Who Is IOZ?: Abort! Abort!

Friday, February 03, 2012

Abort! Abort!

The author of IOZ has authorized me to reveal this much: the one cause, and how it pains me to even write that word, that we support with money and time is abortions. Sorry dudes--in the end, only the ladies get to see the inside of our man-sized safe. Planned Parenthood may be dowdy and progressive, but those gals are on the side of the angels, and if I have but one regret in this life, it's that I can never get knocked up in order to proudly avail myself of their cervixes, ahem, services. Plus, I have always hated those fucking country-club Komen frauds. So it is with immense pleasure that I watch them get dragged through the mud by a gang of abortionists.

207 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: I wasn't much a fan of Planned Fetus Vacuuming until I learned the details of their creation and the demographic statistics. Let's just say that in the welfare state the services of PP are much needed. In fact, there need to be even more opened up in certain vibrant neighborhoods.

So who cares if they don't offer mammograms or really further the cause of breast cancer prevention in any meaningful way. They need our money!; 8:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Komen treats objects like women.; 8:25 AM
rob payne said...: Thank god Obama gave us “health care reform” and that health care in the US costs much more when compared to other nations where everyone has access to health care while 47 million Americans are not covered. Don’t have money? So sorry, you die.; 8:46 AM
Professor Coldheart said...: You can still get your shit checked out there. I've been going there for regular screenings for years, since I figure PP could use my BCBS dollars more than the clinic at Mass General.

Plus they have such comfy chairs. The chairs sort of grip you around the hips in this odd yet reassuring way. Weird, the things that stick with you.; 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: dont forget the free condoms, lol; 9:16 AM
puppylander said...: maybe a bit of karma, for getting so corporate about "the cure" and that particular shade of pink.; 9:33 AM
President Gas said...: Amen, brother.

When I find out that a man I know is anti-choice, I like to try out my theory about the basis for the anti-choice position: envy. Men resent women who receive abortions because they themselves cannot receive abortions, and they envy the rich feelings and experiences that women must have as a consequence of existential outpatient surgery.

I wonder if it would help if Planned Parenthood were to have open-house nights for men in which the men could enjoy pretend unwanted pregnancies and then receive pretend abortions followed by quiet time in a comfortable room with soothing music and juice or something. Sort of like a spa.; 10:13 AM
John Kindley said...: There has long been a terrible contradiction at the heart of Komen's association with Planned Parenthood: induced abortion significantly increases breast cancer risk, and many women have died as a result of breast cancer caused by their abortions. Both Komen and Planned Parenthood have a long history of suppressing this uncomfortable truth. The National Cancer Institute's central role in this massive deception was one of my first clues that the State is the Son of the Father of Lies. Perhaps Komen's apparently courageous disassociation now signals a willingness to finally admit this terrible truth.

Lest it's assumed I know not whereof I speak, I wrote one of the "books" on the subject, published back in 1999 by that bastion of right-wing propaganda, the University of Wisconsin Law School. See here: http://www.kindleylaw.com/?page_id=10.

The article points the way to totally and irrevocably "defunding" Planned Parenthood by way of coast-to-coast medical malpractice / toxic tort litigation.

So you might want to consider redirecting your donations to a more viable and less hypocritical "cause."; 10:22 AM
President Gas said...: John, what do you think of my abortion clinic open house nights? Think that would help? It'll be kind of like a spa.

Oh, yeah, plus: "The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been the subject of extensive scientific inquiry, and the scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer." Check Wikipedia for more.

Douche.; 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm surprised it took 8 comments before someone started on the "aborshuns=boob cancer!!1" bit.; 10:32 AM
LA Confidential Pantload said...: John, I'm in love. Can I bear your breast cancer?; 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: "Only in anarchist circles would nihilism run so deep that an abortion would establish itself as the highest act of existential self-affirmation."

-- Abraham Lincoln; 10:55 AM
fish said...: 1999 by that bastion of right-wing propaganda and preeminent authority on biomedical research, the University of Wisconsin Law School.

There, fixed that for you.; 11:03 AM
John Kindley said...: I also had the opportunity to personally cross-examine "preeminent authorit[ies]" in this field hired by an abortion clinic, and to catch them in numerous inconsistencies and contradictions, as documented here: http://www.kindleylaw.com/?page_id=8; 11:14 AM
la Rana said...: Just to make sure y'all non-lawyers understand: Johnny-boy did not publish a book, or even an article. Instead, John wrote what is called a "comment" while he was in law school. He wrote this for the law review, a publishing house that he himself worked for, and which was run by his fellow students.; 11:23 AM
puppylander said...: ok. i'll bite. how does abortion lead to breast cancer?; 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...: @1123

I'm sure that within the inducer-promoter cancer genesis theory one can make a rational argument about abortion link to cancer - one way or another.

As to test it in practice.

Confounders boggle the mind.

The Dull Sycophant; 11:34 AM
almostinfamous said...: puppylander, i presume that the experts monitor people who undergo abortion and randomly implant them.; 11:41 AM
puppylander said...: ai... hmmm. that sounds "biologically plausible" to me.

john's position seems to rest heavily on a "meta" study by joel brind, ph.d. commentary on brind: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.mooney.html; 12:23 PM
John Kindley said...: Y'all can go back to supporting Komen again. They reversed their decision and are gonna keep funding Planned Parenthood. Cowards.; 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Of course, because nothing is more important than the right of irresponsible women to terminate unwanted pregnancies.; 12:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Besides the abortions, PP helps people be screened for HIV and other STDs, secure advice on how to cope with infections already in progress, collect free birth control, and maybe see the one doctor a year that most poor women get to see. Yeah, those cowards are monsters. Thank god we have lawyers willing to speak truth to power.; 12:48 PM
Montag said...: aside from maybe control of one's own mind, nothing is more important than a person's sovereignty over their own body.; 12:50 PM
Anonymous said...: @1234 Nonny

Because morrality flows from the State's gun barrel. Flows like an avalanche, coming down a montain.

The Dull Sycophant; 1:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Now that the breast cancer folk have reversed their heretical stance, we can look at another piece of liberal dogma getting flogged by reality:

http://glpiggy.net/2012/02/03/how-to-solve-a-problem-like-diversity/

What happens when the reality of racial IQ differences meets the goal of diversity uber alles.; 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, 129, buzz off!

This blogs' scientificoid ray-cists spots are filled!

The Dull Sycophant; 1:36 PM
j r said...: "...health care in the US costs much more when compared to other nations where everyone has access to health care while 47 million Americans are not covered. Don’t have money? So sorry, you die."

Wait. Other countries have found a way to stop people from dying? Why haven't we invaded and taken this technology?; 1:44 PM
Saurs said...: Thing is, abortion procedures are still fucking primitive. Male allies may wax philosophical and satirical-like about how much fun and liberating and empowering it is to avail yourself of one, but between get spat on by nutjob misogynists to and fro DirtySlutsHQ, the chilling interrogations and waiting period many women must experience before a kindly but disappointed paternalist doc will begrudgingly grant her her wish, and the actual physical pain and invasiveness and degradation of the vacuum-sucking itself (not to mention the digital pronging, the sonogram one may or may not have to watch, the endless miles of driving), it's all actually very shitty and demeaning, and the state likes it like that. If they can't punish you with the actual baby and the burden of raising it, they'll punish you with an unnecessarily prolonged and uncomfortable surgery, of sorts. Plus, for many women brought up to believe a zygote constitutes "human life," a life more important than their own, it's something of a difficult decision, fraught with mixed feelings of guilt, shame, relief, and regret.

Doesn't mean it's the terrible trauma Hitchens and the like suggested it was, that it poses at all a moral or existential dilemma, or that it must be regulated and legislated to death because we have to protect silly little ladies from themselves and their self-destructive behavior; merely that in a more just and less misogynist world, we'd've come up with some more humane and private way of aborting a pregnancy than this, a safe abortifacient in convenient and inexpensive pill form, resulting in a pleasant experience no different than taking a particularly satisfying dump. And, funnily enough, we still, every four years or so, have to fight tooth and nail to be allowed even this small form of dignity and autonomy. It's fucking shit.

The breast cancer myth is hilarious, though.; 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Vote Obama, or the fetooses don't get it!

The Dull Sycophant; 2:00 PM
Inkberrow said...: Anon @ 12:34---

You'd best step lightly with that sort of ignorant critique of "irresponsible" women and abortion on demand. Have you even taken into consideration how often the lifestyle of the woman is in danger? Speaking of lifestyle, as to the links between abortions and women's cancers, it's more correlation than causation.; 2:22 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm okay with abortion as long as you use every part of the fetus and don't waste any.; 2:54 PM
John said...: Makes a fine broth; 3:02 PM
IOZ said...: In a better world, we would abort the male fetoozes. All of them.; 3:22 PM
Leonard said...: Saurs, they have a pill form of abortion. (Several kinds, actually.) Mifepristone abortion is quite unpleasant, as I understand it, and it takes a while. A surgical is much faster and (at least for many women) less painful.

