If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   Columnist asks "are the Republicans running on a platform of keeping women barefoot and pregnant?" Also wonders if bears crap in the woods, if the Pope is Catholic   (seattlepi.com) divider line 104
    More: Obvious, Republican, Popes  
•       •       •

1327 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Feb 2012 at 11:56 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-22 12:43:15 PM
For some reason, I can wrap my head around their arguments for being pro-birth. I can follow their reasoning on wanting traditional households, and wanting to turn back the clock on the sexual revolution. I think it's pants-on-head stupid, but I can understand it.

What truly appalls me is their obvious dedication to spreading misinformation about birth control, abortion, and women's health in general. The morning-after pill is not an abortifacent. Abortions do not impact future fertility. I am getting sick and tired of having to correct these deliberate falsehoods so that the people GOPers claim to represent don't come to harm through their ignorance.

I can understand social conservatism, but I am disgusted by their willingness to mislead the public.
 
2012-02-22 12:45:33 PM

abb3w: ...OK, I'm a little curious. The crowd on Fark tends to lean godless, liberal, and male, so it's hardly a representative sample of the US; but I'm wondering if there are any females who want to try and defend the GOP's push to allow religious institutions to exclude contraceptives from health care coverage, to mandate abortion requirements like getting a vaginal ultrasound beforehand, and generally to get a government small enough to stick up your vagoo.

Anyone?


I'm as liberal and godless as anyone but here's the thing.... there ARE many women who agree with this way of thinking for various reasons (because Jesus, misguided sense of morality, etc)... until something happens to them or a loved one. I attribute this point of view largely to ignorance and lack of experience. They don't (or can't or won't) see it as a "women's rights" issue or even an issue of generic freedom or privacy. They think that if they don't happen to need something, no one else does, either. Unfortunately until something pushes them into realizing that they live in a society, no logical argument will change their minds.

Don't know too many people who think like that, thank goodness... but they DO exist.
 
2012-02-22 12:48:13 PM

HeartBurnKid: That may have been what they were worried about in the '60s, but these days, we're more worried about an Evangelical takeover. Except for the ones with no sense; they're worried about a Muslim takeover.


We, in the sense of the predominantly young and college-educated people that make up the population that uses the internet for something other than personal e-mail and lolcats, are more worried about evangelical takeover.

The general population, um, they are the evangelicals that are trying to take over. The Church regaining a position of policy control is a much bigger deal for them.
 
2012-02-22 12:50:55 PM
God obviously intended a certain percentage of women to die painfully in childbirth. Who are we to interfere with His plans? It's their own damn fault for giving Adam the apple.
 
2012-02-22 12:52:49 PM

keylock71: There was a Teabagger from Arizona on NPR this morning being interviewed regarding the debates and the Primary.

He said he was looking forward to Santorum winning the nomination as he would "tear Obama apart" in the debates. I shiat you not.

These people are ridiculous...


I heard that and almost left the road.
 
2012-02-22 12:58:41 PM
Republicans in Washington set their party back for decades when I was in high school by running a crazy church lady for governor, and I have been waiting for them to do it on the national level.
 
2012-02-22 12:59:32 PM

The Homer Tax: I am genuinely surprised and fascinated that *this* is the particular wedge issue that the GOP decided to make a really, really big deal out of for the 2012 election.

What an astoundingly bad call all of this will turn out to be.


Political historians will devote future chapters to it, I suspect. As we speak, moderate Republican and independent women across the country are getting warmed up to vote D. What a weird, weird choice, Republicans. Nobody cares about this except a handful of wrinkly old Republican male pundits.
 
2012-02-22 01:04:31 PM

The Homer Tax: I am genuinely surprised and fascinated that *this* is the particular wedge issue that the GOP decided to make a really, really big deal out of for the 2012 election.

What an astoundingly bad call all of this will turn out to be.


It's not like they have much choice. Obama has them beat dead-to-rights on pretty much all other issues.

The economy? The gop is on record as being willing to completely destroy it just to reduce Obama's chances of being reelected, no matter how slight the reduction.

Foreign policy? Yeah, good luck with that. osama bin laden now sleeps with the fishes, and guess who gave the order to take him down.

Immigration is a non-starter for them if they want any Hispanic voters (other than the Cubans in Miami) to vote for them, what with their anti-brown-people policies.

