Saturday, October 7, 2017

Call It The Tim Murphy Memorial Operation: How To Fight Against Trump's Attacks On Women's Health Care

1.  Start holding men who father children out of wedlock fully responsible for their financial support, including child care.

2.  Let the assholes know that they and their sonny-boys will be fully responsible for the financial support of the children they produce.   Really drill it into their stupid minds, over and over again so that they really believe it will be done. 

You do that and I guarantee you, a significant amount of Trump's support, Republican-fascist support for destroying women's access to healthcare, including reproductive health care, will melt away.  You won't get all of them but I'll bet it would drive his support down, perhaps into the 20%s and that's the beginning of the end for the scum bag.   If Donny jr. or Eric produced an inconvenient or potentially costly pregnancy,  Donald Trump would probably have his thugs pressure the woman to have an abortion, probably offering to pay for it. 

26 comments:

  1. Remember, we've spent the last forty years telling young men, "If the young lady you're with gets pregnant, you have absolutely no say in what happens for the next nine months. Should she decide to have the child, you are then responsible for..." So, it's none of their business, until it is.

    I'm not defending deadbeat dads, nor blaming this on one factor, as they existed long before Roe v Wade, but I don't see how one could argue that a culture suggests children are unwanted uneconomic burdens that strip you of your "ME!" time is one that encourages fatherhood. Not just being the sperm donor. Being a father.

    While I agree with you in the case of the Trump boys, there is a rich irony in hearing the same people who lecture others about "ableism" dodge the question when I bring up the high number of pre-natal screenings that reveal Down Syndrome which end in abortion. Convenience is a pox on both ends of the political spectrum, and morals surprisingly malleable when doing the right thing makes your life hard.

    Remember: I agree with you on your first points. I just think you're leaving out the ways liberals inadvertently contribute to this problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you can tell me a way to "give young men a say" that doesn't violate the right of women to the ownership of their own bodies, I'd like to hear it. As it is any proposed right of them to "have a say" is inferior to the right of a woman to the ownership and determination of her own body. The state has no proper interest that negates the right of a woman to the ownership of her body.

      Do you propose that if the man who impregnated a woman wants her to have an abortion that he has some kind of right to determine that?

      The time for a man who has sex with a woman to have a say in it is when they are having sex, he can determine whether or not to use a condom or to choose to have a vasectomy. Or to choose to not have sex if he doesn't want the responsibility of supporting a child who might result from having unprotected sex. He might have a right to choose to not trust any birth control that his partner might claim to be using or, if she is using it, that it will work.

      All choices in anything dealing with people en masse, as the law has to, is going to lead to problems, the perfect law has never been made by any person. I certainly don't think anyone who has read my blog would accuse me of being uncritical of liberals, my contention has been, since I began blogging, that liberals are to a large extent the authors of their own failure, often by pudding-headed assertions of alleged principle and ideals. I would say most of that is inadvertent, or, frequently, stupid, though not all of it. Some of it was really, really stupid and the product of conceit and prejudice.

      Delete
  2. I think you'll note my point is not that men should have a say in what happens, merely that our culture tells them it is none of their business and then insists, after a magical journey through the vaginal walls, the once cluster of cells that was none of their business is now alive and their responsibility. Half, anyway.

    By the way, the fetus is "part of her body" is a term that fails meet all the medical criteria describing it as such.

    For example, your marrow cannot produce a blood type different from the rest of your anatomy. But a fetus, if dad is homozygous A and mom heterozygous B, could easily have B blood. Fact. Not opinion. If you think that's not a big deal just look into the cases of A positive recipients who received organs from B negative donors. Yes, it has happened.

    So to imply it's "her body" the way her lungs or pancreas are is a bit misleading.

    Per your take on liberals, the abortion-as-sacrament attitude many take towards the subject leads to situations like this:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/03/portland_couple_sues_legacy_he.html

    Which, frankly, if a Republican did, would have Samantha Bee and Trevor Noah practically gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair on their respective shows.

    But a liberal family, from Oregon? C'mon, they've got good reasons...

    Cards on the table: As someone who almost lost his nephew due to an incorrect diagnosis at the hospital, then saw his brother forced to pay the bill despite their error, and hearing lawyers explain they had no case because it wasn't technically alive. No. I do not approve of trying to make a complicated issue so glib. (Not from you, directly, all the time, but many on the left).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The right of support belongs to the child and the responsibility for that lies on both parents who are responsible for bringing the child into the world. Or it certainly should. The child has rights that are independent of the parents' rights.

      I didn't claim that a fetus is a part of the mother's body, I have never encountered that claim. However there is a right of a woman to determine what happens inside her body that is real and which the state has no legitimate purpose in denying to her. Those rights end when a live child is born, no longer within her body.