The cervix is not an organ to trifle with. Many women have considerable pain even from ordinary menstruation. A fetus and placenta are considerably more substantial (and chunkier) than that. There's no reason to expect that terminating a pregnancy should be easy. In fact the opposite. Natural selection has plenty of reason to make pregnancy termination hard and few to make it easy. And also, Ms. Nature, "red in tooth and claw", really loves to use physical pain to enforce Her will.

Now there certainly are human constructs around abortion that make it a bit harder. You might have to wait a day, which is mainly a PITA because it means two trips, not one, to the abortionist, and two absences from work, not one, when even one is hard to get. But such is the nature of "democracy", no? If 50% of the people are vehemently opposed to it, shouldn't it be hard to get or even banned? Yet -- there it is. The "democratic" state does not only respond to one side.

As for fetuses being "human life", of course they are. They are human. They are alive. "Human life" ain't what it's cracked up to be. These "rights" we all claim madly? Fiction. Human constructs, no less artificial than parental notification laws. Useful fictions, perhaps, but as fetuses show, the concept can be pushed to where it breaks.; 3:26 PM
Saurs said...: Leonard, in the US, which is the country we're talking about, abortifacients used in conjunction with or lieu of surgical abortions are not OTC, and must be given at the clinic. They're also far less safe, convenient, and inexpensive than I'd prefer, for reasons same. We don't trust women to use them willy-nilly, 'cos that means they'll be fucking that more often, and all the wrong (read: not us) men.

Nature asks you kindly to stop anthropomorphizing it, and my skin cells demand to be treated like corporations, &c.; 3:51 PM
Anonymous said...: It's a wonder what a quick but not very close trawl through a wikipedia article will do to a fella, Lenny.; 4:01 PM
rob payne said...: "Wait. Other countries have found a way to stop people from dying? Why haven't we invaded and taken this technology?"

Yes, it's called health care. Please don't give them any ideas on invading. They just might do it.; 4:15 PM
Michael Smith said...: Puh-leeze. The plural is 'cervices', which makes the pun even better, and has the further advantage of sounding like a geological formation of some kind, or perhaps an architectural term, like 'squinch' or 'ogive'.; 4:36 PM
Inkberrow said...: Anon @ 2:54 and John---

Perhaps a Foodie Friday recipe using placenta instead of eggplant...; 5:38 PM
Eerily Lackadaisical said...: Michael Smith -

I thought cervices was shrimp finely chopped with cilantro and onion and lime ...

they can smell similar, under the wrong circumstances ...; 5:49 PM
Eerily Lackadaisical said...: lucid -

If you're around, would you please explain to these softies why the ancient Greeks had a verb meaning "to put in a pot on the hillside for the wild animals to eat".

As I recall, it was "kuthridzein", in the infinitive, but it's been a long time ...; 5:50 PM
Michael Smith said...: Funny you should mention. The doctor who watched my son's mother give birth to the lad, a chap of Italo-American extraction, remarked when the placenta made its appearance that his grandmother would have made a frittata out of it. Made me look at the thing in a quite different way. I think of this comment every time I have a frittata at my local diner. I'm pleased to report that it has not impaired my appetite for frittate.; 5:53 PM
Anonymous said...: This thread's as good a pretext as any:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1032846/

Abortion's really just the macguffin, here. Worth a watch, though. I think Netflix might still be streaming it.
SG; 5:55 PM
Micha said...: @Eerily -- I have heard that comparison many times. There's an old joke about the blind guy who walked past the fish market and called out 'Hello ladies'! My own olfactory capacity hands in a quite different report. Smells like a haystack to me.; 5:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Hay, did you guys know Eerily L is (claims to be) well-read? Oh, you didn't? Let him tell you about it, then. It involves taking western civ a couple times one quarter of a century ago. The Greeks hated women like we hate women, right?; 6:00 PM
Anonymous said...: "aside from maybe control of one's own mind, nothing is more important than a person's sovereignty over their own body."

You notice how nobody defends a 19 year old adult woman's very much alienated right to have a white wine spritzer, though; 6:37 PM
la Rana said...: Every year, IOZ gives 10% of his annual trust fund distribution to MADD.; 6:48 PM
Eerily Lackadaisical said...: Smells like a haystack to me.

You and Oliver Mellors, Michael Smith, with him weavin forget-me-nots in Connnie Chatterley's maidenhair an' all ...

In DHL's immortal rendition of the Derbyshire dialect, Oliver says to Connie:

"An' if tha shits, an' if tha pisses, tha art still good cunt"; 6:48 PM
The Mathmos said...: @6:00

Playing bourgeois superego while randomly processing thousands of useless unrelated cultural references will do that to even the most advanced spambot.; 7:16 PM
Michael Smith said...: @eerily: Probably the only thing I have in common with DHL. Apart from a shared belief that flogging, as punishment, is infinitely better than imprisonment. If punishment there must be.; 7:47 PM
Michael Smith said...: Flowers in the secret hair -- I should maybe read that book again. Hated it at the time, but we get less squeamish as we age.; 7:50 PM
Happy Jack said...: As the person who wrote the "book" on the subject, I can definitely state that attending law school is the leading cause of cancer in this society.; 7:58 PM
Montag said...: You notice how nobody defends a 19 year old adult woman's very much alienated right to have a white wine spritzer, though

i don't have a problem with underage people choosing to drink alcohol, and don't think it's right to enforce the arbitrary "drinking age."; 8:01 PM
Anonymous said...: The real crime is that 12 year olds are not allowed to join the army to pee on dead Afghans. If you don't control your own urine stream, you aren't truly free.; 8:42 PM
Montag said...: absolutely, 8:42, it's a very slippery slope, but we've got to draw the line somewhere. i say 14-16 for child soldiers. 12 is too young.; 9:37 PM
IOZ said...: It's called a disbursement, Rana, jeezwhatkindalaywerareya.; 9:44 PM
Karl Franz Ochstradt said...: Amen, brother.

When I find out that a man I know is anti-choice, I like to try out my theory about the basis for the anti-choice position: envy. Men resent women who receive abortions because they themselves cannot receive abortions, and they envy the rich feelings and experiences that women must have as a consequence of existential outpatient surgery.

Don't tell me: you have a PhD in Strawman Psychology?; 9:50 PM
John Kindley said...: Happy Jack: I don't disagree with you.; 7:07 AM
Jack Crow said...: When dudes get uteri dudes can stop shutting the fuck up about abortion.; 10:02 AM
Sorry said...: On the desk in the alley behind the Garden Theater he read the words FOETUS FRIDAY cut several times in the dark stained wood.; 12:55 PM
anne said...: ,not on what is the conversing ( or of ..left comments like sitting/or standing up to a bar stool for a moment , or an out.. . up from the galley .. here) ..,but wanting to ask ..this group of mostly men, .. i responded a while back to a few comments ..with a telling about ...my of .. . very feminine , one anonymous responded in a way to this that had me wondering what others thought very feminine was .. . what that anonymous said suggested that they did not know what i meant by feminine .. . ,it is of very gentle in my ways of moving .. of me , i would like to know more of what this gathering of mostly men.., what they see as being very feminine .. . in looking out at all about from where and what they are ? .. .,said a womy ..; 4:14 PM
anne said...: ,; 4:15 PM
truthteller said...: this comment thread is mostly made up of flaccid misogynists who are threatened by women and cannot relate or attract women and/or boys who use their asses as cunts and hate women because they have the real thing; 4:36 PM
anne said...: to the person commenting above .. i don't believe that they are .. , and i say womy because of the extreme of ..no man .. of my character .. .to those that say wom'n,womyn and other ..; 4:41 PM
Another woman, not the racist or homophobic kind said...: Why must many of the women who post here use homophobic or racist insults when advancing feminist theory*?

It's embarrassing for the rest of us, and makes us appear no better than the idiot resident dewds.

*generously referring to the content of 4:36pm as "theory"; 4:42 PM
anne said...: womy ..of with womb; 4:42 PM
Same as above said...: All that being said, anne is obviously a male fantasy. Most of the men here have already cottoned on to that fact, but think it's funny to have such a persona bandying about tired stereotypes.; 4:43 PM
Same again said...: Biology is destiny, so sayeth "anne."; 4:44 PM
anne said...: the follow up did not come to my mail as set .. so a few hours later , this is not about biology in the way that comment ,of 4:44 suggests, ..and who is bandying on about . .. ? many do some stereotyping here ..as you suggest .. don't know who you mean ?.., if you are meaning me in that .. no i do very little of that,you are misreading .. . / such an odd feminine girl is not the fantasy of .. ., all are different in what they like .. .; 7:17 PM
Eerily Lackadaisical said...: I was in a barbershop in Oak Bluffs MA where I was wintering in 1971-72.

