You can’t make this shit up. Michelle Bachmann proposed a bill last Thursday called the “Heartbeat Informed Consent Act.” This abortion-deterrent bill isn’t going to go anywhere, especially in the senate, so there’s nothing really to worry about, but it is scary anyway.
This is how it is supposed to work (from the Huffington Post): “The "Heartbeat Informed Consent Act" requires doctors to make the fetal heartbeat visible and audible to the woman prior to the abortion procedure and to describe the ultrasound image to her in detail, even if she prefers not to hear about it. If the woman is between four and five weeks pregnant, the doctor has to perform a "transvaginal ultrasound" in order to hear the heartbeat, which involves a probe and can be physically uncomfortable for the woman.”
That’s right! If I am four to five weeks pregnant, some doctor is going to UNNECESSARILY stick a probe up my vagina so that I can hear my fetus’ heartbeat as clear as can be. Having a run-of-the-mill ultrasound that can pick up sound just won’t cut it (even though you can hear that heartbeat damn well that way!). They’ve gotta shove some probably cold ass metal probe up me. Nice. Real nice. Why not do a rectal exam while they’re at it. You know, anything to try and get me not to have an abortion. Let’s do everything we can to bring another mouth into this world which Republicans care nothing about when it’s out of the womb.
Let me say this clearly: STAY THE SHIT OUT OF MY VAGINA!
How can Bachmann ever think to propose such a thing!?!??!? That is way beyond me. I thought Republicans were all about getting the government out of our lives as much as possible. Not for Bachmann. She wants the government up my vagina! And let me tell you, the government has no business up there. I'll choose who goes up there, thank you.
Like I said, this bill will go nowhere. But why the hell are we electing people to our national political stage who come up with this shit? We are such stupid people that elect such stupid people.
Willis, Bachman is only trying to save human life. You are out there kicking your legs open, get pregnant, and want us to pay for the murder of your baby. Well, murder is wrong, whether it is done in Iraq, in prison, or in a doctor's office. If you suck down the birth control pill or use condoms you would not fine your irresponsible ass in this kind of situation in the first place. Now you are criticizing Bachman cause she wants to do something about this wholesale murder of babies. This has got to end. Imagine if Steve Jobs' parents had murdered him. They had the baby and gave him up for adoption. The Jobs adopted him. The babies deserve to live. Hats off to Bachman for trying to do something about the murder of the babies.
ReplyDelete...haha. What if Steve Jobs was aborted? That's the best you can come up with? Hilarious. Let's pretend for one moment that abortion was a non-issue. Who would you vote for then? Would you even vote? It seems to me that Michelle Bachman's party favors both the death penalty and senseless wars...so you, like Bachman (and all politicians, regardless of party), are a hypocrite. It is so ridiculous that anti-choice voters claim to care so much about life, and then as soon as that baby is born, favor cutting any programs that assist the disadvantaged (such as WIC, free lunch, health care programs for the needy, etc.). Not to mention that many situations that lead to pregnancy don't fall into the category of being "irresponsible." What about rape or incest? Are you insinuating that you blame the victim in these situations? I don't even know why I'm wasting time and energy replying to such a ridiculous comment. Ugh.
ReplyDeleteSo what exactly is your arguments? That the state should fund your irresponsible behavior? You ask me who I would vote for if abortion was not an issue, then in the next sentence you make a stupid statement that all politicians are hypocrites. Your next stupid statement is that antichoice voters care so much about life and as soon as the baby is born they favor cutting any programs that assist the disadvantaged such as WIC, free lunch, health care programs for the needy. Look Willis, we have a large entitlement programs in the US so the politicians can't be as bad as you claim. Besides you believe that they are all hypocrites anyway so you probably do not vote, just sit around complaining and sucking beer and eating pizza so you really don't have shit to say. You don't even have enough sense to VOTE.
ReplyDeleteWillis, Is this the best you got? Rape and incest.
ReplyDeleteGetting pregnant today if this is not your intent is an example of irresponsible behavior and you know it but once you are pregnant the baby deserves to live.
Stop supporting murderers. Let the babies live. You may have another Steve Jobs.
Well spoken 10:42 , 11:06- how about showing some respect for those who do not share your personal opinion? You are rude, and either are too incompetent to get what 10:42 is explaining, or are just plain blind to different points of view. I agree with Bachman in the sense that this wholesale murder of children needs to stop, how vile can a civilzation be? It's become rediculous, abortion is almost used as birth control now days. Yes, in the case of incest or rape it is up to the mother if she wishes to abort but that is one of the rare exceptions that could be considered justified. On the other hand, why is it the baby's fault that his father raped is mother? Why should he have to die for what they did wrong?
ReplyDelete10:42, what kind of argument is that? Yes, if Steve Job's mother had an abortion, we would not have had Steve Jobs. But if Hitler's mother had an abortion, we wouldn't have had Hitler.
ReplyDeleteIf your mom had had an abortion, we wouldn't be discussing that silly argument of yours right now.
