Outraged by initiative
I am so upset by this proposed initiative (“Proposed abortion ban clears state ballot hurdle,” July 19 and “Initiative foes file suit against personhood,” Aug. 9) that it is hard for me to find the words to express myself.
The proposed inclusion in the Colorado Constitution of an amendment that would define any fertilized egg as a person is clearly a move based on religious beliefs, not the betterment of the lives of Coloradans, nor protection of religious freedoms, nor based on any kind of proven science regarding human consciousness and development.
Michele Nobriga, Denver
Michele I completly agree.
Why do people think that if the choice [to have an abortion] was removed, all abortions would stop.
This attitude always amazed me, too. In the fantasy world these people live in, no one in human history ever drowned or exposed an infant. No one ever used herbal abortifacents, either.
Nope, prior to the invention of abortion as a medical procedure, there was no such thing as an "unwanted" pregnancy.
Nope. Never.
The question to ask of the supporters of this bill is "What is the punishment of the woman that seeks an "illegal" abortion?
Not the doctor performing the abortion but the woman who actively goes in and requests one.
Should she do jail time? After all according to them this is murder, Let's say it's more like manslaughter. (I don't see how it couldn't be , since it's premeditated)
What about the husband who drives her to the clinic? Wouldn't he be a willing accomplice?
I am real curious as to what they think the punishment should be...what if the fetus has severe abnormalites and won't live to term, if the mother has health risks, if the father of the fetus is an abuser, if there is just no money to support another child...
Let them justify their stance on, if this is a crime, what the punishment shall be, as it is about punishment afterall, of the woman.
Posted by Michelle on August 23, 2007 01:12 AMOh, this initiative won't keep us from killing our babies. We'll kill any and all of them if we have to just to make our point!!
Posted by on August 23, 2007 07:11 AMWill this initiative apply to those Iraqi babies that Bush haas "fried" with his use of chemical weapons?
Posted by centennialslavebehinddacottoncurtain on August 23, 2007 07:22 AMBoth sides of this debate are ridiculous: on one end humanity begins at a breath and on the other, a few cells. Science would be just as arbitrary in definition:pick your poison. The fact is that fetus' feel pain and the abortion proceedure is violent and painful. If the fetus was at least raised to the legal level of an animal, then late term abortions becomes illegal. Some of us define humanity beyond a simple breath or a few cells. There in lies the rub, at what point are the pre-born human.
Posted by Tom on August 23, 2007 07:35 AMMichelle wrote:
“...what if the fetus has severe abnormalites and won't live to term, if the mother has health risks, if the father of the fetus is an abuser, if there is just no money to support another child...”
Those are by and large the extreme exceptions. The vast majority of abortions are performed on perfectly healthy fetuses and perfectly healthy mothers. And if there is just no money to support another child, then the mother and father should have been smart enough to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
Mountain Cat, a person or persons can go to great lengths to prevent pregnancy but sometimes it happens anyway. Been there. Done that. You must be one of those "perfect world" types.
I chose to keep my son because I had a good job, great family support, and I just couldn't bring myself to have an abortion; but at least I had the choice.
I'm also adopted. Do you have any idea how emotionally complicated that can be? I could never put up a child for adoption.
It's ultimately the choice of the woman, not the man, since obviously, it is the woman who is pregnant. I feel it should stay a choice. Keep religion out of it. You can still be a good person (and teach your children to be good people) and live a righteous life without having to go to church or believing in God.
Posted by Lainie on August 23, 2007 08:25 AMI say we start another ballot initative.
One that says:
"THIS IS MY BODY AND I, AND ONLY I OR PERSONS THAT I DESIGNATE AUTHORITY, WILL MAKE DECISIONS THAT EFFECT MY BODY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WHAT GOES INTO IT, WHAT COMES OUT OF IT, WHO I MARRY, AND EVEN WHEN IT'S TIME FOR TO DIE, WITHOUT ANYONE ELSE'S UNSOLICITED HELP OR MEDDLING.
I WILL RESPECT THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE SAME DECISIONS FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR BODY.
WE WILL NOT ALLOW THE DECISIONS WE MAKE FOR OURSELVES TO HAVE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS ON OTHERS AND WE WILL BE FINANCIALLY AND LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECISIONS WE MAKE FOR OURSELVES."
Anyone interested in signing?
Posted by Thomas on August 23, 2007 08:26 AMThomas, I'll sign. However, people like Mountain Cat and other pro-lifers will just say "detrimental effects on others" pertains to the fetuses being aborted. How about "What I do with my body is nobody's business and what you do with yours is none of my business"?
Posted by Lainie on August 23, 2007 08:48 AMI find it interesting that Scott Peterson was tried on two counts of murder: One for his wife, and one for his unborn son. he was found guilty on both counts. So which is it? Either the unborn is just a mass of tissue, or a life that when ended by another is defined as murder?