      I notice you, as no one else, has come up with a way to get past the obvious point that a pregnancy happens inside a woman's body and that her rights to self determination of what happens to her body is superior to a. the right of the man who impregnated her to determine that, b. the right of the state to regulate what she does inside her own body. If the fetus has rights while inside her body is an even more difficult thing to deal with. I think at some point you just have to face the fact that if women who are pregnant don't want to be and abortion is illegal and unsafe then many women will take their chances, as, both historically and contemporaneously, they do. The only real means of decreasing the number of abortions, drastically, is to have the best methods of contraception freely available and to have everyone fully aware of both how to use it and that if you don't want to produce a pregnancy you have a moral obligation as well as a practical one to use it to the best of your ability.

      "Abortion as sacrament"? You mean that remark that, as I recall, Gloria Steinem made? I think it is certainly a good point for thought, the extent to which the fact that men don't become pregnant influences how many, perhaps most men, think of abortion. Steinem's form of the argument was probably unhelpful indirect proportion to the satisfaction it gave to atheists and people hostile to religion or specific religions.

      I don't know anything about the case involving your nephew and brother - how about the mother - so I can't comment on it. If we had single-payer as they do in Canada and other civilized countries, it may have been much different.

      Abortion is a medical procedure the need for which or desire for which can be avoided easily and at far less expense and trauma to the women who have them, I certainly don't see them as any more sacramental than any other medical procedure.

      I don't quite understand where your anger comes from or why it is focused on liberals. If liberals had more influence and there was both universal healthcare and effective, scientific education in sexual hygiene and responsibility, including a knowledge of contraception, the abortion rate in the United States would probably, also, be much lower as it is in may countries which have those. Considering the motivation of this was the hypocrisy of a conservative, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, adulterous Republican man, you seem to be remarkably accepting of that by comparison.

      Delete
  3. “I didn't claim that a fetus is a part of the mother's body, I have never encountered that claim.”

    It’s clearly been a while since you were on a college campus.

    “However there is a right of a woman to determine what happens inside her body that is real and which the state has no legitimate purpose in denying to her. Those rights end when a live child is born, no longer within her body.”

    For now. There are not a few academics trying to argue otherwise. But, I’ve encountered young, brain dead liberals who think pregnancy has nothing to do with sex. No. I am not making that up.

    “I notice you, as no one else, has come up with a way to get past the obvious point that a pregnancy happens inside a woman's body and that her rights to self determination of what happens to her body is superior to a. the right of the man who impregnated her to determine that, b. the right of the state to regulate what she does inside her own body.”

    Per b. I have not stated anything about laws or prosecution thereof. You’re conflating my beliefs about the issue with my beliefs about how said issue should be regulated. I do not use drugs, but I think their criminalization is a wasteful use of resources. It does not follow that I must therefore think drugs for all!

    Regarding a., I disagree. I feel both parties are responsible (not a necessarily pejorative term) for the life that has been created. I have a rule of thumb regarding this: If an abortion is performed for reasons of “convenience,” then it is morally despicable. It is the same lazy, selfish reasoning that leads fathers to abandon their children. Kate Mulligan, an actress, had and gave up for adoption a child rather than abort. When asked about the difficulty of the decision, her response was, “Who said life is supposed to be easy?” Amen, sister.

    “I think at some point you just have to face the fact that if women who are pregnant don't want to be and abortion is illegal and unsafe then many women will take their chances, as, both historically and contemporaneously, they do.”

    Again, I have said nothing about making the process illegal.

    But that doesn’t change my abhorrence to the practice. As Dr. Percy wrote, the Nazis favored abortion for theoretical reasons like eugenics and racial purity. The modern liberal does so to meet consumer needs and avoid “unwanted” and “inconveniences” in their life.

    Yes, there are women who have abortions because of health reasons. Because they have been sexually abused and do not wish to carry of reminder of that traumatic event with them. These are not what he is talking about. I notice you're quiet as a church at last call about that case in Oregon. I hope it is because you are as appalled by it as I am.

    “The only real means of decreasing the number of abortions, drastically, is to have the best methods of contraception freely available and to have everyone fully aware of both how to use it and that if you don't want to produce a pregnancy you have a moral obligation as well as a practical one to use it to the best of your ability.”

    Or practice self-control and restraint? Nah, too hard. I went to a college where condoms were as prevalent on campus as textbooks. I knew two acquaintances that had abortions. Why? Well, as one explained to me, to sum it up crudely, they were out of rubbers but in the mood. C’est la vie. Again, see: pregnancy and sex being completely unrelated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Nazis banned abortion for "Aryan" women except when there was a medical opinion that the fetus was defective.

      I pointed out that whatever other rights might be involved, a woman's right to the ownership and self determination of her body is superior to that of anyone else over HER body. Would you consider that women had a "right" to exercise some kind of determination over whether or not the man they are married to, in a relationship with had a vasectomy? Some other kind of operation or medical procedure that he might not want to have?