This young Portagee (Catholic of course) was complaining to this old-timer about how he couldn't pop his wife without her poppin another one out.

And the old-timer looked sideways at him and said

"Well ya know what they say ... ya can't get 'em pregnant with spit ..."; 7:43 PM
anne said...: it would only make sense , of the 4:43 .. if you are wondering why i'm here in my small waves,in this galley , how this happened .. . with this bunch that bandy about in their well weathered ,but varied in ways of readdressing stereotyping and other .. . ,; 7:50 PM
Karl Franz Ochstradt said...: When dudes get uteri dudes can stop shutting the fuck up about abortion.

The patriarchy! The patriarchy! The patriarchy!

Now appearing as "Jack Crow," the festive yet self-hating Melissa McEwan!; 7:52 PM
Anonymous said...: In case you all weren't aware, Eerily has something important and self-centered to tell you, along with a creepy and dehumanizing joke about bitches.; 8:27 PM
John said...: I always wanted a womb with a view; 9:00 PM
JM said...: Actually, it does sort of have to do with breast cancer as Planned Parenthood mostly provides cancer screening.; 10:52 PM
Eerily Lackadaisical said...: @8:27
No no no - how many times do I have to tell you, Ruff?

Wait for the bell before you salivate!; 1:52 AM
demize! said...: Whose up for Man-Cunt Frattatas? Anyone?; 5:18 AM
Anonymous said...: OMG, EL, the wit! Ah haha! Oh hoho!

No, seriously, just die. You're an unbelievably boring narcissist. Die.; 6:35 AM
NutellaonToast said...: @6:35 I dunno, I don't usually get so tired of EL that I want to hang myself until his 15th or 20th post of the thread. Maybe a bit fewer if he does some of his delicious triple posting.; 1:27 PM
Anonymous said...: fun thread!

"in a better world, we would abort all the male fetoozes."

I kinda hafta agree. I'm not quite so bold as Mike Kelley, however, and shan't be aborting myself. Besides, my mother would never forgive me.; 1:49 PM
Eerily Lackadaisical said...: Et tu, Nute?; 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Die. DIE. DIE.; 5:04 PM
Gabe Ruth said...: It's been real folks, but wow. I've always found the vehemence with which partisans of this "cause" support it darkly amusing.

My opposition to it isn't based on anything so altruistic as concern about increased breast cancer risk. If carrying a child to term increased that risk, I'd still oppose it. But I wouldn't scream about settled science and the ulterior motives of those investigating the question. La Wik has a section on the proposed mechanism here (warning, includes diagram of a breast):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis#Proposed_mechanism

I'm not a doctor, but the shit isn't crazy (the last line there sounds like a non sequitur to me, but believe what you want). Same proposed mechanism as hormonal birth control (allegedly!) raising breast cancer risk but lowering cervical cancer risk. And for a bunch of cynics, yins are doing a pretty poor job keeping to form here. I think we can all agree that the USG is struggling to keep it all together long enough to figure out how the hell things are going to work when shit gets real domestically. Do you think that likelihood of that objective being achieved is positively or negatively correlated with population?

I recently had a fascinating exchange with a coworker. This guy is a NYT reading Donkey voter (doesn't think about it much, it's genetic and he's a former union guy), but he has a very clear understanding of this country's military history, one Monsieur would quite agree with. After reading your post on our esteemed DNI's testimony on Iran's death wish, I went in and asked him whether, in his recollection, the run-up to Iraq 2 was this ludicrous. He recounted in some detail the surrealism of the official narrative of Iraq 1, and let me extrapolate from there. Then, quite unprompted, he voiced an opinion that Ron Paul's foreign policy was in some ways admirable, but irresponsible. I kind of stared at him, told him I didn't think that was accurate and walked away. Then I thought of this post:

http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2011/12/chaucer-at-bit.html

"the change I believe in comes from cultivating mindfulness, equanimity, and compassion."

Look, if you want that, then maybe you oughtn't demonize those who oppose the only cause you'll get out of bed in the morning for, let alone those who just choose to stop spending money to further your cause because they begin to wonder if the science has become unsettled. You probably imagine that the more Americans we have running around, the more mindless and wanton the world will be because, as we know, we need two things, oil and entertainment. But I submit unto yinz that, maybe, children can induce some beneficial navel-gazing, and lonely grandparents whose only designer child never visits can be just as wanton and mindless. Now you may counter "Asshole, Planned Parenthood isn't for SWPLs." And I will say, do you know any SWPLs who aren't OK with empire? Are not SWPLs largely responsible for the demented state of contentedness in this country, and the aversion to honest navel-gazing? Who is empire for, if not for the SWPLs?

Many pro-lifers really need slapped in the face for countenancing the excesses of the empire. People I love have said they are sad that Rick Santorum will not win the nomination in my hearing, and I have let them have it, respect for elders be damned. But that's not what you're doing.; 9:18 AM
Gabe Ruth said...: Also, Mr. Saurs,
When you invent your miracle pill that makes the termination of a pregnancy into an inexpensive euphoric experience (which I will never get to experience, I might add, which is unfair), who, exactly, are the freedwomen going to sleep with? Each other (making your efforts somewhat less than necessary)? Or by us do you mean internet anarchists?; 9:22 AM
IOZ said...: Yeah, well, I never went to Starfleet Academy, but the shit isn't crazy.

Jesus, Wikipedia should've fucking stayed dark.; 10:46 AM
Gabe Ruth said...: Good one. So, coming from a guy who thinks it's an outrage that peeps be outraged about SOPA while, you know, empire and shit, being outraged that one racket stopped sending money to another racket out of some notion that the second racket's project just might be at cross purposes with its own... that shit makes alot of sense. One might even say it bespeaks a worldview "complete and consistent unto and within itself."; 10:54 AM
IOZ said...: Uh oh u mad bro?

Abortion also causes depression, I hear. Lulz. Or that might just be the chemtrails.

You can believe what you like about abortion. You may note a number of commenters expressing some skepticism in this thread. No skin off my ass, particularly. But wikiciting morons should observe the old wherefore/thereof adage before they start swinging their dull machetes.; 11:05 AM
Gabe Ruth said...: No, not really. Just couldn't let that one go without saying something. Sorry for the unironic wikicitation, but pushers of settled science and expert opinion have it coming.

And you can call me a moron, it's all good. I merely seek to point out that there is a segment of the population of this country that is still capable of feeling some shame for the activities of the USG, and it is unlikely to include SWPLs. You may continue to mock the sacred cows of the average Republican voter with glee, no shame in that. But to applaud the ritual sacrifice of an organization that stops giving money to a sacred cow of the average Democrat is unintentionally ironic, coming from you.; 11:36 AM
IOZ said...: U mad! ONLY WHITE PEOPLE GET BORSHUNS!; 11:54 AM
Montag said...: wat are SWPLs?; 12:00 PM
Gabe Ruth said...: Monsieur,
How conventional! The hermeneutics of suspicion run deep, and unseen.

Montag,
You need a little variety in your reading. Getting the blood racing is good for chair bound drones.; 12:20 PM
Anonymous said...: The intersection in the Katrina vanden Heuvel/IOZ Venn diagram just keeps expanding.; 12:52 PM
Anonymous said...: My ex got an abortion, and I wasn't depressed at all about it. Still cancer-free, too!; 12:59 PM
Montag said...: i've read stuff white people like before. but "Asshole, Planned Parenthood isn't for Stuff White People Likes." doesn't make sense to me.; 1:32 PM
Eerily Lackadaisical said...: thanks for the subliminal nod, 12:52

I may be despised here, but my stuff apparently sticks in the mind; 1:51 PM
Gabe Ruth said...: In certain jurisdictions of the interwebs, it's become a term of abuse for the people described there.

My thought wasn't so much about the immediate concern of this post, but more generally about the single cause our esteemed host considers worth his non-blogging time and $, and whether it may be at cross-purposes to his main concerns as stated on this blog. One could still argue that ceasing to support the good people of Planned Parenthood is unconscionable because it has a disparate impact (on the poor! get your mind out of the gutter, you eugenicists!), which I acknowledge. PP's demise would make it more difficult for the poor to obtain abortions.