Posted by Christian Conspiracy on August 23, 2007 09:46 AMChristian Conspiracy, I think Laci Peterson was 8 or 9 months pregnant, way beyond the fetus stage in which abortion takes place.
Posted by Lainie on August 23, 2007 10:20 AMHey Michele,
Do you think your mother should of had an abortion when she was pregnant with you?
Posted by legal on August 23, 2007 10:24 AMMy point is this: Who chooses when this is a murder and when this is an abortion. Yes, I know that argument of viability. However, it is still an arbitrary line drawn in the sand.
"You can still be a good person (and teach your children to be good people) and live a righteous life without having to go to church or believing in God."
Who defines righteous?
I would be careful making such statements..
Forget abortion, this goes into the mothers behaviour, diet and life style before birth. If the "person" inside is harmed in any way, she is liable for the damage. Say she eats a bad diet, smokes, takes too hot baths, all things that effect the fetus.
imagine the "fetal police" squad coming into your home to rip that one little glass of wine out of your wife's hands.
If you put your minds to this you can see all kind of unintended consequences.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 23, 2007 10:56 AMThomas-
Where do I sign?
The fact is that this initative does NOTHING to address the real issue: unplanned pregnancies which are a direct result of people being either sexually ignorant or sexually irresponsible.
Ignorance can be cured, to some degree, with education. Unfortunately, we still have too many people who are opposed to education and equate it with permission.
Teaching young people about sex and it's consequences does not equate to permission to engage in sexual activity anymore than airbags in cars causes accidents.
Sexual irresponsibility must be addressed with action. We have raised too many young men who don't respect young women and too many young women who don't respect themselves. This is where the change must begin!
Abortion is, ultimately, just a symptom of a greater problem. Only a fool would treat the symptom rather than the cause.
Let's address the issues that cause unplanned pregnancies and that will help reduce and hopefully, eventually eliminate the demand for abortions. Let's try fixing the root of the problem rather than making criminals out of the people who resort to one of it's desperate solutions.
Posted by Thomas on August 23, 2007 11:47 AMSharon,
I thought this discussion was about abortion. What do you mean forget it?
Since there is strong disagreement about when human life begins, passing a law that says it begins when one says it does, does not make it so. It just creates a law. That is how the narrow minded think. If I don't like what you believe, let's make a law against your ideas and, voila! - the problem disappears.
Sure.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 23, 2007 12:32 PMCentennialslave
What chemical weapons?
Well,well,well....the henhouse will be full of roosting chickens tonight.Anyone remotely familiar with this issue knows very well that women would far rather bear children than abort them.The real consequences of Roe v. Wade were:A) that only a woman could not be forced to become a parent against her will. Men can be and very often are forced to become parents whether they will or no.See your local Child Support Enforcement office for further details; and B): with the connivance of the government,the bastardy rate(along with the consequent rates of child abuse,drug abuse ,gangs and other criminal activity)went through the roof.I and others have pointed out this legal ,moral, and social inequity on this forum any number of times,each time eliciting a chorus of derision that Governor George Wallace would have been proud to dispense. So I'll be very much in favor of,and work as hard as I can towards making abortion as criminal an act as it can possibly be.Re-criminalizing abortion won't change a thing about mens' legal situation,so we really don't care.It might force the females-and the leftist government hacks who bloat on their reproductive irresponsibility-to take an interest in the well-being of their children BEFORE the scat hits the fan.
Posted by Jimminy on August 23, 2007 01:18 PMHey Michele,
Do you think your mother should of had an abortion when she was pregnant with you?
Posted by legal
I can think of someone whose mother really should have had an abortion. Signs their name Legal
Posted by curious on August 23, 2007 01:18 PMLet me get understand what you're saing, Jiminy?
" Men can be and very often are forced to become parents whether they will or not".
We won't even talk about the fact that your sentence isnt' even coheret. I assume that you're trying to imply that men are becoming parents against their will. Is that right?
So..these men..who are becoming fathers.."against their will"...didn't have sex..unprotected sex...? They were just sitting around, minding their own business and suddenly...without any warning, they were fathers?
Are you for real?
If a man doesn't want to become a father, he shouldn't have sex. He definitely shouldn't have unprotected sex. But he should absoltuely be aware that condoms and other birth control methods are never 100% effective so even if he uses them he is assuming some degree of risk that pregnancy can occur.
It sounds like you have a big chip on your shoulder when it comes to this issue and haven't even begun to accept responsibility for your own actions.
For every trampy woman out there who is trying to nail some guy, any guy to the wall for child support for a baby that may or may not
be his...there are hundreds, if not thousands, of deadbeat dads who haven't contributed a penny or a second to their children's care or welfare.
