Had a USD reader send this to me today:
Just wanted to share this with you. The Students for Reproductive Rights group on campus is having a “Hanger Display” today in the Muenster University Center at USD. Classy Liberals never take a day off.
My main observation, other than a disinterested person manning the table, is that noticing the display, I don’t think they attempted abortions with the plastic ones back in the pre Roe v Wade days.
The wooden and plastic ones are so you don’t have a crease in your clothes.
They’re a symbol. Pretty sure that Christ wasn’t crucified on an ornate sterling silver cross, and yet Pope Francis has one around his neck.
Anyhow, fiddling on your iPhone > bombing abortion clinics.
Bombing abortion clinics is a symbol. Pretty sure abortion clinics do more than abortions, and yet they’re still targets.
My, what insight.
Got into grandma’s “medicine” again, eh?
Don’t appreciate other people using your silly and meaningless “arguments” again?
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, sure. Too bad your contribution neither imitated nor made sense. Go play “gotcha” with your wife/husband/sig-o.
I don’t think it’s imitation for the purpose of flattery; rather, it’s showing the idiocy of pretty much every “point” you try to make using your own stupid arguments.
Refute it on its merits, then, dipsh!t. WHY is the analogy bad?
An analogy is a comparison of two things in some significant & similar respect(s). Clear?
A photo of a “pro-choice” disinterested student at a table with a hanger on her phone has NOTHING to do with a VERY interested “anti-choice zealot” who wishes to bomb an abortion clinic–there are NO significant (or insignificant) respects in which those two people, their levels of interest, or their worldviews are similar.
freakin’ word genius.
I mimicked your words and phrasing (“argument”).
If it did not make sense, blame yourself, or your grandmotherly medications.
I get the mimicry, what I don’t get was your point. I made a fair comparison between the ‘symbol’ of a wooden hanger vs. a metal hanger, and the ‘symbol’ of a metal cross vs. a wooden cross.
Your analogy lacked any such clear inference, and was simply gobbledygook spewed in a feeble attempt to obfuscate and distract from an uncomfortable point that you’d rather not have to think about.
–Your analogy lacked any such clear inference, and was simply gobbledygook spewed in a feeble attempt to obfuscate and distract from an uncomfortable point that you’d rather not have to think about.
Gee, that’s close to what I concluded after reading your screed.
And yes, you too want to distract from the uncomfortable point that you’d rather not think about–the dismemberment of an unborn child described as a “right”. Yes, quite the goobleygook jabberwocky–how a clear moral wrong can become a “right”.
Except I don’t see it as a being a fully formed conscious human being, so I’m not uncomfortable with the choices others make regarding such.
The only discomfort I feel is in attempting to talk reasonably with flaming idiot.
So, in other posts, you deny the science of sex as genetically determined, and now you deny the humanness of an unborn human.
Apparently, any science that interferes with your political feelings & views is simply denied.
Typical progressive: it ain’t human if we say it ain’t human, damn the science. Thus eugenics, abortion, concentration camps and on and on are all justified.
In other words, you have your own religion and desire to force it on the rest of us.
I for one will fight like hell to defeat you and your cabal of zealots.
Whoa! It’s a Hitler bomb! RUN!
The Bomb:
eugenics, abortion, concentration camps
These are all ideas used, supported, and enacted by AMERICAN progressives…
chowderhead.
TIL: Hitler was an AMERICAN progressive
Savings babies’ lives>killing them in (most of the time) the womb. How many abortion clinics have been bombed, harebrain? Now, how many children have been killed as a sacrifice to the god of irresponsibility? Not even close, huh?
Mr. Powers mocked the young lady in the photograph for being ‘disinterested’. I simply meant that it’s better to fiddle with your phone for a cause than being so ‘interested’ in it that you blow stuff up.
— I simply meant that it’s better to fiddle with your phone for a cause than being so ‘interested’ in it that you blow stuff up.