I maintain, nevertheless, that a culture that considers this not just an unnecessary evil, but a righteous cause, will have no bounds to its depravity. But we'll see. Maybe driving slowly will bring this country to its senses and end the empire, the drug war, the corporate safety net...; 2:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Manic repetition will do that to you.; 2:16 PM
mp said...: "I maintain, nevertheless, that a culture that considers this not just an unnecessary evil, but a righteous cause, will have no bounds to its depravity."

preachy, brother. preachy.; 2:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Ms. Ruth has apparently never heard of voluntary extinction. That is def something white people like. Cue Inky hysterics over the brown menace.; 2:52 PM
Jack Crow said...: "Necessary evil...depravity..."

But seriously, go fuck a jackhammer.

What's depraved is what happens 30 seconds after God's Shit-manufacturing Little Angel is born: the entire social edifice, geared as it is to producing caloric batteries wired into the heat sinks of wealth, begins to shape that once-fetus into a pale mimicry of a human self. And the same people who "give a shit" about "every human life" suddenly discover merit, morality and the curmudgeonliness of meddlesome do-gooding. They are rarely content to buy into a program of civilization themselves, so they'll also be deeply involved in selling that same civilization into the heads of the unsuspecting and unlucky children who did not manage to get themselves aborted. That civilization will invest no mean treasure in gobbling up that little angel, and if she is very, very lucky, only manage to regurgitate a coward, a drug addict or drop out. If the tyke is cursed with good Christian parents, maybe he'll just end up with a job, a balance of payments and a fucking mortgage, and all his desires transformed into paraphilias.

For the special few among the not-aborted, there's a lifetime of sociopathy and social climbing, which are two terms for one thing.

So, fuck you again, with a jackhammer set to high, and nobody around to spot you or save you, clown.; 3:11 PM
nate said...: @Gabe Ruth, you seem to be maintaining that the only purpose of PP is abortion. Am I right?; 3:11 PM
Anonymous said...: yeah, dont forget about the free condoms; 3:27 PM
lucid said...: Gabe, when you get cancer I hope the government stops you from excising the tumor, because life begins at mutation.; 3:30 PM
Gabe Ruth said...: Hi Jackie! That was some touching internet vitriol. Scratch a humanist, find a "voluntary" human extinction advocate.

MP, you new here?

Nate, I understand that they do other things. But they do provide abortions at a pretty good clip. PP is just a manifestation of the general understanding that this shit has to get done somehow, so it's not really in itself monstrous. But it's amusing to see how bent out of shape people get when anyone suggests that maybe this shit oughtn't be done, or maybe some organization or individual just thinks their dough is better spent elsewhere. See above.

Thanks Lucid. Excellent logic.; 3:34 PM
lucid said...: Actually Gabe it's called sovereignty over one's body, so it is entirely equivalent.; 4:00 PM
IOZ said...: When I hear the word culture, I reach for my vacuum aspirator.; 4:12 PM
Gabe Ruth said...: Hold on... so, even if I have a trust fund to cover expenses, they won't let me excise my tumor with a soul??? I'm glad that gives you hope. It's so hard to find happiness in this world. I guess I'm a big, stinky hypocrite.; 4:13 PM
mp said...: Gabe-
No, I'm not new. I comment whenever I feel like it.

and, yeah, shit does have to get done somehow. it's probably better to do it in a sanitary place so ladies ain't bleeding on the streets. the rest of the sentence doesn't matter. your "monstrous" is your adjective and that's about it. no one's making you abort your baby, okay? and you can even say it's monstrous if you like, but, so what? you say it at a place where it's clearly the minority view and the pile-on's bound to happen.; 4:21 PM
lucid said...: What is this soul of which you speak? I'm sure it comforts you to think there is something transcendent about human life. I myself occasionally contemplate that - at least in terms of our potential for knowledge and expression. But in reality we're just sacks of water that inefficiently burn resources and eventually expire to become resources for other biological entities. The circle of life and all that.; 4:31 PM
Jack Crow said...: Who's a damned humanist, Gabe?

And "extinction advocate"? Nah. That's as moribund as Boston Irish Catholicism, but far less entertaining. If I lack for the morbidly fascinating, I'll get me to Southie.

What you're looking for, I imagine, is the word "observant scorn."

As in: I've observed that venality is commonplace, and hardly worth the loss of sleep. Nevertheless, it is good to scorn those who believe in perfectibility, the excising of all vice, or the elimination of depravity. Scorn is a pleasure, and genuine pleasure is lacking for modern advocates. It pleases me to pretend to be one.

Civilization, and its tributaries, Gabe, could use more scorn. That's not a moral judgment. And it's not nihilism either. Call it honesty, but without the ugly self-consciousness of sincerity. I don't know if its laudable, or clean. But at least it lacks the arm pit stench of righteousness that forever seems to accompany the Cult of the Adoration of the Blessed Fetus.; 4:44 PM
President Gas said...: Dull is my machete.; 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Fetuses are red herrings. The anti-abortion crowd has strong opinions on women, is all.; 5:30 PM
demize! said...: Ahh the mother of all wedge issues. Can we all agree to defund the united states government and all it's derivative agencies? They do alot of ex post facto abortions. Ill give up my benefit check and food stamps.; 5:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, looks like
THIS is making a cum-back.

Of courseif everyone visited PP more often such annoyance could be avoided.

Capt'n Obvious; 5:45 PM
Anonymous said...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sexual_abuse_hysteria

http://news.yahoo.com/parents-protest-scandalized-la-grade-school-174319798.html; 5:46 PM
LeonTrollski said...: I kinda feel the whole killing people is wrong thing. Even if they happen to be inside other people. On the other hand discouraging abortion using the business end of the states violent monopoly has shitty social consequences itself and is rather bad at actually stopping abortions.

In contrast, treating women like human beings, letting people have access to birth control, making education available, and all that other crazy shit all seem to crash the number of abortions that actually happen.

I'd rather 2 abortions happen on my/the state's dime in a medical facility then 50 get done in alleys with coathangers at aborters expense.; 6:00 PM
John Kindley said...: I don't feel like I was especially oppressed by the reaction to my comments above, not even by Prof. Gas's "douche" remark. That was pretty mild, considering, and I've been called worse. This group strikes me as open to all manner of heresy, even if at the end of the day there's a strain of "morality and truth don't exist therefore abortion because I prefer a world with more abortion."

I don't particularly like "pro-lifers" as a group either. Talk about Venn diagrams and confounding factors: there's a tremendous amount of assholery and hypocrisy overlapping that particular demographic. And truth be told, I'm not even terribly offended by abortions either. I wouldn't be offended by a rape victim aborting the offspring of the rapist, and I recognize there are gradations of "consent" that don't readily lend themselves to outside judgment, let alone outside judgments by the jail-wielding State. No skin off my ass, as IOZ might say. But I'll be damned if you'll ever catch me at a "pro-choice" rally or shedding a tear over anything bad that happens to Planned Parenthood, Inc.; 6:29 PM
Inkberrow said...: The Komen kerfuffle wasn't about money or breast cancer, it's about punishing any perceived slight on abortion rights generally, and Planned Parenthood specifically. Abortion rights people have the same "My Rights" monomania from which NRA people suffer: they reflexively and ferociously oppose any regulation whatsoever and aggressively rebuke any public-relations challenge whatsoever, considering any setback or perceived weakness as an existential threat to the cherished Right. Planned Parenthood is an important institution normalizing contraception and abortion on demand, to be considered a necessary, no-brainer neighborhood fixture like the fire station, or, in effect, convenience-store annexes to public health departments.

As to the ostensibly competing rights involved, in a healthy pregnancy anyway, it's no contest. The putative mother enjoys plenary power, as the accepted sine qua non of equal rights and opportunities for women in modern society. As a bald utilitarian calculus I personally think that's accurate and yes, appropriate, but spare us the "women's healthcare" histrionics. Yes, like other elective, functionally cosmetic surgeries, abortion should be safe and generally available. Just remember a certain ethical price was paid, even if abortion activists no longer even pay lip service to the nod in Roe v. Wade to rights inhering in the fetus along some linear relationship with "viability".; 6:51 PM
Enron said...: If morality is simply determined by some hazy potential tumor risk, then you might as well ban food too.; 7:08 PM
b.a. said...: I kinda tend to agree with LeonTrollski. It seems like this thread consists of a lot of either
a) "those who say that abortion is morally problematic often support Empire's/the State's post-birth killing and abuse of women, minorities, and other subalterns -- therefore to think abortion is wrong is actually to aid and abet the aforementioned post-birth abuses, and so we can righteously dismiss such claims of wrongness"
or
b) "those who state their opposition to Empire/the State often fail to acknowledge the morally problematic aspects of abortion -- therefore to say that Empire's/the State's abuses are wrong is actually to aid and abet abortion, and so we can righteously dismiss such claims of wrongness."