Christian conspiracy. yes, forget abortion. If that little zygote is a "person" then the pregnancy of every single pregnant woman is under the jurisdiction of the soon to be created "fetal police" squad.
All pregnant women will be watched by neighbors, mothers in law, perfect strangers to see that their behavior does not harm the "person within'.
Each and every one of us under this law, would have a say in every other families business. We could monitor diet, exercise, health risks. Hey, no more motorcycle riding when pg. No more cigs, no alcohol, well you get the picture.
See where this takes you. Add some of your own.
Every old biddy in the supermarket now gets to "watch those pregnant teenagers and their behavior'
Man what a mess this will be.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 23, 2007 03:13 PMLife under conservatives and funamentalists.
We''ll make all your decisions for you.
We'll tell you who you can marry.
We'll make reproductive decisions for you.
We'll tell you what you can or can't smoke in the privacy of your own home.
And last but not least, we'll send you to war for reasons we don't even understand and at such a tremendous expense that your grandchildren's children will probably be saddled with the debt.
Posted by Thomas on August 23, 2007 03:31 PMI find it very interesting how so many “progressives” rush to the defense of homosexuals, mandate diversity in the workplace, insist on the exclusion of religion in the public square (unless their licking the boots of Muslims) cry foul every time a gun toting
carjacker is shot by law enforcement, then they could care less if a million babies are murdered a year in our country. I wonder how they would view me if I became “inconvenient”.
And let me give you a pass on your spelling,Tommy boy. Also,I said "whether they will or no"-a rather more erudite grammatical construction than those to which most publicly educated Americans are accustomed.I'll continue our little trip to the woodshed and point out to you that you excoriate our gender and castigate US for having unprotected sex but you're just fine with women doing the same behavior. That's textbook double standard and a clearly egregious violation of every civil rights law ever propounded.
I'll have to help you a little with your sociology,too.You spoke of women trying to "nail some guy,any guy"for child support.The reality is that the biological father's identity is relevant only to Child Support Enforcement,who seeks to collect money,not for the mother or the child,but for the government,to offset welfare/Medicaid/food stamp/government housing money spent on the child and mother,neither of whom have any connection with the bio-dad save the sperm donation.Mom gets the welfare check and she's happy.Government gets its costs offset and they're happy too.End of story.For them, that is.A little different for the uninformed man who never gave consent to be a parent but got forced into it by garbage laws that help no one except the administrators of progams those laws govern.All they need is for the feminist left and its whitebread male proxies to go right on joining the word "deadbeat" to the word "dad".
As a mens' rights guy I know that Thomas is representative of many millions who simply will never get it that equal rights means what it says.I'd like it a whole lot better if men could decline to be parents as women can,but the reality is that equality of reproductive rights is likely to be gotten only through the nullification of Roe v. Wade.Fine by me.
Lainie wrote:
“I chose to keep my son because I had a good job, great family support, and I just couldn't bring myself to have an abortion; but at least I had the choice.”
Well, yes, you had the choice to end the life of your son. How sweet.
I’m not at all a religious person, so don’t through me in with religious zealots just because I am opposed to abortion. But you should also never trounce upon someone for caring about innocent, helpless souls. A woman has the choice at this point in history. But the unborn fetus doesn’t have the choice and is force not to live with the consequences of a fatal choice made by its mother. I see something very cruel in that. And I should not have to apologize for seeing that.
Jiminy,
Blah,blah,blah. Quack. Quack.
You squawk a lot and never really say anything.
And trust me...you will never be man enough to "take me to the woodshed".
And I don't need a "pass on spelling". If you're going to bring it up, then tell me what you're talking about.
And, your sentence WAS incoherent as is your latest nonsensical rant. Nice job looking up all those big words, though.
Mountain Cat,
You see abortion is cruel and you don't believe you should have to apologize for that.
I agree.
I think abortion is a sad and desperate choice and it disgusts me that too many people use it as a form of birth control. But I do not believe that I should have the right to make that decision for another person.
I do believe that a mother should have the right to make the decision because until it is born, that fetus is part of her body. It is not independent.
I do not believe that one independent human being should be trying to legislate the decisions of another independent human being about what they can and cannot do with their own body.
And frankly, it continues to sicken me that so much time, effort, money and tears is spent on the status of unborn children when there are so many living, breathing children in this world who need and not getting more attention.
Until so called "right to lifers" start proving that they care about children after they leave the womb, people with common sense will see through their propaganda and rhetoric and recognize that this isn't about the of lives of unborn babies .but the politics of controlling other people through theocratically based laws.
Posted by Thomas on August 23, 2007 05:14 PMJimminy, if Roe is overturned, and fewer women have abortions, there will be many more little ones for your put upon men to support.
Just think of how many men are not paying child support because the baby was aborted.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 23, 2007 06:01 PMTommy,Tommy,Tommy....".Woodshedding" is a musician's word that has come into general public use.It means the refinement of one's ideas-something you badly need and I was trying to help you do.Could it be that men have taken YOU to the woodshed for NAMBLA-approved activities?
