  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 The Greatest Threat to ChoicePosted on May 7, 2007
By Chris Hedges Jeniece Learned stood amid a crowd of earnest-looking men and women, many with small gold crosses in their lapels or around their necks, in a hotel lobby in Valley Forge, Pa. She had an easy smile and a thick mane of black, shoulder-length hair. She was carrying a booklet called “Ringing In a Culture of Life,” which was the schedule of the two-day event she was attending, organized by the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation. The event was “dedicated to the 46 million children who have died from legal abortions since 1973 and the mothers and fathers who mourn their loss.” Learned, who had driven five hours from a town outside Youngstown, Ohio, was raised Jewish. She wore a gold Star of David around her neck with a Christian cross inset in the middle of the design. She stood up in one of the morning sessions, attended by about 300 people, most of them women. The speaker, Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., had asked if there were any “post-abortive” women present. The most fervent activists in the pro-life movement have usually had abortions, with large numbers admitting to multiple abortions. Learned runs a small pregnancy counseling clinic called Pregnancy Services of Western Pennsylvania, in Sharon, where she tries to talk young girls and women, most of them poor, out of having abortions. She speaks in local public schools, promoting sexual abstinence as the only acceptable form of contraception. And she has found in the fight against abortion, and in her conversion, a structure, purpose and meaning that previously eluded her. The relentless drive against abortion by the Christian right—the first salvo having been fired with the 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision last month to uphold the federal ban on the procedure known as “partial birth abortion”—has nothing to do with the protection of life. It is, rather, a cover for a wider and more pernicious assault against the ability of women to control their own bodies, the use of contraception and sexual pleasure. The movement openly conflates contraceptives with devices or substances that cause abortion. It holds up as heroes of “conscience” those pharmacists who refuse to sell contraceptives. It works to block over-the-counter sales of Plan B emergency contraceptive pills. It peddles, with hundreds of millions in tax dollars handed to the movement by the Bush administration, abstinence-only sex-ed curricula and opposes a vaccine against the HPV virus, the major cause of cervical cancer, claiming it would promote promiscuity. The denial of contraception, as is well documented, increases the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. And abortion is never going to go away. If it again becomes illegal, the rich, as in the past, will find ways to provide abortions for their wives, mistresses and girlfriends, and the poor will die in unhygienic back rooms. But since this is a war with a wider agenda, abortion statistics and facts do not count. The Christian right fears pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, which it sees as degrading, corrupting and tainted. For many, their own experiences with sex—coupled with their descent into addictions and often sexual and domestic abuse before they found Christ—have led them to build a movement that creates an external rigidity to cope with the chaos of human existence, a chaos that overwhelmed them. They do not trust their own urges, their capacity for self-restraint or judgment. The Christian right permits its followers to project evil outward, a convenient escape for people unable to face the darkness and the psychological torments within them. The leaders of this movement understand that the only emotion that cannot be subsumed into communal life, which they seek to dominate and control, is love. They fear the power of love, especially when magnified and expressed through tender, sexual relationships, which remove couples from their control. Sex, when not a utilitarian form of procreation, is dangerous. They seek to fashion a world where good and evil are clearly defined and upheld by the nation’s judicial system. The battle against abortion is a battle to build a society where pleasure and freedom, where the capacity of the individual and especially women to make choices, and indeed even love itself, are banished. And this is why pro-life groups oppose contraception—even for those who are married. The fight against abortion is the facade for a wider fight against the right of an individual in a democracy. Army of God, a pro-life organization that holds up as Christian “heroes” those who murder abortion providers, defines birth control as another form of abortion, as do many other pro-life groups. In the “Birth Control Is Evil” section of their website it reads: “Birth control is evil and a sin. Birth control is anti-baby and anti-child. ...Why would you stop your own child from being conceived or born? What kind of human being are you?”
Learned’s life, before she was saved, was typically chaotic and painful. Her childhood was stolen from her. She was sexually abused by a close family member. Her mother periodically woke Learned and her younger sister and two younger brothers in the middle of the night to flee landlords who wanted back rent. The children were bundled into the car and driven in darkness to a strange apartment in another town. Her mother worked nights and weekends as a bartender. Learned, the oldest, often had to run the home. She got pregnant in high school and had an abortion.
“My grandfather committed suicide, my mom and my dad both tried suicide, my brothers tried suicide,” she said. “In my family, there was no hope. The only way to solve problems when they got bad was to end your life.” She eventually married, had a born-again experience and began taking classes at Pacific Christian College in Orange County in California. During a chapel service an anti-abortion group, Living Alternative, showed a film called “The Silent Scream.” “You see in this movie this baby backing up trying to get away from this suction tube,” she said. “And, its mouth is open and it is like this baby is screaming. I flipped out. It was at that moment that God just took this veil that I had over my eyes for the last eight years. I couldn’t breathe. I was hyperventilating. I ran outside. One of the girls followed me from Living Alternative. And she said, ‘Did you commit your life to Christ?’ And I said, ‘I did.’ And she said, ‘Did you ask for your forgiveness of sins?’ And I said, ‘I did.’ And she goes, ‘Does that mean all your sins, or does that mean some of them?’ And I said, ‘I guess it means all of them.’ So she said, ‘Basically, you are thinking God hasn’t forgiven you for your abortion because that is a worse sin than any of your other sins that you have done.’ ” The film ushered her into the fight to make abortion illegal. Her activism, like that of many women in the movement, became atonement for her own abortion. She struggled with severe depression after she gave birth to her daughter Rachel. When she came home from the hospital she was unable to care for her infant. She thought she saw an 8-year-old boy standing next to her bed. It was, she is sure, the image of the son she had “murdered.” “I started crying and asking God over and over again to forgive me,” she remembered. “I had murdered his child. I asked him to forgive me over and over again. It was just incredible. I was possessed. On the fourth day I remember hearing God’s voice. ‘I have your baby, now get up!’ It was the most incredibly freeing and peaceful moment. I got up and I showered and I ate. I just knew it was God’s voice.” The fight against abortion is a battle against a culture she and those in the movement despise. It is a culture they believe betrayed them. The rigidity of the new belief system, the sanctification of hatred toward those who would “murder” the unborn or contaminate America with the godless creed of “secular humanism,” fosters feelings of righteousness and virtue. But it also means destroying all competing communities. The sense of entitlement and inclusiveness, brought on by the certitude of belief, is matched by the power of destructive fury. Learned lives in the nation’s Rust Belt. The flight of manufacturing jobs has turned most of the old steel mill towns around her into wastelands of poverty and urban decay. The days when steel workers could make middle-class salaries are a distant and cherished memory. She lives amid America’s vast and growing class of dispossessed, those tens of millions of working poor, 30 million of whom make less than $8.70 an hour, the official poverty level for a family of four. Most economists contend that it takes at least twice this amount to provide basic necessities to a family of four. These low-wage jobs, which come without benefits or job security, have meant billions in profits for corporations that no longer feel the pressure or the need to take care of their workers. But this new American landscape has also bred a profound despair and hopelessness, as well as physical destruction of community that fuels the Christian right. The war to “protect life,” to crush “the culture of death,” is a war against the open society. It is a war to push back the gains in women’s rights, in personal choice, in the power of the individual to form his or her own life. It is a war that seeks to refashion America into a place where external forms of repression, imposed by the government, are used in a bid to contain the brokenness, desperation and emotional turmoil of those Americans whom we, as a society, betrayed. It is, in short, a war of revenge. And until we re-enfranchise these Americans into society, until we give them hope and alleviate the economic and social blights that have plunged them into the arms of demagogues and charlatans who promise a mythical, unachievable Christian paradise and utopia, we will have to face a growing assault on our personal liberties and freedoms. Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.” Previous item: Burns' Documentary Perpetuates the 'Invisible Minority' Next item: The French Bellwether Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. |
The Dream Campaign Goes to Berlin
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By Jaki, July 14, 2007 at 1:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
No one on this planet can say for sure that there IS a “God,” or “Goddess,” or any Supreme Being who either watches over us, or judges us, or creates us, or has anything to do with us (or anything else). There is absolutely no material proof, and anything else is irrelevant.