All they have left is the civil rights issues - and even then, the party is running on REDUCING civil rights. It's their Hail Mary, and I don't think it'll be particularly effective on gays, women or anyone who is smart enough to realize that civil rights are not part of a zero-sum game. In fact, it'll likely be counterproductive in the long run, since they're actively trying to win the hearts and minds of the people who were gonna vote for them anyway to the exclusion of everyone else.
 
2012-02-22 01:05:02 PM
The person who sponsored this bill here in VA is against the HPV vaccine calling it a government intrusion.
 
2012-02-22 01:05:08 PM
Next up on the conservative platform - revisiting women's suffrage.

/laugh now, while you can
 
2012-02-22 01:08:26 PM
OK, so totally the wrong thread...

But I can't wait for Cantor to pick up this drum and beat it. I am hoping it will be his downfall.
 
2012-02-22 01:26:15 PM

abb3w: ...OK, I'm a little curious. The crowd on Fark tends to lean godless, liberal, and male, so it's hardly a representative sample of the US; but I'm wondering if there are any females who want to try and defend the GOP's push to allow religious institutions to exclude contraceptives from health care coverage, to mandate abortion requirements like getting a vaginal ultrasound beforehand, and generally to get a government small enough to stick up your vagoo.

Anyone?


In a country of 150 million women there is always a self-loathing attention whore who will take up that cause, and believe me, she'll get all the attention she longs for.
 
2012-02-22 01:28:15 PM

spiderpaz: If Santorum is really committed to forcing all sex to be for reproduction only "cuz God says so". I wonder what he would say to the idea of having his penis removed once his wife reaches menopause. I mean ... he wouldn't need it any more right?


Not to mention his lack of outrage at all the viagra being used by (mostly) old codgers for non-reproductive sex.
 
2012-02-22 01:28:26 PM

spiderpaz: If Santorum is really committed to forcing all sex to be for reproduction only "cuz God says so". I wonder what he would say to the idea of having his penis removed once his wife reaches menopause. I mean ... he wouldn't need it any more right?


Santorum is repeating the official Catholic Church line for sex being only about reproduction. More little Catholics running around means more money for Rome.
 
2012-02-22 01:35:44 PM

RosettaStone:
Not to mention his lack of outrage at all the viagra being used by (mostly) old codgers for non-reproductive sex.


He might be against that, too, but in fairness that's an obscure enough issue that I don't even know the Catholic position on it, much less a specific politician's. They might take the stance that it's all right within wedlock (after all, one of the more famous miracles was an old woman conceiving and bearing a child for one of the Jewish patriarchs) or that ED is an expression of god's will, could go either way, really.
 
2012-02-22 01:42:38 PM

abb3w: ...OK, I'm a little curious. The crowd on Fark tends to lean godless, liberal, and male, so it's hardly a representative sample of the US; but I'm wondering if there are any females who want to try and defend the GOP's push to allow religious institutions to exclude contraceptives from health care coverage, to mandate abortion requirements like getting a vaginal ultrasound beforehand, and generally to get a government small enough to stick up your vagoo.

Anyone?



1. Religious groups who object to the use of contraception should not be forced, by the government, to provide said contraception to anyone who works under the auspices of said religious organization. No one expects a Catholic hospital to provide abortions; the same protections should apply to contraceptive care. This may seem to be a slippery slope - at what point does government interest in protecting its citizens contravene religious authority? Blood transfusions? Life-saving abortions? - but those who would object to religious leaders making these decisions based on their faith are rejecting religious freedom, a basic tenet of our Constitution, nay, THE basic tenet of not only our Constitution but the founding of our country.

2. The entire point of a vaginal ultrasound is to prevent abortion. Women making the abortion decision need to understand that there is another LIFE within them; at the earliest stages of pregnancy, a vaginal ultrasound is more reliable than standard ultrasound procedures in showing the distinctly separate life within the womb. If women were forced to SEE that there is a separate life growing within them, they will be less likely to choose abortion and instead proceed with their pregnancies. A vaginal ultrasound is a small thing to ask before someone decides to murder another person.

3. Our Republican leaders do want a smaller national government. Many of the issues currently enforced by the Federal government should be left to the state's to decide. Moral issues, civil rights, abortion, religion, and numerous other issues should be decided at the state and community level, NOT enforced by the Federal government. When these issues are left to the states, the Federal government will be less bloated, less wasteful, and will be able to focus on the critical issues and role of the Federal government - protecting Americans and lowering our taxes.

//This is what my very Republican aunt said when we discussed your post. (I'm female, but not a Republican).
 