But couldn't both 'therefores' be unwarranted? Isn't it possible for someone to think that both pre-birth killing *and* post-birth killing/abuse are morally wrong? And couldn't one think that abortion is morally wrong without therefore thinking that it should be legally prohibited by the state? Couldn't this be consistent with an anarchist/life-valuing/what-have-you attitude? (Cf. Dorothy Day, for example.); 7:12 PM
rob payne said...: There he stood before the mizzen mast, noble of brow, firm of chin, face to the bitter wind!; 7:21 PM
anne said...: she comes in from her laundering .. arms of bedding billowing like sails .. and sits to still for a moment and looks at the whoisy comments ,oh,rob .. . up from the galley ... ?; 7:53 PM
stephanie g said...: Nony @ 12:34 sez:
"Of course, because nothing is more important than the right of irresponsible women to terminate unwanted pregnancies."

Wouldn't it be irresponsible to not terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Or is it just irresponsible for women to have sex?; 8:57 PM
demize! said...: Probably pretty irresponsible if she didnt remain vigilant about contraception if she didnt want children.; 9:22 PM
Anonymous said...: IOZ, the men in here don't know anything about reproduction. They keep using words like morality, "pre-birth" and "post birth," and "killing babies." Every dude's comment on here is one giant [sic]. Except for Crow, obviously.

Self-identified libertarian and anarchist dudes reading an anarchist blog who wonder aloud and in hysterical fashion if the world has "lost" its "morality" because women are (partially, and only against duress from the state) able to control their reproduction and expend little zygotes from their bodies based on informed decisions (like, they can't afford a baybie right now) need a fucking fainting couch, STAT.

You dudes seriously need to start including women in your philosophy, beginning with recognizing their humanity. The shit in here stinks of clove cigarettes and 50-eras beatnik repugnance for women's dirty ladybits.; 10:29 PM
Anonymous said...: demize has never heard of barrier methods that fail, birth control that can't be purchased because you're poor or you're underage or your state does its damndest to prevent you from purchasing it, that when you've had certain icky lady cancers you can't take lady hormones, or rape. In fact, demize lives in a fantasy world in which the second a woman steps out of line, she gets what's coming to her.; 10:31 PM
Gabe Ruth said...: MP, I was talking more about the fact that everyone here is preaching something, especially the Monsieur. And as I have said elsewhere, that is why we come back. I recently heard an interesting hypothesis: Jerry Springer and the like are the non-believers substitute for confession. It's the best explanation I've ever heard for WTF people on those shows are doing. Monsieur is the John the Baptist of American guilt. Anyway, do you hear me complaining about anything? I don't even mind Jackie's Transcendental Bolshevist internet tough guy shtick. The way he has of loosing himself in his own words is inspiring.

Lucid, I come here for comfort. Why are you torturing me, you jerk? Are you saying Kansas was right???

Jackie, observant scorn, eh? I think you're on to something, but I'd actually call it solipsistic self-righteousness. Amen to the scorn though, for your average pro-lifer as much as anyone else. Mirrors are dangerous things, never to be cleaned too well. Also, I think reading human perfectibility into my words does more violence to language than reading humanism into yours. You'll probably disagree though, and everyone knows no one can get the last word on you.

Yo Demize, you mean to tell me you're OK with abandoning all the women, children, elderly, and minorities to the vagaries of states rights? Can you say dog whistle? You probably lynched somebody yourself back when it was acceptable.

Mr. Trollski, all I heard was blah, blah, blah education, and I started laughing. No, what is needed is navel-gazing, and probably not even from women seeking abortions, you statist dip shit. Are you using a focus group to write your comment? Same to anyone who thinks you sound "reasonable" (B.A. - who here has advocated position B?)

Mr. Kindley, as long as you're not offended, everything's cool.; 10:32 PM
demize! said...: @10:31 Wow I didnt realize I had written all that. You're also assuming my gender. I love icky lady parts, I put em in my mouf! Now I think you're being hysterical, prolly that time of the month. What are you a dyke or something, you just need a good...; 10:41 PM
Anonymous said...: demize's weird nonsequiturs are as good a point at any in this manfest to point out that dudes apparently have no real experience discussing this shit. Women's issues--the rubbish bin of forensics.

demize, nobody mentioned "gender" [sic]. Women are often the most rabid misogynists, and for very good reason. Just world theory, and it endears them to men who only treat traitors to their sex with any kindness. You're still a dude, though.; 10:52 PM
Anonymous said...: demize's weird nonsequiturs are as good a point at any in this manfest to point out that dudes apparently have no real experience discussing this shit. Women's issues--the rubbish bin of forensics.

demize, nobody mentioned "gender" [sic]. Women are often the most rabid misogynists, and for very good reason. Just world theory, and it endears them to men who only treat traitors to their sex with any kindness. You're still a dude, though.; 10:52 PM
rob payne said...: Hi Anne,
Up from a nap dreaming of humanities self percieved nobleness. I love the martyr syndrome, much food for the comedeian. Now for the galley…; 10:59 PM
demize! said...: Didnt we just have this argument on another forum, or are all biological nationalists as boringly predictable. Your redefining terms wily nily and you project upon me non sequitor. You put much text in my box that wasnt written only because I assume you were triggered by the word responsibility. I said NOTHING about the availability or morality of abortion, but if the woman must bear the burden of birth or termination that it id indeed her responsibility to be VIGILANT. Or you advocating that surgery should be a preffered modus of contraception. Now try to answer sans misandry?; 11:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Oxtrot it's time to come out as Gabe Ruth!; 11:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Stop barking commands at me, dude. Your definition of vigilance--treating, like so many ignorant dudes before you, women's precious bits like they're property that must be protected (genuinely surprised you didn't compare the vulva to a car, yet)--falls somewhere between chastity belts and enforced sterilization for poor women of color and fucking rich dudes who'll totes pay for you to raise your screaming baybie in some isolation tank somewhere. Lessee, what else: golddiggers, whores, man-haters, dykes. Have we filled the quota yet? Let's throw in a begging the question re the fact that women "must" bear any such burden. Only 'cos it's more convenient for men to fuck and run. The second dudes the world over act responsibly is the second they ought to have any say in the matter, whatsoever.; 11:14 PM
stephanie g said...: I thought one of the perks of being an anarchist was smug amorality. Apparently if you scratch the rugged individualists around here you get a bleeding heart. Posers.

demize!:
You didn't say anything about the morality of abortion? Then why are you so mad.

Nony @ 11:14
I'd like to have your baby. Then abort it.; 11:21 PM
Montag said...: the dude who provided the sperm is also responsible for the unwanted pregnancy. people do all sorts of stupid shit when they are trying to get laid.

why does a moment of irresponsibility mean a woman forfeits her say in what goes on with her body? as lucid and i said earlier, it's sovereignty over one's body.; 11:27 PM
demize! said...: Because thats fucking biology. Thats very quaint though. I personally dont give a fuck whether said woman is or is not vigilant. If she desires to get a vaccum up her uterus every other day is fine by me. What gets me is the predictability of the hysteria that goes along with any deviation from left orthodoxy on this issue. I dont believe these people are that concerned with the women and children mutilated and aborted by this empire. I think this issue trumps that for them every time.; 11:38 PM
LeonTrollski said...: oh dog, swinging right for my head with the ole 'statist' cudgel. Sorry gabe, for better or worse we're in one. Yeah it'd be great to get out but there ain't no chutes. Best try and sober up the assholes flying this thing.

that said, maybe 'information' would have been better? 'Education' does have a lot of ugly connotations in these circles. It probably even deserves most of em.; 11:40 PM
demize! said...: And DUDETTE WTF is with the constant infantile euphemisms for the female anatomy? "women's tiny precious bits" What is that shit??; 11:42 PM
High Arka said...: um abortion

http://higharka.blogspot.com/2011/05/abortion.html; 11:50 PM
High Arka said...: Montag, there is no "sovereignty" over one's body. That's as illusionary and as dangerous as sovereignty over a country or a people.

When you propertize a mind, you propertize next a body, a piece of coal, a planet and a universe.

Nope.; 11:52 PM
Montag said...: what the fuck are you talking about High Arka? a person ought to have dominion over their own mind and body.; 12:08 AM
Saurs said...: I don't know, anonymous feminists. I rather think it's time for the men in this thread to do some of the heavy lifting, for once, and perhaps acquaint themselves with the barest of feminist theory, even the ones for whom feminism is a dirty word. We largely answered all their infantile armchair hypotheticals and devil's advocacy about forty years ago or more, and yet they're still chugging along, eyes wide closed, ears plugged, and gums flapping, blaming women for their own oppression when they're not treating us like we're fictional characters. Yer average left-wing dude can speak fairly intelligently about his own political philosophy, but the second one mentions women, the rhetoric dips straight into religious fundamentalism, anti-humanism, Thatcher and Reagan territory about the poor and unwashed having earned their wretched fate.