Some people choose to believe in any number of “dieties” for reasons one might say are due to:
indoctrination…
fear of judgment…
comfort of the rituals…
fear of death…
laziness…
irresponsibility (very hard to take responsibility sometimes for one’s actions, so go to the priest for “absolution")…
fear of the unknown…
egocentricity (no one wants this life to be the only one--somehow one’s “spirit” must survive)…
justification of actions (one can kill in the name of god, allah, or whatever)…
and a million other reasons, including “heavenly rewards,” like your own harem of virgins.
“Religion is the OPIATE of the masses.”
It keeps people down, keeps them from confronting injustice, keeps them PACIFIED, turned into SHEEPLE, not genuinely curious, caring, compassionate human beings. (not to forget it robs you of your money!)
HOWEVER, democracy demands that people can have their religion if they want it..."Freedom OF Religion,” but we rarely hear about the other half of that, which democracy also demands: FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.
In this way, it is imperative that religion or any mention of God, be kept out of government, our schools, political campaigns, health care, the military, and anything else that affects the lives of ALL of the people and is paid for by us (taxes).
Religion (or any kind of “spirituality") should only be a private choice made on a individual basis and should never ever EVER be forced on anyone or given any support by the government or its institutions.
If this becomes the case, as it should, then we won’t have to worry about the fanatics. Let them stew in their own juices. There will be many more of us, now called “atheists,” which really just means we like to stay free from “theisms” and it will lose it’s pejorative judgmental definition, just as will the word “socialism” get separated from “communism” (two entirely different concepts IF YOU ADD THE WORD
“democratic” to socialism) when we figure it out that we need “socialized medicine,” like they have in Canada, France, England, and Cuba, in order to survive.
Every single person who lives in the United States owes it to themselves, their families, and future generations, to do 2 things right now:
1. See Michael Moore’s brilliant indictment of our corrupt medical system--"Sicko"--and take as many friends as you can.
2. Support the IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH AND CHENEY, so that we do not maintain the “Imperial Presidency” they have forced on the country, where future holders of that office can follow precedence set by this current group of thugs in power.
It isn’t just about those personalities (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld)--it is about the power of government, particularly the Executive Branch.
Impeachment is not a diversion from more important things (like the war, etc.). It is THE ISSUE OF OUR TIMES and the crimes committed by Cheney and Bush are exactly what our forefathers meant when they inserted the possibility of impeachment into our Constitution.
Read it!
Writeyour congresspeople! Phone them. Send them postcards. Email them. Tell Nancy Pelosi that she is wrong wrong wrong ON THIS ISSUE and that impeachment MUST be put on the table and NOW!
Report thisBy Jim H., July 13, 2007 at 8:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: 78959
Phyllis Poole
You talk of “God”! Can you describe ‘it”! Can you ‘prove’ ‘it’ ‘is’ or, ‘ever’ existed? No facts? No truth!
There is no excuse for intelligent people to be so ignorant of facts about the charlatan fantasies and make-believe pretenses of religion, that works to undermine the true Democratic principles and unifying influences of our Democratic Society! To promote, propagate, profligate or publish the same pretentious and pompous falsehoods that are the evil tools used by Fallwell, Baker, Haggard, the Pope, and their ilk to brainwash, indoctrinate, brand, and subjugate innocent children and fools so as to use them to gain ever more money, power, and divisive influence, is tantamount to supporting pimping, and prostitution. And, because those charlatans use their evil schemes and lies to control, and enslave those misled ‘bovine-like’ advocates by rendering them ‘virtual’ robots that do their bidding; they are criminals, and all of those supporting them, are criminal cohorts, equally guilty of the crimes they commit against humanity, those fools, and the children.
Report thisThe vast majority of “religious” people were: forced into their ‘belief’! They had no say in the matter, they were imposed upon, brainwashed, and indoctrinated when innocent and defenseless! They were not old enough, wise enough, or informed enough to make a decision, or to determine the value of the information passed to them by elders who, they were taught to obey and were not able to question or contradict! And, generation, upon generation the same methods have been perpetually used and promoted by a big gang of thieves as their victimizing schemes to rob people of their pristine mental facilities and their ability to determine fact from fiction!
Most religious indoctrinated “children” never reach an “age and ability” to recover from the ‘desease’!
‘Religious’ “parents” already mezmerized and ‘indoctrinated’; are the absolute worst ‘indoctrinators’!(because, they have first access to the innocents at the earliest age!)
Religious parents mind’s are warped by the charlatan’s lies and fairytales, and by passing it on, they are naive, unwitting cohorts of the ‘criminal’ charlatans’; and are abetting the spread of the infectious plague-like desease called “Religion”! These “parents” are criminals! They are guilty of ‘branding’ and ‘warping’ the ‘pristine’ minds of the innocent defenseless children and robbing them of the mental acuity they were born with.
Religion’s evil bigotry has relegated all non-religious people and realists, to a lower class ‘infidel’ status.
And, the time has arrived for all ‘Secular’ Organizations, and realists to seriously consider aligning under one ‘banner’ to fight the fight of our lives; to overcome the deadly influences of those religious fanatics who intend to overthrow our once Democratic Government and accede to domination of our society by brainwashing innocent children and fools, infecting them with the plague-like desease called “Religion”
and thus branding and converting them into mezmerized, robot-like monsters, and cohorts, suborned to ever ceaseless efforts aimed at gaining total, and complete control over our entire way of life.
How does the US Government guarantee ‘newborn’ US citizens the “Right” to: “freedom of religion”?
“---U.S.citizens are guaranteed freedom of---religion---” (?) But; how, can the ‘pristine’ acuity of innocent children’s minds possibly survive the corrupting influence of mind-warping religious indoctrination they are unable or free to question or object to?
By Jim H., July 2, 2007 at 8:00 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: 78959
Phyllis Poole
You say “There is a God---”
I say: YOU ARE WRONG! You live in a FAKE WORLD!
You are: (Bigoted) “---selfish, ruthless and also emotionally fanatic.”
FAKE things, like dolls, Santa Claus, Mickey Mouse, make-believe “Creator God”, Porky Pig, Mortimer Snerd and Charlie McCarthy are MAKE BELIEVE! FAIRYTALE! ‘MENTAL CONCOCTIONS’!
If you don’t realize this, you are dangerous to both yourself, and the rest of humanity!
And, anyone who thinks, or ‘pretends’ otherwise, is either an imbercile, an escapee from a ‘Nut house’, or a thieving charlatan seeking to perpetuate the schemes and tricks used to prey on, and enslave innocent children, and fools (like you?), give them ‘inferiorty complexes, and compel them to kneel and plea for ‘grace’ for their “sins” (whatever that means) which often is only granted in return for criminal sexual perversion.
Wake up! And stop lying to yourself! You had better see a Psychiatrist!
Mass/energy never disappear
Ever were ever here!
J.H. 5/8/07
Without something to ‘create! a “so-called “Creator-God” is an impossibel superfluous nonentity!
Conservation of Mass/Energy “E=mc2”
Report this1.The Universe contains an infinite amount of matter and energy.
We cannot create nor can we destroy matter or energy.
2.Matter can be changed in form, or state.
3. Energy can be changed in form.
4. We change matter to energy and energy to
matter never diminishing the totality.
--------------------------------------
THE ORIGIN OF NATURE
Beginning is never found but keep an ear to the ground
Accept the word of a friend there’s no beginning or end
Natures origin for instance is ceaselessness Existence
The worst form of child abuse is warping of the mind!
JH 8/29/06
By purplewolf, June 18, 2007 at 1:13 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
To Phyllis: Study the bible. For condemning killing, God sure did a lot of that. Check out when God was mad at King David for the census and to punish him he killed 70 thousand men-women and children were not mentioned,2 Samuel 24:10-17. The flood in Genesis 8:21, Noah and his progeny and their spouses-the whole world was destroyed- again mass murder and also the promotion of incest as now there a four married couples only left on the planet to repopulate it, and since chriatians do not believe in evolution how do you explain the different races of people on the plante? so there was a lot of inbreeding going on there. Shouldn’t that be a sin. Sodom and Gomorrah,Genesis 19:24-25. Exodus 7 1-14 another planned genocide.
