch in search of "comity". For thirty years I have sat on the sidelines while right-wing extremists have built a million decible wurlitzer spewing hate and racism and intolerance. Even your choice of words, "the ad hominem attack," is used primarily by the main mouthpiece of the right-wing, who is also a degenerate drug addict.

Pardon me if I am unwilling to gather at the river and sing kumbaya with those who declare undying fealty to their leaders. My default position of government is distrust and their's is defend, as long as it is one "them".

As far as your criticisms of my post itself, you assign motivations to me without merit. To reach your threshold of "womens rights" one must endorse "mandatory counseling" for anyone seeking to terminate a pregnancy. This position makes the sexist assumption that women lack the wisdom to determine what is in her own best interest. Somehow, they lack the mental facilities to make such weighty decisions and require guidance, perhaps from the crowd Red belongs to, complete with heinous videos.

You would also recognize abortion for what it is to men--yet another free ride--one more opportunity to skip out on any kind of responsibility--another chance to let the woman single-handedly shoulder all the burden.

You make a valid point here, but I still do not believe her choice should be taken out of her hands by male dominated legislators.

You conclude your comment with a psych 101 Dr. Phil drive-by analysis of the entire pro-choice crowd. Pro-choice women are merely trying to "advance their political careers" and the men are simply "cowards".

I would offer a third alternative. One that recognizes making abortions illegal does not diminish the number of abortions, it just kills or seriously damages women by forcing them to abort illegally. This is a fact. Some extremists, such as Red, want to prosecute these women for murder. There can be no worse intrusion of privacy by the government than a forensic gynecologist knocking on some womans door with a warrant.

The one lament I cannot abide from men is "It's her body, it's her choice." So Kittenstomper, spare me that speech. I've heard it too many times from too many men who want to cut and run, and call it women's rights.

The name of my blog is kittenstomper, my blogger name is Oilfieldguy. Other than that, the more obvious point is, whose body is it and whose choice? The government? They have done such a bang-up job with everything else lately, right?

Men have no right to advocate a woman's choice but have the right to remove her right to choose? Indeed the duty to mandate counseling since women clearly lack the sense to decide, being a mere witless woman? Sorry, but I reject this premise.

One Southern Belle said...

Oilfieldguy/Kittenstomper,

Thanks for your reply. I'll respond point by point if that's okay with you.

1) "...your choice of words, "the ad hominem attack," is used primarily by the main mouthpiece of the right-wing..."

Ummmm, I don't think so. Though the "main mouthpiece" may use the terminology, I would argue the PRIMARY users are those in academia--law school, public policy, or political philosophy professors--anyone skilled in the art of structuring an argument. (If, in fact, you're referring to Rush Limbaugh, please be advised I 'm not a listener. His show and others of the like are merely entertainment and not necessarily substantive, thus, they hold no interest for me.)

2)"To reach your threshold of "womens rights" one must endorse "mandatory counseling" for anyone seeking to terminate a pregnancy."

Wrong again--to the contrary, YOUR threshold of women's rights is endorsing abortion on demand. If you'll re-read my post you'll note it's much more accurate to say mandatory counseling meets my threshold of having the woman's best interest at heart.

This is not a question of whether or not women posess the wisdom to make such a decision. Often it is the case that women (or young girls) are pressured into an abortion by a boyfriend or parent. How would counselling NOT be beneficial?

Abortion is a deeply traumatic experience for most women. (Perhaps that is because women are not hard-wired to kill their young--it runs contrary to our nature. Just a thought.) When I hear or read of abortion advocates who rail against mandatory counselling it is clear to me they feel they have something to lose when a woman chooses to carry the baby to term. How does counselling remove choice? Yet the pro-abortion crowd will continue to insist their primary goal is to preserve a woman's right to choose. That, my friend,is a proverbial load of crap. The truth of the matter is they are only interested in choice as long as that choice advances THEIR AGENDA.