2012-02-22 01:42:57 PM
Welcome to 1950!
 
2012-02-22 01:45:20 PM

Coco LaFemme: keylock71: There was a Teabagger from Arizona on NPR this morning being interviewed regarding the debates and the Primary.

He said he was looking forward to Santorum winning the nomination as he would "tear Obama apart" in the debates. I shiat you not.

These people are ridiculous...

The only way Santorum could beat Obama in a debate is if Obama doesn't show up. Even then, I think Obama's empty podium could put up a decent fight.


That's not entirely true.

A debate is usually framed by two or more people clashing with facts that support their opinions. Santorum is purely running "beliefs" and "gut feelings." These are things that you can not effectively debate against. You cannot effectively debate against someone who's only answer is "This is the way God intended." And no amount of facts or reason will make someone who also agrees with that change their mind. In fact, the only thing that you can do is damage yourself if you come off as a guy who is bashing someone solely for their belief system.

At least against Romney, you can pull plenty of his quotes from either side of the fence that he walks as facts, and make him explain that. But against Santy, I think you have to be careful of the "man, you are an idiot" trap.
 
2012-02-22 01:54:27 PM

abb3w: ...OK, I'm a little curious. The crowd on Fark tends to lean godless, liberal, and male, so it's hardly a representative sample of the US; but I'm wondering if there are any females who want to try and defend the GOP's push to allow religious institutions to exclude contraceptives from health care coverage, to mandate abortion requirements like getting a vaginal ultrasound beforehand, and generally to get a government small enough to stick up your vagoo.

Anyone?


I heard Megan McCain on Rachel Maddow last night; she hates this.
 
2012-02-22 01:57:01 PM

abb3w: ...OK, I'm a little curious. The crowd on Fark tends to lean godless, liberal, and male, so it's hardly a representative sample of the US; but I'm wondering if there are any females who want to try and defend the GOP's push to allow religious institutions to exclude contraceptives from health care coverage, to mandate abortion requirements like getting a vaginal ultrasound beforehand, and generally to get a government small enough to stick up your vagoo.

Anyone?


Such females exist, but they are Catholic robots and incidentally too stupid to operate an internets.
 
2012-02-22 01:57:29 PM

spiderpaz: If Santorum is really committed to forcing all sex to be for reproduction only "cuz God says so". I wonder what he would say to the idea of having his penis removed once his wife reaches menopause. I mean ... he wouldn't need it any more right?


Not to mention the idea of his wife being put to death - I mean, she's fulfilled her purpose and therefore her usefulness is over, right?
 
2012-02-22 02:03:03 PM

Kimothy: Moral issues, civil rights, abortion, religion, and numerous other issues should be decided at the state and community level


I always love that line. Apparently the federal government is too big and distant to make these decisions, and the individual is too unreliable and/or female to make these decisions, so it's up to the state or city.

And when the state government decides that the decision should be left to the woman, what then?
 
2012-02-22 02:07:54 PM

keylock71: There was a Teabagger from Arizona on NPR this morning being interviewed regarding the debates and the Primary.
He said he was looking forward to Santorum winning the nomination as he would "tear Obama apart" in the debates. I shiat you not.
These people are ridiculous...


And Sarah Palin was a viable vice-presidential candidate. I didn't think it could get much stupider than that, but it does, daily

Needlessly Complicated: I'm as liberal and godless as anyone but here's the thing.... there ARE many women who agree with this way of thinking for various reasons (because Jesus, misguided sense of morality, etc)... until something happens to them or a loved one. I attribute this point of view largely to ignorance and lack of experience. They don't (or can't or won't) see it as a "women's rights" issue or even an issue of generic freedom or privacy. They think that if they don't happen to need something, no one else does, either. Unfortunately until something pushes them into realizing that they live in a society, no logical argument will change their minds.
Don't know too many people who think like that, thank goodness... but they DO exist.


I personally know someone who went down this road. She was a good Christian, never questioned any of it, until she tried to get a divorce from her abusive, crazy ex-husband. The good Christians tried to shame her into staying for years, and when they couldn't do that, they protected and covered up for her ex, including sexual abuse of two of their kids.

Now one of her girls is sexually active at 16, and she's going into hyper-drive trying to make sure that the girl is using birth control, and told her to get her butt down to Planned Parenthood. All she knew about Planned Parenthood before was they gave birth control to any girl who came in, regardless of age, and that they were somehow evil. (I assume that PP follows state law, which is pretty lax in setting rules for who can get birth control.)

