The Abortion Dress

[JJ Husker]

Funny.....most of my comments were specifically about her and her abortions. Interesting that you apparently couldn't figure that out and now claim it is all about some bigger issue. Maybe try considering what it is exactly a person is saying before becoming argumentative and dillusional.

BTW- I didn't do sh#t with the quote function. I know how it works. I simply responded, at the end, after all of the quotes, and that is how the HB system mangled it. So you can stick your condescending snicker up your a$$. And, since I know you'll have trouble here again....I'm not mad or angry. Just being extremely blunt since you seem to have such trouble with comprehension. Good day.

 

[zoogs]

That Martha Plimpton.....what a piece of sh#t person she is. I have absolutely no respect and zero alignment with her thoughts on the matter. She and people like her are why we cannot arrive at any reasonable common ground on abortion.

I've always felt that reasonable people could agree that abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, incest, and when the mothers health was in danger. I've even thought that most reasonable people could agree that the option for a safe and clean abortion provided by a trained medical provider is better than a dirty back alley coat hanger job. But this Plimpton is unreasonable. She wants to have abortions on a whim, for any reason, at any time, because she thinks it has no effect on anyone except her. She is wrong. There is another life involved. And, quite frankly, I would take my chances with any aborted fetus being a better human being than what I feel she is after reading that. I never use this word because I think it is about the ugliest word you can use for somebody but she is a c**t. I want her to feel shame. She should feel shame. She's a piece of sh#t. I wish her mother had aborted her. Wonder if she would be in favor of that?

And here I thought the link you provided to "more of her own words" would lead me to at least a little more understanding or sympathy. It just made me hate her.

Woah.

A woman who has made a 'good faith' effort to prevent a pregnancy but had one anyway, since an abortion in those circumstances is OK in your books -- what degree of shame and self-loathing should she subject herself to in order to stem this tidal of hatred? Should her choice to not become a mother be affirmed and respected as a woman's agency over her own body and reproduction, or ought she live the rest of her joyless days as Arthur Dimmesdale, self-flagellating by night and a scarlet letter emblazoned upon her soul?

Is it that wrong for her to protest the stigma (demonstrated so ably here) of a fairly regular women's health choice?

 

[JJ Husker]

That Martha Plimpton.....what a piece of sh#t person she is. I have absolutely no respect and zero alignment with her thoughts on the matter. She and people like her are why we cannot arrive at any reasonable common ground on abortion.

I've always felt that reasonable people could agree that abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, incest, and when the mothers health was in danger. I've even thought that most reasonable people could agree that the option for a safe and clean abortion provided by a trained medical provider is better than a dirty back alley coat hanger job. But this Plimpton is unreasonable. She wants to have abortions on a whim, for any reason, at any time, because she thinks it has no effect on anyone except her. She is wrong. There is another life involved. And, quite frankly, I would take my chances with any aborted fetus being a better human being than what I feel she is after reading that. I never use this word because I think it is about the ugliest word you can use for somebody but she is a c**t. I want her to feel shame. She should feel shame. She's a piece of sh#t. I wish her mother had aborted her. Wonder if she would be in favor of that?

And here I thought the link you provided to "more of her own words" would lead me to at least a little more understanding or sympathy. It just made me hate her.

Woah.

A woman who has made a 'good faith' effort to prevent a pregnancy but had one anyway, since an abortion in those circumstances is OK in your books -- what degree of shame and self-loathing should she subject herself to in order to stem this tidal of hatred? Should her choice to not become a mother be affirmed and respected as a woman's agency over her own body and reproduction, or ought she live the rest of her joyless days as Arthur Dimmesdale, self-flagellating by night and a scarlet letter emblazoned upon her soul?

Is it that wrong for her to protest the stigma (demonstrated so ably here) of a fairly regular women's health choice?