3) "You conclude your comment with a psych 101 Dr. Phil drive-by analysis of the entire pro-choice crowd. Pro-choice women are merely trying to "advance their political careers" and the men are simply "cowards"."

I said that had been my experience. I don't know that you are in a position to contend with me on that issue. Tell me, Kittenstomper, what HAS my experience been? Are you insinuating that I, as a woman, lack the wisdom to correctly identify my own set of experiences and subsequently form an opinion? Wow.

4)"the more obvious point is, whose body is it and whose choice? "

First of all, the government makes choices for what we can and can't do withour bodies all the time. You can't pee on the side of the road and I can't go topless in Times Square. You know why? Because other people are affected (thus, negative externalities emerge) and it runs contrary to the public good. These are two classic examples of instances in which government intervention is, in fact, warranted and necessary. (Public Policy 101, Econ 101, Poli Sci 101, etc.)

And let us not forget there's more than one 'body' to consider here--though, according to your argument, only one should be factored in to this decision.

Oilfieldguy said...

Southern belle 2.0,

Moving directly to point number 2.

Wrong again--to the contrary, YOUR threshold of women's rights is endorsing abortion on demand. If you'll re-read my post you'll note it's much more accurate to say mandatory counseling meets my threshold of having the woman's best interest at heart.

This is not a question of whether or not women posess the wisdom to make such a decision. Often it is the case that women (or young girls) are pressured into an abortion by a boyfriend or parent. How would counselling NOT be beneficial?


Counseling is available. A mandatory prerequisite for counseling declares women incompetent in self-determination. I stand by my statement.

When I hear or read of abortion advocates who rail against mandatory counselling it is clear to me they feel they have something to lose when a woman chooses to carry the baby to term.

Seriously? You really believe that? I thought we were having a serious discussion. Do you also believe that every time a pro-choice candidate gets elected, the baby Jesus cries? And Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church every Sunday?

I intentionally dialed back my hyperbolic rhetoric since it clearly offended your delicate sensibilities. However, highly jaundiced viewpoints such as that deserve all the slings and arrows I can muster.

I said that had been my experience. I don't know that you are in a position to contend with me on that issue. Tell me, Kittenstomper, what HAS my experience been? Are you insinuating that I, as a woman, lack the wisdom to correctly identify my own set of experiences and subsequently form an opinion? Wow.

I know people tend to view others as they view themselves. I know Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and is supported by the majority of Americans. Your categorization of the majority of Americans is colored by your worldview on this issue. You and I have the ability form opinions based on our experiences, and those opinions can be wrong.

As far as public nudity goes, this is a silly comparison to reproductive rights. We try to walk the delicate line between freedom to and freedom from. I would assume you are opposed to abortion, but allow some exceptions and advocate mandatory counseling. Although, you are never clear where you stand, choosing to nibble at the edges.

There is no room for opinions in facts. If abortions are outlawed, women will die, that is a fact. A regulated medical procedure will be replaced by coat hangers by desperate women you are so desperately concerned with providing counseling. That is a fact. Thanks for stopping by.

One Southern Belle said...

1) "A mandatory prerequisite for counseling declares women incompetent in self-determination."

This is not a question of incompetence, this is a question of information asymmetry. People who adopt children have to undergo all kinds of evaluations, including compulsory counseling--am I to understand you believe them all to be incompetent simply by virtue of the condition? If so, then you are gravely misled.

To the contrary, when facing irreversable, life-altering decisions with deep psychological impacts people deserve to get BOTH sides of the story. And yes, I believe it should be mandatory.

2)"Do you also believe that every time a pro-choice candidate gets elected, the baby Jesus cries? And Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church every Sunday?"

I am sure I have no idea what you're talking about here. Completely non sequitur. What, exactly, was your point?

3)"As far as public nudity goes, this is a silly comparison to reproductive rights."

