By (O)CT(O)PUS
June was a terrible month for women’s rights in several key states. Last week, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed into law the most contentious anti-abortion restrictions to date:
- Defines a fetus as developing from the “moment of conception” in contrast to the more medically accurate “moment of implantation;”
- Starves Planned Parenthood of federal dollars and redirects those funds to other priorities;
- Allocates funds for counseling women on alternatives to abortion (based on medically inaccurate information);
- Cuts funds to any rape crisis center that mentions abortion as an option;
- Requires doctors to perform a medically unnecessary ultrasound prior to performing an abortion;
- Mandates all abortion clinics to enter into a transfer agreement with a hospital, but not a public hospital (thus putting women at risk at a time when emergency services may be needed the most).
Shall women take these legislative abuses lying down? Not according to Vivian Norris who is calling for a Lysistrata-style sex boycott of men who vote against the rights of women:
Don't give in if your man, boyfriend, husband, toyboy is not voting for your best interests, your reproductive health -- do not sleep with that man …
Do not make him dinner, do not go fetch him a cold beer from the fridge, do not iron that shirt, hell, do not change that diaper... do not make his life a little nicer this summer if he does not "get it" and learn to respect women!
Dear Mr. Eightarms:
ReplyDeleteI see only one, tiny problem with your prescription. Men, without any help from their GOPerp overlords, have been lyin' to the ladies since time immemorial. A mere, "I didn't support that!", is hardly sufficient. I think that requiring that they put bumper stickers on their 4x4's or ATV's; wear t-shirts and hats emblazoned with and stand in front of the state house carrying signs with the legend:
"I support a woman's right to choose! And I don't support some uptight male asshole's right to not lose control over a woman's freedom of choice".
Certain parties who comment here might say that this applies to only the first 20 weeks of a woman's pregnancy. They are wrong.
DC,
ReplyDeleteHere's the way I look at it: Every Republican loss is a Democrat's gain (snicker).
Oh,yeah, I'm with you on that. In my neck of the woods there are might be a "target rich environment", so to speak.
DeleteThese are the same governors who feel their gods tell them to protect fertilized ova, while at the same time they feel comfortable in cutting off unemployment insurance and thwarting the ACA, which actually helps those babies who are born. Without a doubt, their draconian laws are for controlling women and their sex lives. I'm counting the days until Kaisches of this country pass a law to keep women from voting. They're certainly trying to do it for other minorities.
ReplyDeleteI sure that 1) this comment may not get posted, 2) if it doesn't that's certainly okay by me, and 3) some of this is over the top, 4) it totally escapes me why both extremes in this emotionally overheated debate prefer to talk (read scream) at each other rather than using reason to calmly work through the issues and arrive at a reasonable and workable compromise that works for the majority of women.
ReplyDeleteSomewhere between 20 and 23 weeks should work with language to deal with unusual but occasionally occurring situations.
I have posted on this issue at my site and the far right is as unreasonable as the far left.
Oy Vey is all I can say.
") it totally escapes me why both extremes in this emotionally overheated debate prefer to talk (read scream) at each other rather than using reason to calmly work through the issues and arrive at a reasonable and workable compromise that works for the majority of women."
DeleteIt totally escapes you because you have no fucking idea what it's like to be a woman, pregnant or barren. If you had some legislators in your state push through a law that said you had to have an invasive procedure (say a catheter up your penis) before you could HAVE a vasectomy, maybe then you'd have some notion of what it's like to be a woman who has a pregnancy that she wants to terminate--for any reason whatsoever. Maybe when they start throwing men who father children, then abadon them, in jail until their child is of legal age; when they start castratibg rapists, in public; when they start putting a telescope up the ass of every RWAMRA fuckwad that works to pass such laws as the one proposed in Texas, then MAYBE, I think those pieces-of-shit care about beings instead of scoring politica points. Fuck them.
