Prolife's prurient interest in controlling your body: explained.

[Felicity]

Yes, yes, of course....pro-choicers and Planned Parenthood in particular, really just want to eradicate minorities:roll:

I'm not the one making sweeping generalizations.

How is that statement wrong?

I guess I wasn't aware that human rights began in the 60s in America... Thanks for the lesson!:doh

 

[Felicity]

rampant Nazism you keep accusing her of.

Your words NOT mine.

And calling this a "no-brainer" doesn't address my point: if the negative actions and ideas of past people are enough to taint anything they did that was positive, then we should have no heroes, at all, ever.

The point is Planned Parenthood does not condemn anything she says--they make excuses and honor her as "its all good."

The US Constitution was written by bad men, if you look at them in a certain light; that doesn't make their work less valuable.

The thing is--these men were flawed and the flaws did not bear out in the work they did. The flaws of their personal actions and/or beliefs did not taint the future application of the policies and philosophies they promoted. LOOK what Sanger's policies and philosophies have wrought! Take the scales from your eyes, for God's sake! As Pro-choicers are so fond of saying, NO ONE WANTS an abortion. Hey--but EVERYONE wants freedom and justice! Your comparison between the founders of our Constitution and the founder of Planned Parenthood is Apples and Oranges.

 

[1069]

I guess I wasn't aware that human rights began in the 60s in America... Thanks for the lesson!

You're welcome! :smile:
If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

 

[1069]

Illustration II of my theory:

Posted today by DeeJayH, an antichoicer of indeterminate gender, on another thread located here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-ask-how-oreilly-got-abortion-records-13.html

"and yet it is the likes of you that are so irresponsible
so hot for an orgasm they do not care about the fact that another life is affected by their actions... try swallowing
you cant get pregnant that way, last i heard
either that or take it in the ***
there is more to life than getting your rocks off...LIFE is life
whether it is an innocent fetus, or some cum glutton gutter slut..."

To me, these are the words of a person who is utterly terrified of something; someone who feels so threatened that he/she is lashing out blindly as if in defense of his/her very life.
But afraid of what, for heaven sake?
How can we make them understand that there is no threat in women having the constitutional right to bodily sovereignty?
Just because females now have the right to control their own bodies and fertility just like males does not mean that the rights of men will fall by the wayside, or that they will be altered or affected in any way whatsoever.

 

[Felicity]

If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

So 1069....

....What are you afraid of that that you have to generalize every prolifer as having a "prurient" interest in control? Because some people are crass (to the extreme) in expressing a position, doesn't mean that everyone who holds a similar conclusion concerning life has the same lack of rational logic. What is the "something" you are lashing out at with your stereotyping? Could it be that you see a little bit of logic in some pro-life arguments and so must marginalize all pro-lifers in order to ignore that little voice that says..."hmmmm....that kinda makes sense...." Maybe not--just a thought of mine.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Machiavellian--"the ends justify the means."

And what exactly is the "ends" of Sanger's means? ...Legal killing of those that cannot defend themselves. ...Women who are in a battle against their own fertility--that which should empower them--through unnecessarily medicating healthy bodies and having surgery to kill a life when their body is merely demonstrating a healthy response to biological functions. ...Women with fertility issues once they decide they would like to have children because of damage done to their systems from the drugs or the surgeries. ...Families that have missing father figures because the union of man and woman is separated from the responsibility of their actions. ...Women who see children as a "burden" rather than a gift. I could go on...yeah...One hellava positive inpact! That award should only be the "honor" given serial killers and those convicted of crimes against humanity!

The ends of her means? Women in control of their own bodies. Liberty for all persons, as promised by our constitution. Equality between men and women in regards to sexual freedom. The ability to choose one's own path in life. All the things that Margaret Sanger fought for, we now have. And people who fight for those ideals should receive an award to honor their efforts; it might as well be named after one of the first to fight for those same ideals. It is a helluva positive impact, in my opinion.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Your words NOT mine.

You're right; I apologize. You never called her a Nazi. Just a "racist, elitist hag," a misogynist, a eugenicist, an elitist slut, and the model for Hitler's eugenics policies.

The point is Planned Parenthood does not condemn anything she says--they make excuses and honor her as "its all good."

Excuse me, didn't you just admit that they put the original quote back into their website? Doesn't that seem as though they are trying to deal with her uglier views along with those views of hers they still hold?

