Terrorism is alive and well in Kansas.
Imagine if men were able to bear children. Then imagine that man being raped and conceiving. There would not be a moments hesitation among other men if he said that he did not want that child in him. And abortion would be free, safe, and legal in all of the world. If men could be controlled with their sex.
In the current world, women are controlled and put in burquas, stoned in some countries for disobedience, and expected to give birth once every 1.5 years for their adult lives or until the complications of childbirth kill them.
So in America, women broke their yokes and decided that it is not right that I should have to die to retain my control over my life.
Providing abortions is about women's health, both physical and mental. Some women cannot give birth and need to be aborted. Some women would sufffer mentally if forced to caregive for a child, we are not all natural mothers. Some women are retarded and sexually abused and need to be aborted. Some women are raped by strangers and cannot emotionally survive feeling that rape grow in their womb. Every abortion has a reason, some better than others.
And I would love to see a world where abortion is not happening, as I love my boy and all children.
But the realities of being a woman are more complicated than that. And so abortions will happen, whether in a safe clinic, or a back alley, or a sudden fall from the stairs, or poisoning yourself just enough, or getting kicked in the gut by the unwilling father.
Abortion is something that happens to women's bodies. The baby inside doesn't have a right to be there. Women have a right to have what they choose inside their bodies when they choose, no caveats. Your body, your decision about what happens to, in, or on it.
If Groder were able to be pregnant, he would think so, too. But since he will never actually have a dog in this fight, he felt it right to kill someone who actually believes that women should remain free and legal in america, because that is actually what abortions provide, freedom of choice to give up your life for your child. Because unless you give it up, the next 18 years of your life are no longer in your control once you have a child. And lucky for the human race, most women man up and do it.
I wish I could convince all women to peacefully protest men's rights to our wombs by refusing to get pregnant for one year. All of us, everywhere. I think that would drive the point home for men that they should be grateful for us for ever giving birth, taking that risk and responsibility, rather than punishing the few of us that just can't do it. Just imagine, no babies at all for one full year. All the sex you want, but no babies. Now that would be reproductive freedom driven down barren men's throats. I wonder if the zealots would finally get it that it is not just about the choice to NOT have a child, it is about the choice TO have a child, period.
Tiller was a hero. The man that shot him just put a name and a face on the debate. He just created a martyr.
And he is lucky that Kansas, unlike him, doesn't kill people any more.
if men were women
for just one day of their lives
we would ALL have rights
And the unborn would have less to worry about.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
fingerlakeswanderer
zanelle
Are You Talking French?
Greer McVay
bluestocking babe
Brent Troth
Salon.com
Comments
1. Killing is not murder. You can kill a deer and it does not cosntitute murder.
2. This is murder......–noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
3. You say.......Providing abortions is about women's health, both physical and mental.
The statistics say 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
I am all for woman having the choice but let's not distort the facts.
2. This killing was murder with malice aforethought.
3. There are no statistics on how many women kill themselves because they bore children. Unwanted children are not being done any favors when women who don't want them are forced to bear them. What are the statistics on physical abuse towards children that the mother would have aborted if not for social pressure to keep it.
4. Statistics are the cowards way of arguing points.
But let's not get carried away with this "right to choose" concept. The fact is that women have many opportunities, prior to the emergence of a baby from the womb, to exercise it. Let's start with the spreading of legs that occurs roughly nine months prior to the birthing one. After that, months go by when a woman can exercise this sacred right to choose. Absent incredibly unique circumstances, I see no reason why women shouldn't be required to act responsibly while a life is forming within them. You don't have to pro-life to require adult behavior when dealing with near-children. Kill them early or not at all. Is that asking too much?
But comment here, as that is a very old post.
And you are a fool who has never and will never be pregnant. You do not understand the issue, as it is not somehting that can happen to you, obviously. Perhaps you should not speak on it.
If he were a muslim with the same history, he would be water boarded by now to get to his connections and co-conspirators.
Yeah. It's terrorism. Only women are the targets, so rightous men ignore it. I live in fear of the bad old days much moreso than I live in fear of planes.
Since men cannot have babies, perhaps the same caveats should apply. But that would be stupid, now wouldn't it?
Perhaps a little more intellectual rigor should be applied. All people should be able to speak on the subject, but only the people subject to the consequences should be allowed to vote on it. But that also would be stupid, as such coherent thoughts would be lost!