For example, those that claim to sincerely believe that zygotes are children ought to explain why then the knee-jerk assumption that a child's rights should cancel out or outweigh those of an adult woman, why those adults whose bodies are temporarily rented out and inhabited by said "children" lose the right to bodily autonomy enjoyed by any man. For those who parrot right-wing aphorisms about sluts having to pay for all the fun they've had, they may want to explain why they think sex is naughty, why women must bear the brunt of both male and female sexual behavior, why they view children (not to mention STDs, cervical cancer, death during gestation or birth, a lifetime of ensured poverty) as a punishment, and why women deserve to be punished.

Reiterating a comment above that misogyny can't be divorced from the anti-abortionist view. It all comes back to sluts and the fear of sexually experienced (and, therefore, discriminating) adult women. Keeping women fearful of the outcomes of sex that they alone must bear in a world in which they have little access to regular contraceptives much less real-life birth control is the go-to method for ensuring their oppression and keeping them out of the workforce. This is apparently something all men can get behind (erm, if you will).; 12:24 AM
Anonymous said...: demize dewd, if you're gonna treat women like children, I'm gonna characterize the only bits of us fuckwads like you seem to be interested in in similarly gross terms.

Yet another moron who thinks biology is destiny and who, shockhorror&surprise, uses dogwhistle words like "hysteria." Predictable. "Orthodoxy"! Fascist dykes! Women who disagree with you about their own experiences want to oppress you! Not the other way around or anything!

"I personally dont give a fuck whether said woman is or is not vigilant."

Oh, fanfuckingtastic dude. So I guess you were just pissing in the wind with your previous appeals to women to keep "vigilant." This was all academic. Who woulda guessed.; 12:55 AM
Eerily Lackadaisical said...: Well you know what they say - abstinence makes the fart grow rounder.

Or, to paraphrase:

don't do the crime if you won't do the nine.; 1:20 AM
demize! said...: Perhaps MINITRU will have those wordd stricken from the next edition of The Newspeak dictionary. So lemme get thid straight ; assuming women have agency and therefore responsibility is ifantalizing. Gotcha. You are constructing entire dialogs that did not occur. It seems you are entirely wedded to your ideology, so this is not going to be fruitful. And this is why we will never coalesce as a counterweight to oppressive systems. As a class. As people who want autonomy. Very fucking sad.; 1:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Ew, dude. You're not on my side. But glad to hear that my little revolution is going to fail (hear that, ladies! It would have all worked out if only we listened to demize and did everything he said and acted like nice little girls who are seen but not heard!) because I'm wedded to my ideology. I'd prefer to be bedding my ideology, roughly and with lots of tribbing, but I know you chauvinists all are about the patriarchy, so. Best not to sully your mind with the rest.

Also? More Orwellian shit I'm not going to address. Blah blah blah feminazis.; 1:26 AM
demize! said...: Youre a ridiculous fucking asshole. You had an entire argument with what you have constructed in your own mind. Who the fuck said anything about men being oppressed? You are a nationalist, nothing more, nothing less. You disgust me. You would jeopardize any revolution you were involved in. You did not adress any of my aurguments only, god help me I promised I'd never say this, STRAWMEN you concocted to avoid not having a rebuttal. Go die in a fire. And get a fucking nic.; 1:34 AM
Anonymous said...: yumadwhiteboy.tumblr.com/; 1:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Everything comes down to some guy's hurt feelings.; 2:39 AM
demize! said...: http://anti-politics.net/feral-faun/ideology-of-victimization.html; 2:57 AM
demize! said...: @Gaberuth "Yo Demize, you mean to tell me you're OK with abandoning all the women, children, elderly, and minorities to the vagaries of states rights? Can you say dog whistle? You probably lynched somebody yourself back when it was acceptable." This is a anarchist blog, so most regs are anarchist. So youll do the math and come to the conclusion that Im antistate, so why would I give a shit about states rights?; 3:08 AM
demize! said...: "Everything comes down to some guy's hurt feelings.." Everything comes down to some persons feelings. There ya go the history of hunan relationships untinged by ideology. Im willing to bet every anon is emanating from the same IP. Whos game?; 3:12 AM
Gabe Ruth said...: Demize!,
Coulda been clearer, but I agree with you. You got some stamina going toe-to-toe with anonymous harpies, I'll give you that, though you had some turns of phrase that are guaranteed to set them off. It's the hormones, so ease up. Also, she's gets her euphemisms from Chaucer.

Anonymous harpy,
That tumblr is awesome.

Mr. Trollski,
Probably??? Your little picture thingy should be that shooting star from those "The more you know" commercials. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!!!; 8:22 AM
Anonymous said...: As both PP and KF honchos, given the psychopatic personality needed to fill their respective positions, have little sense of shame.

As such their perception of being a gaggle of abortionists, or of being dragged by a gaggle of oabortionists, are surely much different from ours.

The Dull Sycophant; 9:08 AM
Leonard said...: Nony, get a nym. May I suggest SavageDeathIllogician?

Saurs, I can mansplain to you "why women must bear the brunt of both male and female sexual behavior" -- because we are mammals, and greater maternal investment among mammals is a biological fact. Menstruation! Pregnancy! Birth! Men don't have to do any of it! It's not fair!! As I mentioned, it turns out that Ma Nature is a bitch, and really quite unfair about reproduction. (I get the impression that Ms. SavageDeathIllogician would also profit from this mansplanation.); 10:27 AM
Was anon until that name was tarnished said...: I don't even know what we are fighting about any more.; 10:44 AM
Anonymous said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVXmMMSo47s

That and glass of rye wiskey on rocks.

Well, wine for Monsieur

Capt'n Obvious; 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...: That Dull Sycophant moniker just won't stick. It seems.

Capt'n Obvious / The Dull Sycophant; 10:52 AM
Anonymous said...: What gets me is the predictability of the hysteria that goes along with any deviation from left orthodoxy on this issue. I dont believe these people are that concerned with the women and children mutilated and aborted by this empire. I think this issue trumps that for them every time.

Suck my balls, mook. No one here gives a fuck about the victims of empire, even the adorable anarchists who repeatedly strike that pose simply for the sake of having a point of view from which to proceed. I personally don't give a fuck about people who have nothing to do with my life, whether dead Afghans or aborted embryos.

What are you doing about those poor victims, mook? Baking your own bread? Riding a bike everywhere? Yeah, that's what I thought. Posing, just like the rest. Still clinging to the tattered scraps of your humanist/Christian morality like a binky you just can't bring yourself to outgrow.; 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: @1108 nonny

The problem, the FUNDAMENTAL problem, my dear pollywog, that confronts us today, is too much, much too much DOING.

The solution, as endorsed by this blog (and sycophants like me), is:
STOP ENFORCING STUPID SHIT! JUST FUCKING STOP!

Your proposition is that we come up with our own stupid shit to be enforced later by morons even more stupid than us.

Before next posting, please, in cursive, with blue/black ink on lined paper, 100 times:

"Stop enforcing stupid shit! Just fucking stop!"

The Dull Sycophant; 11:43 AM
Saurs said...: Leonard, I didn't ask where babies came from. Try again.; 12:14 PM
Get your man hands off my lady parts! said...: It takes a village to vacuum a fetus!; 12:16 PM
High Arka said...: montag: no, a person oughtn't have dominion over their own mind and body. All of the world's problems that most of us IOZ readers agree upon stem from this insidious concept of ownership, which persists, unchallenged even to so many radicals, in the idea that we control "our" own bodies and minds. Ownership is the attempted control of the fearful mind.

Saurs: what you expressed at 12:24 was as sexist as anything Grandpa ever said about dames belonging in the kitchen. And, to say "barest of feminist theory" is as worthwhile as saying "barest notions of history" or "barest notions of common sense" or "go read the Bible"--it attempts to condense a vast network of conflicting ideas into a single dismissive statement.

Saurs speaks: "[T]heir infantile armchair hypotheticals..."

How kind. For comparison to how that could make your targets feel, try imagining them saying, "We had those slow-minded dames in the right place for centuries, but then they got uppity 'cause they wanted to go to the office..."

Saurs, you seem to have a problem with the idea of "men" that makes you froth at the mouth, type rude generalizations, and then treat "abortion" as a trigger issue to characterize anyone who disagrees with you as sexist. Which is ironic, hypocritical, and more importantly, wrong. This one seems to agree with you on abortion policy, but you're making your arguments in conjunction with such poor and incorrect treatment of others that you are exemplifying why conservatives are able to accurately critique the bad behavior and motivations of many abortion-defenders.