She was just telling me the other day how her church threw her out because she hasn't been attending enough, and couldn't speak in tongues, and she wore pants. She's been a little stressed lately because one of her girls is in a psych facility right now. But instead of offering her sympathy, the church women told her that it was because she wasn't Godly enough.

I wish to hell she'd just give up on the Christianity bullshiat for good, and it's inevitable. She's a smart woman, I just don't understand it. She can see the hypocrisy easily enough now, and the church has NEVER helped her one bit with her extremely farked up life. All they ever did was guilt-trip her.

.
 
2012-02-22 02:07:56 PM
"Barefoot and pregnant"... that expression sounds so... so 70s. It makes me want to talk about "male chauvinism" and "women's lib."
 
2012-02-22 02:08:22 PM
You know, being outraged is all well and good.

But honestly, are the voters aware of all this woman-hating crap? Because I haven't heard a lot of outcry amid anyone but pundits and Republicans.

Will the public even remember the "Lock the vagina down" laws in November?
 
2012-02-22 02:14:47 PM
This is all a calculated distraction to get stupid people to vote for pro-corporation candidates who want to dismantle labor laws, the EPA, and consumer protections. Stupid people do not understand large concepts like breathable air and potable water. They do not understand the complexity of product testing, labor laws, or sustainability.

What they do understand is sex and pregnancy. They are also titillated by it.

So, the candidates are making a huge fuss over something that excites stupid people. They hope the stupid people will vote for them so they can support their corporate masters.
 
2012-02-22 02:16:35 PM

Kimothy: 2. The entire point of a vaginal ultrasound is to prevent abortion. Women making the abortion decision need to understand that there is another LIFE within them; at the earliest stages of pregnancy, a vaginal ultrasound is more reliable than standard ultrasound procedures in showing the distinctly separate life within the womb. If women were forced to SEE that there is a separate life growing within them, they will be less likely to choose abortion and instead proceed with their pregnancies. A vaginal ultrasound is a small thing to ask before someone decides to murder another person.


Problem is, studies have not born that out.

"And the data is really quite amazing, Neal. One study that I cited in my piece by someone called Tracy Weitz suggests that it almost never happens that a woman cancels her procedure upon seeing an ultrasound. Dr. Jen Gunter, who's a gynecologist in California, similarly cites a 2009 study, where she says that given the option, 73 percent of the women will choose to view the image. Eighty-five percent of them thought it was actually a positive experience. This is the jelly-on-the-belly ultrasound. And then she goes on to say that not one woman changed her mind about having an abortion." Link (new window)

I'll see if I cannot find the original studies as well. Give me some time though.
 
2012-02-22 02:18:45 PM

meat0918: Kimothy: 2. The entire point of a vaginal ultrasound is to prevent abortion. Women making the abortion decision need to understand that there is another LIFE within them; at the earliest stages of pregnancy, a vaginal ultrasound is more reliable than standard ultrasound procedures in showing the distinctly separate life within the womb. If women were forced to SEE that there is a separate life growing within them, they will be less likely to choose abortion and instead proceed with their pregnancies. A vaginal ultrasound is a small thing to ask before someone decides to murder another person.

Problem is, studies have not born that out.

"And the data is really quite amazing, Neal. One study that I cited in my piece by someone called Tracy Weitz suggests that it almost never happens that a woman cancels her procedure upon seeing an ultrasound. Dr. Jen Gunter, who's a gynecologist in California, similarly cites a 2009 study, where she says that given the option, 73 percent of the women will choose to view the image. Eighty-five percent of them thought it was actually a positive experience. This is the jelly-on-the-belly ultrasound. And then she goes on to say that not one woman changed her mind about having an abortion." Link (new window)

I'll see if I cannot find the original studies as well. Give me some time though.


Facts have no place in that discussion. Sex ed is a great example. "Studies show that abstinence only education leads to more kids having sex and more teen pregnancies." "... I DON'T CARE! You're giving kids IDEAS!"
 
2012-02-22 02:19:59 PM
Hell, access to birth control and sex ed leads to fewer abortions, but that's against the "Sex is wrong and any girl who has it must be punished with pregnancy" attitude.
 
2012-02-22 02:29:48 PM
Which makes me wonder, why did they let Palin out of the kitchen in the first place?
 
2012-02-22 02:44:28 PM

the opposite of charity is justice: Next up on the conservative platform - revisiting women's suffrage.