      As a huge fan of self-control and restraint, not to mention moral responsibility, I would note that when you're talking about legal and social and health policy for an entire country, including large numbers of people who will not practice some or any of those, contraception is far more reliable and effective a method of preventing unwanted pregnancies and, so, abortions. If that's the real goal then people who oppose abortion should favor effective, science-based, contraceptive education and availability, if they don't, insisting on something which, clearly, never worked to eliminate abortions - married women had many of the illegal abortions which happened even before Roe vs Wade - then their first priority isn't the elimination of abortions, it's to make them illegal and deadly. Or, as I've documented here before, the inevitable and widespread practice of infanticide. That is the experience of a world and a time before contraception was legal, before abortion was legal. I'm old enough so I was an adult at that time and I knew of and knew women who had illegal abortions, one of whom nearly died of it.

      I don't know what case in Oregon you're talking about.

      I will also note, since I forgot to say that since I don't know the facts of the case concerning your brother's family, I can't discuss it other than to say that if it were due to some kind of medical mistake then that's the issue.

      Delete
  4. “’Abortion as sacrament’? You mean that remark that, as I recall, Gloria Steinem made? I think it is certainly a good point for thought, the extent to which the fact that men don't become pregnant influences how many, perhaps most men, think of abortion.”

    Most men my age support it. It’s a hell of a lot easier than child payments and having to be a dad. I would agree that men like that do not take their responsibilities as fathers at all seriously. But, I would argue women who use abortion as post-conception birth control are doing the same thing. "Whoops! Can’t deal with this. I got things to do..." If there was a cheap, painless procedure to have men become temporarily infertile until they were “ready” for kids, it would make its inventor a billionaire in modern America.

    “I don't know anything about the case involving your nephew and brother - how about the mother”

    My sister-in-law was devastated by the diagnosis and stayed in bed two days straight. Had my brother not, desperate to make her feel better, read the paperwork (he is a paramedic) and noticed the misdiagnosis and told her NOT to take the medication assigned her, their beautiful boy would never have been born. They now have four of them. And, sadly, he’s the only “liberal” I know who has more children than pets. This country is going to be taking a hard turn to the right in the near future because too many liberals are too narcissistic to breed and allow babies to cut into their “me!” time. That is a sacrament, after all.

    “If we had single-payer as they do in Canada and other civilized countries, it may have been much different.”

    Not likely. The doctor made a foolish, apathetic error and refused to acknowledge as much. The way he told her that she’d lost the baby, my brother said he’d heard more sympathetic deliveries from police officers giving him tickets.

    “I don't quite understand where your anger comes from or why it is focused on liberals. If liberals had more influence and there was both universal healthcare and effective, scientific education in sexual hygiene and responsibility, including a knowledge of contraception, the abortion rate in the United States would probably, also, be much lower as it is in may countries which have those.”

    Per why, see above.

    Per “if liberals had…” I don’t think so. I’m a librarian, and as Dorothy Parker reminded us, you can whore to knowledge but you can’t make her think. Nor can you make them practice what you’ve shown them. The DC area had a problem with STDs, so their solution was condom distribution. The number of infections actually increased, so their solution was…more condoms!

    Sex is a dangerous thing, both physically and emotionally. But the many of the modern liberals view it as a benign distraction at best and a holy rite of passage at worst.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Trump shows, as his supporters who voted for him even after the Access Hollywood tape documented him bragging about his adultery and sexual predation shows, as the "Values Voters" are going to prove this weekend, that view of sex you condemn in your last sentence is hardly limited to liberals.

      The fact is that condoms, used effectively, are one of the most reliable methods of limiting exposure to STDs, that's not a liberal assertion, it's a CDC and WHO assertion, the evidence of studies into the matter. It's probably more effective than celibacy because it's more likely to be practiced, consistently. If you claims about a program of condom distribution in DC is true - I'd like to see your source - it could be that either consistency or ineffective use is the problem. As it is, that's generally an issue of men refusing to use them, it's certainly the case of their non-use among gay men. I would note that straight men have certainly not been responsible in that matter, either.

      I don't understand you, on one hand you claim that liberals have fewer children than pets (and why that's a bad thing, I don't quite get) but then accuse them of not using contraception consistently? Those two claims would seem to not go together. I wonder how would they determine if liberals had fewer children than conservatives, what do they do if it' a mixed marriage, a liberal married to a conservative, degree of "liberality" or "conservatism", etc. I don't think it's a bad thing when people don't have children they either don't want or can't take care of well. Though I've known people who didn't think they wanted a child until they had the experience of having one.

      I have a post in the works about the moral difficulties surrounding sex but it's not ready yet.