But there’s the problem harebrain: the photo of a disinterested young lady behind a promotional stand for abortion with a hanger–and mocking her–has nothing to do with anyone blowing anything up. One may rationally conclude that this young lady has no interest or disinterest in blowing anything up for example and SHE was the target of the mocking.
Your attempt at an “analogy” fails completely.
On the contrary: she was mocked for being ‘disinterested’, as in, ‘she doesn’t care about the cause very much’. I drew a valid comparison between her apparent attitude and the attitude of those on the opposing side: that it’s better to be bored than bombing.
Your inability to connect the dots, or even string words together in any sort of coherent manner, calls into question the amount of lead that may be in your drinking water.
–I drew a valid comparison between her apparent attitude and the attitude of those on the opposing side: that it’s better to be bored than bombing.
So, you were pointing out that her seeming disinterest regarding abortion rights that she was supposed to be interested in is preferable to her bombing what…churches?
I’ll try again: How do YOU make the jump (the analogy) from what she was doing to folks NOT LIKE HER and their possible interest in bombing? See, in order for an “analogy” to be appropriate, there needs to be some LIKENESS to what the person in THIS photo was doing, or not doing. There’s NOTHING and NO ONE in the photo who would consider bombing anything, right?
So the comparison that you’re trying to make is a comparison of the person in this photo to another person NOT LIKE the person in this photo–but that’s not an “analogy” or a “like” or a “metaphor” or a “simile”.
Got it, dimwit?
The comparison is between the pro-choice girl in the picture and the anti-choice zealot bombing clinics. The point was that as ‘disinterested’ as she appears, would you rather she was out bombing churches?
I thought it was simple enough, but I made the mistake of underestimating your stupidity. I shall be more careful in the future.
–The comparison is between the pro-choice girl in the picture and the anti-choice zealot bombing clinics.
Since there was no mention of any anti-choice zealot in the picture or in the comments, no analogy is possible, right?
You really have no clue what an analogy is, right?
Oh Andrew, you’re so clever.
This is despicable.
Such coarse and vulgar displays are meant to do one thing and one thing only: DIVIDE.
Imagine if the pro-life folks displayed images of dismembered fetuses–talk about microaggressions!
A sheet of red paper with writing on it and a coat hanger are ‘coarse and vulgar displays’?
I don’t have to imagine pro-life folks displaying images of dismembered fetuses. Pro-life folks actually did that several years ago at the corner of 41st and Louise in Sioux Falls. And I think they had a large truck that they drove around town and it had ‘coarse and vulgar’ pictures on it. For all to see. Including children. Talk about ‘microaggressions’!
It might be vulgar in your opinion, but it is the truth. And sometimes the truth is unpleasant, and many times just the word abortion will never demonstrate the actual result of an abortion..
‘and many times just the word abortion will never demonstrate the actual result of an abortion..’
You have no idea what you just said.
Oh yes, I do know what I just said. Abortion is such a commonly used word today that no one associates what actually happens to the fetus with the word. You are a prime example of this or else the pictures wouldn’t bother you.
Do you fall down a lot? Most adults who aren’t brain dead or aren’t hopelessly stuck in a wet paper bag know that an abortion means aborting a fetus.
You really are quite dim.
Sorry to disappoint you but my bulb is burning brightly. An abortion is aborting a human being that has not yet been born. A relative of mine just delivered triplets early, under two pounds each, and two of them are still fighting for their lives in NICU. These same babies could have been aborted at this age and you wouldn’t think twice about it. Just because a baby has not taken a breath outside the womb does not make it any less a baby, but it’s impossible for some people, including you apparently, to understand this.
While I don’t always agree with your views Springer, your demeanor on this thread in the face of inexplicable anger is admirable.
Please be assured that your relatives and their children are in our prayers. It will be a long haul, and rutted with heartaches, but the True Choice was made.
Thank you.