AMAnonymous seems similarly guilty of coming up with strawman dialogues. There's an opening there to say, "Here's a question for the rest of the girls who..." But that would be as inappropriate as Saurs' earlier demand of men. Rather, for Saurs and AMAnonymous, the question is, "Why do you want to so viciously insult and draw poor assumptions about those who disagree with you, rather than engaging their ideas directly?"

The answer is that you're spoiling for a fight. You feel mistreated by society at large, and so threatened by corporate media's anti-abortion talking points that, when someone even gives a whisper about "personal responsibility," you're unable to address personal responsibility as a separate topic--instead, you counterattack those same phantoms who've been troubling you previously.

What has happened, there, is that you've allowed the teevee to define for you what personal responsibility is. Why not listen to demize's view, instead? And address THAT view, rather than the teevee conservative view? You might learn; you might grow; you might prove demize wrong and teach him something, rather than exemplifying a talking-points teevee hyperfeminist who can't better explain why abortion is necessary.; 12:58 PM
Happy Jack said...: Dogs don't blog. Would IOZ kill the beagle for a cool million?; 1:06 PM
anne said...: 'arka, thanks for your input there .. .; 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: High Arka

If not I, who? If not here, where? If not now, when?

The Dull Sycophant; 1:51 PM
Inkberrow said...: "Self-expression plus self-indulgence equals nihilism".

Alan Sillitoe; 2:02 PM
lucid said...: High Akra - while there may be a case to be made for the notion that autonomy or sovereignty is at its root a product of the ideological regime of property, I don't think it is an accurate assessment.

I come at this from the standpoint of equality [in the primordial Greek sense - the moirae, but tempered with Kantian morality]. Our equality exists a priori to any epistemic regime we live within. It is from this idea that Kant is able to derive his moral idea of the kingdom of ends. It has nothing to do with the ground of the idea of of property - rather the ground of equality. We must each be treated as ends within ourselves not because we are our own property, but because we are fundamentally the same.; 2:10 PM
High Arka said...: lucid, we may be ends within ourselves, but that doesn't mean each point has "sovereignty" over itself.

Autonomy is not a "product" of property; rather, property is a product of autonomy. We cannot start owning things before we own ourselves. That illusion allows for the development of more advanced illusions, such as copyrights and SOPA and "I caught the fox; it's mine."; 2:44 PM
lucid said...: High Akra. I would actually argue the opposite. The notion of autonomy derived from equality is completely at odds with the notion of property, because the latter can only arise from the idea of a grounding hierarchy in the universe - i.e. one similar to Plato's ideon.; 2:53 PM
John Kindley said...: High Arka's idea is interesting. It reminds me of a recent dialogue I had with a guy on an email list who really believed in the Constitution and its sovereignty. I started the exchange with one of my pet notions: an individual laying claim to a house and a yard is a little "government," and his home is indeed his Castle; and all legitimate government is merely the confederation of such "governments." He responded by saying that such an individual isn't "sovereign" over his house and yard because he doesn't have rightful power of life and death over others therein. I responded by saying then only God is "sovereign." Seems the essence of that might still be true even if you don't believe in God.; 3:07 PM
puppylander said...: um...

lucid 2:10: autonomy not a product of property

arka 2:44: property a product of autonomy

lucid 2:53: property not a product of autonomy; but rather, autonomy a product of property.; 4:08 PM
High Arka said...: Kindley, to which we question, "Does God have that right?" followed by "Why?" followed by "Because He created it" followed by "Then why is it illegal to kill your own kid?"

lucid, you might better employ "alike" than "equal." In the absolutist language we're currently using, in order for something to be "equal," it has to be, well, "equal." And even identical twin infants or two copies of Windows 7 aren't equal. So neither can be two adult humans.

Sallying forth with equal, though, there is a fundamental similarity between "equality gives autonomy" and "autonomy gives/is property." For something to be equal to something else, that something must have a definite quality which can be understood and classified. We can do that with our imaginary integers, e.g., 2 = 2. However, we can't do it with two people, no matter how great are each of their unique test scores, diverse life experiences and/or ethnic heritages.

Sallying forth with "alike," we can rather reasonably say, "We are alike, therefore we should all be treated fairly" or "in a substantially equal fashion." That part of your points fits well. And from it, we can say accurately that:

"This one exerts a greater control over this shell, and its connected thoughts, than those ones."

The problem comes when we add to the preceding: "...ergo this one is autonomous." Cogito ergo sum as a de facto rationalization of the propertized madness that slays us all.

Check the fearful mind

http://higharka.blogspot.com/2011/05/fearful-mind-repost.html; 4:13 PM
High Arka said...: puppylander, they're all in bed with one another, so it doesn't matter whether or not Senator Kerry flip-flops.

Did the chicken come before the egg? Did people begin owning minds and bodies before they began owning 3 acre plots, nation-states and one another?; 4:16 PM
puppylander said...: i'll say this (applicable to several points in this entire thread):

things start to look a little different when you become parent to a child.; 4:24 PM
anne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4:53 PM
lucid said...: High Akra - I'm referring to the notion is Greek cosmology that came to be the centerpiece of a number of pre-Socratics, namely the dike [justice] of the moirae - later understood loosely as the concept of moira - destiny. The moirae - earth, air, fire, water - while not alike, stand in equal relationship to one another. Any disturbance of this equilibrium is understood as adike injustice. Equality is thus understood as a relational property. In relation to each other, any hierarchy that arises is injustice.

While you might argue that this 'relational' concept of equality is not 'equality' but rather 'alikeness', that is not born out in the Greek literature that deals with it. Rather, the fundamental concept of isonomia - equality before the law - is directly traced to this relational construct of equality.; 5:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear me, Dull Sycophant, you are a dumb one, aren't you? You know what I also count as "stupid shit"? Whinging and moralizing about shit that you don't actually have any deep concern over. All your calculated outrage isn't going to throw a wrench into the gears of the war machine or bring any Arabs back from the dead, so yeah, knock that off too.; 6:22 PM
Saurs said...: A swing and a miss, a flaccid attempt at correcting my "tone," and a lordly college try at teaching your grandmama to suck eggs, but, no, dude. What does television have to do with anything? Why are you spelling it like that? Why do you think every woman you speak to on this here thread is a dunderheaded sheep with no mind of her own who sits around reading glossies all day when she's not resenting men for not marrying her quick enough? I mean, it's a great strawwoman and I would love to see her in her own comic strip, etc., but what exactly does it prove, other than that you know virtually no women, you think very little of all women, and that women's anger, even when directed at all the right targets, frightens you into excessive bouts of (largely irrelevant and fairly incomprehensible) logorrhea?

My exhortation was for you fellows to work it out for yourselves, if you're so inclined, although I can't imagine much in the way of a result apart from one messy circle jerk lasting into perpetuity. If you don't see a problem in need of a'fixin': peachy-creamy. Move the fuck out of the way and stop distracting us or imploring us to edumacate your sorry asses, stop flinging palmfuls of poo in the form of rhetorical questions at us, stop insinuating that we're whores to a state we don't approve of, stop demanding that we prove our radical bona fides to you, stop asking us to reconsider whether we are, in fact, inferior and ign'ant, and stop trying to claim biology is destiny unless you can prove it. Appeals to the authority of wikipedia don't count, you'll be marked down, &c.

In short, consider why when women discuss women's issues, all you hear, in typical self-centered fashion, is manhating. Who hates who?; 6:29 PM
Saurs said...: ""Why do you want to so viciously insult and draw poor assumptions about those who disagree with you, rather than engaging their ideas directly?'"

Pull the other one. You guys don't have any "ideas." You have well-worn assumptions, thinly veiled jokes about bitches, and a massive chip on your shoulder.

This will come as something of a surprise, but I'm not too terribly concerned that my bad language and my bad attitude are going to cost me your support. I think I'll survive, sweets.; 6:34 PM
Inkberrow said...: Proudhon's great maxim, "Property Is Theft", is tautological.; 6:35 PM
demize! said...: "This will come as something of a surprise, but I'm not t terribly concerned that my bad language and my bad attitude are going to cost me your support. I think I'll survive sweets."
yeah, eww we dont need your help in the revolution, we're losing just fine all on our own. Lol you fucking rediculous idealogues have to give up this vestigial leftism. You all, on this thread are so wrapoed up in your own implanted dialogs that you scantly bother to even acknowledge ehat you're replying to. You strike me as the type that consider liberatory if the bosses and cops shared your gender or sex or fucking whatever pc. bullshit you'll criticize anyway unless one is a complete syncophant. And these are people that are friggen prochoice you're lecturing. It is sheer maximilism. You are the most boringly orthodox thinkers Ive had the displeasure of reading Utter dogmatism masquerading as radical critique. You're reactionarys.; 6:52 PM
demize! said...: PS. that was for Sugertits. Fucking "sweets" wtf is thst shit? Buncha white rich gender studies majors leading the vanguard.; 6:55 PM
High Arka said...: Saurs, please do not call this one a "guy." It's as presumptive as your insulting remarks about the men who've posted here.; 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: @622 Nonny

You inquired about DOING.