I don't think so--you couched this as an issue of "rights." I am merely pointing out that no right is absolute. My right to swing my fist stops atyour nose. Your right to peddle porn ends where children are involved. Similarly, a woman's right to control what happens to her body ends when it involves taking the life of her unborn child. All your talk of government invasion and intervention obscures the fact that once a woman KNOWINGLY ASSUMES THE RISK of conceiving a child, then, barring some bona fide medical reason to terminate, she is (and should be) responsible for that child--and that responsibility overrides her right to control her own body.

4)"If abortions are outlawed, women will die, that is a fact. A regulated medical procedure will be replaced by coat hangers by desperate women you are so desperately concerned with providing counseling. That is a fact."

That's quite an assertion. From whence do get these "facts"? Please cite your source. To what credible, peer-reviewed professional or academic journal may I look for a copy of that study? I'd be interested in scrutinizing the methodology. Tell me, have the findings of that study replicated?

I'm guessing here you'll come up empty-handed, and let me tell you why: Because in order for such assertions to be scientifically determined, you'd have to have access to time-series cross sectional data, featuring control and experimental groups both subjected to preprogram and postprogram observation. We don't have any postprogram data because in order for that to happen Roe v. Wade would have to be reversed. Until that happens all your "facts" are merely meaningless guesses.

5) As far as my nibbling at the edges and not being clear on my position, I can only say that my position on abortion is not primarily determined by my politics, nor by my religion. My position is primarily determined by the fact that I am a woman. Numerous times over the years I have had friends, co-workers, family members, classmates, etc. confide to me that they, when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, chose to have an abortion. Though for all of them it is several years in the past, the feelings of guilt and sorrow have never subsided. Inevitably they remember two dates--their initial due date and the date on which they aborted. I never, ever judge these women. I look at them and think "There but for the grace of God go I." Faced with a similar situation, young, terrified and yes, irrational, I might have made the same decision. Like I said, they've obviously been through enough already, they certainly don't need me judging them--but the same cannot be said of those who failed these women in very critical ways.

No, they weren't incompetent--they were vulnerable, afraid, and uninformed. Every one of these women deserved for someone to say to them "Whatever decision you make, there will be repercussions. Generally speaking, those who decide to do A, report the following....and those who choose B often say they feel ...... You need to understand and be prepared for these things because it's critical to your mental and emotional health." Please tell me, on what basis, exactly, do you oppose that?

I find it hard to believe I live in a world where we demand cigarettes and undercooked meat have mandatory warning labels, but we fail to subject abortion to the same treatment.

Oilfieldguy said...

1)This is not a question of incompetence, this is a question of information asymmetry.
Which is to say women who choose to terminate pregnancy lack mental symmetry. A distinction with very little difference. Enter that slippery slope and allow people to question a females judgment in other areas as well, legally. Adoption does not apply to this discussion. No male shall ever terminate a pregnancy, therefore the symmetrically imbalanced mental condition is applied exclusively to women.

I stand by my position and reject the notion that women seeking to terminate a pregnancy must brandish the scarlet letter of any such brand.
2)
I am sure I have no idea what you're talking about here. Completely non sequitur. What, exactly, was your point?

