Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
You're peeling out of the squadron, now, Heru-ur. Maybe you should take a walk or have a nice cup of tea or something.
This is downright vitriolic:
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? I can tell you have trouble following an argument without twisting the other fellow's words to suit your preconceived purposes; but racist? Fuck girl, all races have babies. (tis the nature of things)
I didn't twist your words, I quoted you and commented on your argument. I presented a different viewpoint. I challenged your assumptions. I challenged your judgment about blaming girls for unplanned pregnancies, and you continued to blame them, even calling one a "lying ass."
You also implied that your well-heeled women friends would like to adopt white babies. Maybe I misread it, but I don't think so.
Anyway, my opinion is that your perspective of this issue is much too rigid, too black-and-white to pass the reality test. You have no solution except that "all killing is wrong" and that "abortion is killing" therefore "abortion is wrong."
Fine. That's where you stand. That's your right. I find fault with what I deem specious and narrow-minded (and misogynist) arguments to support that stance, but you don't need to defend it to me. However, you dodged all the salient questions I asked you with regard to the unfair judgment and criticism you have leveled at women in this situation, and I think it is unfair rather ignorant.
In your world, nobody can have sex if there is the least chance of an unplanned pregnancy. There are no foolproof birth control methods save abstinence. Even "sterilization" can fail. Just so ya know.
What a load of crap. I never said "white babies"; you did. I never said this bunch was "well-heeled"; you did.
In fact, you made up a whole hell of a lot of crap to get to the point you could call me racist for not wanting helpless babies killed by you and your fiends.
Killing is wrong. It is most especially wrong when women kill the most helpless and innocent because they could not be bothered to take precautions and do not want to have to "do the work" for 9 months.
How many of those months are really bad? 4? You would kill a kid because you do not want to pay the penalty of 4 months for the fun you had? Karma. I can just hope karma gives you everything you deserve.
Never in my wildest pride of our spinning-in-their-graves founding fathers would I have believed that a small handful of Bush surrounding neo-cons would be so easily able to capture our Judicial Department, and render inoperable its role as a check on an ambitious power-seeking Executive they caused to be elected and manipulated to be subservient.
Never in my wildest hopes for financial independence for my family would I have believed that a small handful of greedy, Ayn Rand indocrinated, self-indulgent Wall Street CEO's would be so easily able to capture the system that gave rise to their rise and credibility to their motives. When it gave them the opportunity, they predictably yielded to the temptation, and, as we have seen, squeezed from its sub-prime offerings the very life of their benefactor.
Never mind that at the suggestion of a friendly-to-Wall Street member of that self-exalted Executive, a scampering and unsure Congress offered a $700 billion temporary palliative of resuscitation, the system remains in free fall.
Politically and economically, a small number of power hungry idealogues and an equally small number of money grubbing recipients of the trickle-down theory have reduced in eight short years our country to the shambles Glenn Greenwald describes above.
I predict that a vote heard 'round the world, will alert that world that the citizens of these United states have retaken their government and reset its economic system to one which strengthens the middle-class, hence giving hope to all its citizens.
We have nearly foolproof birth control now;
I guess that depends on what you consider to be an acceptable failure rate and whether or not said failure would result in you becoming a "slave to your body" for the next nine months.
Failure Rates in this chart are based on information from clinical trials submitted to the FDA during product reviews. This number represents the percentage of women who become pregnant during the first year of use of a birth control method... For comparison, about 85 out of 100 sexually active women who wish to become pregnant would be expected to become pregnant in a year.
Male Condom, Latex/PolyurethaneFailure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year):11
Female Condom
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year):21
Diaphragm with Spermicide
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year):17
Lea's Shield
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year):15
Cervical Cap with Spermicide
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): Prentiff Cap--17; FemCap--23
Sponge with Spermicide
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 14-28
Spermicide Alone
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 20-50
That takes care of the relatively inexpensive and, at least in the western world, readily available means. But I'm sure the statistics below were what you were referring to:
Oral Contraceptives--combined pillFailure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 1-2
Availability: Prescription
Oral Contraceptives--progestin-only minipillFailure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 2
Availability: Prescription
Oral Contraceptives--91-day regimen (Seasonale)
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 1-2
Availability: Prescription
Patch (Ortho Evra)
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 1-2
Availability: Prescription
Vaginal Contraceptive Ring (NuvaRing)
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 1-2
Availability: Prescription
http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html
So, while those of us fortunate enough to have health care and who are able to afford the expense, yes, relatively good, though far from foolproof contraception is out there (you still take the risk that you might be one of the 1-2 unfortunate souls who still gets pregnant per 100 women per year using these foolproof methods). If you are not, I guess, by your reasoning, you're just out of luck.
there are those who would try to take care of the helpless infants that you would so coldly kill.
It shouldn't take you long to figure out how many orphans exist currently in this world, so your statement above is demonstrably not true. And you don't know me, nor can you ever be inside the mind of any woman who faces the choice of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. So for you, or any other man, to suggest that these decisions are made in cold blood, or are in any way simplistic or easily arrived at, is decidedly out of line.
I would love to live in a world where abortion, or killing of any other kind, did not exist. But the reality is very different.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