/laugh now, while you can


I'm betting on divorce, custody and property ownership. Apparently, it's already up to the states under what circumstances a woman can have a tubal ligation.

Way back in the 20th Century, after two children and a shaky marriage, I made the decision to permanently never get pregnant again. About that time, I heard many, many stories how in this state, you couldn't have tubal ligation without your husband's consent, and in that state, you had to be over 35 and / or have 5 living children. That one over there required you to have several miscarriages if you were under 30...I was, like, AYFKM?* Glad to live in Michigan, where all I had to do was make the appointment with the OB/GYN. My ex and I were legally separated and I was 28. The only thing the doctor said was, "are you sure?" (fair question). When I asked him if my ex had any legal recourse at all, he said, "Nope. It's your body".

I would hope that my daughters will enjoy the same freedom over their bodies.

*Could not find a concise resource that listed all states' voluntary sterilization laws (wtf?!?). But I did see several discussion boards that indicated that yeah, there some states out there in which criteria has to be met before a woman can decide she wants to never, ever, farking ever have (anymore) babies.

God help us all.
 
2012-02-22 02:45:01 PM

Lackofname: You know, being outraged is all well and good.

But honestly, are the voters aware of all this woman-hating crap? Because I haven't heard a lot of outcry amid anyone but pundits and Republicans.

Will the public even remember the "Lock the vagina down" laws in November?


I have a feeling a hell of a lot of women will. They might make noise about it, but privately they'll be pretty damn sure no one touches their reproductive organs but them.

/And you'd damn well better believe I'll be remembering...
 
2012-02-22 02:50:52 PM

RosettaStone: spiderpaz: If Santorum is really committed to forcing all sex to be for reproduction only "cuz God says so". I wonder what he would say to the idea of having his penis removed once his wife reaches menopause. I mean ... he wouldn't need it any more right?

Not to mention his lack of outrage at all the viagra being used by (mostly) old codgers for non-reproductive sex.


Have I mentioned how the Catholic hospital my ex worked for covered Viagra but wouldn't cover BCPs for our daughter?

/Yup, that was a strongly worded email...
 
2012-02-22 02:58:51 PM

KiltedBastich: Even with all the crap that Harper has been pulling, I am so very, very glad to be a Canadian right now. This kind of ridiculous garbage would never even get off the ground here.


Not right now it wouldn't. But the Harper government has been quite a bit worse with the rhetoric than previous governments. "You're either with us or with the pedophiles", only "radical environmentalists" would question the environmental impact of the tarsands, etc...

The US seems to have gone from having somewhat rational discussions about issues to the right wing ratcheting up the rhetoric to astronomical levels. The problem is, it works. The crazies have managed to move the center in American politics significantly right in the last 30 years.
 
2012-02-22 03:04:20 PM

Lackofname: You know, being outraged is all well and good.

But honestly, are the voters aware of all this woman-hating crap? Because I haven't heard a lot of outcry amid anyone but pundits and Republicans.


Part of the reason the VA vote was delayed was over a protest rally in Richmond on monday, and I know there is a larger protest planned for tomorrow (the wifey is driving there tonight).

This isn't just political operatives arguing with each other as always, they've drawn the ire of the independent female voter. God help us all.
 
2012-02-22 03:06:00 PM

cryinoutloud: keylock71: There was a Teabagger from Arizona on NPR this morning being interviewed regarding the debates and the Primary.
He said he was looking forward to Santorum winning the nomination as he would "tear Obama apart" in the debates. I shiat you not.
These people are ridiculous...

And Sarah Palin was a viable vice-presidential candidate. I didn't think it could get much stupider than that, but it does, daily

Needlessly Complicated: I'm as liberal and godless as anyone but here's the thing.... there ARE many women who agree with this way of thinking for various reasons (because Jesus, misguided sense of morality, etc)... until something happens to them or a loved one. I attribute this point of view largely to ignorance and lack of experience. They don't (or can't or won't) see it as a "women's rights" issue or even an issue of generic freedom or privacy. They think that if they don't happen to need something, no one else does, either. Unfortunately until something pushes them into realizing that they live in a society, no logical argument will change their minds.
Don't know too many people who think like that, thank goodness... but they DO exist.

I personally know someone who went down this road. She was a good Christian, never questioned any of it, until she tried to get a divorce from her abusive, crazy ex-husband. The good Christians tried to shame her into staying for years, and when they couldn't do that, they protected and covered up for her ex, including sexual abuse of two of their kids.