You said:
it is clear to me they feel they have something to lose when a woman chooses to carry the baby to term.
Only wide-eyed zealots, rightards, talibangelicals and clinic-bombers say such things. That comment was completely nuts.
3)
I don't think so--you couched this as an issue of "rights."
Only because the Supreme Court has declared it so. See Roe v. Wade.
Similarly, a woman's right to control what happens to her body ends when it involves taking the life of her unborn child.
Again, the law disagrees with you on both points; a woman's rights and when life begins.
once a woman KNOWINGLY ASSUMES THE RISK of conceiving a child, then, barring some bona fide medical reason to terminate, she is (and should be) responsible for that child--and that responsibility overrides her right to control her own body.
This is what I call the "Dan Akroyd Philosophy." i.e. "Jane, you ignorant slut!"
Forced pregnancies with the exception of "some bona fide medical reason." That leaves in rape and incest. Do you seriously advocate rapists should live forever, or a victim of pedophilia is required to give birth to her brother? Or is it okay to murder innocent unborn children only when they are created by virtue of being a victim of criminal acts? Perhaps it is better for wise old men to take these weighty decisions away from "symmetrically" imbalanced females. Especially ignorant sluts.
4)
From the bottom up. (heh)
I'm guessing here you'll come up empty-handed, and let me tell you why: Because in order for such assertions to be scientifically determined, you'd have to have access to time-series cross sectional data, featuring control and experimental groups both subjected to preprogram and postprogram observation. We don't have any postprogram data because in order for that to happen Roe v. Wade would have to be reversed. Until that happens all your "facts" are merely meaningless guesses.
Ms. Belle, both your vision and worldview are clearly stunted. They only extend from "sea to shining sea." Your entire debate with me is polluted with an over-inflated ego of yourself, as though your opinions carry more weight than decades of law and your minority viewpoint is indeed The! Way! It! Is!
Other nations exist beyond our shores, side by side, and some allow abortions and others do not. If I were to limit my knowledge to America in a vacuum, you may have a valid claim. I choose not to be so near-sighted.
That's quite an assertion. From whence do get these "facts"? Please cite your source. To what credible, peer-reviewed professional or academic journal may I look for a copy of that study? I'd be interested in scrutinizing the methodology. Tell me, have the findings of that study replicated?
These facts are derived from The World Health Organization, which, last time I checked, was fairly reliable. Some conclusions:

ROME, Oct. 11 — A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely.
[...]
“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”
[...]
Some countries, like South Africa, have undergone substantial transitions in abortion laws in that time. The procedure was made legal in South Africa in 1996, leading to a 90 percent decrease in mortality among women who had abortions, some studies have found. (emphasis added)


Legal or illegal has no effect on abortion rates, only on the number of women who die. I remain in favor of a womans right to choose.

One Southern Belle said...

Okay, now you've really gone off the deep end. What the hell is mental symmetry and what does it have to do with this argument? What are you even talking about? Information asymmetry is when the buyer/consumer/principal/patient isn't privy to the same set of information as the seller/producer/agent/doctor. It's the same principle behind food labels, BlueBooks, Consumer Reports, etc. I'm not sure how else to articulate this.

When you invest with any reputable firm they disclose all information beforehand in order to make you aware of the possible consequences--they're required by law to do that in order to help consumers make more informed choices. When you have plastic surgey you are often required by law to undergo some sort of counseling beforehand because such a dramatic change will, inevitably, have a psychological effect. So answer the question--WHAT, exactly, is your opposition to giving women full information prior to an abortion? And, by the way, "Only wide-eyed zealots, rightards, talibangelicals and clinic-bombers say such things. That comment was completely nuts" does NOT constitute a valid answer. In fact, such a response only reaffirms the fact that you resort to name-calling, sound-biting, and irrational emotional outbursts when you think you are backed into a logical corner. I find it interesting that no matter how many times I ask the question, you come up empty-handed.

Also, the World Health Organization is not an academic or professional institution, rather it is a political NGO. Would you accept statements rendered by the Southern Baptist Convention as objective sources on the matter? No, and neither would I, because, like the WHO, they are notoriously biased. Look at your own quote--it's not even their research--they're citing other unnamed studies. Again, please show me studies from any credible, peer-reviewed, professional or academic journals as a basis for your "facts" so I can review the methodology.

By the way, you also can't seriously compare effects on abortion rates in a country like South Africa with effects on rates in the U.S. After all, South Africa is still considered a developing country with a dual economy--much of it still impoverished or largely uncivilized. In order to make any kind of comparison, you'd have to control for other factors such as age, race, ethnicity, family income, distance from a health care facility, family size, health indicators, normative values, availability of birth control, types of birth control, quality of birth control, access to birth control, etc. In fact, there would be so many factors the study itself would lose all meaning. Applying the South Africa findings to a first world country like UK, US, Canada, Australia, etc. would constitute an extrapolation error. I scrutinize health econometrics and methodology as part of my profession--no study like this would ever be suitable for publication in a reputable journal. WHO publishes stuff like this because they understand that somewhere in this big ol' world there are indisciminate people ready and willing to buy into their load of crap without asking the critical questions.


