(I must be in liberal bashing mood)
Is this guy on Huffington Post really complaining that the media isn’t doing a good job on reporting on the downside of Warren Buffet’s philanthropy because… I **it you not…. it may save too many people’s lives and increase the population of third world nations?
I don’t care about how bad off any country is I guarantee you that faced with the choice of a population spurt or children dying of horrible diseases…. LIVING CHILDREN WILL ALWAYS WIN.
No, you had to be wrong. It had to be a modest proposal satire.
My head asplodes.
C’mon, Mr. Crankypants. That’s not how it was.
The writer simply points out–correctly–that providing vaccinations isn’t the end of the line. People who don’t die of disease need to be fed. In countries where nutrition is already a problem, more people makes the problem worse. He’s just pondering why so many media outlets treat this as a celebrity story instead of a policy story.
It’s not all that far from the argument we libs throw at conservatives on abortion: “Sure, you want the babies to be born, but you don’t care what happens after that.”
Perhaps he meant only that saving lives from preventable diseases doesn’t solve the problem of sustaining those lives in countries often plagued by social strife and famine. Or maybe he meant that throwing huge sums of money at a problem without proper planning might result in a multitude of other problems like redundancy and graft . Look at all the Katrina money lost to corruption and imagine tossing billions into regions not exactly known for itheir efficient services or honest governments (As an example, read up on some tsunami aid fraud) . The author never once calls the idea a bad one or remotely suggests, I **it you not, that babies need to die to keep the population down. Maybe, ultimately, he was simply pissed at all the media ignoring the plight of third world nations in lieu of a shallow story celebrating just how awesome Warren Buffett is (which again, is not a knock on Mr. Buffett, but a shot at the media).
Talk about getting it wrong, sheesh.
Of course, the whole LIVING CHILDREN WILL ALWAYS WIN goes out the window, when “Mommy” wants a flat tummy for her two weeks in Barbados…
…has anyone else noticed that Frank seems, more and more, to be picking fights on topics unrelated to the thread for no immediately sensible reason? And he never concedes defeat, even when he is so soundly defeated, but keeps attacking, even though his attacks are meaningless. He’s like that guy at the bar who picks fights with the biggest guy there, loses, but gets up again and again only to get knocked down time and time again, except at this point he’s so drunk and high on adreneline that he’s basically oblivious to the fact that he keeps getting his ass handed to him, and in spite of his persistance and anger at the world that has the audacity to not think like him, continues to rage against it with his particular brand of sound and fury which symbolizes nothing? I mean is this a recent thing with him or have I not been around long enough to tell? I mean honestly, how else in his mind do we go from an article about starvation in the third world to his implication that women get abortions just to be skinny?
While I think that that is a distortion of the pro-choice movement in general, still, do you not think it the least bit vulgar for him to suggest that allowing women to legally have access to a medical procedure, that many of them find emotionally taxing in the extreme, in any way relates to the idea (which even in the extraordinarily unlikely event that it is provable even in one instance would still not suggest any kind of relevant trend) that women would seek an abortion just to look thinner for a vacation?
Won’t Someone Think of the Children!!!
Let’s help Rex out: Conservatives think that Liberals are a bit disengenuous when they claim to always be on the side of “the children” even as they hold the right to kill children (via abortion) as the most important right in the world, moreso even than the right for said children to exist.
Ok, even though I can recognize that as your way of saying “I refuse to be argued with so I will mischaracterize your argument before you even have a chance to make it on an issue that I will not be swayed on”, I at least have to ask, what the flying fornication is “abortion on demand” supposed to even mean? Isnt any medical procedure “on demand”? I mean its not like the state imposes heart surgery on you or anything. Are you trying to associate convenience with costly and painful surgery that has god only knows what kind of moral implications for the patient? Are you trying to transform a medical procedure that involves the termination into an “impulse buy”? Are you honestly so callous and indifferent to the condition of women who have not the means to support a child in any healthy capacity that you… no, you know what, I’m done. You dont see a problem with suggesting (with no proof whatsoever to back up the allegation) that women will terminate life just to keep their figure because the very idea of this impossible horror theoretically helps you argue that the state should be allowed to decide what medical procedures women should be allowed to undertake. I do see a problem with that, because its disengenuous, decietful, and disgusting, not simply to suggest such an event, but to feel the need to. I cannot convince you otherwise because I’m automatically wrong, and you cannot convince me because you have no evidence or logic that backs your claim up. I’m done. Feel free to post some asanine victory comment claiming youve won this little game youve made where rule #1 is that you cannot be beaten, just to get the last word and make yourself feel better so you can hug yourself to sleep and whatnot.
