NeoNote — Abortion is not about women's rights
❝❝Abortion is not about women's rights.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Yes, I know most here do not agree. But there are two things you must consider. First, it's not a right unless the other person has it too. Which means that "reproductive rights" just excluded half the population. Now, that doesn't mean I am saying no abortions. I'm just pointing out that abortion is not a right, any more than designer shoes.
Second, not all women think that abortion is a right. You can denounce them, you call call them misguided, but they don't agree that abortion is a right.
Finally, before you complain about judicial decisions, remember that Roe vs. Wade was a judicial decision that circumvented existing law.
And as I told you before, "these people" see it as a matter of preserving human life. The "opening bid" was Roe vs. Wade. I don't agree with them on everything, but let's get the timeline right.
Like it or not, the rights of the fetus are a part of the discussion. As are the rights of the father. Reproductive "rights" can't trump that, but reproductive privilege certainly does.
If this were a matter of rape, you might have a point. But sex is still (mostly) a consensual activity.
Their passions and their beliefs are just as strong as yours are. They aren't going to accept defeat quietly, anymore than you would.
While neither you nor they will admit it, the other side has some truth.
And in case you hadn't noticed, you have damn little power over your health care now. The left isn't blameless and totally virtuous in this matter, and I wish we would stop pretending that they are. Government is government and power over is power over. No matter how noble the motives, no matter how much it's for the common good, it still takes away choice.
Practically every reason that healthcare is messed up is because of government interference. Whether it is special perks and privileges extended to major pharma firms, or the approval period for new drugs and procedures, or Medicare and Medicaid setting prices for procedures and treatment while exploding costs far beyond inflation, or the active suppression of nurse practitioners, or screwing up insurance so badly that people have no idea what they are paying for or if it would be cheaper not to go through their insurance, the list goes on and on.
It doesn't help that every government fix involves more government.
And why do people keep raising the issue of rape when it comes to women's medical care?
Just to point out the obvious, both Republicans and Democrats have turned women's bodies into battlegrounds where there can be no compromise.
*sighs* The original stat for American women was one in five women will be sexually abused in their lifetime. Abused, not necessarily raped. It's also not accurate.
I don't accept your premise of either/or.
Nor do I accept that sex and abortion are tied to rape. Funny, I don't think that most relationships have to be about who has the power.
If you don't think that Democrats exploit women's bodies, then why is it so important to denounce the women who don't agree?
The original study was the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study conducted by the National Institute of Justice, a division of the Justice Department. Here's what two of the authors had to say:““As two of the researchers who conducted the Campus Sexual Assault Study from which this number was derived, we feel we need to set the record straight. Although we used the best methodology available to us at the time, there are caveats that make it inappropriate to use the 1-in-5 number in the way it’s being used today, as a baseline or the only statistic when discussing our country’s problem with rape and sexual assault on campus.
Second, the 1-in-5 statistic includes victims of both rape and other forms of sexual assault, such as forced kissing or unwanted groping of sexual body parts—acts that can legally constitute sexual battery and are crimes. To limit the statistic to include rape only, meaning unwanted sexual penetration, the prevalence for senior undergraduate women drops to 14.3%, or 1 in 7 (again, limited to the two universities we studied).””
Until someone else mentioned it, I deliberately avoided mentioning rape. I specifically talked about sex, responsibility, and abortion. A casual reading of some of the other responses here (including yours) would seem to excuse a woman's responsibility before the fact because of, you know, rape. Maybe I'm just being extra dense here, but it seems like the only reason rape isintroduced into the discussionmentioned is to specifically excuse women from responsibility.
When someone starts offering two and only two alternatives, that's the cue to look for the fourth, fifth, and sixth choices.
There are conservative women who disagree with you on abortion. Why aren't they a part of the discussion?
Why should your morality and choices govern the actions of another? Isn't that what you say would happen if conservatives "win?"
One other thing. Roe vs. Wade. Decided by eight old, rich white dudes and one rich, old black dude.
