September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Much like Wrightsville in July | Main | All else »

Feb 22, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

prellshampoofan

Why are Republican men so infatuated with legislating the vagina?

Brian

That selected quotation makes it sound like McDonnell is the reasonable one, when, in fact, he supports the overall bill with minor tweaks. The bill as originally proposed was offensive, but I'm not so sure that what will eventually pass shouldn't also be labeled as offensive. McDonnell needs to be careful to curate his image prior to being selected by Romney as running mate. Never mind you that he is also a supporter of the personhood legislation currently making its way through the General Assembly.

prellshampoofan

"McDonnell needs to be careful to curate his image prior to being selected by Romney as running mate."

^this

polifrog

It is not a "medical procedure", it is the state allowing one individual to infringe on the rights of second individual. State protection of the right to live is of the most basic. Hurdles should be expected.

That we are not granted the visceral spectacle of individuals bound in ownership by another when life is taken does not make leftist drivel like "Why are Republican men so infatuated with legislating the vagina?" any more tolerable than the similar drivel the left used when defending their slave owning voting block of the past or their more recent voting block dependent upon racial marginalization.


prellshampoofan

Do you have kids, poli? Do you produce worthy swimmers?

Andrew Brod

The left defended a slave-owning voting bloc? That's a new one.

I understand why Frog opposes contraception. It's the state allowing one individual to infringe on the rights of second individual, and the fact that the second individual is a spermatozoan doesn't change that fact.

Ishmael

"State protection of the right to live is of the most basic."

Good. Then let's quit sending young men and women off to foreign lands to fight meaningless wars.

polifrog

Andrew:

The left defended a slave-owning voting bloc? That's a new one.

You call something that continued from well before the Civil War to the 1970's new and suggest unawareness?

I suppose you think the carpet baggers were liberals and I suppose you believe Democrat governors welcomed the civil rights movement and I suppose you still think Keynesian Economics is valid and it appears you believe this discussion is about contraceptives rather than abortion.

Utopianists just believe.

sean coon

if i were a woman reading this thread, i'd tell polifrog and anyone else who wants to turn this discussion into a rant about historical party politics to shut the fuck up.

hey poli, how'd you feel if you had to have a catheter jammed in your dick prior to having a vasectomy... for no other reason than to reconsider stopping your seed from procreating? look, i realize that you and the evil doctor g. buy into the santorum approach to women's rights -- where shame is the retro tool of the state to align morality to the self-righteous in our land. i get it. just own it.

polifrog

PSF:

Do you have kids, poli? Do you produce worthy swimmers?

I am proud of my children and their accomplishments, but unfortunately my lack of interest in sports does little for them in that respect.

You?

Andrew Brod

You call something that continued from well before the Civil War to the 1970's new and suggest unawareness?

I call someone who equates "the left" with the Democratic Party from the Civil War to the 1970s a moron.

Or, as some have suggested, a performance artist.

It's hard to tell.

polifrog

Andrew Brod:

I call someone who equates "the left" with the Democratic Party from the Civil War to the 1970s a moron.

Democrats defended slavery. Democrats defended Jim Crow. Democrats defend abortion and every attempt to expose the horror it is, the horror of rights denied, the same rights denied as a result of Jim Crow, the same rights denied slaves. In each case, from those convenienced by the rights denied others, the left has received votes in exchange.

Votes in exchange for humanity is the Democrat way.

Andrew Brod

Sorry. It's still hard to tell.

polifrog

Sean:

where shame is the retro tool of the state to align morality to the self-righteous in our land. i get it. just own it.

There is no shame in striving for morality and falling short. The real shame is in embracing immorality while accusing those who strive for morality and fall short of hypocrisy.

So, no you don't get it.

David Hoggard

So. Striving for "morality" shall henceforth be defined as advocating for unnecessarily inserting a probe into a woman's nether-regions in order for her to undergo an elective medical procedure.

What's next? Requiring a woman's surgeon to perform a titty-twister prior to her breast augmentation/reduction surgery just to make sure she is serious about it.

This is sickening.

polifrog

David, Sean mentioned the use of shame as a form of coercion.

What is the source of the shame Sean mentions? It is the result of one's inability to meet the morality of their society. Sean seems to join the left in believing that it is best to remove morality and embrace immorality so as to avoid shame.