Posted by Jimminy on August 23, 2007 06:15 PMI doubt it,Sharon....As an optimist,I do think that if things go in the direction of overturning Roe,women will come to realize the overwhelming superiority of the two parent (that's a mom and a dad) model and they'll begin to figure out that it'll be good for their children if they insist on some "protection" until they A) have a good relationship with someone they can trust with a father's privelige and duty and B) get signatures on a marriage certificate.
Posted by Jimminy on August 23, 2007 06:29 PMHey Sharon,
Do you suspect as I do...that no woman with any self-respect would have anything to do with Jiminy?
But he sounds absolutely creepy enough to prey on women with low self-esteem.
Posted by Thomas on August 23, 2007 07:11 PMThank you Thomas for answering my posts intelligently. Jimminy seems to want all changes done by women.
Even though many men prey on teenage girls and get them pregnant, seems the girls should be adult enough to make the decisions about sex while the men, do what?
I keep telling Jimminy, no one has his sperm stolen.
What do you think of the "fetal police" idea.?
Surely this would happen.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 24, 2007 07:25 AMSharon B. is easily impressed. She actually thinks Thomas used intelligence in his last post. Yep, true genius there.
Peas in a pod.
Anon at 8:21 Peas off!
Posted by Sharon B. on August 24, 2007 11:08 AMMy,my,my......well,the idea of expanding men's reproductive rights to equal womens' seems not to meet with the approval of the equal rights crowd,so I suppose we'll have to do it the hard way and re-criminalize abortion.One possible upside is that if you girls are walking the line relative to reproductive responsibility,maybe some of the more physical types in the mens' rights crowd will have less motivation to mete out the kind of amateur gender equalization procedures that keep battered womens' shelters in business.
Aside to Sharon B-What do you suppose Thomas is looking at while he's hiding under your skirt?
Aside to Old Grouch-the Lysistrata story is an excellent commentary on that with which us guys do so much of our critical thinking,but I keep recalling much anecdotal data relative to the ancient Greeks having,let us say,a back-door alternative to what the women in the story were doing an OPEC with.
Posted by Jimminy on August 24, 2007 02:09 PMThomas said,"And frankly, it continues to sicken me that so much time, effort, money and tears is spent on the status of unborn children when there are so many living, breathing children in this world who need and not getting more attention.
Until so called "right to lifers" start proving that they care about children after they leave the womb, people with common sense will see through their propaganda and rhetoric and recognize that this isn't about the of lives of unborn babies .but the politics of controlling other people through theocratically based laws. "
___________________________________
I get a little sick and tired of this old canard. Why worry about the unborn when there "are so many living, breathing children in this world who need and not getting more attention." This is designed to let others know you care, while condemning those who oppose abortion for not adopting children who are already here. Actually if you are concerned about born children it is hypocritical on your part not to adopt them and give them attention.
Those who see abortion as murder are not being hypocritical ( "right to lifers" start proving that they care about children after they leave the womb) opposing it. I could oppose cruelty to animals without having a pet or condemn Michael Vick for his outrageous behavior. Hypocrisy comes from condemning behavior as being inconsistent with values you don't believe in
You go on to condemn controling people through theocratically based laws. Everyone gets their values from somewhere. Some do it through religion, some through humanism, some through experience. You apparantly have decided that anyone who has gotten their values from some source other than yours is unworthy of what, I'm not sure, but unworthy.
Posted by Jim on August 24, 2007 03:51 PMThomas said,"And frankly, it continues to sicken me that so much time, effort, money and tears is spent on the status of unborn children when there are so many living, breathing children in this world who need and not getting more attention.
Until so called "right to lifers" start proving that they care about children after they leave the womb, people with common sense will see through their propaganda and rhetoric and recognize that this isn't about the of lives of unborn babies .but the politics of controlling other people through theocratically based laws. "
___________________________________
I get a little sick and tired of this old canard. Why worry about the unborn when there "are so many living, breathing children in this world who need and not getting more attention." This is designed to let others know you care, while condemning those who oppose abortion for not adopting children who are already here. Actually if you are concerned about born children it is hypocritical on your part not to adopt them and give them attention.
Those who see abortion as murder are not being hypocritical ( "right to lifers" start proving that they care about children after they leave the womb) opposing it. I could oppose cruelty to animals without having a pet or condemn Michael Vick for his outrageous behavior. Hypocrisy comes from condemning behavior as being inconsistent with values you don't believe in
You go on to condemn controling people through theocratically based laws. Everyone gets their values from somewhere. Some do it through religion, some through humanism, some through experience. You apparantly have decided that anyone who has gotten their values from some source other than yours is unworthy of what, I'm not sure, but unworthy.