And this--"Do you seriously advocate rapists should live forever, or a victim of pedophilia is required to give birth to her brother? " By all means, point out to me where I said ANYTHING even remotely related to this question. What I said was, "...once a woman KNOWINGLY ASSUMES THE RISK of conceiving a child, then, barring some bona fide medical reason to terminate, she is (and should be) responsible for that child..." I even added some ALL CAPS so you wouldn't be confused on the matter--apparently my efforts were in vain. Neither rape nor incest meet the legal criteria for "assumed risk." What does meet the criteria is knowingly engaging in unprotected sex. I didn't say anything about letting rapists live or requiring victims of sexual exploitation to have babies.

It's clear to me that you and I are never going to come to any sort of agreement on this matter, and that's fine--neither of us expected to change the other's mind, right? But may I make a few suggestions? I've read through some of your older posts. Though we disagree on many things, you seem rather bright and articulate. But you have a tendency to kind of lose control, which is really disappointing. No kidding--you'll be going along, doing really well in your argument and then you start calling names and making ridiculous assertions. It's like watching someone give a great speech and then, toward the end, seeing them vomit on their shoes and pee their pants--you tend to forget the speech and just remember the bodily fluids, you know? You have a potential for colorful debate and logical discussion, but it seems the farther you get into it, the more willing you are to deintellectualize and start spitting and pulling hair. I suspect (in spite of your "Kittenstomper" nom de plume) that you might be a reasonable guy with something of value to add to the public discourse--even if I don't agree with it. Anyway, this is none of my business, but I hate to see people underselling themselves because of dumb things like that. Thoughts????

Oilfieldguy said...

Ms. belle, my you are persistent and yes I agree we will never agree. In spite of this, I am attempting to characterize my understanding of your positions and shed light on mine.

Mandatory counseling. Your position as I understand it is no woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy without first seeing a counselor to explain A, B and C to her. My problem is this makes the supposition that NO WOMAN who seeks to terminate her pregnancy is already aware of A, B or C by mandate. In my opinion, by mandate, all women would be declared incapable of self-determination by law save receiving counseling, and only women, not men. You called it "informational asymmetry" and even defined it for me, but demand it has nothing to do with incompetence. Yet one who lacks information is deemed ignorant. True, there is a big difference between incompetence and ignorance. I am not opposed to women having full information prior to terminating her pregnancy, I just am unwilling to declare women ignorant by mandate. That is my final answer.

And, by the way, "Only wide-eyed zealots, rightards,...

You said:
it is clear to me they feel they have something to lose when a woman chooses to carry the baby to term.

I understood this to mean that pro-choice advocates are baby haters, and our "cause" is somehow diminished with the birth of every newborn. Perhaps it is not what you meant and somehow my comprehension skills are lacking. I doubt it. A most reprehensible thing to say, and I am sorry you feel that way.

Also, the World Health Organization is not an academic or... blah blah blah. Blather, rinse, repeat.

There are not two sets of facts. When the facts conflict with your opinion it exposes your cognitive dissonance. Simply dismiss the facts as biased, because clearly your opinions are not.

The South Africa reference was a seperate survey and was not sourced, and one can wonder around in the deep weeds utilizing the Gestalt method of research, but still it a 90 percent figure is stronger than garlic soup.

Still, the survey itself was conducted by a collaboration of scientists whose work was published here, in case your interested. The freepers declared it DOA but I'll not link to them. The findings were published in the Lancet, whether that meets your threshold of credibility, I do not know. Clearly, The New York Times does not.

