Jump to content

What pissed you off today? v.2


Mara
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Rick N. Backer said:

Look up Horatio R. Storer.

 

I don't doubt that doctors, like any other group, has tried to protect it's "turf."  But the bottom line for me is, given my choice between a doctor and a midwife at a delivery, I'm taking a doctor all day every day.  They're not infallible, but they're the best we've got.

 

 

Today, yes.  Today's physicians - male and female - are the best.    

 

Back in the mid-1800's, midwives were indeed the experts.  No one knew more about women's bodies than the women themselves.  Once men took over the Business, they promoted their own special brand of health care for women: unnecessary hysterectomies and medication (to keep them docile).  In addition, they and the patient's husband/father had full legal control over the decision to terminate.     

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turn on my oven to preheat for cooking dinner.  It starts to smell like something is burning.  I open the door and the bottom heating element is arcing merrily, the oven is hazard.  Mind you, the oven is original to the house, so we're talking 60+ years. Its built into a cabinet, separate from the cooktop, so I would normally just replace the oven.  BUT, the range hood over the cook top is just as old, so I will replace them both.

Just more work on an old house, smh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, invisible airwave said:

That tragedy in Buffalo and the background of the shooter being inspired by stochastic terrorist nutjob "journalists" with the manifesto.  Damn American ISIS to hell.  Stay safe out there, residents.

 

I live in Buffalo. For this to happen anywhere in this city is truly surreal. This is being investigated as a hate crime because the grocery store he went to was in a black neighborhood. They said he wasn't from this area and drove over three hours to get here from Binghamton, NY. I'm not buying that this person didn't know this area at all. He knew exactly where to go to execute his racially motivated attack. He wouldn't know what neighborhood to go if he wasn't familiar with the area. I've lived in the city most of my life and even though I know the street where this happened, it's in a completely different part of the city from where I live. Even I would need to take a minute to look at directions to where exactly the store was located. This person didn't just randomly drive here and stop at the first parking lot he saw. He knew exactly where he was going.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, J2112YYZ said:

 

I live in Buffalo. For this to happen anywhere in this city is truly surreal. This is being investigated as a hate crime because the grocery store he went to was in a black neighborhood. They said he wasn't from this area and drove over three hours to get here from Binghamton, NY. I'm not buying that this person didn't know this area at all. He knew exactly where to go to execute his racially motivated attack. He wouldn't know what neighborhood to go if he wasn't familiar with the area. I've lived in the city most of my life and even though I know the street where this happened, it's in a completely different part of the city from where I live. Even I would need to take a minute to look at directions to where exactly the store was located. This person didn't just randomly drive here and stop at the first parking lot he saw. He knew exactly where he was going.

Hugs to you and your city!  Four of my good friends grew up in Buffalo ( 2 still live near there)  so I've been aware of it's history and appeal for awhile.  It's such a sad thing to happen anywhere.  I was wondering about the travel also.  How do you select a certain grocery store from afar and know its clientele?  OK, maybe when we lived on the edge of East Cleveland , it has kind of a reputation; but most places you wouldn't know who is shopping there unless you lived nearby.

Edited by blueschica
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, JohnRogers said:

 

Look at you guys discussing this as rational people, with no foaming at the mouth.

Oops, clicked wrong thing.

 

Edited by blueschica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Buffalo shooting is old news.

 

Laguna Woods, California church shooting.  Multiple victims.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2022 at 5:46 AM, laughedatbytime said:

The right that's been ripped away is the right to life of the unborn child that was lost when the court in 1973 made up a competing right out of whole cloth.

 

And 60 million lives have been disrupted, by termination, in the last 50 years.

 

You bring up "not being able to afford another child".   First of all, the mother can put the baby up for adoption.  Secondly, who determines this and on what basis is the decision made?   I don't think the pro abortion side would be OK with a means test, they want abortion at any time for any reason, no restrictions (which at least has the advantage of being internally consistent).   Thirdly, for example, there's a shortage of baby formula right now, which leads to inflated prices.   Someone with a three month old might not be able to afford the extra cost.  Should she have the choice to kill the child, after all, she can't afford it?   And from the perspective of the one whose life's at risk, they're just in a different stage of development, why does a woman's "right to choose" end there?   The unaffordability argument goes right out the window.