Grow a uterus, get pregnant, have issues with your pregnancy--THEN you get to decide what's right for women re: controlling what goes on in their own bodies.
" Maybe when they start throwing men who father children, then abadon them, in jail until their child is of legal age; when they start castratibg rapists, in public;..."
DeleteDon't believe I've ever disagreed with that one democommie. In fact I know I haven't.
The rest of your rant is just that, a fucking rant. I used the f-word specifically because you are so fluent in it's use.
"Grow a uterus, get pregnant, have issues with your pregnancy..."
Don't need to democommie, aside from the little fact it is not possible for me to do so I do understand the issues. I also understand there are ways to both protect women through reasoned legislation that allows for the situations you refer to as well as protecting the viable developing baby.
What I call for is REASON and UNDERSTANDING. Something most reasonable people understand and support. yon democommie OBVIOUSLY do not fall into that category.
No I do not support the use of ridiculous procedures pre viability, nor to I support the gutting of PP or closing down clinics that meet all health standards and are staffed by qualified physicians, nurses, and other staff.
Nor am I so naiver that I fail to recognize that some of the legislatures and states you are referring to are taking measures that are intended to place undue hardship on women pre viability of the fetus. I get it, so get the fuck (using that word again because you understand it so well) off your high horse and come down to earth democommie
Your belligerent Alinsky style tactics and your unwillingness or inability to have a reasonable discussion is simply amazing.
What I believe you REALLY MEAN to say is 'fuck them until they agree with and enact every fucking (using the word again for the same reasons) thing I want into law, including late term partial birth abortion. If I'm incorrect please accept my apology. As I will yours if it is offered.
Part of the reason why there is so little middle ground between the anti and pro-choice factions is that Roe vs Wade WAS the compromise. As soon as that was settled, the anti-choice side started screaming about how the pro-choice side would not compromise and bend. We bent, we compromised, and 40 years later we are at life begins at conception and women need to be violated with foreign objects (vaginal ultrasounds) as punishment for having the temerity to not want to have a child.
DeleteEnough is enough. There has to be a line in the sand, or pretty soon government will be so small it fits into every woman’s vagina.
The reality is what hurts the GOP nationally actually benefits the majority of House Republicans:
ReplyDeleteWhether the issue is immigration and or women's rights....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/01/wonkbook-house-republicans-do-the-math-on-immigration-reform/
As Tip O'Neill said, "all politics is local..."
Which probably explains why the Republicans are focused more on state races rather than national races; with gridlock in Washington the Republicans can have a field day on the state and local level.
RN: "...it totally escapes me why both extremes in this emotionally overheated debate prefer to talk (read scream) at each other rather than using reason to calmly work through the issues and arrive at a reasonable and workable compromise that works for the majority of women."
ReplyDeleteI understand what you're suggesting. But think about this. By encoding into law the 20 week cutoff for an abortion, that then puts the government in the position of forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy--against her will. The people who yell the loudest about government intrusion into people's lives are the same ones who would support this intrusion into girls' and women's lives.
So then, what about writing all the exceptions into the law? Will that law be able to cover all the exceptions? Can the people who write the law anticipate every single situation that threatens the pregnant woman after 20 weeks? I don't know, do you? Does anyone? This is why a reasonable position, IMO, is to leave the decision up to the woman, her partner, and her doctor.
When two rights are in conflict, which right prevails? The one a bunch of lawmakers decide on, for ultimately, it is lawmakers who will make the decisions, not ob-gyns, who do NOT support the cutoff for reasons these states do--fetal pain--because the ob-gyn position is that there is no clear evidence now that can prove when the fetus feels pain.
As for those who say they are concerned with protecting innocent life, I'll believe they're sincere when they support sick leave for working mothers and fathers to care for their sick babies and children; when they support food stamps to feed babies and children whose mothers and fathers don't make enough money to do so; when they support the ACA that makes coverage possible for sick babies and children with pre-existing conditions; and when they make contraception part of every health plan's coverage so that abortions will be rare. The same people who pompously state innocent lives need to be protected are the same people who have thwarted or are against all of those that I listed above.