Posted by Jim on August 24, 2007 03:52 PMJimminy, your last posts regarding physical violence toward women, pretty much says it all about you.
Fewer abortions=more children to support.
It is extreamly obvious from your posting that you or someone close to you forgot the condom and paid 18 yeasrs for that.
Too bad, the world isn`t fair, all the crying and acting out won`t make a better deal for men who carelessly F and run.
DNA and tough laws have put you all in your place.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 24, 2007 04:12 PMSure does,dearie.I envisioned less violence toward women.And as I said in a quite-some-time-ago post,can't have an F to run from unless there's a willing pair of open legs.
Posted by Jimminy on August 24, 2007 05:38 PMMen who hurt women or children are dispicable.
Men who father children and run are the same.
Ever hear of rape, Jimminy?
Posted by Sharon B. on August 24, 2007 06:34 PMOh,yeah....I also told our gentle readers that in a long and happy interregnum between the last and the present Mrs.Jimminy( the youngest,prettiest,and most well-to-do of the lot) there was a wonderful,and in retrospect,embarrassingly large,series of the most uplifting and fulfilling relationships with lovely,strong,creative,independent women,that I'll treasure always.Child Support Enforcement never laid a glove on me.
However,I did spend a great deal of time in the social work biz working with young women who'd bought into the dream of glorious single parenthood only to wake to the living nightmare of bastardy.Nice kids,most of them,but not real competent to parent.
The real villains in that little drama were the folks who ran the show-the more bastardy, the more fetal alcohol/crack babies, the more child abuse,the better-it all means more money from the government for the system to work its mischief,funded in large part and hidden from the taxpaying public by the money extorted from biological fathers through the patently unconstitutional paternity laws.Oh,you thought the MOM got the child support money? Wrong.The government does.
I'm convinced that if the public had had to shoulder the true cost of all the reproductive irresponsibility the Left so loves there would already have been any number of initiatives outlawing the kind of reproductive promiscuity engendered by Roe,although Roe itself might still be law.
I rather imagine that the Jim Crow-against-men system will remain intact.If Roe likewise remains intact,so will the street-level gender-equalization paybacks.Your choice,ladies.
Grumpy,
The most vociferous advocates of life I know are women. Not only women, mothers who have had abortions and consider it the nadir of their lives. Before you place men in the category of controlling women’s lives let’s be certain you’re distinguishing whom the anti-murder crowd want to control. Michele, the author of the letter appeals to science. Science supports without argument the personhood of the fertilized egg. All of the requisite components of a living human are present. Those in favor of life do not want to control the female baby carrier; they want to protect the defenseless baby present in her womb. The female would be murderers had their chance at control. A defenseless babies death shouldn’t be the “next best thing” to responsible behavior.
I'm not sure who "Grumpy" is,but I sure like what kobetabber is saying to him.Puts strong sentiments in a most kindly manner.
Posted by Jimminy on August 24, 2007 09:36 PMJimminy,
Grumpy = Old Grouch
Posted by on August 25, 2007 12:30 AMSharon B - Are women who hurt men dispicible too or is that just reserved for men?
Posted by KW on August 25, 2007 09:17 AMkobetabber,
Gee Whiz! Wow!
"Science supports without argument the PERSONHOOD of the fertilized egg".
And here I thought James Jones was the biggest fantasist on the bolg. You beat him out by a mile!
What "science"? The productions of the Flat Earth Society? So called "Creation Science"?
Please list the reputable science texts that "support without argument the personhood of the fertilized egg", and that are used in reputable science classes on any level of higher education - especially any such texts used in classes in Medical School, or in teaching OB-GYN. (The operative word there being, of course, REPUTABLE. Colorado Bible Kindergarten equivalents (with or without the self-agrandizement of calling themselves "christian" and/or a "university" really don't count.)
Posted by Old Grouch on August 25, 2007 07:40 PMGrumpy, Grumpy, Grumpy-
C’mon Mr. Intellect. Surely you could do better. Let’s play chicken. I’ll produce at least five sources stating the complete DNA blueprint for a human being is present in a human embryo if you produce two saying it isn’t. That should be easy for guy of your depth, considering the qualified sources you must be aware of. I won’t hold my breath.
I think there should be the same restrictions on abortion that we have on our" right to keep and bear arms".There are about 22,000 laws regulating the Second Amendment so abortion should have the same amount.Lets see how many we can think of.Here is one, in California you have to wait 2 weeks before you can pick up your gun.It is to let the buyer "cool off" before buying the gun.How about a 2 week "cooling off"period before you can have an abortion.
Posted by An American on August 26, 2007 09:25 AMHere is another one.In some states you have to take a safety course before buying a gun.How about a course showing how dangerous an abortion can be and show an ultrasound of the baby moving in the mother.