So you believe a cluster of cells has more rights than a living breathing person?  That the government can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term with no regard to her personal situation?  It is a fallacy to say that the issue is about abortion at any time during the pregnancy for any reason.  There is the viability test put into place by Casey v Planned Parenthood, 24 weeks is considered where viability (i.e. survival outside the womb) begins.  These laws that are outlawing abortion at 6 weeks fail that test miserably.  Most women won't know they are pregnant at that time.  If woman has medical complications, there is a process to determine if the woman can survive the pregnancy before any abortion would be performed.  It is not an easy decision and not taken lightly.  This is far from the on demand ideas being floated around.

 

Are you honestly telling a woman she has to carry a pregnancy to term, go through all the risks involved just so someone else can adopt the baby?  If she has medical complications that's just too bad?  If she has been raped to just have the baby anyway?  I cannot understand this twisted logic, this viewpoint seems to be about punishing women.

 

There is a false equivalence to comparing terminating a pregnancy to harming a child after birth.  No one is advocating that.  But those who are so willing to say they are pro-life are not the ones who must care for those pregnancies.  Telling women they must be brood mares and then looking the other way when they struggle to support them is the antithesis of compassion for life.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rhyta said:

So you believe a cluster of cells has more rights than a living breathing person?  That the government can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term with no regard to her personal situation?  It is a fallacy to say that the issue is about abortion at any time during the pregnancy for any reason.  There is the viability test put into place by Casey v Planned Parenthood, 24 weeks is considered where viability (i.e. survival outside the womb) begins.  These laws that are outlawing abortion at 6 weeks fail that test miserably.  Most women won't know they are pregnant at that time.  If woman has medical complications, there is a process to determine if the woman can survive the pregnancy before any abortion would be performed.  It is not an easy decision and not taken lightly.  This is far from the on demand ideas being floated around.

 

Are you honestly telling a woman she has to carry a pregnancy to term, go through all the risks involved just so someone else can adopt the baby?  If she has medical complications that's just too bad?  If she has been raped to just have the baby anyway?  I cannot understand this twisted logic, this viewpoint seems to be about punishing women.

 

There is a false equivalence to comparing terminating a pregnancy to harming a child after birth.  No one is advocating that.  But those who are so willing to say they are pro-life are not the ones who must care for those pregnancies.  Telling women they must be brood mares and then looking the other way when they struggle to support them is the antithesis of compassion for life.

 

 

 

 

The use of the term "cluster of cells" is indicative of someone who is not interested in engaging in an honest argument.  An infant, or you, or I could just as easily be described similarly.    A healthy discussion can be held only if the terms of the debate are framed fairly.  There are two competing interests here in the vast majority of cases (my position is that abortion should be allowed as self-defense if the life of the mother is at significant risk), the right to life of the child vs the desire of the woman to go through a pregnancy.   That is the core of this debate.   All of the other arguments that are made to support legal abortion are either easily dismissed or can, with perfect logical consistency be expanded beyond abortion.   I believe that the life of the child takes precedence regardless of the circumstances of its conception.  If this is a result of rape, caring for the needs of the child should have first claim on any of the assets of the rapist.   You obviously disagree that the life of the baby takes precedence, which seems to be the antithesis of compassion for life, that it can be taken without the protection of the law.

 

All of the overwrought attribution of malignant motives to those who are pro-life, untrue as they are, are appeals to emotion and shouldn't have any place in a logical argument.

 

Also, your statement that no one is arguing for allowing a child to be killed after birth is not true.   Google Peter Singer, who's a professor at Princeton (or was at some point.).   His logic at least has the merit of being consistent, sick as it is.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2022 at 8:32 AM, invisible airwave said:

Damn American ISIS to hell.