1:51, I'll tell you where there is a gigantic lack of respect! It comes from those who do not value the choices of women to decide what they will do with their bodies. It is a legal right for any woman to have an abortion (with parental consent for those under 18), thus one should respect that right. And part of respecting that right is not to resort to scare tactics, invasive procedures, and unending psychological guilt trips. You may not agree with abortion, but you have to deal with it and respect others.
ReplyDeleteBesides, in the case of abortion, which is completely morally ambiguous, one should never try to impose one's own morality upon someone else. That is the ultimate disrespect. We all agree that stealing is wrong. Thus, we can denounce someone who steals, and we even have laws to that effect. But there is no consensus on the moral status of abortion. So back off.
If you want to say that abortion is wrong, make an argument. Just don't say something like, "I agree with Bachman in the sense that this wholesale murder of children needs to stop, how vile can a civilzation be? It's become rediculous, abortion is almost used as birth control now days." So what if it is used like birth control (which is highly debatable)? Simply saying that doesn't make it wrong or make any semblance of a compelling case. Make your case. And please make it without using religious undertones (or overtones!) since not everyone shares those beliefs as good beliefs to ground an argument.
Lol, Willis, that is not an argument, that if my mom had an abortion we would not be discussing my silly argument. That would never happen, as my late dear mother respected all life. She was a vegetarian too. You probably are a one of those hypocritical meat eater who claim to respect life while chomping down on the flesh of some animal. My argument that you find silly is simple. Respect all living things. Steve Jobs would want it this way. He was a Buddhist Willis.
ReplyDelete"Respect all living things," is not an argument, lest you forget what an argument is. All you did was make a statement, and a statement you don't even believe. If respecting all living things means not killing those things, then you should stop eating anything that had to be killed, plants and animals alike.
ReplyDeleteTry to be more precise and actually give an argument.
What the heck are good beliefs? Are the beliefs in Zeus and Achilles good beliefs? I assume you meant good premises. I am just messing with you Willis.
ReplyDeleteGood one Willis. Yes, it was a statement without any premises. You stayed awake in the logic class.
ReplyDeleteHere is my revised argument.
all living beings that suffer should not be eaten by humans.
Animals are living beings that suffer
Therefore, They sould not be eaten by humans
I promise not to eat a fetus. But your argument says nothing about abortion. Focus "Willis." Find you inner voice and stop playing. No more red herrings. Why should I be pro-life (such a misnomer) instead of pro-choice (which really focuses on valuing the woman's life? That is the topic at hand.
ReplyDeletewhy are you arguing with him?
ReplyDeletethink about what you're doing.
Of course, young Skywalker my argument says nothing about abortion. It was as you say a Red Herring. You get a gold star Willis for this keen observation. On that note, we surrender our forces and agree to the terms of surrender. For the students on this post, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the original argument. By the way, Roe vs Wade is still the law of the land so we must live with it regardless of our positions. So carry on Willis.
ReplyDeleteYou know, to all those people out there who do not agree with this post because they believe that all human life should be preserved, and thus they believe that efforts such as Bachmann's to stop humans from having abortions are considered morally right, well guess what... there is an argument that can be made for why it is actually morally right to stop bringing new life into this world, when we consider our growing population, declining resources, and the well being of our species and natural environment as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI agree with whoever it was that mentioned how republicans/conservatives typically are against abortion, but then are also against the kind of social programs necessary to help children who are brought into this messed up world.
Do you, who are against abortion and at the same time against social welfare, really even know what you believe in? You claim to value human life so much, but when it comes to watching out for the lives of humans once they're brought into the world, you just turn the other cheek and let them suffer when they are born into a poor family in a poor area, or they are born with medical problems. I guess then it's out of your hands, huh? Why don't you people make up your minds, and figure out what it is you really stand for here.
2:07- my personal beliefs are tied in with my religious beliefs. You must lack the capacity to comprehend my argument or else you would realize there were little if any religious undertones present in my statement. Having said that, I will not omit my religious beliefs just because you either do not share them, or just flat out don't understand them even if I do pity you for having a lack there of. You must get out much or else you'd realize that the link between religion and personal opinion is common in our society. Judging by your tone, you must be the bigot to which I responded to in the first place. If so, my dear Mr. Bigot, why don't you take a step back and try to rationalize your argument instead of mounting personal attacks on the commentators. This forum is intended to spark debate and discussion, not to be used as a your personal playground in which to express your anger toward humanity and religion. Atleast not on a personal level.
ReplyDelete12:21, leave em alone. Who selected you as the supreme ruler of the universe. They are free, like you, to express themselves, and if you do not like em, then there is an easy solution, don't read em but cease trying to push them out. Someone once said,"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." So let a hundred flowers bloom!
ReplyDeleteRunning scared 3:12? I am defending my right to share my personal opinion, whether it be with religious undertones or not. Why should I ignored someone who is referencing me in their half baked argument? I am not one to turn a blind eye, but apparently you are? Good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you have the right to share your personal opinions here or any place else for that matter as long as they are not libelous but this same right is extended to others too. By the way, the person you referred to as Mr. Bigot also has the same rights as you.
ReplyDeleteLet a hundred flowers bloom.
I guess I am the one being called "Mr. Bigot," for a reason I know not. And how funny that is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you not see what you've done? Let me break it down.