“You can't circumvent the topic of rape when discussing abortion.”
Why not? Are all or most women raped? Do all or most abortions happen because of rape? Why is it so very very necessary to make this part of the discussion when rape is not usually the reason for abortion?
Again, I am not saying that abortion should be illegal. I am saying that it is more than just the woman involved. I am not arguing over the definition of life. I am not dragging out charts and pictures to show a fetal heartbeat or how it responds to touch at what point in the pregnancy. I am saying that abortion is not a right when it excludes the man. And at a certain point (which I have no idea what is), the fetus.
If you want men to act responsibly, that means their sex partners should too. That means that yeah, women should think about consequences before sex. That means that if abortion is an option, it should happen before the last trimester and probably before the second. And yes, that means that the man should be involved in the decision. If they aren't, then men are just being encouraged to be irresponsible.
Just like what is happening now.
The default is for the man NOT to be involved. The default is for the man to ignore the consequences. Claim that only the woman can choose, and the man doesn't have to choose.
That's why abortion as it is now is not a right.
I am not denying that rape happens, although I do not think it is nearly as common in America as some claim.
I just think that always discussing rape when talking about abortion doesn't do your argument any good. As it is, based on what you say abortions should be performed if the woman was raped and never for any other reason.
Yes, I am arguing. I am saying that abortion isn't a right if even the discussion doesn't have to include the man. And the man is not usually or even mostly a rapist.
That's it.
Everything else is something that others have tried to hang on me.
*shrugs* Your choice has reduced this to either/or.
Here's the inevitable result. You can imprison them and/or kill them, or they can imprison/kill you. Force rules. Might makes right. Submission must happen. Power over, now and forever.
Is that what you want?
*shrugs*
Like I said, reproductive privilege excludes the man. And if a woman excludes the man from the choice, then he has no reason to be responsible. “He is literally just a donor of genetic material…”
Who said I didn't consider women as human beings?
I'm a guy who believes the aunts and grandmothers theory of history.
I seek the Divine in every lady I meet. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes not. Sometimes it's my fault, sometimes not. I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. She learned it from her grandmother, the strongest woman I've ever known (www.neowaylandDOTcom/files/StrongWoman170330.html).
Why do you assume that because I dissent on some things I would throw you to the Christian patriarchy?
Why are you measuring somebody's strength by something granted by politicos?
Again, I haven't said no abortions. I've just said that if it's only the woman's choice, then it's not a right.
For the last fifty years or so, American men have lost rights when it comes to children. Somehow the discussion about abortion always includes vague allegations of rape and domestic violence as if most men did terrible things to women.
Most men don't do these things. We're not guilty, we shouldn't be blamed for what we didn't do and are not likely to do. The presumption of guilt should not shape relationships and sex.
Even now, you are escalating. The discussion started about abortion. Then domestic violence got added. Then rape. And now you added murder.
Everybody shares a right. Privileges exclude people. Only some get privileges. Privileges are not rights, and rights are not privileges.
Now I am not talking about rape, I am not talking about domestic violence. I am not talking about what happened 100 years ago or last week in France.
What I am saying is that if the baseline of social behavior now means that a man will not be involved the decision to have an abortion, then it is a privilege, not a right
You keep assuming that I have their beliefs.
I don't.
I'm saying that it is not about rights when only one person is allowed to decide.
Then if the man's desires don't count, does that mean they don't owe child support?
"Want" doesn't have anything to do with it.
Accepting responsibility does.
But not if they are denied the choice.
Then give me numbers instead of allegations.
At the same time, I'll point out that by excluding men from the decision, they never have to be responsible. Under the circumstances, the surprise is not that some men flake out. It's that others don't.
It's not just "men" who have this opinion. That's the point. Women don't all agree with you and it's foolish to pretend that they do.
My first sex rule is "Consenting adults only.". The first derivation of that is "Your desire does not control another's choice."
I absolutely agree that children need happy families. I also think they need male and female role models, but that is another discussion.