I see their efforts on abortion as controlling women and shaming them.
A government that can force a girl or women to continue a pregnancy can also force a girl or woman to have an abortion.
Nope, I've thought about it enough, for years.
DeleteWhen and if my reply to democommie is released consider it my response.
A free society should always come down on the side of free choice in all issues. Forcing other people to live by other people's beliefs, is not what America is about. We are about protecting other people's choices, even if we disagree with that choice. Measure freedom by how many choices a person has.
DeleteHere's another example of why the government shouldn't be outlawing abortion:
ReplyDeleteSANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — The case of a pregnant 11-year old girl who was raped in Chile by her mother’s partner has set off a national debate about abortion in one of the most socially-conservative countries in Latin America.
Chileans were outraged on Friday after state TV reported that the girl is 14 weeks pregnant and was raped repeatedly over two years. Police in the remote southern city of Puerto Montt arrested her mother’s partner, who confessed to abusing the fifth grader. The case was brought to their attention by the pregnant child’s maternal grandmother.
Doctors say the girl’s life and that of the fetus are at high risk. But in Chile, ending the pregnancy is not an option.
Chile allowed abortions for medical reasons until they were outlawed in 1973 by Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship. The current government of conservative President Sebastian Pinera has opposed any loosening of the prohibition."
RN and all,
ReplyDeleteArbitrary gestation cutoffs as defined in law - whether 20 weeks, 24 weeks, or any weeks - cannot account for late-term fetal abnormalities that threaten the life of the mother, as examples:
Bacterial infections (life-threatening)
Birth defects (list here)
Genetic disorders and chromosomal aberrations
Maternal diabetes
High blood pressure (eclampsia can be life-threatening)
Placental abruption (separation of the placenta occurs in 1% of pregnancies and is a significant cause of maternal mortality worldwide)
Umbilical cord abnormalities
I find it especially hypocritical of conservatives and libertarians to rail against BIG GOVERNMENT on the one hand and subsequently pass oppressive anti-abortion legislation that ignores the practice of medicine, ignores science, ignores the health of the mother, and violates fairness in the legislative process (note: women are often barred from testifying before all-male sub-committee hearings).
What gives you, or any male for that matter, the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. It's an affront to common decency.
"What gives you, or any male for that matter, the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body."
DeleteThat would be religion. I know I've driven away people with my views on the evils thereof and yes, I know not every religious person is a jerk, but it's hard to deny that religion is all about giving power over our bodies and our thoughts to an invisible peremptory power. It's inevitable that this makes so many feel that they have a right to enforce this power on others since god itself doesn't do or say anything, being imaginary.
Irrational Nation-of-one-pants-wetting-liebertardlican:
ReplyDeleteYou don't fucking get it, do you?
You DON'T have a vagina. You CAN'T get pregnant.
What you can do and have demonstrated in every comment on this subject is think that your amorphous and arbitrary definition (or anyone else's) of what a human is, is what should define a woman's right, under U.S. law, to control her own body. What is, moron? it is your FUCKING OPINION; it's not the definition of "human" under U.S. federal law, douchebag. Nor is abortion considered "murder" anywhere in this country--although idiots like you would be happy to see it defined as such.
If you think that a 23 week old fetus is a human being and you don't try to prevent it's murder, then you're a coward. If you're simply making shit up, then you're a republican, and a dickhead.
Does this really rise above ranting, taunting, name calling and profanity? I don't think so and I thought I deleted this once already.
DeleteYou are right, Captain. Comments should deal in facts, not personal attacks.
DeleteDear Mr. Octo:
DeleteNot if only one side is dealing in facts.
Rational Nation is neither. You know as well as I do that his premise is bullshit. It's not based in anything other than his personal bias or his party’s talking points. He claims to be a libertarianish sortaguy. He doesn't want gummint to get into HIS life, but it's okay for gummint to get into a woman's BODY. It's bullshit.