The thing is--these men were flawed and the flaws did not bear out in the work they did. The flaws of their personal actions and/or beliefs did not taint the future application of the policies and philosophies they promoted. LOOK what Sanger's policies and philosophies have wrought! Take the scales from your eyes, for God's sake! As Pro-choicers are so fond of saying, NO ONE WANTS an abortion. Hey--but EVERYONE wants freedom and justice! Your comparison between the founders of our Constitution and the founder of Planned Parenthood is Apples and Oranges.

Take the scales from my eyes, huh? I'm impressed that someone with vision as clear as yours doesn't see the irony of posting that everybody wants freedom and justice -- the entire basis of my argument, as you well know -- while trying to get me to agree that abortion is wrong.
As you also know, my opinion of the end results of Sanger's policies and philosophies is approving; she did the right thing, and I'm glad she was there to do it, to lay the groundwork for the freedom that American women now have. So I don't think her elitism tainted anything, and I honor her contributions -- the same way I honor Thomas Jefferson despite the fact that he owned slaves.

This argument is circular when you try to use it to convince us that abortion is wrong: you're arguing that Sanger was bad because the results of her work are bad, while also arguing that the results of her work are bad because she was bad. It has to be one or the other.

 

[Felicity]

You're right; I apologize. You never called her a Nazi. Just a "racist, elitist hag," a misogynist, a eugenicist, an elitist slut, and the model for Hitler's eugenics policies.

I think I called her a b!tch once, too.

Excuse me, didn't you just admit that they put the original quote back into their website? Doesn't that seem as though they are trying to deal with her uglier views along with those views of hers they still hold?

No...they deleted the whole section that dealt with that because (I guess) there is no defending it.

This argument is circular when you try to use it to convince us that abortion is wrong: you're arguing that Sanger was bad because the results of her work are bad, while also arguing that the results of her work are bad because she was bad. It has to be one or the other.

I'm arguing that PP is bad because they try to hide the genesis of their organization behind revisionist history. Why hide it if it's all okay?

As for the results of her work...she is just one "racist, elitist, misogynistic, eugenicist hag"--Her ideals are bad simply because they are morally wrong--"she" has nothing to do with why they are wrong--she merely gave birth to a vehicle for this evil.

 

[Felicity]

Ooooops...silly me...I gave credit to Planned Parenthood that was undeserved. The truncated quote is STILL part of their revision of history. I missed it because it was at the bottom of the page. Really, I should have known better.:doh

 

[1069]

The ends of her means? Women in control of their own bodies. Liberty for all persons, as promised by our constitution. Equality between men and women in regards to sexual freedom. The ability to choose one's own path in life. All the things that Margaret Sanger fought for, we now have. And people who fight for those ideals should receive an award to honor their efforts; it might as well be named after one of the first to fight for those same ideals. It is a helluva positive impact, in my opinion.

Beautifully put. So eloquent.

 

[ngdawg]

How is logic coming into play when it's been stated that even birth control pills shouldn't be allowed because they prevent implantation and thusly cause abortions?? Or that fertility treatments are almost as bad because they 'interfere' with natural progression....one would have to assume that the person who made those ludicrous claims is a naturalist who does not wear clothes, does not eat meat, grows their own food in the form of wild vegetation, does not mow their lawn, uses sex strictly for procreation and doesn't use tampons.:mrgreen: After all, every one of those acts interferes with the natural progression of....something....

 

[talloulou]

Liberty for all persons, as promised by our constitution.

Yeah with "person" being a political contruct. :roll:

Equality between men and women in regards to sexual freedom.

There is currently no equality. Women get to choose parenthood while men may have it thrusted on them despite their wants.

The ability to choose one's own path in life.

Well moms get to say, "Am I ready to be a mom or should I just abort? While men are at the mercy of the females decision with little to no regard given to their feelings or their desires when it comes to their path in life. They have to just buck up and take whatever she throws at him. Of course that's why I plan on telling my son to keep it in his pants or wear a rubber. But tell a prochoice woman the same thing and she goes apeshite.

All the things that Margaret Sanger fought for, we now have.

Well, except that I just lifted the delusions from that fairy tale.

And people who fight for those ideals should receive an award to honor their efforts; it might as well be named after one of the first to fight for those same ideals. It is a helluva positive impact, in my opinion.

You men are sooooooooo *****whipped. :mrgreen:

 

[1069]

You men are sooooooooo *****whipped.