Or maybe we should allb e allowed to speak, freedom should be the rule of law, and people faced with the problem could make personal decisions with the assistance of their physicians for a healthy outcome. Amazing what nine white men could come to agreement on...and surely abortion had not touched even one of their lives, being pure rational responsible men and all. How I would love to know the details of the reproductive lives of those men on the court when that ruling was made, because those facts surely did not make it into the comments, as it should be.
ePriddy
June 01, 2009 09:13 AM
Facts, like the truth, can sometimes hurt.
I am married to a statistician by trade and training. He can "prove" anything you like with numbers, charts, and graphs to back it all up.
His job title was once "Data Processing Specialist". It meant he could make any numbers look like any conclusion, in four color separation appropriate for poster size presentation.
When people start spewing statistics, I start looking for data and usually find bullshit.
Your reliance on stats instead of reasoned argument leaves you lacking in your debating skills. Realizing that quoting stats makes you appear weak-minded is step 1 to your recovery on the road to being worth arguing with.
This is a fallacy in logic sometimes called the "Appeal of Large numbers".
Also Known as: Biased Statistics, Loaded Sample, Prejudiced Statistics, Prejudiced Sample, Loaded Statistics, Biased Induction, Biased Generalization
Description of Biased Sample
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner. It has the following form:
Sample S, which is biased, is taken from population P.
Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:
X% of all observed A's are B''s.
Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.
The fallacy is committed when the sample of A's is likely to be biased in some manner. A sample is biased or loaded when the method used to take the sample is likely to result in a sample that does not adequately represent the population from which it is drawn.
Biased samples are generally not very reliable. As a blatant case, imagine that a person is taking a sample from a truckload of small colored balls, some of which are metal and some of which are plastic. If he used a magnet to select his sample, then his sample would include a disproportionate number of metal balls (after all, the sample will probably be made up entirely of the metal balls). In this case, any conclusions he might draw about the whole population of balls would be unreliable since he would have few or no plastic balls in the sample.
What I don't understand is where this hatred of men is coming from. In case you hadn't noticed, the Rowe v. Wade court did not consist only of women.
And Rowe was a good decision, but it clearly held that the states have a right to require women to act prudently in exercising the right to choose.
And yet you say that it's your choice from conception to birth. To let a life develop within you knowing that you can take your time on a decision to abort right up to the point of birth strikes me as incredibly callous and insensitive. I also think it's born of hatred for men, including, most particularly the one who impregnated, who of course has no rights whatsoever in the world you inhabit. Sad.
"I would hope that being a woman my judgments will more often than not be better than a man's." Sound familiar?
But my body belongs to me first, ALL of the time.
Sandra O'Connor was the first woman and Wade happened in 1973. You are incorrect. Appeals happened after women joined the court, but dudes made the decision. Those are actual facts.
Here is the problem with your thinking coach, Rush: he screens his callers. So no one gets through in the hours each day that you listen to him unless they are obviously inarticulate debaters on the other side or they already agree with him. You get the idea that he is some kind of Wile E Coyoute super genius and spout his arguments like they were manna from heaven, because he is manipulating you so that you think that, for hours every day. That is called brainwashing.
Hit the rinse cycle already, you are done.
That's "incorrect"? You accuse others of being brainwashed, but you're clearly in the spin cyle.
And how is the impregnator going to take care of the fetus if you, with Dr. Tiller's highly compensated help, make a preemptive strike?
It consisted solely of men.
And the impregnator's complete inability to care for the fetus unless it is incubated in a woman is precisely my point.
I must have touched a nerve with that Rush comment because I could feel your frothing at the mouth through the interwebs.
Why don't you just go play with your little friends for a while now. As Barbara Bush said to Al Franken, "I am done with you."
And the use of large number in argument is a specific fallacy. Good debaters don't use them for that reason. Statisticians will be the first to tell you that comparative data is so easily manipulated, as to render it unreliable as a basis for any specific argument for or against anything.
So, yeah, I stand by that remark.
I am just wondering how or why my pottery making skills are involved in my political opinions. Or why someone with a post about not making personal posts went straight there when their arguments failed to meet the sniff test.
I think there's a simple way of creating parity in this situation - sign a law that says that since men cannot carry babies, they are all a pool of involuntary organ donors for women, who can. If that seems unfair, well... one possible solution would be for all people to shut the hell up about what they have the right to tell other people to do with their bodies.
However, two points:
A rubberless male can be refused by the female until he becomes a rubberized one.
Also, condoms are not the only birth control device available. Others can be employed by women who have, at least, equal responsibility in the life-creating process.
I don't know where the notion that I was critizing Priddy's pottery skills comes from. At first I just used the reference in order to identify her. But now that the issue has risen, I must say that the pots do look a bit like turds.
His words are like the little turds floating in an unflushed public toilet, horrifyingly grotesque.