Report thisGod uses people to kill others he is displease with Moses and his loyal followers were ordered to kill about 3000 people in Exodus 32:26-28. Deuteronomy 2: 32-35 and again in Deut. 3 1-4 God orders Moses to kill every man woman and child.
God also uses animals to kill i.e.: 1 Kings 20:35 God sends a lion to kill a man who would not hit another. God sends out his lions to kill a group of strangers to Samaria 2 Kings 17: 24-26. Again in 2 Kings 2:23-24 God sends forth two bears to kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha, a bald man.For a diety who condemns killing he sure had a taste for it. This is only a few examples there are to many to mention here.
Read your bible with an open mind-hard to do for most people and question does this make sense or right or even logical. In most cases the answer is no. Oh yes I was raised in a Christian home, been to many different types of churches professing Christian beliefs, all think they are the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong. And I have studied theology in college. I am not an expert on the bible but I have probably read and researched more of it than most people,as most of them believe everything told to the by however tells them what to believe from a pulpit. A news report show recently talked to people on the street in interviews who those who claimed to be knowledgable christians and when asked simple bible quotes everyone in America has been subjected to in the last 60 years should know they didn’t know. Shows how much the dogma stays in the intellect of the average human.Now there are many more examples you can find, if you take the time to read and research the bible. As you quote” When you can kill or think it is okay to kill another human, that is also an imbalance One that is selfish, ruthless and also emotionally fanatic(al). And lets not forget about all then infanticide either,as that was thought at one time that it pleased God to sacrifice your progeny to HIM. Smile, have a good day, now go grab your bible and start on page 1 old testament-the beginning.
By Phyllis Poole, June 18, 2007 at 9:46 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I read with not knowing where this article was going. It goes from one side to the other and ends with a definite wrong conclusion.
This person has the wrong perception of the world.If one has no perception of God and why we are here, it is dispair. There is a God and some “right wing” people have a fanatical, emotional imbalance, true, but let’s get balanced. There is a God and His 5th commandment says Do Not Kill. When you can kill or think it is ok to kill another human, that also is an imbalance. One that is selfish, ruthless and also emotionally fanatic.
Report thisBy purplewolf, June 8, 2007 at 4:21 pm #
I don’t try to force my views and beliefs onto other people and I don’t appreciate my rights being denied because of your misguided religious view of what you think is reality. I don’t like children, people think that is a crime, why? Being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy is really “forced servititude”, which the late Ronald Reagan tried to say was when you allowed a woman to abort an unwanted fetus. As usual the polititians have it backwards. When a person is allowed to control her own body it is not forced. As usual the people who would deny a woman her own right to self determination then go on to claim that having an abortion is something a woman is forced into, being denied the ability to control your body and to carry an unwanted or defective fetus to term is forced as a woman then has no rights. Remember a fetus is nothing more that a parasite until it is born, it is totally dependant upon the host(mother) for everything it needs and if the hosts body does not have enough nutrition in it, the parasitic fetus takes all it needs first.(True medical and scientific fact about your fetus).
Report thisI had a preemie in 1984, born at six months gestation, 10 days of labor and 96 hours of hard labor and finally a c-section. The baby weighted 2 lbs. 4 oz. and lived just under 10 weeks. He was infected with yeast in his blood from the medical staffs lack of universial techniques in cleanliness. We were told that the medicine to cure him would absolutely kill him, but that if we told the doctors “no “,the goverment would come in, declare us unfit parents and give the medicine to the baby, even though they knew it would kill him, which is what happened. We had no rights to even make a choice to refuse this treatment. If you think your children are yours, think again. A few months later, in 1985, a woman called me on the phone wanting me to sign an anti-abortion petition to try to stop all abortions. I don’t know who she was or how she got my phone number. I was polite, but I told her that I believe in abortion in certain situations and told her my problems with the whole 6 month pregnancy I just went thru, the expermentation,(which is what it was at the time medically) my preemie went thru and told her that if I were ever to get pregnant again with similar complications I would not hesitate to have an abortion as I would never put another baby thru that type of torture. It was between me, my doctor and husband and that if her God felt I were to suffer all eternity for an abortion, so be it. She didn’y know what to say.
I wish they would make laws to allow people no more than 3 children as they do disrupt neighborhoods, and cause a lot of problems more often than not.Why don’t these pro-lifers adopt the excess bi-racial children that many do not want of the mentally and physically challanged that no one wants first. We do not need all this excess of unwanted people( babies) as we cannot take care of the ones alredy here. When there is to much of anything it has no value as it is commonplace and not a rarity, humans fit that catagory. We need to have quality people, not a quanity. Every baby does not come into the world a wanted baby, many will lack basic medical care, proper housing, enough food, and many are neglected, abused and mistreated. It is in every newspaper somewhere in this country on a daily basis we hear about the way babies are being murdered for crying to much, or it threw up on me, it soiled it’s diaper, and other numerous excuses for this treatment. There have been several cases of a baby being killed in my area alone. Not what’s better, to have a baby to beat it to death or to abort a fetus, which one do you think feels the most pain?
By gncarlo, May 20, 2007 at 12:27 am #
“Undifferentiated tissue mass”?
Another perspective, from a Roman Catholic who, referring to AIPAC and Congress, coined the phrase “Israel’s Amen Corner”, thereby getting himself fired as editor of National Review, once America’s foremost conservative magazine, and now neo-con rag. Click on the box in the lower left-hand corner. I doubt that it will change anyone’s mind, still....
http://www.sobran.com:80/columns/index.shtml
Report thisBy Jaki, May 18, 2007 at 11:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Clutter?” What an understatement.
Next question: Relevance to the article under discussion?
Next question: What business do men have even discussing what women do with their bodies, or coopting the discussion to suit their own intellectual preferences?
Shades of the 60s when women left the male-dominated left to organize on our own behalf and have conversations relevant to that struggle.
Report thisBy gncarlo, May 18, 2007 at 11:28 am #
Oh, regarding the “convictions” of the “religious, Right” are you quite sure that they are not for show? I note the photos of Dubya visiting the wailing wall in Israel, wearing a yarmulke. Does that sound like a convinced Protestant? Also, there were Jews “praying” with him. Yet, the Talmud says that a Jew who prays with a Gentile commits an abomination. Go figure…
Report thisYou made the remark that I had made some “clever arguments” seeming to imply that I am trying to “trick you” or “trip you up.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Do you often suspect that someone who has a different world-view must harbor sinister motives? I am always interested in picking the brains of people whose conclusions differ from mine and who can discuss things in a civil manner. I feel I am enriched by the exchange of ideas and experiences. We can’t always agree but we can stretch our minds in different directions than if we spend our lives “preaching to the choir.”
You seem to have firm reasons and/or rationalizations for your beliefs about “how the world should be.” I agree, to some extent. I can think of a number of reasons why I “should” win the lottery.
However, I think I function a little better than I used to, by trying to understand the world the way it is, not the way it “should be.”
Having heard each other out, I don’t think that either of us is going to change the other’s opinions, on this topic, at least. And, yes, I will, in the future refer to you as “ITW” rather than “Windy” There was no disrespect intended. Just whimsy. Your screen name is rather long and, being old, I get bored and tire easily from all the typing.
I am vaguely familiar with the Scopes “Monkey” Trial. Many years ago, I read HL Mencken’s piece on it. Some humorous descriptions about the participants and regional inhabitants. I think that was where I got the line about “from those remote marches where the peasants handle snakes and sleep in their underwear.” Mencken was outrageously funny, a prolific and insightful writer. Unfortunately, about 1937, he made some complimentary remarks about Hitler putting everyone to work, with actual labor shortages in Germany, while four years of Roosevelt’s New Deal resulted in even more people unemployed or selling apples. Angry Jewish publishers and newspaper syndicators boycotted him and he gradually receded from the public arena.
“ Life is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel"- Oscar Wilde.
Regards
By gncarlo, May 18, 2007 at 11:23 am #
< “OK, here you are mixing apples and gorillas. Individuals being rude is entirely different than an organized philosophy to change laws and intimidating people by design into silence.” >
Report thisI haven’t noticed many of the Feminists being “intimidated into silence.”