      Delete
  5. "The Nazis banned abortion for "Aryan" women except when there was a medical opinion that the fetus was defective."

    Hence his point about their supporting the operation for theoretical reasons (like eugenics and racial purity) while modern liberals feel consumer needs(especially "inconvenience") trump all.

    "Would you consider that women had a "right" to exercise some kind of determination over whether or not the man they are married to, in a relationship with had a vasectomy? Some other kind of operation or medical procedure that he might not want to have?"

    The trouble with using such analogies regarding pregnancy is that there is nothing comparable in human biology. I don't advocate any legal measures that would criminalize the procedure nor give the male a right to determine what happens. But, that is not the same thing as appalled by our cavalier use of sex in modern culture absent any type of taste or restraint.

    Or, that Trump & Co. are wrong not does not necessitate that their opponents are right.

    "If that's the real goal then people who oppose abortion should favor effective, science-based, contraceptive education and availability, if they don't, insisting on something which, clearly, never worked to eliminate abortions"

    Again, for me this issue is less a legal than a cultural problem. We are a people consumed by our desire for ease. If you don't believe me, look at who is in the White House. To pretend contraception for all is going to eliminate the problem seems as childishly naïve as thinking outlawing abortion will prevent the procedure from occurring.

    "I don't know what case in Oregon you're talking about."

    I posted this prior. I checked and link appears to work. If this does not, search "Oregon couple sues hospital Down Syndrome."

    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/03/portland_couple_sues_legacy_he.html

    As I say, were this a Republican family in a state Trump carried, the outrage from the likes of Bee and Noah would have been palpable. But a likely liberal couple in a firmly blue state so "progressive" it embraces euthanasia? There's a damn good reason you can't even hear the crickets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt that all abortions are sought for the same reason, I think lumping them all together as "consumer needs" is accurate, nor that all such needs are not illegitimate. The problem with your assertion is that any individual who makes that decision for herself is the only one that could make such a designation. If you think that women seek abortion out of mere "convenience" there are two huge problems with that, women obtained and obtain abortions when it was and where it is illegal, it's nothing of a "convenience" when that's the case. And if mere "convenience" was the issue it's a lot more convenient to use contraception than it is to have an unwelcomed pregnancy.

      The issue of a man having some kind of determinative "say" or a percentage of how a decision is made of what a woman does with HER body is exactly analogous to a woman having such a say or ability to determine what a man does with HIS body. No man has a right to force a woman to become pregnant - in rape or through coercion that may not be legally rape but which is, in fact, rape. And no man should have a say in whether a woman has an abortion or not. The fact of how pregnancy happens, inside a woman's body, makes that decision, ultimately only rightly hers.

      That unwanted pregnancies, pregnancies that go drastically wrong, pregnancies that are potentially injurious to the health of the woman who is pregnant or which risk her life whenever large numbers of people engage in heterosexual sex is no reason to not do everything to prevent those which are foreseeable and preventable. There are countries with as high or higher rates of reported sexual activity but which have much lower abortion rates due to better and more consistent use of contraception. That's simply rational acceptance of moral responsibility. I'm all for people accepting the responsibility to act responsibly, especially when it could involve the health and wellbeing of other people in such a direct way.

      I don't know the case or anything about the parents. Do you know they are liberals? I assume you mean Samantha Bee and Tervor Noah, have they addressed this case.

      I don't know enough about the issues involved with whether or not the hospital or the lab were negligent in what happened.

      How did it turn out?

      I only have so much time to read through the comments I choose to read - there are lots I don't bother with more than the first two or three words before I send them to Spam. I don't always have time to look up links and if I don't recognize or don't feel good about using it I don't. If I don't look at it I don't generally comment on the issue that might be involved.

      Delete
  6. "As Trump shows, as his supporters who voted for him even after the Access Hollywood tape documented him bragging about his adultery and sexual predation shows, as the "Values Voters" are going to prove this weekend, that view of sex you condemn in your last sentence is hardly limited to liberals."

    Absolutely not. I would never have argued otherwise. But the Harvey Weinstein situation reveals how strongly politics affects values on either side of the aisle.

    "It's probably more effective than celibacy because it's more likely to be practiced, consistently."

    Actually, I've read about how using protection can engender a false sense of security because those who do so forget it's only effective if used 100% of the time. For example, a man with an STD uses a prophylactics with his partner 85% of the time. That 15% he's not? He's still likely to impregnate, pass on an STD, catch one she has, etc. but, in his mind, he won't think there's anything wrong because, "I use protection most of the time!" In some cases it can embolden risky behavior. Now, I'm not arguing telling said man to be celibate is going to work at all, but, I go back to this, our problem is one of culture, not laws or availability.