People enjoy sex. Sometimes women have unplanned pregnancies. Many will terminate, legally or not. Legal is safer. Which is more likely to cause the harm or death of a woman, one performed in a hospital or one performed in a back alley? This is not theoretical. Throw spitballs at all the surveys in the world, Ms. belle, and it will not change the facts.

either rape nor incest meet the legal criteria for "assumed risk." What does meet the criteria is knowingly engaging in unprotected sex. I didn't say anything about letting rapists live or requiring victims of sexual exploitation to have babies.

My bad. Clearly I misunderstood what you wrote. So unborn children can only be aborted when they are victims of a crime, innocent though they may be. And women who have unprotected sex cannot terminate their pregnancy, at least not without counseling because of some sort of informational dysfunction, or something.

Though we disagree on many things, you seem rather bright and articulate. But you have a tendency to kind of lose control, which is really disappointing. No kidding--you'll be going along, doing really well in your argument and then you start calling names and making ridiculous assertions. It's like watching someone give a great speech and then, toward the end, seeing them vomit on their shoes and pee their pants--you tend to forget the speech and just remember the bodily fluids, you know? You have a potential for colorful debate and logical discussion, but it seems the farther you get into it, the more willing you are to deintellectualize and start spitting and pulling hair.

Heh. Talk about damning with faint praise! I think that's gonna leave a mark. Hopefully, with a two year regiment of pills, whiskey and self-help tapes I can put this criticism to good use.

No, seriously, lady belle, I appreciate your visit here as well as your challenges and aggravating attempts to clearly address your thick-headed views (joke). My particular style of barking at the rain may offend some, and yes, may detract from my views. I accept this. What I hope to make crystal clear is my hatred of the intensity of a thousand white-hot suns for what Republicans have done to America. Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Faux News et al are cancers on the body politic. At some point I will cease to use my blog as a therapist, which clearly I should not do, and use what small talents I do have to become a serious voice of punditry. I have had offers from some of the bigger blogs to do this, but I recognize this mote in my eye that you see, and am unwilling to remove it just yet. And my nom de plume is Oilfieldguy my blog is kittenstomper.

One Southern Belle said...

Okay, this is WAY too long, so after this, I gotta quit—too much other work to do and this is taking up way too much of my time. Capeche?

1) “Your position as I understand it is no woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy without first seeing a counselor to explain A, B and C to her.”

Yes. Absolutely. Without equivocation.

2) “This makes the supposition that NO WOMAN who seeks to terminate her pregnancy is already aware of A, B or C by mandate.”

Wrong—the assumption is that SOME WOMEN may not be aware, and, equally as important, may not have access to any sort of mental health services.

3) “True, there is a big difference between incompetence and ignorance.”

HUGE difference—not even in the same ball park. Ignorance is simply being unaware, uninformed. Incompetent is when you’re an idiot regardless of the amount of information you have.

4) “I am not opposed to women having full information prior to terminating her pregnancy; I just am unwilling to declare women ignorant by mandate.”

Let me see if I understand you correctly, you aren’t opposed to women having full information, you’re just opposed to requiring doctors to GIVE them full information, right? I just don’t see why doctors should get a free pass on this—after all, they’re selling a service, are they not?

We apply full disclosure laws to other businesses all the time.
Do you own a home? Did you have the home appraised before you bought it? Did you have it inspected? In most states that’s standard operating procedure, by law. Do you know why? In order to provide the purchaser with information of which he may or may not be ignorant.

Do you own a vehicle? When you went to purchase that vehicle I’m willing to bet there were stickers on it listing information about fuel efficiency, vehicle structure, etc. Was everything on there common knowledge? Were you insulted they even put that out there for you to read? Obviously by doing so they assumed you were a big dummy, huh?

By your argument, we should get rid of food labels, warning signs, information of side-effects of pharmaceuticals, and even price tags because WOW, how ignorant can people be?

Truly, OFG/KS, I don’t think you really believe what you’re saying, but I don’t think for a moment you will ever admit it here.