Then he goes all weepy when he's called out.
"Oh, and democommie, speaking of dickheads.
I'm outta here."
So, it's okay for him to use an "offensive" term because others already did?
I've taken to copying my comments of late because a number of them HAVE been deleted in the last several months. It's particularly ironic that Capt. Fogg is less afraid of being killed by some moron with a gun than he is of having someone "offended" by my or anyone else's language. First Amendment, boys--yeah, I know this is a private place, blah, blah, blah--and it is your perfect right to do whatever the hell you like in terms of moderation. Hell, I moderate comments; for two reasons, spam and gunzloonz assholes' comments. Neither will see the light of day at my blog, not because I find them personally offensive but because they are a waste of time for anyone else to read. My position on gunzloonery are well known to anyone who's been to my blog or any blog on which I comment that has gunzloonztrollz. There's plenty of gunnzloonz blogz out there for them to fingerpaint with their own feces, I don't need to give them a "bully pulpit" (and I do mean "bully"). And, spam? well, wtf? Anyone else can say anything they want with two caveats--no threats, specific or otherwise (especially as a means of intimidation) and they have to be actually talking about something that is germane to the thread.
Just don't forget that the fuckwad RWA's depend on being able to shame angry people into keeping silent. It works quite well for them, they get to be hateful racist, misogynistic, xenophobic asshats but, because they don't say, "Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker and Tits."* they have the "moral high ground"? Ive seen some pretty good blogs shut down by the haterz (many of whom, btw, are much, much worse than I am re: insults and "attacks"); I've never seen one shut down by "foul language".
(continued in following comment)
FreeThoughtBlogs is a sterling example of how a group of blogs function vis-Ã -vis their various comment policies. The ones that moderate for "language" and "personal attacks” (calling an asshole, an "asshole"--or something similar) tend to not get nearly as varied and interesting a group of commenters.
DeleteYou folks have a pretty nice blog and that's one of the reasons I never really wanted to post here, I draw gunzloonz sometimes and that's unfortunate for the rest of the readers. I genuinely like the majority of your posts and wish you well but I am leaving and when I leave a blog I pretty generally stay gone. You're all welcome at my place with the exception of Irrational Nutjob who has had his feelings hurt and is never coming ba...., oh, wait, what's this?
"I prefer an apology, then I MIGHT consider a single malt scotch."
Apologize? Not fucking likely, give you a single malt--asking for a "single malt scotch" indicates a tyro, btw--? not unless I run it through my kidney's first and pour it over your headstone.
This:
"...but unless these thugs are locked forever in hot and tight cages, waterboarded, tubes crammed down their throats and screamed at day and night for the rest of their lives, justice will not have been done..."
btw, is not 'zackly INOFFENSIVE to anyone who has had a friend or loved one murdered while attempting to do their job as a LEO. Just sayin'. OTOH, all cops are pieces-of-shit thugs and goons to some folks. I know that I’ve met some that were massive assholes; then again, I’ve known a number of them who were pretty decent people trying to do a shitty job, well, for an unappreciative bunch of morons. But, yeah, I can see lumping them all together, forever. The Las Vegas PD is fucked, no doubt about it, but suggesting that the guys who did what they are accused of doing should be punished forever, under horrible conditions, well, that’s pretty much raw emotional, limbic shit.
I do, Capt. Fogg, support your right to say it, though—here OR at my blog, as long as it’s got something to do with the thread that it’s on.
Run this or don't, it will be up at my blog, and after a week or so, I'll remove you from my blogroll so that foul-mouthed contrarians like me won't be coming to bother you.
Cheers.
"Then he goes all weepy when he's called out."