My opinion of her and my comments on her particular situation stem solely from the article linked in the OP, the article you linked of her own words, and my personal feelings on the matter. It's quite possible that you are giving her much more benefit of the doubt than I am. I just really was not impressed with her attitude or rationale concerning abortions. She seems pretty cavalier and pretty much open to any reason under the sun being acceptable to terminate another life. I'm not convinced she made such good faith efforts....twice even. I believe the extent of what she is saying is, she wasn't ready to have children with her sex partners at the time soshe chose abortion. That really doesn't indicate what kind of effort she put into to avoiding the necessity of an abortion. Based on her overall views, I'm doubting she gave two sh#ts about ending those other lives. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[zoogs]

Part of the point she's trying to make is on the rush to judgment: was it legit or is she a terrible person? Like did she really try hard enough to prevent it? And the answer is: my goodness, back off; it's not for us to decipher. It's an intimately personal health decision that's made regularly, whether it's a single mother in dire financial straits or someone who simply wants to focus on a career (whether that's show business, or cancer research) -- give that benefit of the doubt!

Do the more detestably irresponsible projections of women who have abortions exist? Of course, but in increasingly smaller number as the projections get more and more colorful. The problem is our penchant for making these fancifully disgusting projections, especially on women who speak up and advocate for choice, awareness, and removing stigma. It enables a deep emission of hatred, and a familiar eagerness to wield the familiar female-derogatory cudgels of 'c***' and 'b****' -- and often hits at women who don't deserve it.

It reminds me of the woman who testified to Congress in support of the ACA's contraceptive mandate -- a significant positive in the campaign to lower America's high unintended pregnancy rate -- and the blowback she got from commentators who called her a s*** who just wants to be enabled to have lots of carefree sex. You know what? Some people will use it to be irresponsibly promiscuous but that doesn't begin to justify the broad brush that (thankfully fewer) people use on women advocating for contraceptive access.

Even if this actress is as unworthy an advocate for women's choice as you've decided she is, I hope you don't hold the same view of the message as I've tried to help articulate above. The reason I'm pushing back is it seems you've called your shot on her precisely because of that message.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Funny.....most of my comments were specifically about her and her abortions. Interesting that you apparently couldn't figure that out and now claim it is all about some bigger issue.

You keep making incorrect assumptions. I figured out right away that you seemed to be bent on castigating her. That was clearly evident in post #14 where zoogs tried to engage you in a broader conversation and asked you to clarify your knowledge of her irresponsibility (as I did as well), but you completely danced around his comments and tried to redirect the conversation back to how much you hate her for having abortions and anything she has to say, irrespective of the broader message she is trying to convey. I never claimed your posts were some bigger issue; you clearly want to maintain your narrow focus of rage and hate and use of mischaracterizations to paint a specific picture for you to rail against. It's funny, you kept accusing me of not reading her blog, yet I suspect you probably only read the part where she talked only about herself. You even quoted that part. Did you read the entire article? You should. You'd probably like the part about the removal of the buffer zones, that seems to be right in your wheelhouse.

Maybe try considering what it is exactly a person is saying

Well, it's hard to know exactly what someone is saying when they keep contradicting themselves and use hyperbole.

before becoming argumentative

Not argumentative. Just asking for clarity, and refuting statements/assumptions about me and my posts.

and dillusional.

are we talking about pickles now?

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

If we can legally and morally kill a person who is brain dead (i.e., remove them from feeding tubes) then why is it immoral and should be illegal to end the existence of something that's never achieved consciousness?

I was not aware "we" could morally kill a person who is brain dead.Also, I don't believe "achieved consciousness" is the make or break point for a whole bunch of people in this debate.

Some, actually a whole bunch of, people believe that life is created at the moment of conception.

Some people feel that ending a life, for whatever reason, through whatever means, is not up to us but rather should be determined by natural death. I'm not saying I am of this belief in all cases but I also sure don't think abortion should be used as simply another birth control option.

i don't have a strong opinion either way, but it does seem that consciousness, measured by some sort of brain activity, is a more reasonable point of demarcation than conception or cardiac death.

That sounds like you are relying on science instead of your feelz...