Maybe because the pictures of dismembered babies were real and showed the actual results of the pro-death abortion industry; only a callous, totally self-absorbed person could look at those pictures and not pause to wonder if abortion should be a “right”.
What’s pathetic about this is that women no longer are subject to social opprobrium for getting pregnant out-of-wedlock. Society doesn’t care anymore, nobody is going to lose her job, be expelled from school, or ostracised from society just because she’s knocked up.
What threatens pregnant women NOW are abusive fathers and boyfriends. They are the people the women are afraid of. So the pro-abortion argument consists of encouraging women to remain in abusive relationships. And the whole coat-hanger thing suggests that if abortion is made illegal, the only way a woman can protect herself from from an abuser is to do it herself with a coat hanger.
So they believe the solution, for a woman in an abusive relationship, is to keep the abuser happy.
Personally I think if women have guns they Won’t get abortions.
Literally nothing you said made sense or had any bearing on reality.
In today’s day and age of recreational sex, in almost every case, anybody who does not want to have children does not need to have children. There are things men can do to prevent pregnancy and there are things women can do. People need to be responsible for their actions. Properly used, birth control methods are very effective. The most common reason for failure is improper use.
Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a place that offered free and reduced cost birth control for those most at-risk along with health screenings and counseling? Wouldn’t it be nice if young people were taught about birth control methods in school?
How about people taking responsibility for their own precautions, harebrain. Why should people get absolutely everything for free? Why isn’t abstinence teaching mandatory?
Abstinence-only education simply doesn’t work. Telling hormone-fueled kids not to screw is like telling hungry lions not to eat.
–Why isn’t abstinence teaching mandatory?
–Abstinence-only education simply doesn’t work
Once again, NO ONE mentioned “Abstinence-only education” until you did.
Can you EVER focus on the topic and/or the points folks are making or trying to make?
–Telling hormone-fueled kids not to screw is like telling hungry lions not to eat.
1. That’s what colleges are trying to do today with their convoluted “rape-culture” consent guidelines.
2. Another failed analogy in that humans, young & old, are not animals like lions.
Wouldn’t it be nice if our high school biology classes would teach that humans are not like other animals?
–Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a place that offered free and reduced cost birth control for those most at-risk along with health screenings and counseling?
That place being the USD student health services where students can access birth control, complete health screenings, and access counseling–all for free?
–Wouldn’t it be nice if young people were taught about birth control methods in school?
As a graduate of the Home School of Anal Retentive Education, you probably missed the sex education classes while home with mommy playing with your cis-doll collection.. In any case, responsible parents teach their own kids about sex ed, and the relationship values that they hold dear.
But I doubt you’d know anything about responsibility.
Sure, USD and other colleges offer such programs – but I was specifically referring to Planned Parenthood… You know… for those aren’t currently enrolled in college, poor neighborhoods, etc.
And while I agree that sex ed needs to start at home, not all parents do this for some reason, just like not all parents take their kids to church, or educate their children financially. When home support is clearly lacking, and when parents don’t necessarily have access to the best methods for teaching something, it falls to public education. You can gripe on “responsibility” all you want, but while you need to take a test to get a license to drive a car or practice law, but anyone can get a kid with no preconditions whatsoever. So you’ve got the problem of stupid people reproducing – you think they’re up to the task of educating their kids about birth control?
–but I was specifically referring to Planned Parenthood
Well no you were not since you never mentioned PP–you can’t assert that you were being “specific” when you never mentioned what you meant, specifically.
–not all parents do this for some reason
True, so why are we punishing the kids that arise out of the young adults’ irresponsible behaviors?
–When home support is clearly lacking, and when parents don’t necessarily have access to the best methods for teaching something, it falls to public education
No it does not. Period.
— So you’ve got the problem of stupid people reproducing – you think they’re up to the task of educating their kids about birth control?
How deeply condescending, racist, elitist, and ignorant can you be? Parents– “stupid”, accidental, young, committed, uncommitted, impulsive, or otherwise–can and are responsible for their actions. To excuse their responsibility is to deny their humanness–just like ignoring the humanness of an unborn child.