    "I don't understand you, on one hand you claim that liberals have fewer children than pets (and why that's a bad thing, I don't quite get)"

    They're not breeding, and unlikely to pass on their beliefs, whereas many conservatives in my neck of woods can't have them fast enough and, this is the key, raise them.

    "But then accuse them of not using contraception consistently?"

    Well, yes, there are still over 600,000 abortions performed annually. I would argue a lot of those come from indifference.

    But remember, I'm not the type who reads 'Brave New World' and thinks "Great idea!" Many people of my generation haven't thought their ideas out thoroughly enough to realize that is exactly what they want.

    "I don't think it's a bad thing when people don't have children they either don't want or can't take care of well."

    Again, I firmly support every person's right to be morally reprehensible within the confines of the law. As a librarian, I'd love to clean the shelves of garbage, but I don't because I can separate by own interests and views from our agreed-upon rules. But I think selfishness and greed sinful regardless of the motivations for them. Abortion is a cultural sin, and I place no less blame on myself for its existence than Gloria Steinem.

    "I have a post in the works about the moral difficulties surrounding sex but it's not ready yet."

    I look forward to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think if you watch liberal reacting to Harvey Weinstein's disgusting behavior you will find that it's quite different from the reaction to Trump's bragging about assaulting women.

      Delete
    2. I must insist if you think the liberals outraged like Claude Raines in 'Casablanca' ("I'm shocked to find gambling going on here!") didn't know about this behavior before last week, there's an old joke about a bridge in Brooklyn being for sale.

      Here is Scott Rosenberg, a writer at Miramax:

      "Because everybody-fucking-knew.

      And do you know how I am sure this is true?

      Because I was there.

      And I saw you.

      And I talked about it with you.

      You, the big producers; you, the big directors; you, the big agents; you, the big financiers.

      And you, the big rival studio chiefs; you, the big actors; you, the big actresses; you, the big models.

      You, the big journalists; you, the big screenwriters; you, the big rock stars; you, the big restaurateurs; you, the big politicians."

      It's a mea culpa. He declares, "in the end, I was complicit."

      So this faux outrage over his behavior now is disingenuous. They don't care what he did. They care that everyone now knows what he did.

      Meryl Streep, to cite one egregious example, thanked this man in virtually every acceptance speech she gave (and that's a lot) and called him "God." Now she wants us to believe she knew nothing about his behavior? Bullshit. Total, complete, fetid, nauseating bullshit.

      They didn't care what happened anymore than "appalled" Republicans pretend to now. It's all theatre of outrage. Virtue signaling via faux empathy.

      So, no, I don't think it's different at its core at all. It's the same thing of people protecting power in hopes of getting some of it. Jesus warned us we cannot have two masters. It's obvious who these people have chosen.

      Delete
    3. You don't think there's a difference between the fall out for Harvey Weinstein who seems to be getting dumped all over the place, who, I believe, is pretty well decimated in influence in Hollywood, etc. and conservatives making Trump president of the United States? Really?

      When I use the term "liberal" Hollywood doesn't come to mind. There are liberals in Hollywood but most of the "liberals" in Hollywood are more like liberalish libertarians.

      And, from what I understand, the guy who's bailing out Weinstein's company is one of Trump's biggest buddies in the business.

      Meryl Streep is a great actor. I don't take my moral direction or my political direction from actors.

      Delete
    4. No. Because they knew about his behavior years ago and did nothing. The best summation I read about this is from Twitter, of all places, though I cannot remember the author: "Weinstein isn't being dumped because those people found out what he was, but because WE found out."

      Don't be surprised if this dies down and he's welcomed back into the industry after he seeks "help" for "his" problems.

      Hell, there are numerous comments by current celebs admitting Weinstein isn't the only one who engages in that type of behavior but are refusing to name names due to potential reprisals. So, no, I don't see a difference.

      I don't use Streep for moral direction either, but I use her as an example of someone acting like those Republicans who criticize Trump knowing full well what he is while refusing to say, "Enough!"

      Delete
    5. Again, there is a difference even if the let him work in Hollywood again after he "gets help" and making someone President of the United States after it's revealed he bragged about assaulting many women.

      You certainly don't think I have much good to say about Hollywood and the American movie industry. Or that I've got a very high opinion of even one percent of their product or a lot of respect for the people who work in it, do you? Among other things I learned from them, other than reconfirmation that money corrupts, is that the larger the budget in an art project the more likely the results will be dishonest, inartistic crap.

      I don't have any problem with you slamming even a real actor, such as Meryl Streep, for not having the courage to expose Weinstein, even at the cost of her career, there are people who deserve respect because they tried to do that, such as the young woman who wore a wire for the cops and were let down by the DA's office in NYC. I have great respect for her acting but there are things more important than even art. But she didn't endorse Weinstein for president of the country.