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Perhaps we should make it mandatory for every male aged 14 to 64 to be required to permanently care for an unwanted baby or foster child. With the first year of ownership of each child their bodies are subjected to distress and permanent distortion and appropriate health risks.

Sure, you can submit a request every day to opt out, but if that request isn't received every day on time, or not submitted perfectly, or gets damaged/lost in the mail.... well then, too bad. Congrats DAD!

 

[JJ Husker]

Perhaps we should make it mandatory for every male aged 14 to 64 to be required to permanently care for an unwanted baby or foster child. With the first year of ownership of each child their bodies are subjected to distress and permanent distortion and appropriate health risks.

Sure, you can submit a request every day to opt out, but if that request isn't received every day on time, or not submitted perfectly, or gets damaged/lost in the mail.... well then, too bad. Congrats DAD!

Yeah, that seems a lot easier to accomplish than having any expectation that people who don't want to get pregnant should make a reasonable attempt to not get pregnant. And we sure wouldn't want to point out that adoption is an alternative to killing a living fetus. We can just act like the whole problem stems from people who feel abortion is wrong and has nothing to do with other people not being proactive about not becoming pregnant. I guess we're just lucky our mothers didn't deem us too much of a hassle in their lives.

Try imagining that for 5 seconds. How would you feel if you had been aborted? Oh wait, you can't answer what that would be like because you were never born. Ssshh. Zip it. Only the living people who weren't killed in the womb get to have input on this. Wonder where mankind would be if this great thing known as abortion were more widespread. If a little is so good, maybe a lot would be better.

 

[zoogs]

'Women, if you accidentally get pregnant, you need to fulfill your obligation to society as a baby vessel. Carry the baby to term and pawn it off to an adoption agency. Our society needs more of these unwanted babies in adoption agencies. Sorry the birth control didn't work out, but don't be selfish. Your own life choices are secondary this year. Oh, and guy who impregnated her -- keep doing what you do, man.'

What kind of message is that?

Humankind will be fine. Plenty of people want kids.

 

[JJ Husker]

'Women, if you accidentally get pregnant, you need to fulfill your obligation to society as a baby vessel. Carry the baby to term and pawn it off to an adoption agency. Our society needs more of these unwanted babies in adoption agencies. Sorry the birth control didn't work out, but don't be selfish. Your own life choices are secondary this year. Oh, and guy who impregnated her -- keep doing what you do, man.'

What kind of message is that?

Humankind will be fine. Plenty of people want kids.

Zoogs, do you believe in God?

Do you believe in an all powerful being that makes life possible?

Just curious.

 

[zoogs]

No.

 

[JJ Husker]

No.

Okay. I'll quit wasting my time on this subject with you then. I happen to believe there is something bigger at play than for the only consideration to be what feels good and is most convenient for me. If a person can't consider things beyond that limit, it really is a useless exercise in futility. Thanks for being honest and answering my question.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Perhaps we should make it mandatory for every male aged 14 to 64 to be required to permanently care for an unwanted baby or foster child. With the first year of ownership of each child their bodies are subjected to distress and permanent distortion and appropriate health risks.

Sure, you can submit a request every day to opt out, but if that request isn't received every day on time, or not submitted perfectly, or gets damaged/lost in the mail.... well then, too bad. Congrats DAD!

Yeah, that seems a lot easier to accomplish than having any expectation that people who don't want to get pregnant should make a reasonable attempt to not get pregnant. And we sure wouldn't want to point out that adoption is an alternative to killing a living fetus. We can just act like the whole problem stems from people who feel abortion is wrong and has nothing to do with other people not being proactive about not becoming pregnant. I guess we're just lucky our mothers didn't deem us too much of a hassle in their lives.

Try imagining that for 5 seconds. How would you feel if you had been aborted? Oh wait, you can't answer what that would be like because you were never born. Ssshh. Zip it. Only the living people who weren't killed in the womb get to have input on this. Wonder where mankind would be if this great thing known as abortion were more widespread. If a little is so good, maybe a lot would be better.