As I stated above, I disagree.

There is no shame in striving for morality and falling short. The real shame is in embracing immorality while accusing those who strive for morality and fall short of hypocrisy.

cheripickr

Beautifully said, and no cursing, empty snark, distortion or feigned revulsion required to make the point.

sean coon

inserting a probe into a woman in order to shame her into reconsidering her decision is what i said and meant. i see that you have no problem owning this government approach to shift a perceived lack of societal morals.

don't twist my words, frog.

"There is no shame in striving for morality and falling short. The real shame is in embracing immorality while accusing those who strive for morality and fall short of hypocrisy."

that quote, in context to your position on this legislation, makes you look like a monster, frog. hell, take the legislation out of the picture, and insert my question to you previously. would i have no shame if, in order to press my morals upon you, i advocated violating your dignity because you made the choice to have a vasectomy?

of course, i know, you can't equate the two as equal scenarios. and that's the problem.

Ed Cone

CP, any thoughts of your own on state-mandated vaginal probes?

polifrog

Sean:

of course, i know, you can't equate the two as equal scenarios. and that's the problem.

You are able to equate the two scenarios because you do not value the rights of the unborn. I, however, value the rights of the unborn as well as the rights of all humans and that does indeed make the two scenarios very different.

It is not about impressing morals on another, it about respecting morals.

cheripickr

Not really, I just like to hear the discussion on controversial issues like you have often claimed to when I have asked you the similar questions. I hope it's still not considered taboo here to compliment someone on the quality of the expression of their position but if it is I'll stop.

polifrog

Thanks, cheri.

sean coon

i'm sorry, frog, but how does a woman get pregnant if a man doesn't do his part? why is it immoral for a woman to make such a decision, but it's perfectly fine for a man to shut down his seed and be free to pleasure fuck? (sorry if that phrase stings your sensibilities, cheri)

Ed Cone

CP, of course you are welcome to browse the thread and express your admiration for the work of others. I think the world would be a better place if people more often considered issues for a while before launching their opinions in public.

But, given some time to think about it and a direct question or two on the subject, what is your take on state-mandated vaginal probes?

cheripickr


What was/were the direct question or two you are referring to while I take the time to think about it/them? Or did you just mean the same 'general take' question repeated? Maybe you can supply your take while I think about it, or are you also still in the 'just trying to figure this stuff out' mode?


Ed Cone

CP, sorry for any confusion in my wording.

I'm asking what you think about state-mandated vaginal probes.

Are such procedures an overreach by the government, or are you OK with the state ordering them?

polifrog

sean:

i'm sorry, frog, but how does a woman get pregnant if a man doesn't do his part?

When it became a woman's right to choose regardless of the partner's desires society made it perfectly clear that men have no obligation in the matter.

But how do you equate abortion to shutting down one's seed, male or female?

James

Zygotes are living things, Frog. Sperm are living things, too. So are eggs. So are stem cells. You are splitting hairs when you don't equate them.

Why have you drawn the line of demarcation in the particular place you have chosen today? That Frog line has not existed throughout most of history. It is only recently, with the advent of an aggressive Christian patriarchy, that the zygote test has come into vogue.

The only possible case you can make for distinguishing between "zygote" and its component parts (sperm and egg) lies in religious belief related to human soul. As I understand it, you believe the act of fertilization creates a magical new thing that doesn't exist in the sperm and egg as separate elements.

As an atheist, I see soul as a figment of your overactive imagination, having no relevance for my life beyond the need to constantly battle those who wish to impose their beliefs on me. If I were an atheist woman, you would literally be imposing your religious beliefs on my ability to manage my own body.

I thought you were a conservative. You could protect a lot more of the "unborn" if you come out against condoms and masturbation.

Ishmael

Not trying to change any minds here...if some of you enjoy sitting on a moral throne and imposing your views on others just blog-wise, that is all well and good. You have defined yourself quite well and provided a cautionary tale to those who find this shortcoming within their thought process.
As Emerson would say, there is no need to say anything really, what you are is plain to most people you meet and associate with.
However, when it comes to laws that require women to undergo invasive procedures to satisfy your small slice of society, then I should hope that citizens will gather all the courage they have and take a stand for the women.

polifrog

James:

Zygotes are living things, Frog. Sperm are living things, too. So are eggs. So are stem cells. You are splitting hairs when you don't equate them.