      The sanctimony of awards speeches, especially about the industry are among the things that led me to stop caring about them more than half a century ago. I think awards are a minor plague on culture, starting with two of those most hypocritically set up by a weaponeer, Nobel, and a scum bucket yellow rag barron, the Pulitzer. One of my sisters worked cleaning houses for a while out West, one of her clients was a member of "The Academy". He told her that he hardly ever saw the movies nominated in any category before he cast his ballot, he said that wasn't uncommon. The whole thing is a sham.

      Delete
    6. Of course a studio head isn't as powerful or influential as the President, but I'm not comparing them that way. Both are powerful men who engaged in inappropriate behavior with the full knowledge and tacit support of those around them.

      You wrote that "liberal reacting to Harvey Weinstein's disgusting behavior you will find that it's quite different" from Trump's, but, again, I would argue no. They reacted to his behavior years ago when they first knew with a shrug and likely passed it off as locker room behavior. Then those outside their circle learned about it and they are faux appalled that the peasants now know what they accepted and excused in private.

      But let me offer another correction, you wrote that Streep refused to out Weinstein "even at the cost of her career." That is not true. Streep HAD a career and reputation amongst her peers, the critics and the public when she likely learned about what was happening. Ever heard the phrase, "To whom much is given...?" Well, she was given everything She's one of the few genuine "untouchables" in the industry, and still refused to do or say anything to bring awareness to the very real problem of the casting couch.

      Much as I disagree with Oliver Stone, at least he is saying in public what everyone else in that town is likely only uttering in private.

      I'm less interested in the reasons for establishing the prizes as I am their poor track record. No prize for Tolstoy or Joyce? No, thank you. Also, seven Swedes have won the prize. Seven, and not even the best and most influential writer the nation ever produced: Ingmar Bergman.

      Of course they wouldn't watch the films. They work on and around them all day. They likely don't want to be bothered watching them in their off time.

      Delete
    7. OK, I think this has gone on as long as I care to take it.

      You seem to have an obsession about Streep and she's not here to explain herself.

      I wonder, it seems to have been common knowledge in Hollywood and New York show biz circles that Weinstein was a sexual predator, it was certainly known to conservatives in the business, even some of those who supported Trump, why didn't they out him?

      Do you ever wonder why women and black people seem to upset you so much?

      Delete
  7. "If you think that women seek abortion out of mere 'convenience' there are two huge problems with that, women obtained and obtain abortions when it was and where it is illegal, it's nothing of a 'convenience' when that's the case."

    Dr. Percy and my comments were not talking about the process in the past, but the here and now. Also, that is incorrect. You assume having the child would be less burdensome that procuring an abortion. It is certainly not convenient for a meth addict to continue in their addiction rather than seek help in the long term. In the short term, however, it's much easier to buy another bag of glass than go through the pain and discomfort of withdrawal and temptation. It would argue it was also easier for women to find a doctor willing to perform an abortion (not an impossible task) than birth and raise a child, often on their own and in poor economic circumstances.

    "And if mere 'convenience' was the issue it's a lot more convenient to use contraception than it is to have an unwelcomed pregnancy."

    As a gay man, you must know it was similarly more convenient for people to practice safe sex than risk acquiring AIDS, but I'm sure you also know many who tragically felt themselves impervious to such things. Being young and stupid in a culture that all but encourages sex is not a recipe for avoiding the complications involving such relations no matter how easy the preventatives measures are to learn and utilize.

    "I don't know enough about the issues involved with whether or not the hospital or the lab were negligent in what happened."

    They should have seen the 3rd chromosome, absolutely. But regardless of their technical failing, the issue is undeniably based on the issue that I mentioned earlier. They didn't want a retard for a daughter, and now that they have one, damnit, someone is going to pay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are places where abortion is illegal and women obtain illegal abortions, right now. It is looking, evermore, that it will be the case in parts if not the entire United States in the future. I haven't researched the issue but I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some places where women are getting them now.

      I'd really like to hear any women who figure that abortion is more convenient than contraception that works.

      I read that what they wanted was money to take care of their daughter, who apparently is going to need care for the rest of her life. I certainly don't like the reasons that some women have abortions, such as sex selection or because they don't want the burden of a disabled child, though if I were faced with the prospect of bringing a severely ill or disabled child into the world, one who would not survive and who would be in enormous pain before they died, I don't know if I'd be able to justify bringing such a child to term. BUT I'M NOT A WOMAN, I WILL NEVER FACE THE CHOICES THAT WOMEN DO. I think such issues are more legitimately decided by people who will face that issue.

      I would have to hear the case and the legal instructions to know how I'd vote as a member of a jury on this issue.

      If instead of this it had been a different medical mistake would you be against a financial award or settlement?

      Delete
  8. "There are places where abortion is illegal and women obtain illegal abortions, right now. It is looking, evermore, that it will be the case in parts if not the entire United States in the future. I haven't researched the issue but I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some places where women are getting them now."