What? No rant about Martha? You're diversifying yourself. Bravo!

:

What? "killing a living fetus"? Don't you mean murdering a baby? You're becoming more rational. Bravo!

:

What about zygotes and embryos? Don't they have a voice? Who speaks for them?

So you've gone from shaming certain women to objectifying all them. They are predetermined to be incubators. That's their job, right? That's what they were born to do. That's what they were bred to do. It's their destiny.

Are you so naive to think pregnancy is just a matter of carrying the baby to term, then pop it out, and only then comes the real decision: keep it or give it away? You do know there are a multitude of additional health risks involved, physical and mental, that are associated with pregnancy, right? Even subtle ones like breast cancer can spread more quickly and aggressively to other organs in pregnant/post-partum women? You knew that, right? Oh well, it's not the man whose body is being disfigured and life put at risk, so who the hell cares, right? A woman's duty is to make babies.

 

[JJ Husker]

Perhaps we should make it mandatory for every male aged 14 to 64 to be required to permanently care for an unwanted baby or foster child. With the first year of ownership of each child their bodies are subjected to distress and permanent distortion and appropriate health risks.

Sure, you can submit a request every day to opt out, but if that request isn't received every day on time, or not submitted perfectly, or gets damaged/lost in the mail.... well then, too bad. Congrats DAD!

Yeah, that seems a lot easier to accomplish than having any expectation that people who don't want to get pregnant should make a reasonable attempt to not get pregnant. And we sure wouldn't want to point out that adoption is an alternative to killing a living fetus. We can just act like the whole problem stems from people who feel abortion is wrong and has nothing to do with other people not being proactive about not becoming pregnant. I guess we're just lucky our mothers didn't deem us too much of a hassle in their lives.

Try imagining that for 5 seconds. How would you feel if you had been aborted? Oh wait, you can't answer what that would be like because you were never born. Ssshh. Zip it. Only the living people who weren't killed in the womb get to have input on this. Wonder where mankind would be if this great thing known as abortion were more widespread. If a little is so good, maybe a lot would be better.

What? No rant about Martha? You're diversifying yourself. Bravo!

:

What? "killing a living fetus"? Don't you mean murdering a baby? You're becoming more rational. Bravo!

:

What about zygotes and embryos? Don't they have a voice? Who speaks for them?

So you've gone from shaming certain women to objectifying all them. They are predetermined to be incubators. That's their job, right? That's what they were born to do. That's what they were bred to do. It's their destiny.

Are you so naive to think pregnancy is just a matter of carrying the baby to term, then pop it out, and only then comes the real decision: keep it or give it away? You do know there are a multitude of additional health risks involved, physical and mental, that are associated with pregnancy, right? Even subtle ones like breast cancer can spread more quickly and aggressively to other organs in pregnant/post-partum women? You knew that, right? Oh well, it's not the man whose body is being disfigured and life put at risk, so who the hell cares, right? A woman's duty is to make babies.

You've got some problems dude.

Good luck with that thing you do.....run wild with your own thoughts without really considering what somebody else may be saying. If you got anything else for me, see me in the shed because I'm done being civil with you. There is nothing left that I can say to you in the regular forums.

 

[zoogs]

We can leave it here. I strongly disagree that belief in God is a suitable rejoinder to criticism of the obstinate, scornful characterization of women's choice as selfish.

Abortion definitely isn't an easy topic, and different denominations vary on it. It's been a welcome discussion from my end and I appreciate you having it with me. I just think, don't come out with something like this ...

she is a c**t. I want her to feel shame. She should feel shame. She's a piece of sh#t. I wish her mother had aborted her. Wonder if she would be in favor of that?

...and then invoke 'God'. That's not God, that's you.

@Red, I moved your latest to the 'Shed. It's not the only post that should probably be there, but hopefully it's enough. That kind of tone that's been going on a little ways back in this thread, only belongs there -- if you and JJ would like to continue it in that vein :\