And “organized philosophies” don’t change laws; people do. And those people listen to the other people who shout the loudest and who can furnish their reelection campaigns with the most money. I don’t believe for a second that the Bible Belt can bring to bear more than a small fraction of the money available to Hollywood and the “professionally compassionate” Left, for funding political campaigns. Not to mention who controls the “bully pulpit” of Major Media.
<"Lots of people seem to be able to function in democracies where they have to accept that sometimes they rule, sometimes the other side does.” > I don’t know what planet you come from but, the last time I looked, in federal elections, most of the time, the moneyed establishment hand-picked two multimillionaire lawyers for the voters to choose from, “empty suits” yawping about “freedom” , “democracy” , “the future lies ahead” and “if elected, I promise to serve.” They certainly don’t represent or even consider my wishes and interests. If the number of people who don’t vote is any marker, I am not alone in my views. < “And the wisest (unlike the moron we have in the White House) understand that a vocal, but loyal opposition is what keeps those ruling on their toes and, well, honest.” > Did I hear you right, “honest”? If I fall off this chair laughing any more, I’d better get a seat belt. <"But the Christo-fascists want to seriously stifle dissent....” >Only one of a number of interest groups similarly disposed. Do the posts by most of the “pro-choicers” give you the impression they are open to other’s views. Come on, you are clearly an intelligent person. Try to move beyond the fog of ideology.
By gncarlo, May 18, 2007 at 11:16 am #
<"First off, you’ll get nowhere with me arguing the propaganda about “partial birth abortions” which isn’t even a medical term and, in fact, mis-represents the actual procedure. The doctor is performing a (still) legal procedure, and due to medical complications must take an alternate path and perform the unpleasant extraction.">
Report thisI believe I used the term “late-termers” which I take to mean the third trimester. If you mistook that for “partial-birth” abortions, perhaps I should have been more clear. Since I don’t know the nuances of the procedure you describe, I am not qualified to discuss it with you, and don’t have sufficient interest or time at the moment to dig deeper. Like I have said repeatedly, it is not my issue, and I don’t have an ax to grind. I am here to learn, principally by asking people why they believe what they believe.
You repeated my line about “whales and puppy dogs” being non-topical. I think it is topical. You thoroughly discuss what you see as the woman’s “needs,” the doctor’s integrity, etc, etc. But you nowhere address the interests of the life which is being terminated. For example, you do not directly address the rest of the statement:
“Make no mistake about it; fetuses do feel pain and are viable often months before birth. They (late-termers) no doubt die agonizing deaths drowned in saline solutions or having their brains sucked out with a hypodermic syringe.” Is this life not even worthy of comment? Why do you pass over this in silence?
I will note in passing , though, that using “a (still) legal procedure” as a justification is probably not wise. One could note that in parts of the world, it is still “legal” to buy and sell human beings, as well as to stone them to death for adultery or homosexuality. In Europe, it is illegal for Gentiles to question any part of the jewish “Holocaust” story, however much that may evolve from day to day. Thus, since the plaque at Auschwitz that states 4 million were gassed there has been taken down and replaced with one that says 1.1 million, the official “Holocaust” story line remains fixed at 6 million Jews. Thus, in Germany, the law says that, where the jews are concerned, 6-3 =6 is the “historical truth” as decreed by political courts. If you disagree publicly, you may go to prison. As a judge in Mannheim famously said to Ernst Zundel: “The truth is no defense”!
Consequently, that something is “legal” does not make it right, fair, just, or even logical.
By gncarlo, May 18, 2007 at 11:10 am #
<” First, let’s make a distinction: Israel is a nation. When Congressmen go to another nation as Congressmen, yes it’s all-expense paid. It’s supposed to be a fact-finding official trip. They are, theoretically (ouch!) acting as statesmen (don’t laugh TOO loud!)">
Report thisWell, it’s a sign of hope when even you realize the preposterousness of some of your positions. Many of these trips are junkets paid for by AIPAC, not fact-finders funded by the State Department. When asked where the borders of the nation of Israel were, both Golda Meier and Ariel Sharon were said to have replied: “Israel is wherever a Jew is.”
<” George Bush sure as hell doesn’t own my life or my body, and he’s gotten far too many killed for no good reason."> Try to hold down the rhetorical flourishes. You are smart enough to know that, in reality, he (well, his “minders") do own your life and body.
And you are smart enough to know Dubya didn’t just wake up some morning with an actual idea: “let’s bomb Iraq.” He is simply a compliant ‘goy’, a speech reader. Or as Lenin called them: “useful idiots.”
< “ “Are there any documented speeches by Falwell or Robertson endorsing these Catholics before they were appointed to the Supreme Court? } “
Actually, yes.">
I am not questioning your integrity but am not going to let you off that easily. Perhaps you could post some links? I would be astonished to see a direct quote from Falwell or Robertson supporting the nomination of a Roman Catholic to the SC.
<” This is actually a clever argument and I had to think about it. First off, you immediately jump to the conclusion that every MD performing abortions is doing it for the $$$.">
I didn’t mean to appear “clever.” I am sure $$$ are a very real consideration. It would not take a terribly talented doctor to perform this procedure. It’s not like they had to diagnose some mysterious illness. There are obviously no shortage of customers. And if the taxpayers can have the costs rammed down their throats, regardless of their own views, he or she has a guaranteed payday. You ARE aware that doctors are often accused of ordering unnecessary surgical procedures, for strictly financial reasons. <"I just went to 2 different opths to get evaluated--the first came up with a way to do it despite me being a lousy candidate--good for $7000 in fees for him. The 2nd said “No” too many risk factors for me. What protects me from the first?” > Exactly. And if the abortionist is taken out of the decision-making loop, except in the case of valid emergencies, then there can be no questions about his motives, right?
<"So with close examination the implication of your argument makes no sense."> Only if you consider a fetus not a human being, which was the issue I raised in my very first post on this thread. <"Procedures need to be reviewed by other MDs when there is a MEDICAL need to do so, not a political or religious one. “> I consider a fetus a human being long before actual birth, although not quite sure where in my own mind, thus, to me, it would be a political issue as well. Politics’ alleged reason for being is to arbitrate conflicts between human beings, even those who can’t speak for themselves. I guess, given our different definitions of what constitutes a human being, we will have to agree to disagree.
By Inherit The Wind, May 18, 2007 at 3:13 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Moderators:
Please delete my posts 70715 and 70716.
I was having troubles submitting and these duplicates of 70713 are the result. There’s enough clutter in this thread without the dups!
Thanks!
ITW.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 8:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
{“If you were simply dealing with Truthdig’s extreme slowness to process and post entries, and not simply repeating the same argument as a mantra then I apologize for criticizing you on that count.”
Sir, I thank you for at least remaining more civil (so far) than some of your fellows. While calling me an “asshole” or saying that I am a chimp about to commit murder at the behest of my “controllers” (whatever the hell that means) doesn’t particularly bother me, it doesn’t improve my understanding of the issues either.
With reference to your point, I will repeat that I reposted one post once after changing a few words for what I assumed might be offensive to the censors. Why would you repeat your complaint about that, as a mantrum, except as a putdown (“mantrum” is the singular; “mantra” is the plural, which would be inaccurate as you used it) ? And how would that help either of us gain any understanding of the other’s positions? }
OK.
{“However, whenever I hear about “AIPAC” as the driving force as the conspiracy controlling America, all I hear is another anti-semite.”
Again, if you want to know who holds real power, ask who it is you may not criticize. A moment’s reflection will remind one of what sets the Media’s attack dogs in a frenzy. AIPAC and the Lobby is a driving force, the principle, but not the only driving force. I would also include, among others: armaments manufacturers; some, but not all, oil- related companies; and, the authors of all modern wars, the money lenders to statist organizations on both sides in these conflicts, who reap the harvests of all chaos and conflict. Of course, these groups are not all strictly defined and isolated entities. Many of the elites belong to more than one of these subsets.