5) “I understood this to mean that pro-choice advocates are baby haters, and our "cause" is somehow diminished with the birth of every newborn. Perhaps it is not what you meant and somehow my comprehension skills are lacking. I doubt it. A most reprehensible thing to say, and I am sorry you feel that way.”

First of all, there’s a HUGE difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. If indeed CHOICE is central to the debate, then those who are truly pro-choice would have no argument against mandatory counseling because access to information in no way diminishes choice—indeed, it facilitates informed consent. On the other hand, UNinformed consent is really no choice at all—in other words, it’s decidedly ANTI-choice. All I’m saying is that those who call themselves pro-choice and then deny a woman’s right to product/service information are disingenuous, at best. If the goal is choice, then why should they care if a woman receives information (even if it’s unnecessary information) so long as her choice isn’t diminished? So then doesn’t it stand to reason that those who oppose counseling have something other than choice as their goal? Could it be that if women, indeed, are fully informed they may actually make the choice to NOT have an abortion?

According to you, your opposition to mandatory counseling is strictly on the basis of “it assumes all women are ignorant.” I’m assuming if you felt counseling constituted a barrier to choice you would have made that very clear prior to now, right? (I’ve looked back at the entire exchange and you never uttered as much as a single word about counseling diminishing choice.) So if the CHOICE to have an abortion isn’t the issue, then what’s left? Answer: The abortion itself.

I just think people who are genuinely pro-choice—regardless of their feeling on abortion (including those who oppose abortion on moral grounds but are not in favor of limiting individual choice by reversing Roe v. Wade) should lay claim to the term “pro-choice” and those who are actually pro-abortion should stop hiding behind the cloak of choice. Just call a spade a spade, buddy.

6) “Still, the survey itself was conducted by a collaboration of scientists whose work was published here, in case your interested. The freepers declared it DOA but I'll not link to them. The findings were published in the Lancet, whether that meets your threshold of credibility, I do not know. Clearly, The New York Times does not.”

Thanks for the link. I went to The Lancet’s home page to read “About Us.” This is what I found:
“The Lancet first appeared on Oct 5, 1823. From the beginning, Wakley's aim was to entertain, instruct, and reform. Instruction came in the form of transcribed medical lectures from the London teaching establishment; entertainment in the early days of the journal came in the form of theatre reviews and piquant political comment. The Lancet has been, first and foremost, a reformist medical newspaper. Thomas Wakley and his successors aimed to combine publication of the best medical science in the world with a zeal to counter the forces that undermine the values of medicine, be they political, social, or commercial.”

Their aim is to entertain? They are NOT a professional or academic journal—they are admittedly, a reformist newspaper—i.e. political agenda. Finally, they claim to approach their task “with zeal.” Ummm, pardon me, but doesn’t that make THEM the zealots? (Using THAT word sure came back to bite you in the ass, huh?)

Oilfieldguy, when I asked for a “journal” I was asking for a credible source. You’d have done better to get your info through Ladies’ Home Journal—it would likely be less biased. (By the way, my challenge remains.)

7) “People enjoy sex. Sometimes women have unplanned pregnancies.”

Silly me, I thought COUPLES had unplanned pregnancies. Tell me how it is again that “people” can enjoy sex, but the resulting pregnancy is, in your own words, laid completely at the feet of women. Please, please, please tell me you aren’t this much of a jackass—tell me that was a poor choice of words—otherwise you are coming dangerously close to personifying the “shirk the responsibility” guy I referenced in my first comment to your post.

8) “What I hope to make crystal clear is my hatred of the intensity of a thousand white-hot suns….”

Hey! I use that terminology too! Or, a variation…generally I say I dislike something with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns…just so I don’t have to say I “hate” it. (I always think “hate” is ugly and over-utilized—though, on occasion, I slip and use it myself.)

9) “… for what Republicans have done to America. Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Faux News et al are cancers on the body politic….”