...

As I understand it, you believe the act of fertilization creates a magical new thing that doesn't exist in the sperm and egg as separate elements.

A human sperm and egg each have half the genetic material necessary to create a human. As such, sperm and eggs are not humans, but when they unite they do culminate in something special, a human.

So yes, I "believe the act of fertilization creates a magical new thing that doesn't exist in the sperm and egg as separate elements."

I am surprised you believe you are asexual.

Dr. Mary Johnson

Cheri e-mailed and asked me to take a look at this thread and offer a pithy comment (he apparently thinks I'm good at it).

Allow me to be blunt:

The woman's vagina was "probed" in order to get pregnant.

It will have to be "probed" again in order to abort the pregnancy.

We are talking about ultrasounds, yes?

In terms of offering a simple solution to something our left-leaning brethren want to make difficult, allow me to suggest that if the pregnancy is too early to be confirmed by anything other than a transvaginal ultrasound, you can always defer the ultrasound (and therefore the abortion) by a week or two - in order to allow the lowly zygote to get bigger.

Then, via transabdominal methods, the "Mother" can see the unfortunate/doomed baby's beating heart . . . making the state-mandated overeach Ed is bleating against here unnecessary.

Then, assuming she wants to proceed with stopping that heart, her baby's life can be snuffed out by probing her vagina.

Nobody's "rights" get violated except the baby's very basic right to live.

When you really think about it (and speaking as a woman), jamming a catheter up a man's urethra is rather like pithing the brain of atheist James' unfortunate zygote - since so many men (including apparently several on this thread) think only with that organ anyway.

It's why we're in so many of the boats we're in.

Good day, gentlemen.

sean coon

well, dr. mary certainly doesn't have an ideological perspective to defend, nor a fear of penetration. got that settled.

let me try positioning this another way: should the state be able to force an unnecessary and intrusive medical procedure in *any* situation?

obviously there are people on this thread who feel the ends justify the means.

polifrog

Dr. Mary Johnson:

The woman's vagina was "probed" in order to get pregnant.

It will have to be "probed" again in order to abort the pregnancy.

I suppose I was beating around the bush. Thanks for being on target.

cheripickr

"The woman's vagina was "probed" in order to get pregnant.
It will have to be "probed" again in order to abort the pregnancy.
We are talking about ultrasounds, yes?
"Then, assuming she wants to proceed with stopping that heart, her baby's life can be snuffed out by probing her vagina."

Damn, Mary! That's exactly what I was already thinking but it just seemed so obvious and unsophisticated I was afraid I was missing something somehow and this is such an emotional and controversial issue was almost afraid to say it. Maybe I should just let fly more often.

I thought most women get vag US's all the time for various reasons and don't think twice (My wife would rather have a vag US over a mammogram any day) but relatively very few get abortions, even fewer see it as no big trauma(I hope).

Please feel free to correct any of my callous male assumptions about that organ I don't possess,(even though I've been called one here) Dr Mary.

Posted by: cheripickr |

polifrog

sean:

let me try positioning this another way: should the state be able to force an unnecessary and intrusive medical procedure in *any* situation?

A mute question under ObamaCare.

cheripickr

Poli, Do I detect a bit of sophomoric wit? Well done.

sean coon

try answering the question, instead of responding with a vague, political statement.

btw, i find it cute that you email others to have them comment on a post that you have every opportunity to do so yourself, particularly when the topic specifically affects your gender, cheri.

Ed Cone

I read Atrios saying that so much of this debate is about punishing the "slutty slut slut sluts," and I think, c'mon, it's more complicated than that, and then I read this thread and wonder if he's right after all.

More fodder for the next all-male panel.

David Hoggard

"The woman's vagina was "probed" in order to get pregnant."

Yes, hopefully by her choice.

"It will have to be "probed" again in order to abort the pregnancy."

Again, hopefully, by her choice.

"Then, via transabdominal methods, the "Mother" can see the unfortunate/doomed baby's beating heart . . ."

Insert "will be forced to " between "Mother" and "see".

"Then, assuming she wants to proceed with stopping that heart, her baby's life can be snuffed out by probing her vagina."

And, finally, back to her choice.