You dont see a problem with suggesting (with no proof whatsoever to back up the allegation) that women will terminate life just to keep their figure because the very idea of this impossible horror theoretically helps you argue that the state should be allowed to decide what medical procedures women should be allowed to undertake.
I was just going to say, “Just because you’re a horrible human being doesn’t mean everyone else is.” But your way is a bit clearer.
Feel free to post some asanine victory comment claiming youve won this little game youve made where rule #1 is that you cannot be beaten, just to get the last word and make yourself feel better so you can hug yourself to sleep and whatnot.
Even though you clearly won with your post, I’ll be glad to take that victory off your hands if you don’t want it. =P
As for me, I’ll take the anti-choice stance seriously the very minute the Religious Right(TM) supports full access to contraceptions. Otherwise, all their position amounts to is punishing women for having sex. You all don’t even have to oppose capital punishment (supporting contraception would be a miracle enough).
A fetus is not a child.
Hey, don’t blame me that your side wants unfetterd access-no questions asked-even for 10 year olds abortion-on-demand. If you don’t want the vulgarity, by all means stop fighting tooth-and-nail for it.
I at least have to ask, what the flying fornication is abortion on demand supposed to even mean? Isnt any medical procedure on demand ?
Actually, no. Rather than simply believing me, walk in to a nearby hospital, and tell them, “I’ve been getting pains in my chest, shortness of breath, and tingling in my left arm. I think I need open heart surgery. What say you set meup for tomorrow afternoon?” You’ll make it to Psych quicker than Surgery.
Where did the “vacationing Mommy” come from? E. M. Nathanson, author of Aborting America, a doctor who had performed hundreds, if not thousands of abortions was a co – founder of the organization that would become NARAL*. What turned him against abortion? Once it was legalized in New York — a while before Roe v Wade — he learned two things that repulsed him: 1) Women were not engaging in heartwrenching, even thoughtful decisions concerning abortion. They were basing their decisions on things like, “I can’t get pregnant, I’m going to Bermuda in two months”; I can’t get pregnant, I’m an Airline Stewardess, and I’ll lose my job”; or, “I can’t get pregnant, we can’t afford it.’ No “gutwrenching”,no “life or death,” just simple instant gratification.
And the second thing? The abortion mills that sprung up after legalization were horrible. He had been to Mexico, and Puerto Rico to see abortion clinics, where women had gone, pretending to “visit their aunts”, in order to have abortions. These places were clean, neat, sanitary, and nary a coat hanger in sight. The mills in New York, on the other hand, were unsanitary, and worse, uncaring.
* No euphemism there, eh? They want Abortion Rights, not “choice.” Everyone who goes to the A & P has “choice.”
Actually, I think they want control of the uterus….
It’s MEN who are always trying to get control of the vagina…..
Although control of the vagina would have prevented the problem of unwanted pregnancy in the first place….
ahh…never mind…
*is temporarily undone* um… the waiting period for guns is to run a background check and to decrease substantially the likelihood that the weapon will contribute to a crime of passion. Being forced to wait to recieve any medical procedure is unnecessary, as it provides no benefit to anyone save the people who enjoy having control over vaginas of women they’ll never meet. *is redone*
Well, for starters, how about, at the bare minimum, a 24 hour waiting period? You have to wait 5 days to buy a gun, can’t you at least wait that long before undergoing what even you yourself describe as “costly and painful surgery with serious moral implications“?
We all know the cure for unwanted pregnancies and AIDS: Sit down and keep your mouth shut!