I think the power and the responsibility doesn't just lie with men.
I do know that for a while, CA had a law that if the mother published the name of a man she claimed was the father a certain number of times, that man was obligated to pay support even if genetic testing showed there was no relationship. I know a few guys who got caught in that trap.
I am not saying most women are irresponsible.
I am saying that having sex without considering the consequences with your partner is irresponsible.
I'm saying that our "system" of excluding men from the decision about abortion encourages men to be irresponsible and guilt free.
Do I think that birth control is a good thing? Yes.
Do I think that abortion is a right? No, not if it doesn't include the man.
Do I think that late term abortion is a good thing? Definitely not in the third trimester and I would question any that happen in the second.
Do I think that men can be unfeeling jerks more concerned with their own pleasure than their partner's feelings? Yes, especially if they are not held responsible for their actions. If the man isn't allowed to talk about abortion with his partner, why should he care? That is the society we live in. He's encouraged to think it's the woman's fault if she gets pregnant.
The hook-up culture certainly hasn't helped. If the guy doesn't have to work at seduction, why should he pay attention to her feelings?
I still don't think that rape should be part of the discussion about abortion because most abortions happen without rape. The only reason I can see for treating rape as the norm for abortions is to silence criticism about abortion.
If you want to shut people out of the conversation for whatever reason, that is your choice. Just don't expect them to accept your "rights."
If you want to blame all of this on men, that's your choice too. But most of them will resent you for it because they didn't do what you are accusing them of.
So that's where we are. Because I said abortion wasn't a right, you've said I am anti-woman and a bad Pagan and a bad person. But I've not prevented abortions. I've not voted against abortion. I'm not arguing against abortion. All I've said is that abortion is not a right. I haven't tried to turn back the clock.
If you really want to fight what's happening in these states, you're going to have to find a justification other than the "right to an abortion." I'm being honest with you. I'm not attacking you and I am certainly not attacking women as a group. I am telling truth. It's what I do.❞❞
Comments
NeoNotes — Looking good
❝❝Unscientific test.
Two video monitors of equal size. A dozen people, some of who were Democrats. Both videos played side by side with the volume turned down. All but one person thought that Trump came across stronger, more confident, better body language, and more convincingly. One guy said that Pelosi and Schumer looked like high school student council candidates.
Again, I don't like Trump and I don't trust Trump. But compared to the Democrat leadership, well, there's no comparison.
Is anyone else reminded of the Kennedy-Nixon debate?❞❞
❝❝Kennedy vs. Nixon.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Regardless of what was said, visually Trump came across looking very well. Pelosi and Schumer came across looking like two high schoolers running for student council. That observation isn't mine, but I am caging it anyway. Why in the World were they sharing a lectern?
Trump came across as an executive with pictures of his loved ones in the background. And with only one American flag. Pelosi and Schumer looked like they got kicked out of the cafeteria and they dragged in flags to make the walls look good.
As an aside, the trend of using multiple flags behind you to show your patriotism is stupid.
Kennedy vs. Nixon.
If you'll remember, I told you before you need to focus on the things that Trump does that are actually wrong. I specifically mentioned his misuse of eminent domain in the past. Lo and behold, the key part of his emergency plan is eminent domain.
Peepers, you focus on the wrong things when you attack Trump. You have from the very first. And you continually mistake my not agreeing with you as support of Trump.
Trump has been making Democrats look bad since he announced. It doesn't help when Democrats continually underestimate him. Even if they ignore everything that Trump did before, there's not a one of the Democrat Congressional leadership who has ever negotiated anything outside government. Trump is playing this exactly right and the optics reflect that.
You want to take Trump down? I'll tell you what to focus on. Eminent domain. The volatility of the stock market. Not the direction, but how fast and how far it changes direction. There's some major instability there. His treatment of the EU, particularly downgrading the ambassador. National security, particularly spying on Americans. Healthcare. War on drugs. Prescription drugs and self medication. The Second Amendment. Social Security and pensions. The national debt. Military spending and accountability. Free speech. Protectionism. Start with those.