Well, start writingthose lines.

The Dull Sycophant.; 7:59 PM
Anonymous said...: "the dude who provided the sperm is also responsible for the unwanted pregnancy."

dudes don't get pregnant.; 8:42 PM
NutellaonToast said...: What a hilarious batch of stupid shit c, tm; 9:30 PM
antonello said...: As usual, I don't arrive at something to say until the train is leaving the station. But here it is.

For those of you who think that abortion is murder and ought to be treated as such, imagine that you get your wish: abortion is made illegal. What follows?

If abortion is murder, then the woman who has an abortion takes part in a murder. There are different degrees of homicide: which one is this? And what will be done to the woman who is convicted?

The typical solution, for anyone who actually discusses it, is to punish the abortionist but not the woman. This makes no sense to me. If they have both taken part in a crime, why is only one of them punished? If, as you might argue, the doctor is the actual killer, what then of the fact that the killing was instigated by the woman? Would you declare someone a murderer but propose no legal consequences?

I ask this because abortion is something that's been argued about endlessly, and yet hardly anyone in my possibly quite limited experience has stressed the above-stated questions. Those who favor the legality of abortion won't discuss them because they're offended by the premise. Those who are anti-abortion are averse to these questions as well: they say they're not central to the discussion (declare something a crime, but it's not essential to discuss the punishment?); or it's something to be dealt with later (a cop-out, surely).

Don't expect an answer to these questions from me: I'm pro-choice.; 10:59 PM
High Arka said...: You may have missed the point so thoroughly that there may not actually be anyone here saying that abortion is murder. Read more thoroughly? Or did someone actually say that?; 11:36 PM
Leonard said...: Antonello, ditto Arka. But I also take issue with your assumption that abortion has to fit within our current schema of murder. It doesn't. It was not historically that way before Roe v Wade, and I see very little reason to think it will be in the counterfactual future in which the progressive grip on USG has so slackened that abortion is outlawed. Democracy will still exist, and the balance of voting factions is simply not going to support the idea of classifying abortion as murder 1.

As for said hypothetical punishment not making sense to you: of course it does not, because you are prochoice and you do not sense a blob of cells or an almost brainless fishlike thing as a precious human soul. Try to use some imagination, if you wish to understand your enemies. Imagine, say, that your wife decided on her own to have your toddler killed at an infanticide clinic, perhaps because she was tired of wiping butt and wanted to go back to work -- and that the state supported her in this, calling it her choice alone. That is how the prochoice people feel about abortion, more or less. See if you cannot find some sympathy.; 9:33 AM
Saurs said...: demize, your concern for the cleanliness and purity of my politics has now been noted, thoroughly. Run along.

High Arka, you are a dude speaking on behalf of other dudes and I claim my five pounds. And you mean presumptuous.

Choosing abortion each and every time: ethically correct and as good an example as any of responsibility, erm, taken.; 1:44 PM
High Arka said...: "Presumptive" works there, but more importantly, what a shame that after venting your frustration, you're unable to discuss anything more. Reminds this one of arguing with Bush neo-conservatives in early 2003. *sigh* Radio free Spira.; 3:40 PM
Saurs said...: Frustrating? Why, no. I "vented" all over this blawg's face. My job is done. What happens thereafter is up to the blawg owner's conscience.; 3:55 PM
High Arka said...: Then by the same token, patriarchy vented all over your twentieth century. Pwned! Nothing more needs to be done.

Err, umm, can please to be time dialogue now?; 3:58 PM
antonello said...: I'll answer several people at once:

As for said hypothetical punishment not making sense to you: of course it does not, because you are prochoice and you do not sense a blob of cells or an almost brainless fishlike thing as a precious human soul. Try to use some imagination, if you wish to understand your enemies.

What I said did not make sense to me was that, when society chose to illegalize abortion, it punished only the abortionist and not the woman. It makes no sense morally because they would both be responsible and accountable. It makes no sense legally because several people have participated in what the law declares a crime; and yet one of them is not legally culpable even though the crime began with her. The punishment does not fulfill its premise. Perhaps it is regarded as merely a practical solution: but if it cannot be justified legally, then it shouldn't be a law; and if the solution cannot be justified morally, doesn't it need to be reconsidered?

I don't have trouble understanding why someone would see abortion as killing and would want to prevent it by (among other things) making it illegal. By instinct, I am anti-abortion. I agree that it is a taking of another's life which is premeditated and not literally unavoidable. And yet as soon as I imagine what ought to be done to the woman, I realize that I cannot imagine doing anything to her; and if I do not want anything done to her, I do not want the law claiming to do it on my behalf as a member of society. This is how I became pro-choice: gradually and reluctantly at first; more confidently later. If I am unwilling to have a law enforced, I should be unwilling to have had the law enacted.

there may not actually be anyone here saying that abortion is murder.

If you do not consider the term "murder" appropriate, substitute whatever suits you better. Merely call it, for example, termination of pregnancy and say that it should be made illegal if that is what you would have; but if the notion of terminating pregnancy does not include the termination of life, then on what grounds would the decision be taken away from the woman and declared a matter of criminal law? And if it is a culpable termination of life, then not calling it a homicide, in whatever degree, makes what seems to me a distinction without a difference.

Imagine, say, that your wife decided on her own to have your toddler killed at an infanticide clinic, perhaps because she was tired of wiping butt and wanted to go back to work -- and that the state supported her in this, calling it her choice alone. That is how the prochoice people feel about abortion, more or less.

This strikes me as an unfortunate remark by someone who wants me to "find some sympathy" and to understand my alleged "enemies." This raising of the emotional ante, comparing abortion to infanticide, convinces me no more than the notion, say, that a man marrying a man is the slippery slope to a man who would marry a dog.

So, then, to restate my original question: for those of you who believe abortion wrong for one reason or another, what would you have society do about it?; 11:48 PM
High Arka said...: Depending on where one defines the life as beginning, abortion is murder; this one's article discussed whether it might be justifiable murder, in the same way that giving sleeping pills to a terminal elder in incredible pain might be justifiable murder.

A problem with many "pro-choice" perspectives is that, instead of being honest about why they should be allowed to take the budding human's life, they pretend that it somehow isn't a life. This builds a lot of easily-exposed hypocrisies into their argument, which the "pro-life" people can then exploit, and sets up an endless cycle of back and forth.; 1:57 AM
puppylander said...: antonello,

your point regarding legal realism is valid. you're getting at one of ioz' critiques of libs/pwogs... the whaddowedooo problem.

how to explain the divergence? i'll suggest you're missing something about the anti-abortion/pro-life position: even though pro-life is ostensibly about "saving the children", the stance is actually about redeeming the pro-lifer.

that is, enacting the law in a way that does not deter "immorality" means it's not really about culpability. rather, it's a mode of expression/action. it's a redemption fantasy based on the idea that "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".; 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: And yeah abortion is an abomination, and abortionists are horrible excuses for humans ... as to the State taking a stab at fixing abortion.

No, no thanks. Kindly go fuck yourself, state.

So please, let's leave law, and legal, and rights out of this mess.

The Dull Sycophant; 8:51 AM
Gabe Ruth said...: Well, I'll voice support for the abortion is murder position. As to what to do about it, what's wrong with only prosecuting only abortionists? Does that offend your linear, black and white, legalistic Western mind? The civilized world can barely bring itself to prosecute infanticide by the mothers of healthy babies, and the practice is common in hospitals. Elsewhere? Please. Abort all the males, you say? Well, the opposite approach prevails in other cultures, with much less relevance placed on the line of demarcation between a blob of tissue and a child, so maybe in a few generations everything will work out great, if we can finally destroy racism.
I can see the unattractive aspects of sending women who have abortions to prison. To say that they are just as culpable as an abortionist is interesting, considering the pretty lies the abortionist tends to whisper in the ears of its victims mothers. In our expert dominated society, who the hell is she to question him? And if it's just a blob, right this second, WTF?; 9:25 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»

Friday, February 03, 2012

Abort! Abort!

207 comments:

Axis Mundi

About Me

Hypocrites Lecteurs, Semblables, et Frères

Archive