Posted by An American on August 26, 2007 09:34 AMHere is another one.In Colorado you can't buy a rifle until you are 18.No woman should be allowed to have an abortion until 18.I do not want to ban abortion.I just think it should be heavily regulated.I think we can all agree on that point.
Posted by An American on August 26, 2007 10:00 AMJimminy, really had to hunt for that article didn`t you. Women that violent are rare. Men kill men, women and children every day of the year.
Women are more likely to be killed by husband, lover, ex-husband or lover than men are by women.
Children are more likely to be killed by a non-related male.
Men are violent. When you guys clean up your act I will worry and call despicable, women who hurt men.
wonder if the wife in Russia sang, " There`ll be a hot time in the old house tonight" while her drunk husband put out the fire.
She just wanted some gender equality.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 26, 2007 10:37 AMYou can tell Sharon B. is a real male hating bigot.Put the word Black or Mexican where she puts male and you will see what she really is and it isn't very pretty.
Posted by An American on August 26, 2007 11:03 AMAs you can tell Sharon B. really hates men.This goes back to what I had explained in the last class.Sharon B is a good example of the US hating Democrat.Sharon B. probably "feels" that men control the US and that she and other women have been oppressed.That is why in other postings she is helping terrorists win the war.
Posted by An American on August 26, 2007 11:19 AMAA, and at the same time arming or helping to arm my female friends who have exes looking for them.
It does feel strange to ride around with a 38 under the floor mat. Have`t done that for years.
I could say black or Mexican males. Same difference. White males, brown, yellow.
Men are violent. Look at the faces in any mob, demonstration, attack on people, places or things. Gangs, looters, rapists.
When you mention feelings, put a feeling, happiness, saddness etc after that word and not a "thought" We think oppression, we can`t feel it.
I pretty much think you are a phony.
I don`t "feel" it.
You would never get away with that in college.
Hi Sharon...Let me help you with your diversity studies. One of the things diversity studies are supposed to do is to show that different groups have very different unspoken assumptions about behavior.For example,the thumb-and-forefinger together gesture,which to us means "Okay!" is a really vile insult in the Arabic cultures. The gulf between the genders,being genetic in nature,is greater than that between most cultures,and you almost grasp the idea when you say "men are violent".That's right.We are. Football,S.W.A.T. teams,the military,the list goes on longer than the bandwidth on this forum could accomodate.
But then you kinda fall off the tracks in saying "when you guys clean up your act".As if !! As if the evolutionary success of violence in males is ever going to change.As if the female gender could arbitrate male DNA. As if women DON'T use violence by getting male cops to do it for them,say on a domestic violence call.As if women don't beat the snot out of their sons now and again- at least until said sons get too big for it. As if you yourself don't advocate the most hideous violence against a woman's own child before it even draws breath,although I must say in all fairness the woman doesn't do the violence herself. She gets a (usually male) medical pro to do the deed.
”I’m not at all a religious person, so don’t through me in with religious zealots …”
.”…you should also never trounce upon someone for caring about innocent, helpless souls…”
No, not at all a religious outlook at all, after all, “soul” is such a factual, scientific term, not a bit religious.
So here’s my problem MC, to me and many others, life doesn’t start at conception and what eventually may become a child with the neurology that produces awareness and thought, starts as just insensate tissue.
Now you may view the nascent potential to become living as a significant fact, but to many people this is just a mundane fact and of no particular significance or relevance since at the time of the abortion there isn’t a child in existence.
However, you aren’t just saying that if you were a woman you would never choose abortion at any stage, you are saying that no woman should ever be allowed to make a different decision.
That isn’t just religious belief, but a fascist and dogmatic attitude.
Don’t have an abortion if that is your choice, but who in heck are you to force that on anyone else?
Butt out and let women decide for themselves what they see as best.
Jimminy. Before we invaded Afghanistan, the taliban (small caps to show disrespect) let little boys go to the zoo and torment the animals by poking sticks at them. Many were killed or blinded. They also let grown men hit women in public if too much "female skin" showed.
With the help of our servicemen and women, the boys were able to go to the zoo again, but no hitting the animals. No more hitting women in the streets for improper dress.
Eventually, the men in the Middle East will stop using puppies for soccer balls. Some male violence is the lack of females having any say in how they are raised. Some is just habit in backward cultures.
And a good part of male violence is control.
Men can learn to use violence when its needed and not when ever they want.
Little boys can be civilized, they can even learn what the true nature of "diversity studies" is all about.
By the way, the word "peaches" sounds like bastard in Turkey, so what point were you trying to make?
Posted by Sharon B. on August 26, 2007 06:07 PMkobetabber,
Establishing the DNA identification of genus and species presence in a zygote as being that of homo sapiens sapiens, does not establish "person", or "personhood", any more than establihsing the presence of DNA identification of a bovine species means you have a cow for milking, or a ton of beef on the hoof.