    I read an article in 'Rolling Stone' a while ago about this. One of the subjects had three children and was getting her second abortion.

    Clearly, she doesn't understand how she keeps getting pregnant. But, as I told you from my encounters, young liberals today think sex and pregnancy have nothing to do with each other.

    "I'd really like to hear any women who figure that abortion is more convenient than contraception that works."

    Five words: It won't happen to me.

    My brother is a paramedic. He has encountered any number of drunk drivers who caused horrific accidents, and they pretty much all had the same reasoning. "It won't happen to me." That's what they thought when they pulled out of the parking lot of the bar.

    I'm sure you know gay men who insisted the same thing during the AIDS crisis.

    That people engage in such behavior despite obvious warnings of life-changing complications when there are readily available options to prevent them is human nature. You are assuming they are engaging in this behavior knowing and hoping for the aforementioned outcomes.

    My point is they are not. It makes little to no sense, but people being people, it happens.

    "I certainly don't like the reasons that some women have abortions, such as sex selection or because they don't want the burden of a disabled child, though if I were faced with the prospect of bringing a severely ill or disabled child into the world, one who would not survive and who would be in enormous pain before they died, I don't know if I'd be able to justify bringing such a child to term."

    Then inject the little 'tard with a dose of pentobarbital and put it and us out of its misery. Look, life is fucking hard. Jesus promised us as much. To pretend that it isn't is not only dishonest but unchristian.

    ABC News ran a story arguing that "an estimated 92 percent of all women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate their pregnancies, according to research reviewed by Dr. Brian Skotko, a pediatric geneticist at Children's Hospital Boston."

    This is happening because of a sense of entitlement. Period. There is no other way to describe it. Is raising a child with Trisomy 21 difficult? Extremely. But you know what else is? Raising a child, any child.

    You might not like it, but in a culture as morally corrupt as ours, you are clearly supporting sex selection abortions the way the NRA is supporting lunatics like Stephan Paddock.

    "If instead of this it had been a different medical mistake would you be against a financial award or settlement?"

    Absolutely. Because just as I don't support "they hurt my feelings" as a reasonable tort, nor do I endorse that a "perfect" baby is promised everyone. This is the Richard Dawkins approach to life. He offers the same beastly endorsement of aborting those little mongoloids before we have to deal with them.

    You know what character sums up the current generation? Tony Montana from 'Scarface.' He famously said, "I just want what's coming to me...The world, and everything in it."

    I think most have forgotten he wasn't an admirable figure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WEll, if you've read me on the topic of what it would take to make a difference in real life it would be introducing the topics of responsible sexuality, drinking, etc. into entertainment programs and movies. I think that with all of the problems of the production code, some of them admittedly ridiculous, just letting producers, directors, writers, in some cases actors promote depravity has produced depravity.

      I still don't know how you get around the fact that a. a woman is the sole owner of her body, b. that she has the ultimate right to determine the state of her body, c. that if pregnancy is illegal that women will have illegal abortions or, as history proves, there will be infanticide.

      I do, as I have said, believe that people who are opposed to abortion have a right to tell people why they believe it is wrong, short of harassing women who don't want to hear it, attacking them, attacking womens' health clinics (the history of violence by anti-abortion fanatics around them proves that is dangerous to allow). I have no problem with people advocating sexual responsibility even practicing a generalized social pressure to that effect but as long as show biz is in the business of selling everything with sex, that's not going to go far.

      I think I've said enough about the consequences of irresponsible, self-hating, self-destructive behavior being promoted to gay men for you to realize what I think on that. There is no more malignant force on gay men in the United States than gay porn and sex columnists. I've been extremely critical of that, though I've been too busy with other things to keep track of every stupid, irresponsible thing that Dan Savage says or to look for the latest in anal-oral sex at Alternet or Salon. Though, who knows, I might come across something like that soon. I've got too many AIDS death anniversaries in my head for that to ever be far from it.

      Delete
  9. "You seem to have an obsession about Streep and she's not here to explain herself."

    1) Streep used a platform in which she received an award earlier this year to talk about Donald Trump. Her speech was stupid but I agreed with her message. So, clearly this is not someone who shies away from speaking her mind on political social issues (unlike, say, the very underrated Virginia Madsen).

    2) She thanked Weinstein profusely and frequently in her past speeches knowing what a monster he was despite her demonstrably believing a soapbox at an award show is an excellent time to raise awareness of social issues that she likely has not effect over. But something she certainly can influence with her star power and prestige? She tells even the crickets to be quiet.

    Now, I could have just as easily gone off on how little respect I now have for Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Jimmy Kimmel, Martin Scorcese, or any number of white men who worked in and around that company and should have said something. But, none (maybe Scorcese) has Streep's pedigree. That was why I choose her as "one egregious example" of the industry's appalling sin of omission.