Good day, Mary.

cheripickr

Your welcome, Sean. I assumed, correctly I'm sure, that most people would find the perspective of a seasoned local female pediatrician a unique and valuable contribution to a discussion of this particular issue, and since she is busy and I don't think follows this blog much anymore, figured she would probably miss it otherwise. As it turns out, my first pass(albeit tentative) take on it was nearly identical to what she expressed. So like I said above, maybe in the future I should just let fly without overthinking it.

sean coon

cheri is not only a chick, but a cheerleader. i've such a scary image in my head now...

sean coon

actually, cheri, dr. mary seems way over the top. i mean, i don't know the woman, but believe me, i know way too much about her past (her choice) and her resentment (her choice) and her pitbull-like grip of bitterness against people she perceives to have wronged her (her choice).

as such, she wouldn't be my first or last choice when securing a medical doctor, but hey, that's just my choice.

cheripickr

Actually, Sean, I sort of appreciate different perspectives on controversial issues whether I agree with them or not, especially when they bring a unique perspective not otherwise available, or when I have not reached a firm position myself. I also despise when others, apparently from perceived threat to the certainty of their own inflexible positions, choose to counter those perspectives with insult, ridicule, breezy dismissal, rudeness, shrillness, gang-snark,, feigned outrage and incredulity about the other's seriousness, and other lame tactics to cover up their own insecurities or intolerance of diversity of opinion. But hey, that's just my choice.

sean coon

cheri, i'm wide open to discuss who's the best point guard in the league or how to best stimulate the economy, but when it comes to issues that would adversely affect people i love, sorry, i draw the line.

but hey, that's just my choice.

cheripickr

Ed, since you asked me first, and since so far that's been your only contribution to the thread., other than to insert yet another link to someone else's opinion, what is YOUR take on this issue? (I'd use italics instead of caps if I knew how)

Ed Cone

CP, is that you, peeking out from behind Mary's skirts? Step forward, lad, and accept the huzzahs you so richly deserve! Your Hall of Fame career as an avoider of direct queries and a player of Let's You And Him Fight seemed untoppable, but e-mailing mommy to ansuh the hawd kwestyun for you was a stroke of real brilliance.

Good to know, if only by transitive property, that you equate state-mandated vaginal probes with consensual intercourse.

Anyway: I think these state-mandated vaginal probes would be a terrible idea, and that they have little or nothing to do with medicine and a lot to do with shaming and intimidating women, while empowering the government to intervene where it should not in personal and private matters.

cheripickr

Having nothing else to say about the subject than your usual pre-link snarky quip, this one about how only males are discussing these things, then entering the discussion here where only males are discussing things to express your obvious annoyance at me for complimenting another's argument, then disapproving the solicitation of one of the few females who ever comments here's perspective into the discussion, even one who spends a good bit of her livelihood at the intersection of life and womb, the absence of such perspective which had been your only expressed concern to that point, but managing to restrain your snarky derision until I committed the crime of daring to ask YOUR opinion about the subject, as a natural response to you doing the same to me , says worlds about your sincerity, among many other things. After 2 years of teeth-pulling attempts to get you to peek out from behind your own links to discuss anything, I gave up. It long ago became apparent to me, among others, that it is your vagina that is not worth the bother of probing.

Ishmael

Ah to be a monk and have such abstinence imposed on me!

Andrew Brod

Damn...

polifrog

Ed:

a lot to do with shaming and intimidating women, while empowering the government to intervene where it should not in personal and private matters.

Shaming women? How does introducing a woman to her child shame her?

And since when does "empowering the government to intervene where it should not in personal and private matters" concern an ObamaCare supporter?

Do you find national mandates/ decisions/ edicts/ diktats/ (and make no mistake, that is what they are when issued from a bureaucracy rather than being subjected to proper public input via congress' law making authority) preferable to the making of state law that is first properly subjected to the concerns of the citizenry?

Compare your "vaginal probe" objections, objections to the possibility of state law to the experience of Americans who could only oppose the contraceptive mandate after it had become national law.

A time will come when the roles are reversed and you find yourself objecting not to embryonic non-law but to law born whole from bureaucracy after silently gestating within committee out of site, safe from citizen objection.

But, then, perhaps that is the America you prefer.

The comments to this entry are closed.