Oh, and I would remind you that the ruling elites of Israel are Ashkenazim, not the semitic “People of the Book.” “Semite” refers to a language group which is mainly, although not entirely, composed of Arabs. If we are not to rewritethe language to suit our current political fashions, it would be accurate to say that Israel and AIPAC are the premier “anti-semitic” organizations in the world. I do freely admit to sympathizing with the Arabs and being angered by the largely-unacknowledged genocide currently being carried out with our tax money and in our names. However, I freely admit to being an anti-Zionist. I don’t see how anyone with an IQ above room temperature and the least bit of compassion for their fellow-human beings can do other than to speak out against these ongoing atrocities in the Middle East. BTW, if it is “free speech” to refer to the “Christian Right” or “Christo-fascism”, is it still “hate speech” to refer to the “Jewish Left“ ? And if so, would not that be a clue as to who holds real power in Washington? }
Oh, please! Yet again “It’s those damn Jews who are running everything!” I can’t believe an intelligent man like you buys that garbage. AIPAC is a PAC, but this pure NONSENSE about Israel running the US is absurd. It’s more like the other way around. Plus, given the way Israel has been run since Rabin’s murder, it looks like the same incompetents running US foreign policy is running Israeli foreign policy. I agree that the big oil and mil-indus has far, far too much influence over our Republican leaders.
I do not understand why the “anti-Zionists” decry bigotry in Israel, the most democratic state in the Middle East but ignore the vile bigotry in her Arab neighbors. Nothing Israel has done in 60 years compares to what Sudan has done in the last 10.
“Anti-Semite” means hatred of Jews the way “American” means US Citizen, and not Canadians, Mexicans, Argentinians or Bolivia.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 8:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
{“If you were simply dealing with Truthdig’s extreme slowness to process and post entries, and not simply repeating the same argument as a mantra then I apologize for criticizing you on that count.”
Sir, I thank you for at least remaining more civil (so far) than some of your fellows. While calling me an “asshole” or saying that I am a chimp about to commit murder at the behest of my “controllers” (whatever the hell that means) doesn’t particularly bother me, it doesn’t improve my understanding of the issues either.
With reference to your point, I will repeat that I reposted one post once after changing a few words for what I assumed might be offensive to the censors. Why would you repeat your complaint about that, as a mantrum, except as a putdown (“mantrum” is the singular; “mantra” is the plural, which would be inaccurate as you used it) ? And how would that help either of us gain any understanding of the other’s positions? }
OK.
{“However, whenever I hear about “AIPAC” as the driving force as the conspiracy controlling America, all I hear is another anti-semite.”
Again, if you want to know who holds real power, ask who it is you may not criticize. A moment’s reflection will remind one of what sets the Media’s attack dogs in a frenzy. AIPAC and the Lobby is a driving force, the principle, but not the only driving force. I would also include, among others: armaments manufacturers; some, but not all, oil- related companies; and, the authors of all modern wars, the money lenders to statist organizations on both sides in these conflicts, who reap the harvests of all chaos and conflict. Of course, these groups are not all strictly defined and isolated entities. Many of the elites belong to more than one of these subsets.
Oh, and I would remind you that the ruling elites of Israel are Ashkenazim, not the semitic “People of the Book.” “Semite” refers to a language group which is mainly, although not entirely, composed of Arabs. If we are not to rewritethe language to suit our current political fashions, it would be accurate to say that Israel and AIPAC are the premier “anti-semitic” organizations in the world. I do freely admit to sympathizing with the Arabs and being angered by the largely-unacknowledged genocide currently being carried out with our tax money and in our names. However, I freely admit to being an anti-Zionist. I don’t see how anyone with an IQ above room temperature and the least bit of compassion for their fellow-human beings can do other than to speak out against these ongoing atrocities in the Middle East. BTW, if it is “free speech” to refer to the “Christian Right” or “Christo-fascism”, is it still “hate speech” to refer to the “Jewish Left“ ? And if so, would not that be a clue as to who holds real power in Washington? }
Oh, please! Yet again “It’s those damn Jews who are running everything!” I can’t believe an intelligent man like you buys that garbage. AIPAC is a PAC, but this pure NONSENSE about Israel running the US is absurd. It’s more like the other way around. Plus, given the way Israel has been run since Rabin’s murder, it looks like the same incompetents running US foreign policy is running Israeli foreign policy. I agree that the big oil and mil-indus has far, far too much influence over our Republican leaders.
I do not understand why the “anti-Zionists” decry bigotry in Israel, the most democratic state in the Middle East but ignore the vile bigotry in her Arab neighbors. Nothing Israel has done in 60 years compares to what Sudan has done in the last 10.
“Anti-Semite” means hatred of Jews the way “American” means US Citizen, and not Canadians, Mexicans, Argentinians or Bolivia.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 8:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
{“If you were simply dealing with Truthdig’s extreme slowness to process and post entries, and not simply repeating the same argument as a mantra then I apologize for criticizing you on that count.”
Sir, I thank you for at least remaining more civil (so far) than some of your fellows. While calling me an “asshole” or saying that I am a chimp about to commit murder at the behest of my “controllers” (whatever the hell that means) doesn’t particularly bother me, it doesn’t improve my understanding of the issues either.
With reference to your point, I will repeat that I reposted one post once after changing a few words for what I assumed might be offensive to the censors. Why would you repeat your complaint about that, as a mantrum, except as a putdown (“mantrum” is the singular; “mantra” is the plural, which would be inaccurate as you used it) ? And how would that help either of us gain any understanding of the other’s positions? }
OK.
{“However, whenever I hear about “AIPAC” as the driving force as the conspiracy controlling America, all I hear is another anti-semite.”
Again, if you want to know who holds real power, ask who it is you may not criticize. A moment’s reflection will remind one of what sets the Media’s attack dogs in a frenzy. AIPAC and the Lobby is a driving force, the principle, but not the only driving force. I would also include, among others: armaments manufacturers; some, but not all, oil- related companies; and, the authors of all modern wars, the money lenders to statist organizations on both sides in these conflicts, who reap the harvests of all chaos and conflict. Of course, these groups are not all strictly defined and isolated entities. Many of the elites belong to more than one of these subsets.
Oh, and I would remind you that the ruling elites of Israel are Ashkenazim, not the semitic “People of the Book.” “Semite” refers to a language group which is mainly, although not entirely, composed of Arabs. If we are not to rewritethe language to suit our current political fashions, it would be accurate to say that Israel and AIPAC are the premier “anti-semitic” organizations in the world. I do freely admit to sympathizing with the Arabs and being angered by the largely-unacknowledged genocide currently being carried out with our tax money and in our names. However, I freely admit to being an anti-Zionist. I don’t see how anyone with an IQ above room temperature and the least bit of compassion for their fellow-human beings can do other than to speak out against these ongoing atrocities in the Middle East. BTW, if it is “free speech” to refer to the “Christian Right” or “Christo-fascism”, is it still “hate speech” to refer to the “Jewish Left“ ? And if so, would not that be a clue as to who holds real power in Washington? }
Oh, please! Yet again “It’s those damn Jews who are running everything!” I can’t believe an intelligent man like you buys that garbage. AIPAC is a PAC, but this pure NONSENSE about Israel running the US is absurd. It’s more like the other way around. Plus, given the way Israel has been run since Rabin’s murder, it looks like the same incompetents running US foreign policy is running Israeli foreign policy. I agree that the big oil and mil-indus has far, far too much influence over our Republican leaders.
I do not understand why the “anti-Zionists” decry bigotry in Israel, the most democratic state in the Middle East but ignore the vile bigotry in her Arab neighbors. Nothing Israel has done in 60 years compares to what Sudan has done in the last 10.
“Anti-Semite” means hatred of Jews the way “American” means US Citizen, and not Canadians, Mexicans, Argentinians or Bolivia.
Phew!! That was a lot of work posting all that. How about YOU make one post’s point, then I’ll make one? OK?
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 7:57 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
{“ Christo-facism has a very strong hold on the US. It has forced people like McCain and Guiliani to make pilgrimages to such hate-mongers as Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson. In the last 26 years it has placed four of the five Catholic justices on the Supreme Court. It was those five Catholic men, who, following the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, decided they know more about medicine and OB-GYN than trained doctors.”