Now one of her girls is sexually active at 16, and she's going into hyper-drive trying to make sure that the girl is using birth control, and told her to get her butt down to Planned Parenthood. All she knew about Planned Parenthood before was they gave birth control to any girl who came in, regardless of age, and that they were somehow evil. (I assume that PP follows state law, which is pretty lax in setting rules for who can get birth control.)

She was just telling m ...


Wow. Except for the age of the daughter, I'd think you were talking about my best friend. Pretty much her life to a tee. She escaped and is now pursuing an MSW at U of M, a helluva long way from the Foursquare Church.
 
2012-02-22 03:08:03 PM

RosettaStone: Kimothy: Moral issues, civil rights, abortion, religion, and numerous other issues should be decided at the state and community level

I always love that line. Apparently the federal government is too big and distant to make these decisions, and the individual is too unreliable and/or female to make these decisions, so it's up to the state or city.

And when the state government decides that the decision should be left to the woman, what then?


I think the whole point is that it's easier to get your platform elected to smaller offices. Look at the Christian right's take over of school boards - very small scale, low-turnout elections, but they have huge impact on what kids learn in school. The same can be said for these moral issues - go after smaller, cheaper, local elections, and have massive influence - especially if you can get the Federal government to get away from these types of issues and leave them to the states.

There would still be strongly liberal areas (the coasts come to mind, and large cities) but they would still have pretty severe impact on many communities.
 
2012-02-22 03:10:27 PM

meat0918: Kimothy: 2. The entire point of a vaginal ultrasound is to prevent abortion. Women making the abortion decision need to understand that there is another LIFE within them; at the earliest stages of pregnancy, a vaginal ultrasound is more reliable than standard ultrasound procedures in showing the distinctly separate life within the womb. If women were forced to SEE that there is a separate life growing within them, they will be less likely to choose abortion and instead proceed with their pregnancies. A vaginal ultrasound is a small thing to ask before someone decides to murder another person.

Problem is, studies have not born that out.

"And the data is really quite amazing, Neal. One study that I cited in my piece by someone called Tracy Weitz suggests that it almost never happens that a woman cancels her procedure upon seeing an ultrasound. Dr. Jen Gunter, who's a gynecologist in California, similarly cites a 2009 study, where she says that given the option, 73 percent of the women will choose to view the image. Eighty-five percent of them thought it was actually a positive experience. This is the jelly-on-the-belly ultrasound. And then she goes on to say that not one woman changed her mind about having an abortion." Link (new window)

I'll see if I cannot find the original studies as well. Give me some time though.


Which renders this bullshiat punitive and creepy as hell. Farking state-sponsored punitive rape.

Fark you, Virginia.
 
2012-02-22 03:10:33 PM

meat0918: Kimothy: 2. The entire point of a vaginal ultrasound is to prevent abortion. Women making the abortion decision need to understand that there is another LIFE within them; at the earliest stages of pregnancy, a vaginal ultrasound is more reliable than standard ultrasound procedures in showing the distinctly separate life within the womb. If women were forced to SEE that there is a separate life growing within them, they will be less likely to choose abortion and instead proceed with their pregnancies. A vaginal ultrasound is a small thing to ask before someone decides to murder another person.

Problem is, studies have not born that out.

"And the data is really quite amazing, Neal. One study that I cited in my piece by someone called Tracy Weitz suggests that it almost never happens that a woman cancels her procedure upon seeing an ultrasound. Dr. Jen Gunter, who's a gynecologist in California, similarly cites a 2009 study, where she says that given the option, 73 percent of the women will choose to view the image. Eighty-five percent of them thought it was actually a positive experience. This is the jelly-on-the-belly ultrasound. And then she goes on to say that not one woman changed her mind about having an abortion." Link (new window)

I'll see if I cannot find the original studies as well. Give me some time though.


I don't think they care a lot about studies. Those are all sciency and stuff. Besides, it just seems logical to people like my aunt - no one could possibly abort after they can SEE the little bitty baby on the screen. It can only make sense that people would keep their babies when they've gotten to see a PICTURE. I'm surprised they don't require those 3-D ultrasounds, to be honest. The detail on those is incredible and would serve the same purpose. Any other point of view doesn't really compute. To my aunt, it's like asking how someone could kill a baby that's already born, the two things are equal in her mind.
 