That's the jump from science to fantasy and superstition that lies at the heart of this attempt to get around the decision made in Roe vs. Wade many years ago.
Of course, you, and those who share your belief system, make make the jump. But, in the gulf of time between zygote and actual "personhood" as such, you are attempting to exclude the simple realities of such things as miscarriage, and all the other natural events, that can - and often do - happen to that zygote before it actually attains that status of "personhood" that would entitle it to legal protections. Or, in an equally un-scientific and superstitious way, you are trying to make such realities of loss before term into some from of "criminal behavior" on the part of the individual carrying the zygote to term.
Or in other words, you may jump your bovine zygote over the moon - as your argument does - but, that is a nursery rhyme form of approach to establishing legal status for the human one.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 27, 2007 09:07 AMAny thoughts on this one Sharon B?
Sharon B - Are women who hurt men dispicible too or is that just reserved for men? Posted by KW on August 25, 2007 09:17 AM
I noticed you hadn't answered yet.
Posted by KW on August 27, 2007 10:08 AMOn one side, poopyheads, on the other, doodypants....
On the one hand, there is no hard and fast time when a fetus becomes a Human.... is it when they are conceived or when they are born? Is it somewhere in the middle? Is it when the fetus becomes viable? When is that exactly?
Since no one can tell me when that is, so that we can judge when that fetus becomes a person, we can agree that after that point, you cannot kill it. How is that for a compromise? Now, all we need is the point that it becomes human..... Good luck.
As a libertarian, I am supporting of the person making the decision where they are comfy with it. But, and here is a controversial topic.... If the woman decides to have the baby, the father should be able to perform an abortion of his own. He should have the right to say... "Hey, I am opting out of being a parent". If women have that right, men should as well.
Posted by Dravur on August 27, 2007 11:06 AMIf you can understand Sharon Bs ramblings you can see she really hates men.She is full of hate that is aimed at the US.That is probably why she gives aid and comfort to the terrorists in other postings."My enemy's enemy is my friend" is what Sharon believes in and she is a US hating liberal Democrat.On other postings she is even trying to take away the US citizens right to own firearms.She is a bigger threat to this country than her terrorists friends.
Posted by An American on August 27, 2007 12:08 PMdravur: "If the woman decides to have the baby, the father should be able to perform an abortion of his own. He should have the right to say... "Hey, I am opting out of being a parent". If women have that right, men should as well."
That'll go over like a lead balloon.
Why? Because that would be "fair" and "equal" in the decision making and most women wouldn't want that.
They prefer to decide for you.
KW,
Tit for Tat, isn't it?
Who has been "deciding" for whom tor Centuries now?
Why not give individual choice and personal responsibility the chance?
dravur,
Your point is well taken. Aside from rape and/or incest - which is a form of "rape" as coming from the compulsion to control and manipulate - sex should be something enjoyed between consenting parties. Precautions and protections - against disease as well as conception - are matters of responsibility on the part of the consenting PARTIES (plural); not just a matter of single sided concern.
The "shotgun marriage" is no more a stable form for unions and offspring than is the idea of a "single mother" taking advantage of an event (sex) to latch on to a supply of cash.
But then, we would have to be up to the level where mutual responsibility is the norm. Wouldn't we? However, the current lack of a norm of mutual responsibility does not in any way invalidate your idea.
Posted by on August 27, 2007 12:41 PMNo tit for tat anon. That would be like saying whites need to become slaves to atone for the years of black slavery.
Righting this sort of wrong involves obtaining equality, not role reversal.
Posted by KW on August 27, 2007 12:59 PMMy apologies to all. I am 12;41 PM. And I certainly did not intend to be anonymous. The little arrow was up on the "Remember your personal info?" line, when I reached for the mouse to click on "Preview"; and I didn't come back to the page when I posted. I must have inadvertantly hit the little "No" circle by mistake; and my screen info got left off. Sorry.
KW,
"Tit for tat" in the argumentative sense only. Not applicable in reality, on any matter of who did what to whom earlier.. Sorry I didn't clarify.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 27, 2007 02:18 PMKW, sorry love, I missed your question. Yes they are despicable too. My post 10:37 was for you but I put Jimminy on it.
If a fetus in declared a person with all the rights of a person, what happens when a woman miscarries?
What if the baby is premature? Has a birth defect not related to alcohol or drugs or cigarettes?
Don`t let us get off onto abortion here. This person hood thing is serious business for any and all pregnant women.