You can't treat him as a Republican politico because he isn't one. And don't forget that this man has been dragging his fights and negotiations through the press for forty years. Remember that exchange from the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie about the worst pirate. Trump doesn't care if the press is good or bad, he just wants the press.
This came from an unscientific experiment that some friends and I did. And yes, some of them were Democrats. We ran the videos side by side on two monitors with the sound turned off.
Trump looked like he belonged. Pelosi and Schumer didn't. Their body language showed that they were unhappy, probably because they were sharing a lectern and neither wanted to share the spotlight. Pay attention to their hands specifically. Trump looked friendly, Pelosi and Schumer looked like they wanted to strangle someone.
I never have liked the multiple American flag thing, not even when it started with Bush League. I think it was him, he was the one I noticed using it first. Certainly the Democrats of that time were doing it. I think it is purposely distracting. Come to think of it, that's when I remember multiple Democrats sharing a lectern. Or at least all standing behind one person at the lectern.
As for the Z group, I adjusted my tactics accordingly. They wanted to ignore the political implications when those same implications were central to the argument, whether they wished to acknowledge that or not.
You on the other hand don't like to deal when facts or actions don't fit your script. You think that opposing someone means throwing every insult and accusation possible at them in the hope that something sticks. You're not willing to look the person's history and adjust accordingly. You let the labels control your expectations and then get frustrated when things don't turn out the way you want.
I was never against criticizing Trump. I was against criticizing Trumpstupidlyfoolishly in ways that would make him look stronger and better. Throwing insults at him doesn't work, he just pushes back. Treating him as the typical Republican politico who will back down out of civility or for the greater good doesn't work because that is not what he does.
It's not that I support Trump. I just think you are attacking him in very stupid and amazingly ineffective ways.❞❞
NeoNote — reserve currency
Thursday - 17May2018 Filed in: Free Markets&NeoNotes
❝❝As far as the world's reserve currency, as a whole that's a bad idea. I doubt that Trump sees that, but competition is good. This is one instance where he is doing the right thing by accident.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Yes, Trump is contributing to the debt, but so has every national politico since the "reform" of 1974. The continuing resolutions instead of actual budgets and the exploding bureaucracy are creating greater problems than Trump did. Both also predate Trump's election.
Meanwhile, that has nothing to do with the (BAD) idea of a single reserve currency or fractional banking. Both of which by their very existence distort the free market and introduce instability. But that is another topic or six.
The aging population is a problem because a) government promised that it could provide better, more reliable retirement income than the private sector, b) government mandated contributions, thereby reinforcing the idea that Government Knew Best when it came to retirement and driving out many private sector alternatives, c) government mismanaged the funds it collected, and finally the REALLY Big One, government borrowed against those funds without payback.
A good smartphone can get up to the minute currency exchange information, along with futures markets, stock markets, index funds, and football pools. Understand this, the only "practical" reason for a single reserve currency is so the government producing the currency can control the economy.
None of which has anything to do with the Korean negotiations of the impact of Chinese trading.
ETA: I should warn you, some libertarians spend a lot of time studying economics.
When people are told that they will be taken care of because it is their right, they stop paying attention to the numbers. That's true with pensions, Social Security, health care, public schools, roads, the post office, and clean water. I call it Somebody Else's Problem after a fictional FTL drive introduced by the late Douglas Adams. On the other hand, if they have to take responsibility, they pay closer attention. Just as one example, why should there be a mandatory retirement age? Just as interesting now that you brought it up, the current interest on savings accounts is artificially low because of government currency manipulation. It doesn't even beat the rate of inflation. Basically if you put money in a bank, you're losing money.
I'm not saying that the U.S. didn't benefit when the dollar was unquestionably the single reserve currency. That tends to happen with monopolies. I'm saying that competition and the free market can do better, with less government control and more choice and more benefits for people.❞❞