The shooter claimed to be a former communist who now described himself as a left-wing authoritarian (which is redundant), and a green nationalist.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rhyta said:

 It is a fallacy to say that the issue is about abortion at any time during the pregnancy for any reason.  There is the viability test put into place by Casey v Planned Parenthood, 24 weeks is considered where viability (i.e. survival outside the womb) begins. 

 

 

 

 

"We agree . . . that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors --physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment."  Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).

 

The truth is that the law as it currently stands allows abortion at any time if the health of the mother, which is defined explicitly to include psychological and emotional health, is negatively impacted by the pregnancy.  So if someone is determined to get an abortion in the third trimester, they can get it if they indicate that it would be emotionally upsetting to continue the pregnancy.  As a practical matter, I can't imagine someone who performs late term abortions would override that and refuse to perform the procedure.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick N. Backer said:

"We agree . . . that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors --physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment."  Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).

 

The truth is that the law as it currently stands allows abortion at any time if the health of the mother, which is defined explicitly to include psychological and emotional health, is negatively impacted by the pregnancy.  So if someone is determined to get an abortion in the third trimester, they can get it if they indicate that it would be emotionally upsetting to continue the pregnancy.  As a practical matter, I can't imagine someone who performs late term abortions would override that and refuse to perform the procedure.

 

This is why most polls are worded the way they are by the virtually monolithically pro- abortion mainstream media, because they're counting on the fact that most people don't know the full story on what the legality of abortion in the US is, which is basically from conception to birth (and even that's understating things in some states.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LedRush said:

The shooter claimed to be a former communist who now described himself as a left-wing authoritarian (which is redundant), and a green nationalist.  

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-demented-and-selective-game-of?s=w

 

This article contains a link to his manifesto (which is depraved and deeply disturbing.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LedRush said:

The shooter claimed to be a former communist who now described himself as a left-wing authoritarian (which is redundant), and a green nationalist.  

He could claim to be a red-assed gibbon, but his actions suggest their own interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Nova Carmina said:

He could claim to be a red-assed gibbon, but his actions suggest their own interpretation.

If you read the manifesto (linked above) he describes his motivation and philosophy in great detail, and acted in a manner consistent with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, laughedatbytime said:

The use of the term "cluster of cells" is indicative of someone who is not interested in engaging in an honest argument.  An infant, or you, or I could just as easily be described similarly.    A healthy discussion can be held only if the terms of the debate are framed fairly.  There are two competing interests here in the vast majority of cases (my position is that abortion should be allowed as self-defense if the life of the mother is at significant risk), the right to life of the child vs the desire of the woman to go through a pregnancy.   That is the core of this debate.   All of the other arguments that are made to support legal abortion are either easily dismissed or can, with perfect logical consistency be expanded beyond abortion.   I believe that the life of the child takes precedence regardless of the circumstances of its conception.  If this is a result of rape, caring for the needs of the child should have first claim on any of the assets of the rapist.   You obviously disagree that the life of the baby takes precedence, which seems to be the antithesis of compassion for life, that it can be taken without the protection of the law.

 

All of the overwrought attribution of malignant motives to those who are pro-life, untrue as they are, are appeals to emotion and shouldn't have any place in a logical argument.

 

Also, your statement that no one is arguing for allowing a child to be killed after birth is not true.   Google Peter Singer, who's a professor at Princeton (or was at some point.).   His logic at least has the merit of being consistent, sick as it is.

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Rick N. Backer said:

"We agree . . . that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors --physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment."  Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).

 

The truth is that the law as it currently stands allows abortion at any time if the health of the mother, which is defined explicitly to include psychological and emotional health, is negatively impacted by the pregnancy.  So if someone is determined to get an abortion in the third trimester, they can get it if they indicate that it would be emotionally upsetting to continue the pregnancy.  As a practical matter, I can't imagine someone who performs late term abortions would override that and refuse to perform the procedure.