An American, how sweet of you to follow me around like my little dog does, looking for things to quote.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 27, 2007 05:51 PMGrumpy- Calamities befall both babies and adults. Let’s say I’m crushed by an earthmover. Does that mean I didn’t exist? Does that diminish the validity of my DNA blueprint? Does my unfortunate demise change the fact that I was human? A baby murdered by medical procedure is still a baby. I’m still waiting for the two sources stating the DNA blueprint is present in the fertilized egg. I’m waiting for you to demonstrate from reputable sources that the color of the hair, the shape of the nose, skin tone and gender are not present. And if they are than what is this little being? Is this baby just another multi-celled biological structure without potential? We both know that is a lie, and that’s the rub; we know it and in the name of convenience we don’t talk about it. Remember, you produce two sources saying the blueprint for a baby is not present in the fertilized egg and I’ll produce five saying there is.
Posted by kobetabber on August 27, 2007 06:12 PMDravur said ” If the woman decides to have the baby, the father should be able to perform an abortion of his own. He should have the right to say... "Hey, I am opting out of being a parent". If women have that right, men should as well.”
So what you are really saying is that women shouldn’t have the right to abort, not that men should have the right to force an abortion on a woman, right?
I have two questions for you then.
- when in the gestation do you think personhood accrues to the child?
- why do you pick that point rather than any other?
kobetabber,
I have not at any time said that - as YOU put it - "the bluprint for a baby is not present in the fertilized egg". Try replying to what I did say, instead of setting up a straw man from your imagination.
So. You have a "bluprint". Does that mean you then go out and buy Homeowner's insurance? Are you then going to start paying taxes on the " improved property"? Where are you going to place the furniture?
Or do you begin to see why your illogical - and at times very childishly emotional - arguments contribute nothing to the reality of the problems?
I sincerely doubt it; but then I'v e read so many of the same kind of: "Bambi is such a beautiful little fawn we all have to stop killing animals and become vegetarians", form of totally disconnected drivel from those who either can't, or don't want to, reason, I'm not at all surprised at your production.
There is NO connection between having a "blueprint" - or a DNA identification - and the LEGAL STATUS of "person/personhood".
The "blueprint" does NOT establish one as a "homeowner", with legal, contractual, and other rights and obligations. It's just that simple. And the same is true about a DNA identification in a zygote. It does NOT establish "personhood".
Now, go ahead and jump your bovine DNA identification over the moon as you wish. This is not a matter to be solved by nursery rhyme imagination.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 28, 2007 07:03 AMYou are welcome Sharon.You will come to realize that I am helping you understand yourself better.
Posted by An American on August 28, 2007 07:47 AMAn American, now write down what I say. You are better than a tape recorder, seeing as how you never misquote me, reword me, miss whole sentances etc.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 28, 2007 12:41 PMIt's amazing how quickly you've reduced a living being (baby) to a piece of paper. The fertized is not a concept, it is not a legal document; it is a baby in the very ealiest stages of development. Again I'm waiting for your two documents.......still breathing.
Posted by kobetabber on August 28, 2007 01:38 PMkobetabber,
You're the one who started with the analogies. All I am trying to do is point out that an analogy sometimes does not manage to carry over into other spheres of life.
I have already granted you the existence of your documents, and the evidentiary nature of what you say they contain. You know already what they are, and what they tell you. There is no necessity for me to present you with your own evidence, used to support your own point of view.
That the documents - and the statements - DO NOT manage to create a LEGAL status, known as "personhood", actually lies at the heart - and root - of the attempt to get this Initiative on the ballot in the first place.
Or didn;t you know that to begin with? And if not, why are you ranting on about the matter, in total ignorance of what it really is?
The mere existence of a DNA identification IS NOT "personhood". If it were, there would be no need for the Initiative in the first place. The ABSENCE of a legal status of "personhood" is what the Initiative is supposed to "correct". And your "evidence" is supposed to be in support of MAKING THE CORRECTION. It is NOT the present status. Nor is it in any way a matter of established fact today.
You may -as you are now doing - ADVOCATE the Initiative. And, you may use your analogies to make your arguments in favor.
Just as I am pointing out that your arguments are equivalent to the old nursery rhyme about the cow jumping over the moon - just because you have a DNA identification of a bovine zygote - and therefore, are of no value in persuading me to consider the Initiative as being either necessary or desirable.
The identification - or the "blueprint" as YOU introduced the idea - IS NOT THE END RESULT.
And in this case, the end results are matters of TWO DIFFERENT entities. The fetus brought to term results in - using the 2 ilustrations from before - either a human baby or a calf. This is the physical entity.
If the result in the physical entity be that of a human baby, THEN, and THEN ONLY, there is a legal entity - "personhood" - that brings with it rights and privileges, guarantees, etc., etc., AT LAW.
The objective of the Initiative is to forceably establish the Legal entity, "personhood" at conception, WITHOUT REGARD to whether or not there ever be an actual human baby - the physical entity - resulting from the fertilization of an egg by the sperm.
Bad logic. Bad analogy. Bad law.
Now, go tell your Mommy she needs you; and ask her to explain simple English to you on the way to wherever you're going.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 28, 2007 03:15 PM