2012-02-22 03:37:52 PM

Kimothy: I don't think they care a lot about studies. Those are all sciency and stuff. Besides, it just seems logical to people like my aunt - no one could possibly abort after they can SEE the little bitty baby on the screen. It can only make sense that people would keep their babies when they've gotten to see a PICTURE. I'm surprised they don't require those 3-D ultrasounds, to be honest. The detail on those is incredible and would serve the same purpose. Any other point of view doesn't really compute. To my aunt, it's like asking how someone could kill a baby that's already born, the two things are equal in her mind.


I can completely understand and empathize with this point of view.
The problems come when the same person also thinks no one should enjoy sex, it's only for babymaking, and outlawing contraception is a good idea
 
2012-02-22 03:38:49 PM

miscreant: Not right now it wouldn't. But the Harper government has been quite a bit worse with the rhetoric than previous governments. "You're either with us or with the pedophiles", only "radical environmentalists" would question the environmental impact of the tarsands, etc...

The US seems to have gone from having somewhat rational discussions about issues to the right wing ratcheting up the rhetoric to astronomical levels. The problem is, it works. The crazies have managed to move the center in American politics significantly right in the last 30 years.


Oh certainly. But the NDP are raking them over the coals for it, as is it is their actual duty to do as the loyal opposition. This greatly limits the impact, because you can't get much use out of accusing your opponent of unscrupulous partisan politics for daring to question your policies if that's actually their express function in the system of government.

So while the Harper conservatives are desperately trying to import the USA style political derping, they are finding that the Canadian political environment is much less hospitable to it. This slows down its effectiveness - and there is a time limit on the whole thing, because generational change is not in their favor. The younger people are, the less they favor their extremist rhetoric. So my personal forcast is that by ramping up the rhetoric, they will give the NDP all the legitimate evidence they need to damage the Conservatives in the eyes of the public enough that the Conservatives will be hamstrung by the fear of losing the next election. Eventually, the older and more fearful demographic will lose ground to the younger ones that are tired of political fearmongering.

This sort of thing swings back and forth cylcically. The difference between the Canadian system (and parliamentary systems in general) and the American system, is that parliamentary systems assume that the government and the minority parties will be at odds with each other, and therefore political acrimony is accounted for much more than in the American system. A sort of genteel unspoken agreement to get the business of the day done even with your political opponents is necessary for the functioning of the American system. Once that is lost, the system breaks down. A parliamentary system never assumes such an agreement exists in the first place.

Another basic difference is that by having the head of state be separate from the head of government as in a parliamentary system, you can have political parties that are openly opposed to the head of government, but still be dedicated and loyal to the head of state who remains a unifying neutral figure, unlike in the American system where you have politicians who are dedicated to the political failure and destruction of your actual head of state.
 
2012-02-22 04:30:59 PM
Ok, ok, I think i'm starting to make a strange sort of sense out of this. If this platform really isn't despising women like it really seems, then what is it? Defending men. Now, my ultra-conservative nutjob source is constantly railing about the results of this economic...situation. Who are working? Women. Who are earning degrees? Women. Who are out of work and being increasingly forced into roles for which they have no use or desire? Men.

If you manage to get the barefoot and pregnant platform into the public consciousness, I think the hope is that women will leave their jobs in droves and give those jobs to men. It's not about religious beliefs on abortion. It's not about old vs young, or democrats vs republicans. As always with the conservatives, follow the money. And the money is leading away from the control of men and into the control of women.

So, it's hating on women, but not for the reasons you're suggesting.
 
2012-02-22 04:31:38 PM

keylock71: Wadded Beef: keylock71: There was a Teabagger from Arizona on NPR this morning being interviewed regarding the debates and the Primary.

He said he was looking forward to Santorum winning the nomination as he would "tear Obama apart" in the debates. I shiat you not.

These people are ridiculous...

I heard that too during my drive this morning. They also interviewed some GOP pundit and he used the term "by-product" when it came to Santorum's appeal.

Oh, man... I missed that one. I can't believe there are people in this country who seriously believe this clown should be president.

In some ways, I do hope the morons in the GOP do pick Santorum as their nominee, simply because it will be hilarious to see these people go ape shiat when Obama wins reelection. Though, after watching a clod like Bush get elected twice, I'm afraid to actually rout for it, to be honest.

I basically have no faith in my fellow Americans at this point in my life...