Yes, Coffee... you know that if you support gender equality, it must mean you're gay as a grig.
Why can't you be a real man, a real, testosterone-pumped, chest-thumping misogynist like... oh, like Jamesrage, or Deejay, or Doughgirl?
Fat chance of you ever getting any of the cool girls to like you.

:kissy:

 

[talloulou]

Yes, Coffee... you know that if you support gender equality, it must mean you're gay as a grig.
Why can't you be a real man, a real, testosterone-pumped, chest-thumping misogynist like... oh, like Jamesrage, or Deejay, or Doughgirl?
Fat chance of you ever getting any of the cool girls to like you.

:kissy:

Real man take care of a baby they helped create. I want men to take care of their children. Why the hell should women get to kill them?

If my son gets a girl pregnant I expect him to be a father. If she wants to keep that baby and he throws his hands in the air and screams about how his life is ruined I will be very disappointed in the job I did raising him. Real men don't abandon their babies.

Real women don't either.

 

[talloulou]

Yes, Coffee... you know that if you support gender equality, it must mean you're gay as a grig.
Why can't you be a real man, a real, testosterone-pumped, chest-thumping misogynist like... oh, like Jamesrage, or Deejay, or Doughgirl?
Fat chance of you ever getting any of the cool girls to like you.

:kissy:

I just wonder what coffe would do if he had a son that got a girl pregnant. And that girl insisted on raising the child! Would he tell his son...."You didn't want this and you aren't ready for it so f-uck her and the kid?"

I don't think he would.

So why raise his daughter differently? Where's the equality in that?

 

[talloulou]

Fat chance of you ever getting any of the cool girls to like you.

:kissy:

In all honesty I don't think I would have been able to fall for some guy that was "prochoice." A guy who didn't mind if I killed his baby would not be any kind of guy I would choose to make the father of mine.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Yeah with "person" being a political contruct. :roll:

No, "person" is an incredibly difficult concept to define clearly, barring knowledge granted directly from the Lord Our God, of course.

There is currently no equality. Women get to choose parenthood while men may have it thrusted on them despite their wants.

This has to be the most pathetic argument in the whole debate. Fatherhood is never "thrust" upon men. A monetary responsibility, yes, but I don't think any of us believes that cutting someone a check equates to parenting.

Well moms get to say, "Am I ready to be a mom or should I just abort? While men are at the mercy of the females decision with little to no regard given to their feelings or their desires when it comes to their path in life. They have to just buck up and take whatever she throws at him. Of course that's why I plan on telling my son to keep it in his pants or wear a rubber. But tell a prochoice woman the same thing and she goes apeshite.

When the man has to give up control of his body for nine months, then we can talk about men having to "suffer" fatherhood in the same way you want women to suffer motherhood. But having to pay money, even if it is unfair, is in no way equivalent to bearing a child.

Well, except that I just lifted the delusions from that fairy tale.

It must be so pretty there, in the Land of Make-Believe. Do you live on Lollipop Lane, or Gumdrop Way?

Let me know when you come back to our planet. Your argument proves nothing, and the fact that you declare victory before you even get a counterargument implies that you know it, and think your only hope is preemption. Mission Accomplished.

You men are sooooooooo *****whipped. :mrgreen:

Actually, I'm a panty-waisted limp-wristed fag. I'd like to be man enough to impregnate a woman, and then beat her until she knew her place -- barefoot and pregnant in my kitchen -- but my wife is a better fighter than me.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Real man take care of a baby they helped create. I want men to take care of their children. Why the hell should women get to kill them?

If my son gets a girl pregnant I expect him to be a father. If she wants to keep that baby and he throws his hands in the air and screams about how his life is ruined I will be very disappointed in the job I did raising him. Real men don't abandon their babies.

Real women don't either.

Real men are not defined by their ability to procreate, nor their choices in terms of a biological function. Real women aren't either. You should try seeing people as more than breeders; it can be quite rewarding.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I just wonder what coffe would do if he had a son that got a girl pregnant. And that girl insisted on raising the child! Would he tell his son...."You didn't want this and you aren't ready for it so f-uck her and the kid?"

I don't think he would.

So why raise his daughter differently? Where's the equality in that?

I would REALLY appreciate it if you wouldn't answer questions for me.

First and most simple answer: I have no children and never will have any, so all of this crap is moot.