So what we have, is your denying the humanness of those whom you arbitrarily and capriciously label as “stupid” or “unborn”.
Overlying all that is your obnoxious confidence in your own superiority to anyone who holds opposing views, and you’re willing to proclaim it at every turn. You’re the worst of humanity for you don’t know what you don’t know, and you’re unwilling to even care that you don’t know. It’s one thing to be a danger to yourself, but you’re a danger to “stupid parents”, public schools, and the unborn.
LOL
I’m the Antichrist.
Hyperbole much? Or do you not agree that there are stupid people in the world doing stupid things, and that the best way to alleviate the problems that stupid people cause is to educate them rather than eradicate them? I fall clearly on the side of education in the hope that they LEARN responsibility – especially when home/parental support is lacking. Do YOU fall on the side of leaving them alone to figure out by themselves? Hope for the best? That they’ll learn responsibility if they’re forced to have a baby they are unable to take care of properly? Will you take the baby? Or do you HOPE to find someone who will?
Why the school? I have kids. We made sure they knew the score. There is no such thing as “free” or “reduced cost”. It is paid for by someone. BTW, the cost of the pill is what? around $15/month? What does a condom cost? I believe the costs are low enough most any responsible person can pay for them.
The school is because society simply can’t guarantee that everyone gets the required information, either because the home environment is too stupid or too irresponsible to provide for such a clear public need (fewer unwanted births).
A couple of 14 year olds with poor parenting, no job, and no money aren’t going to have adequate access to the birth control they might need to prevent serious consequences for themselves and the lives they might bring into the world.
As a responsible citizen, I pay for all sorts of things that benefit society that I may not expressly use myself. I’ve never needed to call the fire department, but I pay for them anyway because it’s bad for society to have folks’ homes and livelyhoods wiped out (not the best analogy, but serviceable enough). So while I’ve never had the need to acquire “free” birth control, I do see that there are those who might need it, and I’d rather they got it than to have to support their unwanted offspring down the road.
–either because the home environment is too stupid or too irresponsible to provide for such a clear public need (fewer unwanted births).
One could reasonably argue that with more sex ed in the public schools over the last 40 years, and with INCREASED rates of illegitimacy across all races, sex ed in public schools has led to more illegitimacy.
What makes you believe (and it IS a belief) that “more sex ed” will result in fewer unwanted births?
The most common failure of birth control is not using it because the feeling is there in the moment….
birth control with no self control is no birth control.
IUDs are awesome, no?
Please try an IUD crossgrain, and write up a review for all of us to read.
My wife has painful, irregular, and sometimes heavy periods. Since she got a Mirena, many of those problems have abated. The added benefit of not having to ‘remember’ other forms of birth control and being completely able to ‘go with the moment’ has made me a fan, I guess. I can’t speak to the actual discomfort or anything else much regarding said device, but from a male’s perspective, I give it 4 stars (-1 star for some questions regarding hormone balance and possible health concerns). Any ladies care to chime in?
Based on your comments on DWC, one can reasonable conclude that you’re one of those “stupid people” who are too ignorant to be a responsible parent.
Let us hope that you take your own view of stupid people reproducing ( not up to the task of educating their children about contraception and responsibility), and don’t.
–has made me a fan, I guess.
I’ve never met her, and maybe you haven’t either, but I’m a fan of HERS!
If she can keep you occupied “in the moment”, the rest of humanity is certainly comforted….and safe.
What an interesting observation! Pat, I truly enjoy your writing style!!
One thing, Pat; that looks to be a wooden hanger, the kind that keeps your suit jacket looking so sharp.
Crossgrain,
Did you really say this? “So you’ve got the problem of stupid people reproducing – you think they’re up to the task of educating their kids about birth control?”