DeleteAnd so you tearfully follow in close order. Look, If you think you're not out of line, you lose the right to sneer at my hyperbole and please stop extending it further by putting words in my mouth in order to make it seem like I'm saying something you wish I were saying so that you'd have an argument. I never said all cops were pigs and I don't feel that way at all. I'm decrying the fact that we stand by, we ignore or at least praise this sort of thing with faint damnation. Are you being a least a little precious by dismissing my anger and standing up for your right to call someone a dickhead because you disagree with someone? You don't have a uterus either, yet you don't think you're being presumptuous just a wee bit?
If you need a synopsis, the point of it was that we're letting our protection against a government overstepping its bounds go by the board because we're buying into the culture of fear. We're letting a government do as it pleases here and abroad because we're letting certain forces convince us that we're all in terrible and imminent danger and if there's bullshit on the floor here -- that's a good part of it.
"raw emotional, limbic shit. "
DeleteWhy of course it is and I hoped someone reading it might understand the sort of thing rage does to one's character, be he cop or civilian -- me or you. But of course by lumping every boy scout, every triathlon participant, every cop, soldier, hunter, farmer and off-the-grid subsistence settler or antique collector into what you call "gunloonz," smells a hell of a lot like hypocrisy to me, if not some rather shoddy disputation. Just sayin'
I'm also just sayin' that it's funny how you say so much about the peaceable kingdom that surely ensues from de-clawing all the cats while making such angry attacks. I'll take a peaceable man with a gun over a wildman with sticks and stones any day, but that's just me.
I've been chastised for going overboard in this group. I'm prone to occasional vulgarity, but I do recognize it as cheap.
Just sayin'
On second thought democommie I would not accept an appology if you did the right thing and offered one.
DeleteAs for hurt feelings, LMAO! My feelings do not get hurt easily, and ESPECIALLY not by the likes of you.
For the record, it is you who is emotional, unhinged, and irrational. Have you heard of mirrors? Never mind, I know the answer.
As for bullshit, you're full of it. But of course because I don't sit in your choir and smile and not 100% approval of your position I'm irrational. Since that is your criteria I am honored by your statement.
Here's the thing democommie, I DGAF what you think. So, FO.
It is obvious no one has bothered to read my position and understand what I am saying. Perfectly okay by me.
ReplyDeleteOh, and democommie, speaking of dickheads.
I'm outta here.
RN,
DeleteMy apologies. I think the Captain is right in his approach to comment moderation. The rant should have remained deleted (like comments from the troll who has been stalking you lately).
What gets into the Octopus sometimes, I don't even know myself. Perhaps, I have a tendency to be more easy-going than I should - with the thought that somehow everyone ends up friends even after a heated debate. Sometimes comment moderation requires a stronger hand - like the Captain's for instance.
Republicans in the panties of your wife/girlfriend/daughter/sister, Republicans in their vaginas, Republicans under their beds, Republicans in their private business, Republicans everywhere!
ReplyDeleteJust when you thought a Republican nose up your genitalia pertained only to women, now Republicans want stick their noses into every man’s asshole (Will Texas try to pass Erectile Dysfunction Laws next?):
“Should the transanal ultrasound show that the prostate gland is enlarged, then the legislature should clearly mandate that a prostate biopsy be performed immediately. Men, by legislative decree, may not refuse this procedure. It is for this reason that prescribing ED drugs and transanal ultrasound procedure be performed only in approved surgical clinics. This should decrease male access to health care to approximately that of Texas women’s access.”
Octopus will not mince words: Republicans better keep their pricks out of my business or else there will be bricks instead of ink, as in: “What is the sound of two bricks clapping your balls?” Or how about 8 powerful tentacles squeezing your testicles!
Attention all men: If the idea of the government buggering your asshole makes you squirm, then think about the offence to women when government sticks an ultrasound up their vaginas. Get the point now !!!
DC,
DeleteSee, it is possible to make a point without personal attacks against a fellow blogger. Now shake hands and try to be friends. Better yet, offer RN a beer.
I prefer an apology, then I MIGHT consider a single malt scotch.
Delete