Couldn't agree more. While I too lost faith in the populace in November of 2004, I don't think we're in any danger of that assclown getting elected (probably not even the eventual nominee, either). His platform is all about alienating voter bases while trying to win the evangelical crowd. Good luck with that, Mr. Frothy.
 
2012-02-22 04:52:01 PM

Kimothy: RosettaStone: Kimothy: Moral issues, civil rights, abortion, religion, and numerous other issues should be decided at the state and community level

I always love that line. Apparently the federal government is too big and distant to make these decisions, and the individual is too unreliable and/or female to make these decisions, so it's up to the state or city.

And when the state government decides that the decision should be left to the woman, what then?

I think the whole point is that it's easier to get your platform elected to smaller offices. Look at the Christian right's take over of school boards - very small scale, low-turnout elections, but they have huge impact on what kids learn in school. The same can be said for these moral issues - go after smaller, cheaper, local elections, and have massive influence - especially if you can get the Federal government to get away from these types of issues and leave them to the states.

There would still be strongly liberal areas (the coasts come to mind, and large cities) but they would still have pretty severe impact on many communities.


I realize that. I think that the whole" this should be decided by the states" argument is completely disingenuous. If they thought that they had a better chance of outlawing abortion via federal legislation then we know that the argument would morph into this-should-be-decided-at-the-federal-level faster than a fetal heartbeat.
 
2012-02-22 04:57:28 PM

Lackofname: You know, being outraged is all well and good.

But honestly, are the voters aware of all this woman-hating crap? Because I haven't heard a lot of outcry amid anyone but pundits and Republicans.

Will the public even remember the "Lock the vagina down" laws in November?


I don't think the Republicans know what they've unleashed. Women aren't just angry, they are seething. It's one thing to get a quick, vocal reply from women. It's another to make them so angry they seethe, plot, and plan. If they keep up with this tact it will boil over and women will be unmerciful.

We won't forget. We know we are an often silent majority, but they are doing an excellent job of awakening the Kraken. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
 
2012-02-22 05:00:00 PM

Kimothy: To my aunt, it's like asking how someone could kill a baby that's already born, the two things are equal in her mind.


Next time you see your aunt ask her this (assuming that she thinks blastocysts are people):

Inside a burning building is an unconscious 5-yr old and an ewer containing 10,000 frozen embryos. She only has time before the building collapses to make one rescue attempt, and she can only carry either the child or the ewer - not both. Which does she choose?
 
2012-02-22 05:05:32 PM

RosettaStone: Kimothy: To my aunt, it's like asking how someone could kill a baby that's already born, the two things are equal in her mind.

Next time you see your aunt ask her this (assuming that she thinks blastocysts are people):

Inside a burning building is an unconscious 5-yr old and an ewer containing 10,000 frozen embryos. She only has time before the building collapses to make one rescue attempt, and she can only carry either the child or the ewer - not both. Which does she choose?


I am so using that
 
2012-02-22 05:20:13 PM
No, the real question is "Are liberals running a misinformation campaign of bald faced lies as usual?"

And the answer is of course, yes.

I'm sorry that your "going to take away social security!" lie isn't getting you the votes it used to, but it is kind of sad that you're still counting on the ignorance of voters and repeating lies often enough tactics in order to exploit the uninformed out there.

But remember, when a Republican talks about a real issue... Like terrorism... They're just trying to SCARE you in voting for them.
 
2012-02-22 05:33:57 PM

randomjsa: No, the real question is "Are liberals running a misinformation campaign of bald faced lies as usual?"

And the answer is of course, yes.


Is the Liberal Conspiracy now so powerful that it can make the Republican candidates say whatever it wants them to? 'Cause it seems to me they are actually saying this stuff, and the liberals are just repeating it, mostly in disbelief.

But remember, when a Republican talks about a real issue... Like terrorism... They're just trying to SCARE you in voting for them.

Yeah I was terrorized just a few weeks ago. I had to fly a couple states over, and the terrorists got me in the airport. I thought they were going to use rape to get me to talk, but they let me go with a light groping. So the Republicans are finally gonna start doing something about that? Awesome.
 
2012-02-22 05:38:30 PM

keylock71: There was a Teabagger from Arizona on NPR this morning being interviewed regarding the debates and the Primary.

He said he was looking forward to Santorum winning the nomination as he would "tear Obama apart" in the debates. I shiat you not.

These people are ridiculous...


I was told the Tea Party was made up of Concerned fiscal conservatives, and not religious nutbags.

They're libertarians!
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report