ReplyDeleteA. I argue that one should make a philosophical argument that everyone might be persuaded by. If you choose to use a religious argument, you would only be preaching to the choir because not everyone would accept your assumptions. I want people to play on the same page. Uh, so no personal attacks there by me on anyone else.
B. YOU then attack ME, calling me "Mr. Bigot" and accusing me of personal attacks.
C. You have then showed yourself to be a hypocrite, accusing me of the very thing you are doing, whereas I am not doing that.
Again, why don't you come up with a rational argument instead of meaningless fluff to try and deflect real substance.
I have no idea what you are talking bout Willis. After a while all of the posts merged together. Hard to keep them apart but it goes with the territory in anonymous posts. I will, however, respond to your silly idea that everyone should present rational arguments. No they shouldn't. Present any damn argument or statement you feel like presenting. That is the essence of open inquiry and the real meaning of a rant. Let a hundred flowers bloom. Present any damn thing you want,and it does not matter if it fits into 141 preconceived idea of a rational argument and 141 if you disagree with the post, then don't read or respond to it but stop trying to hit people over the head with the rationality hammer.
ReplyDelete2:05, what are YOU talking about? First, I was directing my comment to 12:21. I don't know, that may be you, but I don't think so. Second, what "rationality hammer" are you talking about? If one is going to give an argument, it should be an argument that people might accept. But if the argument is framed in a way that many people wouldn't even entertain it (for instance an argument based on a particular religious worldview), then why give it? Of course each person can have his or her own view, but if one is going to give an argument, it should be one where I at least agree to the assumptions being made.
ReplyDeleteThat said, since religious assumptions are quite contentious and one's that a great many people would not accept, a good argument will use more philosophical grounds so that it is directed at everyone and not just to the already converted.
I think you already agree with all this, and are just being a little bit of a pisser...but so it goes...
Actually I do not agree with it. Why should one present an argument based on whether people might accept it? Furthermore, why should your assumptions even matter? Religion, as you say, is contentious, but no more than abortion, capital punishment or any other hot button issue. So let a hundred flowers bloom.
ReplyDelete"Why should one present an argument based on whether people might accept it?" Serious? Then there is no reason to argue. You might as well shut up and save the breath. Why else would anyone give an argument? Seriously, why else? There is no other reason to give an argument other than to give support for a position in order for rational justification. That's just what we do in practice. To deny that isn't being clever, it is being clueless.
ReplyDeleteAssumptions are everything. But, again, I think you already know that and are being a pisser. But, go ahead, deny it again. Pretend that you are some radical postmodernist and that there is no such thing as right or wrong, truth or falsity, good or bad. "Let a hundred flowers bloom no matter what they say, how they say it, and to what end they say it for." I say your flowers are majorly doped.
Oh I believe that there are such things as right, wrong, truth, falsity, good, bad within a social, historical, political, and economic context, and these concepts, like your beloved rationalism do not have transcendent existence like some kind of Platonic essences. In short, they are nothing more than social constructions. We perceive nothing as what it really is, it's all theoretical interpretation - conjecture. In short, we never know any data before interpreting it through theories. Rationalism has meaning within a theoretical construct, but so does everything else for that matter. All observations, even yours, are theory laden, and hence fallible, as all theories are. There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. I do not have time and space to go into this in any great amount of detail. You may interpret reality in any way you see fit. Let others do the same. Let a hundred flowers bloom, it's all in your head anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe question I'd like to address is why we elect these people in the first place. The reason is that we are NOT in an open democracy. This is a Democratic Republic which operates on a Party System. The upside is that when people vote they probably only have 2 choices which have been clearly presented resulting in voting percentages that look nice. Like 50/50 or 40/60 rather than 15/25/27/14/20. It helps people justify the status of the people in office."...look more than half of the people voted for such and such so we should just continue to live with it." On the downside, of course, you generally don't get your views represented. Right now there are 2 entities who are clearly represented: The Republican and The Democrat. The Independant has managed to incurr a presence but it is an impotent one. We ought to recognize that having an exclusive system which basically filters out every option that is not of the red/blue status quo is in principle undemocratic, and counter to the "of the people, by the people, for the people" declaration. Our government is of the democrat,of the republican, for the status quo.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I still don't mind too much the way it operates. I'm generally a minimalist. The fact that the government is constantly hemming and hawing about things like the issue of how much to fuck with people who need abortions is just fine with me. (Yes, I lack a vagina.)If they're doing that then they're not out starting wars, they're not occupying college campuses, they're also not nery smart anyhow. If you know what you're doing, and you have a doctor who you personally approve of, you can get them to just do the paperwork and say that they did the procedure pro-bono and (of course) never actually do anything unnecessary. It would be against the hyppocratic oath anyway to conduct an unecessary procedure, so you reason with the doctor. While this may be inconvenient and against the principle of freedom (like you shouldn't have to put up with this shit in any case) the truth is the government truly has no real power. They and you (and potentially your doctor) are pretending to care about what they say. The Government is inept, short sighted, and too egocentric to understand the truth about it's own lack of real power. If you close the door you keep open in your mind for them they can't get in.