 

You guys-  "guys" being the operative word- are making me grumpy.  Women are the ones who get pregnant. Women are the ones who bear children. Women are the ones who have the health consequences of being pregnant.  I'm not seeing any acknowlegement of this here; nor any discussion of ectopic pregnancies, incomplete miscarriages, diagnoses of deadly physical conditions in a very much wanted fetus.  All of which have happened to women close to me; along with knowing someone that died from eclampsia during pregnancy. What procedures would they have to be subjected to, what courts would they have to answer to in these situations?   It's rarely black and white; which is why women should have a say in what they want and the final decision should be between a woman, her doctor and her church.  The state having a say is way, way down on that list, IMO.

 

I hear your arguments, but you are maybe not as well equipped to feel and comprehend the totality of women's health procedures and health care. 

Edited by blueschica
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blueschica said:

 

You guys-  "guys" being the operative word- are making me grumpy.  Women are the ones who get pregnant. Women are the ones who bear children. Women are the ones who have the health consequences of being pregnant.  I'm not seeing any acknowlegement of this here; nor any discussion of ectopic pregnancies, incomplete miscarriages, diagnoses of deadly physical conditions in a very much wanted fetus.  All of which have happened to women close to me; along with knowing someone that died from eclampsia during pregnancy.  It's rarely black and white; which is why women should have a say in what they want and the final decision should be between a woman, her doctor and her church. Sheesh.

Speaking for myself, I don't agree with your assessment of what I've said at all.  In fact, I haven't said anything about my position on abortion itself.  I've pointed out why I think people equating reversing Roe with banning abortion are wrong, something I don't think can be disputed.  I've pointed out that the early opponents to abortion were not religious zealots, they were doctors.   And in the post you quoted, I pointed out that It is NOT a fallacy to say that as the law stands today abortion is legal at any time during the pregnancy.

 

This is the problem with this issue.  People don't really listen to what others they perceive to be "the enemy," are saying.  They know what they know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will make one other point that has arisen in this forum before.  SOCN exists for a reason:  so that people who want to discuss political or religious issues have a forum in which to do so.  Very often in this subforum, people post about political issues, invariably representing only one side of the spectrum of views on the issues.  But not everyone here shares the same views on those issues.   Posting about them in here sort of betrays a view that all "good," people must surely see an issue one way.  With a few obvious exceptions, that's simply not true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, blueschica said:

 

You guys-  "guys" being the operative word- are making me grumpy.  Women are the ones who get pregnant. Women are the ones who bear children. Women are the ones who have the health consequences of being pregnant.  I'm not seeing any acknowlegement of this here; nor any discussion of ectopic pregnancies, incomplete miscarriages, diagnoses of deadly physical conditions in a very much wanted fetus.  All of which have happened to women close to me; along with knowing someone that died from eclampsia during pregnancy. What procedures would they have to be subjected to, what courts would they have to answer to in these situations?   It's rarely black and white; which is why women should have a say in what they want and the final decision should be between a woman, her doctor and her church.  The state having a say is way, way down on that list, IMO.

 

I hear your arguments, but you are maybe not as well equipped to feel and comprehend the totality of women's health procedures and health care.   

It's awfully presumptuous of you to say that because of their genitalia, some people have no right to have an opinion or cannot have an understanding of these issues.   It's awfully presumptuous to say that prolifers (about half or more of whom are women) are unfeeling toward women who are undergoing some of the worst trauma possible.   There's provision in the consideration of the vast majority of prolifers for exceptions in the cases that you bring up above.

 

You mention that it's rarely black or white, but the fact remains that the vast majority of cases are nothing like you've described, that about 98% of all abortions, based on a study done by a group that favors legal abortion, do not involve extreme cases such as rape, incest, or involve threats to the life of the mother.   People who advocate for legal abortion benefit from a general lack of knowledge around this issue, and always bring up the hard cases but never recognize the many, many (48 times more many) more times this is not the case.