The previous paragraph is another wonderful example of hyperbolic propaganda which, upon analysis, shrinks to absurdity.
#1. While virtually all congressmen, with the notable exception of the remarkable Ron Paul of Texas, have enjoyed well-documented all-expense paid trips to Israel, I would be dubious about similar claims of visits to your alleged “hate-mongers” I recall a few years back about someone, maybe Bush I, Clinton, or even Newt, making a speech at Oral Roberts University, which banned interracial dating at the time. As I recall, the media attack dogs required him to recant and apologize profusely to the PC gods. So, I just doubt there are very many pols eager to make widely-publicized visits to these Christian groups. I would be curious as to just who and over what time-frame have made such “pilgrimages.” }
First, let’s make a distinction: Israel is a nation. When Congressmen go to another nation as Congressmen, yes it’s all-expense paid. It’s supposed to be a fact-finding official trip. They are, theoretically (ouch!) acting as statesmen (don’t laugh TOO loud!) When they go to LBU, or Oral Roberts, or Bob Jones it’s purely as politicians grooming votes, usually to keep the Religious Right loyal or from being too vicious. Let us not forget that the late, little-lamented Falwell consulted monthly with President Idiot. He had access to the President.
{#2. I am not a Christian. I fancy myself an agnostic. However, I know a little about Baptists, who are said to be the prime suspects in the “hate-monger” category. The Missus has several sons, one of whom is a rising star among Baptist preachers nationally, as well as assorted former in-laws who practice this particular set of delusions. A few of them have made efforts to proselytize me, but I have let them know that I am no more interested in their peculiarities than in those of the “cargo cult” of New Guinea. However, one thing I have noticed that is a constant in all our conversations. That is that they refer to the Pope as the Anti-Christ. So, I conclude they would just as soon see Satan on the Supreme Court. For this reason, the argument that Fallwell, Robertson, et al have, in the last 26 years, placed four Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court sounds like a piece of propaganda written by some PC propagandist with no knowledge of the differences within the Christian community. I could be wrong, but I would like to see some proofs other than the word of their political enemies. Are there any documented speeches by Fallwell or Robertson endorsing these Catholics before they were appointed to the Supreme Court? }
Actually, yes. And when they didn’t their shills in the Senate did. The Abortion issue was milked rather brilliantly by Falwell et al to make common cause with Catholics. The 5 Catholic Justices strike the “right” balance between true Catholicism and the positions of the Christo-fascist right. Common Cause.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 7:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
{“That unambiguously implies that she does not unconditionally own her own uterus. There is no way you can get around that. If her ownership of her uterus is not unconditional, including the right to evict the “occupant”, then the rest of my argument still follows. If her uterus is not unconditionally hers, then it is not hers. Since it is part of her body there is then no restriction on claiming that other parts of her body don’t belong to her either, ie, her body is not hers. “
Not trying to get around anything. Do you unconditionally own your own body, if the draft board comes for it? Do you own your house unconditionally? Try refusing your property taxes and see what happens? If I own my hands and they are capable of strangling someone, does that give me the right.....the possibilities are endless. The point is that this “unconditional” business is opinion, not fact. And, in the real world, differences of opinion often end up in wars and horse races. }
Well, I’m old enough to remember the draft, but we haven’t had one for many years. I had a draft card and all, 1-A, but they only drafted 19 year olds and I turned 18 and got the card the year the draft finally ended. I am convinced that the draft violates the 14th Amendment, clearly. George Bush sure as hell doesn’t own my life or my body, and he’s gotten far too many killed for no good reason.
{“Since we generally have come to the position in America that legally men and women are equivalent (let’s ignore the differences that do exist as irrelevant).. “ Oh, really? You apparently haven’t spent much time in divorce courts. One might also reflect upon what percentage and to what degree women who have been proven to have made false rape accusations have been held legally accountable. }
A different argument for a different day. One thing is clear: both are legally persons.
{“..... then we must assume nobody owns his or her own body.” True; I realistically assume that whoever has control of the guns, clubs, and jail cells owns our bodies. }
No, they don’t. They are the ultimate thieves. That is why our criminal laws must be consistent, non-political and sacrosanct. And when they are not, you have the Inquisition.
{“Either that or we are re-establishing that men are somehow superior to women solely because they don’t have uteruses and do have penises.” How does this logically follow? }
If men own their bodies and women don’t, then men are legal persons and women aren’t. But if all are legal persons then either both men and women own their bodies, or they don’t.
{“If we don’t own our bodies, then we are living under tyranny.” No argument with that conclusion. }
Report thisThanks!
By Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 7:52 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Secondly, we come back to the point of whose body is it, anyway? As for your question about compassion for whales and puppy-dogs, the same can be said about the anti-abortionists who don’t give a damn about the slaughter in Darfur, about the crisis in adoption in America, or that in the richest nation on earth, millions go to bed hungry every night while others are allowed to amass obscene amounts of wealth from failure. But that is also a tangent.
{"When you talk about the “occupant” of the woman’s uterus, you make it sound like it’s an apartment.” I have no control over what free associations you make with my words. }
Gncarlo, I’ve come to realize that you are far too smart to expect to get away with that. In fact, you precisely picked those words to make it sound that the woman’s womb is simple that: a domicile. Pretty effective too.
{“You STILL insist that the “rights” of that occupant supercede the woman’s. “ I think you have me confused with someone else. I have more than once stated that I have no problem with abortion where the fetus is severely damaged and/or unlikely to remain viable outside the womb without extreme and continuous medical intervention. My proviso was that this should be determined by competent medical authorities other than the abortionist, who has a fiduciary interest in performing the procedure. I would also have no problem with abortion where the hard choice is between the life of the mother and the child . But, again, I think that, where time is available, competent medical authorities should be called in to determine that such an “emergency “ really exists. ]
Report thisThis is actually a clever argument and I had to think about it. First off, you immediately jump to the conclusion that every MD performing abortions is doing it for the $$$. Actually, there are safer and better ways to make money, even in OB-GYN--who wants to get shot? The argument about fiduciary interest applies to just about every doctor in America. Opthamologists saw cataract surgeries getting simpler and cheaper, and were dying to get laser surgery. I just went to 2 different opths to get evaluated--the first came up with a way to do it despite me being a lousy candidate--good for $7000 in fees for him. The 2nd said “No” too many risk factors for me. What protects me from the first? Nothing more than my own suspicions.
So with close examination the implication of your argument makes no sense. Procedures need to be reviewed by other MDs when there is a MEDICAL need to do so, not a political or religious one.
By Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 7:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Gncarlo:
I’ll see how many points I can discuss. You make some good ones.
Let’s start at the beginning: If you don’t like being called names, don’t call me names like “Windy”. “Inherit The Wind” is the name of the GREAT dramatization of the Scopes trial where Clarence Darrow showed the world that you don’t teach The Bible in science class, you teach science. It also is from The Bible “He who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind. And the fool shall be servant to the wise in heart”. If you want a shorthand, use ITW, please.
{"Since it is the Christo-fascists driving the anti-abortion, anti-birth control movements, I infer that they want tyranny.” Who doesn’t? Power corrupts. }
Lots of people seem to be able to function in democracies where they have to accept that sometimes they rule, sometimes the other side does. And the wisest (unlike the moron we have in the White House) understand that a vocal, but loyal opposition is what keeps those ruling on their toes and, well, honest. But the Christo-fascists want to seriously stifle dissent because they “know” since they believe they have God’s word. There is a serious difference between Western Democracy see-sawing and Taliban-like demands for conformity.
{“ They do try to suppress criticism, and in many places succeed....... I find the late Jerry Fallwell’s philosophy to be no essentially different than the Taliban’s. You belong to the state and no deviation will be tolerated.”
Oh please! The first thing that I noticed when I came to this thread was the relative civility of the pro-Life people who were soon driven from the page by the foul-mouthed insults and bigotry of many, although not all, on your side of the argument. This is one of the most vicious and insulting bunches of people that I have ever witnessed. Much of it has been ideological proclamations backed up by vile four-letter words. Note that I do not so far include you in this. }
OK, here you are mixing apples and gorillas. Individuals being rude is entirely different than an organized philosophy to change laws and intimidating people by design into silence. Plus you do not address the fact that Falwell did everything possible to prevent opposing arguments from being made, not just disproving them.