Oh wait, you’re forgetting Alan Colmes, Arianna Huffington, and Michael Moore, not to mention CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. Look, if what you’re feeling is a bias in the news media, then I say welcome to what we on the right have been dealing with for years. Now I’m just waiting for academia to trend right so y’all can be as frustrated as we’ve been! But yes, I agree that all these talking heads have deintellectualized us as a society. I don’t listen to any of them—they aren’t about policy, they aren’t about politics, they’re about entertainment. Not interested.

10) “At some point I will cease to use my blog as a therapist, which clearly I should not do, and use what small talents I do have to become a serious voice of punditry. I have had offers from some of the bigger blogs to do this, but I recognize this mote in my eye that you see, and am unwilling to remove it just yet.”

Hey, I hear ya’. Occasionally I have the same problem myself. But over the years it has been my experience that I am taken more seriously if I will be more substantive in my comments and then pepper them with the “zingers.” Even then, when I write for public consumption (publication) my employer still has me send it through editing so it can be sanitized. You’re right—it’s a hard habit to break.

You definitely have some talent—you should hone it, refine it, and then MARKET IT! Look, I may not agree with you (after all, you are a baby-hating communist, right?) but the good part is, I don’t have to—there’s room in the public discourse for all sorts of opinions.

11) “And my nom de plume is Oilfieldguy my blog is kittenstomper.”

Whatever, it’s still annoying. All the happy thoughts in this world and you couldn’t find something better than THAT? It makes you sound like a would-be serial killer. Who the hell else stomps kittens? Gross.

Oilfieldguy said...

southern belle, sorry it took so long to respond, but my real job is supplying an addicted nation.

Let me see if I understand you correctly, you aren’t opposed to women having full information, you’re just opposed to requiring doctors to GIVE them full information, right? I just don’t see why doctors should get a free pass on this—after all, they’re selling a service, are they not?


Having a doctor provide information, either verbally or in pamphlet form is a far different matter than forcing women into counseling, peopled with the christianists supplied by Dobson, Reed and Pat Robertson. I see any such legislation directed at women exclusively the American equivalent of Talibangelicals attempt to impose Sharia law. Women are to submit and be subservient to those capable of making such weighty decisions.

Your analogies of food and car and home purchases do not apply, since male and female and people of all races make these purchases. A law requiring women only to seek guidance from mental health professionals begins from the notion that women exclusively are mentally inferior.

So if the CHOICE to have an abortion isn’t the issue, then what’s left? Answer: The abortion itself.

Or the creation of a second-class citizenry of all women by requiring them exclusively to seek counseling.

Just call a spade a spade, buddy.

Fair enough. I should not use the term "pro-life" as this is a false construct by the Frank Luntz crowd. A more accurate name is anti-choice, or the even more proper, pro-coat hanger lobby. Remove the legal protection of reproductive rights and more women will die.

Finally, they claim to approach their task “with zeal.” Ummm, pardon me, but doesn’t that make THEM the zealots? (Using THAT word sure came back to bite you in the ass, huh?)

Attack the messenger with Gestalt-like research. Find a word somewhere, not in the study, and cry AHA! I noticed the complete absence of addressing the central point of the study which reaches a completely reasonable and logical conclusion.

1) Laws do not stop abortions.

2) Legal abortions performed by medical personnel are vastly safer than illegal ones performed in back alleys.

3) Denying women legal protection only results in a death sentence for many women.

Please, please, please tell me you aren’t this much of a jackass—tell me that was a poor choice of words—otherwise you are coming dangerously close to personifying the “shirk the responsibility” guy I referenced in my first comment to your post.

Guilty. Some guys are dogs.

It makes you sound like a would-be serial killer. Who the hell else stomps kittens? Gross.

You give them eyes, and yet they cannot see...

MGM (Metro Goldwyn-Mayer) had their lion, MTM (Mary Tyler Moore) had her kitten. My kitten is not the stompee, but rather the stomper