Hm, well is was in the Leiberman thread where I asked you if there was anyone “reaining” who you hadnt called stupid, and you said that meant I was none too bright or something, so I suppose fair enough there.
Also, yes I am aware that “Jane Roe” has in fact renounced her previous position on abortion many years after the trial. I was referring though specifically to the “let me kill this fetus so I can fit in my two piece” women you got this started on.
And yes, I realize it is an issue of trust on something like that if he cannot back up his claim that he observed women getting abortions for that, and I’m sure we at least agree here, abominable reason. However, I would at least hope that you can see why I would hesitate to trust the words of someone who has said publically that it is allowable to kill doctors who perform abortions.
Oliver, I believe that the mere fact that the thread has degenerated so rapidly from the subject of your original post has inadverently proven your point.
Frank, E.M. Nathanson is the author of The Dirty Dozen. You meant B.N. Nathanson. Small point I know, but if you want to call me an idiot for spelling mistakes…Also I realize that “on demand” doesnt mean precisely immediately for heart surgery, but that it will be performed as soon as it can possibly be, the same way you realize that abortion isnt an immediate, drive-thru-convenience kind of thing.
Well anyways, I dont have the book, can only find the single print run on Amazon from 27 years ago, and they arent actually selling it. I’m curious, does he reference any actual instances of this happening and can prove that it was the case (such as someone who did it, realized after how horrible it was, and then publically renounced her own actions) or is this purely anecdotal evidence from someone with an anti-abortion agenda?
There are any number of women “who did it, realized after how horrible it was, and then publically renounced her own actions.” For example, the original Ms. Roe.
When someone writes a book about what he has observed, I suppose it’s always up to you to believe or not to believe.
Thanks for the correction. The Dirty Dozen is probably my favorite novel and movie. Hence, the confusion.
I kid people (rather harshly, I admit) for making spelling mistakes. I don’t think I’ve ever called you an idiot. Seriously, I apologize. (Unless you made a spelling error when you were insulting me)
If you want to read it, see here:
http://tinyurl.com/jurdw
I can t get pregnant, I m an Airline Stewardess, and I ll lose my job
Solution: Maternity leave.
I can t get pregnant, we can t afford it.
Translation: Poor people shoudn’t be allowed to have sex.
There are any number of women who did it, realized after how horrible it was, and then publically renounced her own actions. For example, the original Ms. Roe.
I don’t care if they have regrets, it doesn’t give them the “right” to control other people’s bodies. What’s right for one person isn’t right for everyone.
Oliver, I believe that the mere fact that the thread has degenerated so rapidly from the subject of your original post has inadverently proven your point.
What point would that be? I’m honestly wondering.
Now I know why he calls himself “SaveFarris,” he’s still afraid he’ll be aborted.
Just like Coulter’s recent remarks about fisting and Farris’ obsession with allowing women the right to choose, Righties can’t stand the fact that they can’t come into your bedrooms and doctor clinics and dictate how you should conduct yourself. Always sticking their noses where they don’t belong — just like in Iraq. Conservatives are the world’s most effective and annoying busybodies.
And, Buffett didn’t make billions by being an idiot. I’m sure he knows what he’s doing. Would you rather he built a 500 foot high pyramid as a monument to his life?
However, I would at least hope that you can see why I would hesitate to trust the words of someone who has said publically that it is allowable to kill doctors who perform abortions.
Well, I don’t know that he said that, and, also, if he said it was raining, you’d be wise to carry an umbrella.
In other words, people who say things we don’t like on Tuesday, don’t necessarily lie all day Tuesday.
How about this converstaion:
X: I still don’t understand why a woman would want to have an abortion. Can’t you have the baby and give it away?
She: I’m not going to carry a baby for nine months, and then give it away… If I carry it that long, I’m going to want to keep it.
X: So it’s better to have an abortion that wrestle with the feeling that you want the baby?
She: Yeah
X: So how many abortions have you had?
She: Three
Do you believe that conversation took place?
“X” was me…
Zython, I realize it’s late, and everything, but you’re really getting slow:
I can t get pregnant, I m an Airline Stewardess, and I ll lose my job
Solution: Maternity leave.