{My position remains that the decision to make the baby’s leaving the birth canal the point at which it has some rights that the authorities need protect, even from the mother, is an arbitrary judgment based on assumptions which science have long since proven invalid. Make no mistake about it; fetuses do feel pain and are viable often months before birth. They (late-termers) no doubt die agonizing deaths drowned in saline solutions or having their brains sucked out with a hypodermic syringe. Why do people who show great compassion for whales or puppy-dogs dismiss concerns about this as “bigotry”?
Report this“In an age of universal deceit, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act."- Orwell }
First off, you’ll get nowhere with me arguing the propaganda about “partial birth abortions” which isn’t even a medical term and, in fact, mis-represents the actual procedure. The doctor is performing a (still) legal procedure, and due to medical complications must take an alternate path and perform the unpleasant extraction. It’s not in and of itself a choice of convenience. Despite the USSC’s ruling I believe most medical experts in the field of OB-GYN would argue that the alternative path mis-named “partial birth abortion” is ONLY done when it’s a medical necessity to preserve the physical health or life of the mother.
By gncarlo, May 17, 2007 at 12:20 pm #
“Since it is the Christo-fascists driving the anti-abortion, anti-birth control movements, I infer that they want tyranny.” Who doesn’t? Power corrupts.
Report this“ They do try to suppress criticism, and in many places succeed....... I find the late Jerry Fallwell’s philosophy to be no essentially different than the Taliban’s. You belong to the state and no deviation will be tolerated.”
Oh please! The first thing that I noticed when I came to this thread was the relative civility of the pro-Life people who were soon driven from the page by the foul-mouthed insults and bigotry of many, although not all, on your side of the argument. This is one of the most vicious and insulting bunches of people that I have ever witnessed. Much of it has been ideological proclamations backed up by vile four-letter words. Note that I do not so far include you in this.
My position remains that the decision to make the baby’s leaving the birth canal the point at which it has some rights that the authorities need protect, even from the mother, is an arbitrary judgment based on assumptions which science have long since proven invalid. Make no mistake about it; fetuses do feel pain and are viable often months before birth. They (late-termers) no doubt die agonizing deaths drowned in saline solutions or having their brains sucked out with a hypodermic syringe. Why do people who show great compassion for whales or puppy-dogs dismiss concerns about this as “bigotry”?
“In an age of universal deceit, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act."- Orwell
By gncarlo, May 17, 2007 at 12:17 pm #
“When you talk about the “occupant” of the woman’s uterus, you make it sound like it’s an apartment.” I have no control over what free associations you make with my words.
Report this“You STILL insist that the “rights” of that occupant supercede the woman’s. “ I think you have me confused with someone else. I have more than once stated that I have no problem with abortion where the fetus is severely damaged and/or unlikely to remain viable outside the womb without extreme and continuous medical intervention. My proviso was that this should be determined by competent medical authorities other than the abortionist, who has a fiduciary interest in performing the procedure. I would also have no problem with abortion where the hard choice is between the life of the mother and the child . But, again, I think that, where time is available, competent medical authorities should be called in to determine that such an “emergency “ really exists.
“That unambiguously implies that she does not unconditionally own her own uterus. There is no way you can get around that. If her ownership of her uterus is not unconditional, including the right to evict the “occupant”, then the rest of my argument still follows. If her uterus is not unconditionally hers, then it is not hers. Since it is part of her body there is then no restriction on claiming that other parts of her body don’t belong to her either, ie, her body is not hers. “
Not trying to get around anything. Do you unconditionally own your own body, if the draft board comes for it? Do you own your house unconditionally? Try refusing your property taxes and see what happens? If I own my hands and they are capable of strangling someone, does that give me the right.....the possibilities are endless. The point is that this “unconditional” business is opinion, not fact. And, in the real world, differences of opinion often end up in wars and horse races.
“Since we generally have come to the position in America that legally men and women are equivalent (let’s ignore the differences that do exist as irrelevant).. “ Oh, really? You apparently haven’t spent much time in divorce courts. One might also reflect upon what percentage and to what degree women who have been proven to have made false rape accusations have been held legally accountable.
“..... then we must assume nobody owns his or her own body.” True; I realistically assume that whoever has control of the guns, clubs, and jail cells owns our bodies.
“Either that or we are re-establishing that men are somehow superior to women solely because they don’t have uteruses and do have penises.” How does this logically follow?
“If we don’t own our bodies, then we are living under tyranny.” No argument with that conclusion.
By gncarlo, May 17, 2007 at 9:59 am #
“ Christo-facism has a very strong hold on the US. It has forced people like McCain and Guiliani to make pilgrimages to such hate-mongers as Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson. In the last 26 years it has placed four of the five Catholic justices on the Supreme Court. It was those five Catholic men, who, following the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, decided they know more about medicine and OB-GYN than trained doctors.”
Report thisThe previous paragraph is another wonderful example of hyperbolic propaganda which, upon analysis, shrinks to absurdity.
#1. While virtually all congressmen, with the notable exception of the remarkable Ron Paul of Texas, have enjoyed well-documented all-expense paid trips to Israel, I would be dubious about similar claims of visits to your alleged “hate-mongers” I recall a few years back about someone, maybe Bush I, Clinton, or even Newt, making a speech at Oral Roberts University, which banned interracial dating at the time. As I recall, the media attack dogs required him to recant and apologize profusely to the PC gods. So, I just doubt there are very many pols eager to make widely-publicized visits to these Christian groups. I would be curious as to just who and over what time-frame have made such “pilgrimages.”
#2. I am not a Christian. I fancy myself an agnostic. However, I know a little about Baptists, who are said to be the prime suspects in the “hate-monger” category. The Missus has several sons, one of whom is a rising star among Baptist preachers nationally, as well as assorted former in-laws who practice this particular set of delusions. A few of them have made efforts to proselytize me, but I have let them know that I am no more interested in their peculiarities than in those of the “cargo cult” of New Guinea. However, one thing I have noticed that is a constant in all our conversations. That is that they refer to the Pope as the Anti-Christ. So, I conclude they would just as soon see Satan on the Supreme Court. For this reason, the argument that Fallwell, Robertson, et al have, in the last 26 years, placed four Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court sounds like a piece of propaganda written by some PC propagandist with no knowledge of the differences within the Christian community. I could be wrong, but I would like to see some proofs other than the word of their political enemies. Are there any documented speeches by Fallwell or Robertson endorsing these Catholics before they were appointed to the Supreme Court?
More later.....
By gncarlo, May 17, 2007 at 9:41 am #
Windy,
“If you were simply dealing with Truthdig’s extreme slowness to process and post entries, and not simply repeating the same argument as a mantra then I apologize for criticizing you on that count.”
Report thisSir, I thank you for at least remaining more civil (so far) than some of your fellows. While calling me an “asshole” or saying that I am a chimp about to commit murder at the behest of my “controllers” (whatever the hell that means) doesn’t particularly bother me, it doesn’t improve my understanding of the issues either.
With reference to your point, I will repeat that I reposted one post once after changing a few words for what I assumed might be offensive to the censors. Why would you repeat your complaint about that, as a mantrum, except as a putdown (“mantrum” is the singular; “mantra” is the plural, which would be inaccurate as you used it) ? And how would that help either of us gain any understanding of the other’s positions?
“However, whenever I hear about “AIPAC” as the driving force as the conspiracy controlling America, all I hear is another anti-semite.”
Again, if you want to know who holds real power, ask who it is you may not criticize. A moment’s reflection will remind one of what sets the Media’s attack dogs in a frenzy. AIPAC and the Lobby is a driving force, the principle, but not the only driving force. I would also include, among others: armaments manufacturers; some, but not all, oil- related companies; and, the authors of all modern wars, the money lenders to statist organizations on both sides in these conflicts, who reap the harvests of all chaos and conflict. Of course, these groups are not all strictly defined and isolated entities. Many of the elites belong to more than one of these subsets.