What is your point? Forced sterilization? Taking kids away from who you think are “stupid parents?” Or just supervising/usurping their “education” of their kids on matters you think they are deficient?
I consider you rather more reasonable than to put words into other people’s mouths. My point was exactly as I said: stupid people WILL reproduce. Do we, as a society, leave it to stupid people to be completely responsible for educating their children? Or do we as a society have a basic set of educational goals for ALL children regardless of the intellect of their parentage? Expecting all parents, even the stupid ones, to teach their kids responsibility regarding sex that society as a whole requires puts more faith in those stupid people than I am willing to give. THEREFORE I feel it’s important for ALL kids to have access to as much information as possible regarding sexual responsibility and easy access to birth control so that we can take the stupid, ignorant, and irresponsible parents out of the equation rather than trusting these idiots to do the right thing.
I never mentioned removing children from homes based on parental IQ, forced sterilizations, etc., and I’m thoroughly against ANY such notions.
–and I’m thoroughly against ANY such notions.
So, you not willing to live by the consequences your own positions and beliefs?
Does that not make you an irresponsible person?
–so that we can take the stupid, ignorant, and irresponsible parents out of the equation rather than trusting these idiots to do the right thing.
Does that include stupid parents who believe human sexuality is like a lion in the wild–essentially uncontrollable?
Uncontrollable enough that it can override the sense of those ill-equipped to make decisions in their best interest, yes.
Are YOU implying that you trust people to be able to control their desires so well that no education beyond their home is necessary?
–Are YOU implying that you trust people
Whether I trust or agree with parents, or not, is no longer relevant as the US Sup Ct has decided that folks have a fundamental right to reproduce, use contraception, and have an abortion.
Whatever trust society placed (or removed) from parents was negated by the US Sup Ct.
Addendum:
Whatever trust society placed (or removed) from parents [vis a vis their reproduction] was negated by the US Sup Ct.
So your contention then is… what? That since the SCOTUS has somehow “negated” parental rights (!?) that we as a society may as well not educate anyone about sex? Explain.
“So, you not willing to live by the consequences your own positions and beliefs?”
You forgot some words. As usual, I can’t make much sense of your ramblings. Care to take another poke at it?
Sure:
So, you are not willing to live by the consequences of your own positions and beliefs?
[but you come across even more stupid than before]
I only asked you to clarify so as not to put words in there you did not intend, since, you know, I’m reasonable and all.
I’m willing to live with those consequences, sure. The alternative is worse and there’s no ‘perfect’ solution since people are largely dumb and/or irresponsible at some point. As a society however, we have a duty to save us from ourselves, so the best solution is not all/none, but some blending of the two: hence, reasonable restrictions on abortion, and quality education and access to birth control.
FINALLY, we have crossgrain admitting that he is willing to live with ” removing children from homes based on parental IQ, [and] forced sterilizations”.
Simply amazing.
What? Go read my response to Troy, ffs. I never said anything of the sort. I merely advocate for comprehensive sex ed and adequate access to birth control. Nothing more.
The consequences for your beliefs about stupid parents reproducing would include
“removing children from homes based on parental IQ, [and] forced sterilizations,”
I asked if you’re willing to live with those consequences or not, and you said that you were (“I’m willing to live with those consequences, sure.”)
Can you read?
I can read just fine, what I can’t do is allow you to put words in my mouth. I never advocated for forced sterilization or removal of children from stupid people. Never. Not once.
Please tell me just exactly how comprehensive public sex education would lead to that conclusion – YOUR conclusion, NOT MINE.
MY conclusion is that we will have fewer unwanted pregnancies IF we provide for comprehensive sex ed and free/cheap easy access to various birth control methods, even, and especially, for stupid and/or irresponsible people.
Now, kindly read all of what I wrote, and read it again. I have never, will never, and can never support the idea that we should sterilize stupid people or remove children from them. EDUCATE THEM AND THEIR CHILDREN and the number of unwanted pregnancies will DECREASE – THAT is the goal, and one I hope YOU might support.