40 years ago, there was hardly any maternity leave, if at all.
I can t get pregnant, we can t afford it.
Translation: Poor people shoudn t be allowed to have sex.
Poor people shouldn’t have babies they can’t afford. But, if they think they’re going to have financial difficulties, that’s still no excuse to terminate a pregnancy.
40 years ago, there was hardly any maternity leave, if at all.
You never said it was 40 year ago. For all I know, it could have been said last week.
Poor people shouldn t have babies they can t afford. But, if they think they re going to have financial difficulties, that s still no excuse to terminate a pregnancy.
…They aren’t having sex to have babies. This situation could be better avoided, however, if poor people had better access to contraception.
Do you believe that conversation took place?
X was me&
Personal antecdotes, a factual arguement does not make. I have a story about how a friend of mine was hassled by a police officer for no good reason. That doesn’t mean that all officers are sleazeballs.
crap, okay, from the beginning:
He sees the abortion as an assault on the fetus, which he sees as a sentient thing that a crime is being committed against, and the use of lethal force may sometimes be required to “defend” it. Granted, he doesnt support all violence in the name of protecting the unborn, but to argue that its allowable in any circumstances is the kind of thing that allows people to let themselves blow up clinics and murder doctors in their homes and such in the name of prevention of a “crime” that would happen at an indeterminate future date. He says that there is a difference between these two situations that makes only the one permissable, but the only difference he draws is how he charactizes both instances. He is vague and equivocating in an attempt to justify something many in the anti-choice crowd denounce. This is what, for me, makes it hard to trust his “testimony” regarding the vacation-abortion scenario without any corroborating evidence to back it up.
Well in truth, yes I can see that being the case. If she cannot properly provide the kind of life for the child that it would deserve, then frankly in the best interest of the child it would be best if she not care for it. Adoption is an option, yes, and frankly one I wish were considered more (not simply in the case of potential mothers choosing it over abortion, but also of people who loudly oppose abortion adopting more children, making it a more appealing option) but this woman realizes that if she were to give birth to it, that in spite of the best interests of the child, she would end up keeping it because of her emotional attachment. I see nothing inherently wrong with her arguement.
As far as having three abortions though… well yeah, okay, thats the point where I say she seriously needs to re-evaluate what the hell she’s doing there. I mean does she just not know where to find condoms or something?
From Killing Abortionists: A Symposium – Bernard N. Nathanson
He sees the abortion as an assault on the fetus, which he sees as a sentient thing that
If she cannot properly provide the kind of life for the child that it would deserve
It’s not “her” life we’re talking about here, it’s the baby’s.
She didn’t say she couldn’t afford it. She said she was sure that after she carried the baby for nine months, she would want it. And, abortion would solve her dilemma. That is hardly “life and death.” As a matter of fact, neither is the hardship excuse.
As far as having three abortions though
Don’t you think she practiced birth control? Of course she did..
And, don’t you think that there are women out there who have had abortions for the same “reason”?
The point is, that “abortion on demand” means just that…
Not emergency, not after careful consideration, not after consultation with another person, just “on demand.”
Where’s the abortion center?
Two blocks down.
That’s all it takes.
I guess he doesn’t get that increased standard of living=lower birth rate. The best way to get rid of overpopulation is to take care of people, it turns out:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
Here’s the lowest 10 on the Birth rate list…
I don’t see a connection between standard of living and birth rate.
Beside, the number of live births has nothing to do with the number of abortions; any more than a large number of cars on the road is proof that there are less car accidents.
216
Latvia 1.27 2006 est.
217
Poland 1.25 2006 est.
218
Slovenia 1.25 2006 est.
219
Northern Mariana Islands 1.24 2006 est.
220
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.22 2006 est.
221
Czech Republic 1.21 2006 est.
222
Lithuania 1.20 2006 est.
223
Ukraine 1.17 2006 est.
224
Singapore 1.06 2006 est.
225
Macau 1.02 2006 est.
226
Hong Kong
Check out the lowest 10 birth rates, and tell me how their standard of living relates to birt rate…
Estonia?