Oh, and I would remind you that the ruling elites of Israel are Ashkenazim, not the semitic “People of the Book.” “Semite” refers to a language group which is mainly, although not entirely, composed of Arabs. If we are not to rewritethe language to suit our current political fashions, it would be accurate to say that Israel and AIPAC are the premier “anti-semitic” organizations in the world. I do freely admit to sympathizing with the Arabs and being angered by the largely-unacknowledged genocide currently being carried out with our tax money and in our names. However, I freely admit to being an anti-Zionist. I don’t see how anyone with an IQ above room temperature and the least bit of compassion for their fellow-human beings can do other than to speak out against these ongoing atrocities in the Middle East. BTW, if it is “free speech” to refer to the “Christian Right” or “Christo-fascism”, is it still “hate speech” to refer to the “Jewish Left“ ? And if so, would not that be a clue as to who holds real power in Washington?
Out of bandwidth; more in a minute....
By Inherit The Wind, May 16, 2007 at 4:03 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
gncarlo,
If you were simply dealing with Truthdig’s extreme slowness to process and post entries, and not simply repeating the same argument as a mantra then I apologize for criticizing you on that count.
However, whenever I hear about “AIPAC” as the driving force as the conspiracy controlling America, all I hear is another anti-semite.
Christo-facism has a very strong hold on the US. It has forced people like McCain and Guiliani to make pilgrimages to such hate-mongers as Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson. In the last 26 years it has placed four of the five Catholic justices on the Supreme Court. It was those five Catholic men, who, following the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, decided they know more about medicine and OB-GYN than trained doctors.
Christo-fascism does not include all Christians, or even all Catholics. But fundamentalist Southern White Baptists and Catholics parallel each other in many ways. Anti-abortion and anti-sex are two of them. Of course, Catholicism differs now that the late Pope John Paul II made opposing the death penalty a Catholic tenet. Therefore murdering women’s health clinic doctors is also a no-no for Catholics.
When you talk about the “occupant” of the woman’s uterus, you make it sound like it’s an apartment. You STILL insist that the “rights” of that occupant supercede the woman’s. That unambiguously implies that she does not unconditionally own her own uterus. There is no way you can get around that.
If her ownership of her uterus is not unconditional, including the right to evict the “occupant”, then the rest of my argument still follows. If her uterus is not unconditionally hers, then it is not hers. Since it is part of her body there is then no restriction on claiming that other parts of her body don’t belong to her either, ie, her body is not hers.
Since we generally have come to the position in America that legally men and women are equivalent (let’s ignore the differences that do exist as irrelevant) then we must assume nobody owns his or her own body. Either that or we are re-establishing that men are somehow superior to women solely because they don’t have uteruses and do have penises. I hope you agree that such a society is fundamentally unjust.
So, unless we go back to women as chattel and only men as persons, we are stuck: Either we own our bodies or we don’t. There’s no other path. If we do own them, then there can be no legal reason to prevent a woman from having any abortion she wants and can afford. If we don’t own our bodies, then we are living under tyranny.
Since it is the Christo-fascists driving the anti-abortion, anti-birth control movements, I infer that they want tyranny. They do try to suppress criticism, and in many places succeed. It’s just harder to do it in cosmopolitan cities like NYC or L.A. I find the late Jerry Fallwell’s philosophy to be no essentially different than the Taliban’s. You belong to the state and no deviation will be tolerated.
Report thisBy gncarlo, May 16, 2007 at 12:15 am #
Rudeness is the Weak’s substitute for Power. -anon
Report thisBy Jaki, May 15, 2007 at 12:36 pm #
LOGICIAN LOGICIAN LOGICIAN!!! Heed your words to me.
Ignore the ignoramus! He is a VAMPIRE, sucking our time and energy to no good, except to fill his blood-sucking, mind-less, heart-less empty cavern.
If that last pseudopsychiatric response isn’t a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what else it might be. It is laughable. He is laughable, but I’m personally not going to waste another ounce of my energy in DIRECT combat with that sorry, sick asshole.
There are so many more important things to say about this critical issue, and many others (check out the TRUTHDIG article by Scott Ritter--quite a conversation going on there about the war and the New World Order, etc.).
I think G has been adequately exposed. Thank you and others for that. Actually, he did a pretty good job on his own.
peace
Report thisBy gncarlo, May 15, 2007 at 11:53 am #
I am sure the world will some day give you all proper recognition in “exposing” me; I am told the lines are open at Art Bell every night. Perhaps they can work you in right after the gentleman who says he is the Lindbergh baby. Moving on,
you might want to check out these symptoms from the DSM, see if they remind you of anyone. If I were religious, I would pray.
Paranoid Schizophrenia
Report thisCauses
The causes of schizophrenia are still under debate. A chemical imbalance in the brain seems to play a role, but the reason for the imbalance remains unclear. We do know that you’re a bit more likely to become schizophrenic if you have a family member with the illness. Stress does not cause schizophrenia, but can make the symptoms worse.
Signs/Symptoms
Schizophrenia usually develops gradually, although onset can be sudden. Friends and family often notice the first changes before the victim does. Among the signs are:
Confusion
Inability to make decisions
Hallucinations
Changes in eating or sleeping habits, energy level, or weight
Delusions
Nervousness
Strange statements or behavior
Withdrawal from friends, work, or school
Neglect of personal hygiene
Anger
Indifference to the opinions of others
A tendency to argue
A conviction that you are better than others, or that people are out to get you
Care
Drugs such as Thorazine, Haldol, and Risperdal combat symptoms in 4 out of 5 patients. An acute attack usually can be cleared up in 4 to 8 weeks. Counseling and group therapy help recovering patients to understand the disease and to function effectively.
Risks
Without medication and therapy, most paranoid schizophrenics are unable to function in the real world. If they fall victim to severe hallucinations and delusions, they can be a danger to themselves and those around them.
By Logician, May 15, 2007 at 10:04 am #
Re# 70074 by gncarlo on 5/15:
Embarrassed, aren’t you? Knowing you have NO DEFENSE against the truth, you resort to the USUAL Christian passive/aggressive slimy sh*t: “Sir, I don’t mean to sound unkind, but...”
Are you kind? NO! YOU are the HATERS of humanity! “Man is born of sin and must be born again or he WILL BURN IN HORRIBLE AGONY FOREVER!!!” You arrogantly sit in judgement upon women and state they have NO RIGHT to make decisions in their own lives because YOU KNOW BETTER!
With my own eyes I have seen Christian church-goers almost sexually fondling their semi-automatic weapons while they recite the heaven-sent moral mandate they are on to “cleanse the world of sin.”
I’ve seen you a thousand times, heard your filthy hatred vomited from from a thousand mouths, and I know you. So I have exposed you for what you are on this site and you react EXACTLY as always, with passive/aggressve hate-filled hypocrisy. Why? Because someone knows you are a hypocrite filled with woman-hatred incapable of independent thought and has exposed you. So you condescendingly smile and state I must need help because I don’t think like you.
In that you are correct: I think, you do not. Simple as that. Because IF you did think, you wouldn’t feel you have the right to tell women what to do in their own lives and you wouldn’t believe in fairy tales.
Remember, gncarlo, it is CHRISTIANS who kill pregnant women trying to get abortions, it is CHRISTIANS who kill the doctors who perform LEGAL procedures on women who have the LEGAL right to make decisions regarding their own bodies. It is CHRISTIANS who are HATE-FILLED PSYCHOS in need of professional help. But of course your controllers conditioned you well to use this twist of argument in order to appear “caring” and “love-filled.”
It’s a lie, like ALL words and pretensions of Christianity, so you can drop the facade.
Report thisBy gncarlo, May 15, 2007 at 8:07 am #
Logician: “These chimps have been well conditioned (can’t say trained, that would imply capabilities simply not present in these atavisms) to sound just like humans......Make no mistake, they would kill you in a second if secular laws did not protect you. This is NO exaggeration. Chris Hedges has told me NOTHING I have not witnessed with my own eyes. These people are dangerous.....The ones with the most teeth are chosen to repeat the lies of their controllers. They are repeatedly conditioned to look, act, and talk human enough to fool all but the most astute. But in time they will devolve right in front of your eyes and you will see that they are nothing but highly conditioned, dange