You: ” so that we can take the stupid, ignorant, and irresponsible parents out of the equation rather than trusting these idiots to do the right thing.”
Gee, sure sounds like you’re trying to REMOVE stupid parents from their kids’ lives…
‘cuz “taking them out of the equation rather than trusting them ” pretty much means removing them!
And why spend all that time & public expense with comprehensive sex ed for the kids of stupid parents–why not just take the kids out of the equation from parents who are too stupid to trust, and just go ahead and “convince” the parents to get sterilized!
We’ll just have to get used to you not meaning what you write so that we won’t be confused by your incredible intellectual brilliance.
Your conclusions are bullsh!t and you know it.
“‘cuz “taking them out of the equation rather than trusting them ” pretty much means removing them!”
Bullsh!t. Taking them out of the equation means that we don’t rely on them to teach their kids about sex, and that we as a society would then take on that responsibility instead ‘cuz it’s too damn important to leave up to stupid people to do.
Crossgrain,
That sounds eminently reasonable to desire access to information until overlaid with the reality:
“Responsible sex education” doesn’t include abstinence or the health risks* of the pill, especially to younger women who have not been pregnant, or long-term effects of incurable STD’s like herpes and chlamidia because as we are just animals who can’t control their sexual urges so we go to the lowest common denominator. But I guess if the presumption is stupidity of the masses verses us being rational beings, your position makes sense in its nonsense.
*. Include risk of pulmonary embolism (death) and future fertility.
I agree 100% – Abstinence MUST be taught as the ONLY 100% foolproof method of birth control. I only stress that other forms of birth control MUST be taught alongside abstinence – and yes, that we include ALL the information, the benefits AND the risks of alternate forms of birth control.
But even you said:
“Abstinence-only education simply doesn’t work”
Which is it?
“Abstinence-ONLY” education, moron. See that “ONLY” in there? In your haste to play “gotcha” rather than have a reasonable discussion, you missed a rather important bit of information.
“Abstinence ONLY” education does not work.
Abstinence NEEDS to be taught ALONGSIDE comprehensive birth control alternatives. Sex ed. should include information about abstinence, responsibility, consequences, risks, and benefits of ALL forms of birth control and sexual activity.
–See that “ONLY” in there? In your haste to play “gotcha” rather than have a reasonable discussion, you missed a rather important bit of information.
Anonymous @ 9:20:
How about people taking responsibility for their own precautions, harebrain. Why should people get absolutely everything for free? Why isn’t abstinence teaching mandatory?
YOUR response at 9:45:
Abstinence-only education simply doesn’t work.
So you are free to insert “Abstinence-only” in response to an post who wrote nothing about abstinence-only?
Doesn’t that make you a moron by your own words?
No need to “play” gotcha–you just have no clue what you type, believe, or mean.
Stupid arse, I freely, purposely, and frequently have pointed out the need for abstinence education as an integral part of comprehensive sex education.
Yes or no: Should sex education include not only abstinence, but also risks and benefits of other forms of birth contol?
Seriously. Answer the question as YES or NO. No need to pontificate.
–Stupid arse, I freely, purposely, and frequently have pointed out the need for abstinence education as an integral part of comprehensive sex education
That’s EXACTLY what Anonymous @ 9:20 wrote, and you then scolded him/her with “Abstinence-only education simply doesn’t work”! So, whether folks agree with you or not, everyone is an arse!
Gee, maybe YOU are the arse??
–Yes or no: Should sex education include not only abstinence, but also risks and benefits of other forms of birth contol?
You invented some word. As usual, I can’t make much sense of your ramblings. Care to take another poke at it?
Is “birth contol” some kind of newfangled IUD?
Gawd, you make it soooo easy!!!
Crossgrain, if you are wondering about where a couple of your posts have gone, enough with the f-bombs. It’s unnecessary.
Whatever makes you happy, bro.
Much appreciated.