 

Finally, I would argue that the chief "beneficiaries" of legal abortion aren't women at all, but promiscuous men (not really even men, but users) who impregnate multiple women but then are off the hook for supporting the life they created by paying the relatively low cost to kill that life; then it's on to the next one.   I support any steps taken that are necessary to hold the father financially responsible for the child he created, and much more should be done to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, laughedatbytime said:

It's awfully presumptuous of you to say that because of their genitalia, some people have no right to have an opinion or cannot have an understanding of these issues.   It's awfully presumptuous to say that prolifers (about half or more of whom are women) are unfeeling toward women who are undergoing some of the worst trauma possible.   There's provision in the consideration of the vast majority of prolifers for exceptions in the cases that you bring up above.

 

You mention that it's rarely black or white, but the fact remains that the vast majority of cases are nothing like you've described, that about 98% of all abortions, based on a study done by a group that favors legal abortion, do not involve extreme cases such as rape, incest, or involve threats to the life of the mother.   People who advocate for legal abortion benefit from a general lack of knowledge around this issue, and always bring up the hard cases but never recognize the many, many (48 times more many) more times this is not the case.

 

Finally, I would argue that the chief "beneficiaries" of legal abortion aren't women at all, but promiscuous men (not really even men, but users) who impregnate multiple women but then are off the hook for supporting the life they created by paying the relatively low cost to kill that life; then it's on to the next one.   I support any steps taken that are necessary to hold the father financially responsible for the child he created, and much more should be done to do so.

The male pill would make the last paragraph fairer. It isn`t so much promiscuity, which is hardly a crime for either sex, but potency and sperm motility that you need to know if you`ve got big plans for a night out and want to avoid unwanted side effects of intercourse (ie. a baby). The horrific thought of impregnating a woman doesn`t seem enough of a deterrent for most men, for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IbanezJem said:

The male pill would make the last paragraph fairer. It isn`t so much promiscuity, which is hardly a crime for either sex, but potency and sperm motility that you need to know if you`ve got big plans for a night out and want to avoid unwanted side effects of intercourse (ie. a baby). The horrific thought of impregnating a woman doesn`t seem enough of a deterrent for most men, for some reason.

Don't have any problem with a pill that works the same way for men as it does for women when it comes to contraception, in fact, I'm in favor of this   But not everyone would take it, and financially if you do the math and the cost of the pill is more (and you don't place any value on human life), it could make financial sense to just kill the baby, the only penalty is the cost to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, laughedatbytime said:

Don't have any problem with a pill that works the same way for men as it does for women when it comes to contraception, in fact, I'm in favor of this   But not everyone would take it, and financially if you do the math and the cost of the pill is more (and you don't place any value on human life), it could make financial sense to just kill the baby, the only penalty is the cost to do so.

As I`ve mentioned before, until I see some value placed on the lives of older people, I`ll always struggle with what the commonly held value of a human life truly is. The value is not something that many parents` seem to grasp - making pregnancy harder has always seemed wiser than addressing the disaster that is an unwanted pregnancy and the worst outcome of all, an unwanted child.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IbanezJem said:

As I`ve mentioned before, until I see some value placed on the lives of older people, I`ll always struggle with what the commonly held value of a human life truly is. The value is not something that many parents` seem to grasp - making pregnancy harder has always seemed wiser than addressing the disaster that is an unwanted pregnancy and the worst outcome of all, an unwanted child.

I completely agree that making pregnancy harder for those who don't want kids is a wise idea.   I don't agree that the worst outcome of all is an unwanted child, it's a child whose life is taken in the womb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, laughedatbytime said:

I completely agree that making pregnancy harder for those who don't want kids is a wise idea.   I don't agree that the worst outcome of all is an unwanted child, it's a child whose life is taken in the womb.

Well, I`m trying to see both sides and yours is just out of my reach.  :confused:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, IbanezJem said:

Well, I`m trying to see both sides and yours is just out of my reach.  :confused:

Maybe suicide rates are higher across the pond, in America they don't approach 50.1% for unwanted children.

Edited by laughedatbytime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...