For the sake of the discussion, I would tell both my son and the girl that I didn't think they were ready to be parents, and I would want them to explain to me why they thought they should have children. If they wanted to have children and knew why they wanted it -- some reason other than "It's the right thing to do" -- I would support them as well as I could, though I would expect them to support themselves, first. If my son was not ready to have children, I would support that decision, as well. If the girl wqas not ready to have children and my son wanted to, I'd tell him, "Tough sh!t. It isn't up to you."

If I had a daughter, the answers would be the same, roles reversed. There's your equality. See how easy it is to figure these things out when you let other people do their thinking for themselves, instead of telling them what they should or shouldn't do?

In all honesty I don't think I would have been able to fall for some guy that was "prochoice." A guy who didn't mind if I killed his baby would not be any kind of guy I would choose to make the father of mine.

Eh, you wouldn't want me, 'lou. I'm not a Real Man. I think women should be seen as people with brains, rather than some combination of blowup doll and incubator. Women mean more to me than sex and babies.

And seeing as how I don't want to have children, and that seems to be your criteria for choosing a mate, I don't think it would have happened between us. Ah, well. We'll always have Paris.

 

[talloulou]

If my son was not ready to have children, I would support that decision, as well.

So if he refused to be a father to a child he created you wouldn't be disappointed? If he told you, "You're not really a grandfather because I didn't want that kid and I'm not ready for that kid so despite that kids existence I'm gonna ignore him? You wouldn't be ashamed that you had raised a man like that? :roll:

 

[Felicity]

Real men are not defined by their ability to procreate, nor their choices in terms of a biological function. Real women aren't either. You should try seeing people as more than breeders; it can be quite rewarding.

YIKES!!!! Exactly what I'm talkin' about when I say Sanger's/PP's influence on the perception of women's fertility is ANTI-WOMAN! The fact of women's fertility is a BONUS for our gender--an HONOR--a thing to be REVERED rather than CASTRATED as so many do with drugs and surgery. When you diminish the unique ability women have, you strip that "specialness" from them. "Mere breeders"????? There is nothing "mere" about the gift of fertility. It is the perception that fertility is somehow a curse or illness rather than a supreme privilege that diminishes women in our society!

 

[Felicity]

CoffeeSaint--I have kinda a personal question, but I am curious as to the thinking behind such a decision....

...If a "family" with children was never something you and your wife thought you would come to be--ever, what is the motivation for getting married? Why not just live together in a committed relationship? Is it simply a financial agreement for tax purposes and inheritance? I'm not being facetious--I am curious--I want to understand the thouight process.

 

[ngdawg]

YIKES!!!! Exactly what I'm talkin' about when I say Sanger's/PP's influence on the perception of women's fertility is ANTI-WOMAN! The fact of women's fertility is a BONUS for our gender--an HONOR--a thing to be REVERED rather than CASTRATED as so many do with drugs and surgery. When you diminish the unique ability women have, you strip that "specialness" from them. "Mere breeders"????? There is nothing "mere" about the gift of fertility. It is the perception that fertility is somehow a curse or illness rather than a supreme privilege that diminishes women in our society!

So, am I to assume that those without this 'gift' are less? Menopause makes us unvaluable? Those that choose never to have kids?
Yea, I agree, fertility IS a gift, one I was not given. That doesn't make me any less a woman and it's not a bonus to be handed out to those deemed worthy of it.
We're not special merely because of a uterus. Thanks for setting back womanhood about 120 years.

 

[jallman]

I see why you don't like to bother with history.....it's not your best subject, obviously.

I don't see anything out of line with her observations. They were all true. Now your grasp on science...that's something to laugh at. :2wave:

 

[jallman]

YIKES!!!! Exactly what I'm talkin' about when I say Sanger's/PP's influence on the perception of women's fertility is ANTI-WOMAN! The fact of women's fertility is a BONUS for our gender--an HONOR--a thing to be REVERED rather than CASTRATED as so many do with drugs and surgery. When you diminish the unique ability women have, you strip that "specialness" from them. "Mere breeders"????? There is nothing "mere" about the gift of fertility. It is the perception that fertility is somehow a curse or illness rather than a supreme privilege that diminishes women in our society!

Thats all true for the woman who WANTS to be a mother. When a woman doesn't want to be a mother, that gift of reproduction is turned into a burden she is saddled with by a bunch of lying, slaving, guilt merchants who feel the need to control her.