    "I wonder, it seems to have been common knowledge in Hollywood and New York show biz circles that Weinstein was a sexual predator, it was certainly known to conservatives in the business, even some of those who supported Trump, why didn't they out him?"

    Likely, they were doing the same thing and/or wanted to work.

    "Do you ever wonder why women and black people seem to upset you so much?"

    Behavior upsets me. But I'm not so partisan as to accept nonsense that spews forth from the mouth of someone just because they're been declared a member of an oppressed minority.

    Spike Lee and Rush Limbaugh are both obnoxious, slightly paranoid, self-pitying loudmouths who say insanely stupid shit to get attention. I'm not going to excuse the former just because I agree with his political stances more often than not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it will come as a relief to you to know I'm not especially a fan of Spike Lee, though I'm not really a fan of the movies, in general.

      I have no idea what Meryl Streep knew or didn't know about it, where does your information on that come from? What did she say in her speech that wasn't true? I heard it online but I didn't hear much that I'd quibble with. Trump did or was everything implied in it.

      Delete
  10. "I have no idea what Meryl Streep knew or didn't know about it, where does your information on that come from?"

    The sheer number of accusations that have come out, coupled with the people speaking even now about other, anonymous executives playing Trump with the performers...I guess it's possible Streep, who deified Weinstein, had no clue about what was happening. Of course, it's just as likely Trump was just locker-room-talking on that bus and had never acted inappropriately in any way with women.

    I get that you agree with/like Streep, but come on man, the idea that she worked actively and frequently in that industry but was unaware about what was going on? Just, no. She's also the same woman who gave Roman Polanski a standing ovation, so clearly she thinks sex crimes are understandable if you are a fellow celebrity.

    "What did she say in her speech that wasn't true?"

    Let's go to the tape:

    -Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners. If you kick 'em all out, you'll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.

    No, there are plenty of "insiders" in Hollywood that can make fine movies. This is virtue signaling at its most pathetic. They should not be banned or prohibited from entering even if they can't direct. Such posturing is useless and also reveals, based on her sins of omission, how little she likely cares. Though, as I wrote, "I agreed with her message" overall. But I thought her presentation needed work.

    -And this instinct to humiliate, when it's modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody's life, because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing.

    This, I concur. The trouble is, based on the reports that just won't stop coming out, this is how her industry operates, and the irony is, she said jack shit about this until Weinstein's behavior made it suddenly fashionable to be against it.

    And that is the heart of the matter. My issue with her is she had the power, respect and knowledge of this behavior (the idea that she alone didn't know this was going on? Stop it) and DESPITE her willingness to speak up about issues political lacked the courage to say something unpopular to her fellow movie stars. She is a coward of the lowest sort, who is now rushing to the aid of the victor but had no interest in dirtying her hands by bringing casting couch culture to light.

    -Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.

    She's right, but she forgets that when the powerful and influential remain silent while abuse of power occurs all around her and she does nothing lest she not be allowed to make 'Ricki and the Flash?' We all lose. Again.

    For the record: I have a friend, my best friend's wife, who teaches and directs/choreographs theatrical productions. She has a few acquaintances on the periphery of Hollywood culture in Los Angeles. I trust her. She has assured me that this behavior is not only common but excepted from young actresses trying to get parts. So, to repeat, the idea that Streep is genuinely appalled by this? I don't buy it. She's mad that we all now know what a cesspool her industry is, and she has to now act (get it?) outraged by what Harvey Weinstein and so many others have been doing since she was onstage for 'Sophie's Choice.'

    I am outraged by the way the GOP has embraced Trump's flagrant abuse of authority (the same hang-wringing they employed when Obama was in office), his racism, incompetence, tactlessness, flagrant nepotism and hypocrisy...

    But you write about that, often and better than I, so I don't feel it necessary to just post. "This."

    However, the enemy of my enemy, in this case, is just as wrong in their own way as Trump. To deny otherwise is to be willfully blind to the world around us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, for heavens sake, that's why you're so worked up over that speech she gave? That she notes that lots of foreigners are involved with Hollywood productions and used a bit of hyperbole in making the point that a lot of the movies would be a lot different if they had to depend on American citizens alone?

      I think this got ridiculous a while ago.

      I wouldn't look to Meryl Streep for moral, legal or political direction, she's an actor. I wouldn't look to much of anyone in Hollywood for any of that, it's tinsel town, it's not a font of wisdom. I certainly slammed Susan Sarandon over her political pronouncements last year, just as I have Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson, and countless other people involved with movies and show biz. Get back to me on this when I do write something that asserts that kind of authority or wisdom for them. For now, I'm not posting another comment on this thread.

      Delete