The Logical Culmination of a Foetishist’s Dream
By now you’re aware that the heartwarming story of the eight babies born in California last week has morphed into a surreal horror story with a screenplay by Jerry Springer, directed by David Lynch.
It turns out that Mommy Suleman is 33-year-old single woman, living with her parents, with no visible means of support, who already has six children and had herself artificially implanted with eight more. Her mom went bankrupt last year and is now seeking psychiatric support. The family is trying to peddle her story to Oprah, who’s getting queazy. She just seems to like having babies.
As CC noted, our Fave Foetishist is in a bit of a quandary. This behaviour is clearly insane; but’s it’s a form of insanity that represents the culmination of the vision espoused by the radical anti-choice movement.
A fetish, in the sexual sense, is an object or behaviour that, in and of itself would normally not evoke a sexual response. Through association, however, the non-sexual becomes imbued with all the power and emotion of sex itself, triggering an emotional response. This obsession can range from harmless to morbid to psychotic.
The foetishists have performed the same trick, an unhealthy severance of object from context. They are utterly fixated on the foetus, which in their mind assumes all the attributes of personhood. They invest in a pre-human cluster of cells the same emotional passion nature intended for a child. The foetus IS their fetish. Some of them seem barely aware of the mother except as a kind of ambulatory, pre-birth incubator.
No wonder our foetishists find this story disturbing. It’s a staging of their own mania, writ large and performed live.
Balb: My sincere compliments on this new post, following so shortly after the Widdowson takedown. You’re on fire!
Kind words indeed from one of my blogmodels. Thanks, Dawg.
As I said at our place, ‘exactamundo!’ And it ain’t pretty, is it?
They are utterly fixated on the foetus, which in their mind assumes all the attributes of personhood.
You mean people who support abortion don’t attribute personhood to their unborn children?
Somehow I don’t buy that.
They invest in a pre-human cluster of cells
Balb: look at fetuses.
A being with eyes, nose, mouth, fingers, toes is not a “cluster of cells”.
You are in denial.
Some of them seem barely aware of the mother except as a kind of ambulatory, pre-birth incubator.
Sure, balb. I never had kids in my whole life. I have no idea what pregnancy entails. As if thinking about the unborn means not thinking of the woman. It’s not a zero sum game.
No wonder our foetishists find this story disturbing. It’s a staging of their own mania, writ large and performed live.
No, balb. A single woman who goes out and gets IVF is not “staging our [own] mania”.
This is just a bunch of rhetoric that has no basis in fact.
SUZANNE, we had a couple of discussions on the topic of “feminism” a few months ago. In the course of that discussion, after you profoundly insulted a number of the folks I care most about in the world, I came to the depressing conclusion that you may be one of the most close-minded ideologues I have ever encountered – smarter than Scenty, but even narrower in your range of thought. I suppose that’s an unavoidable consequence of deciding that you are an instrument of god’s will, and that those who disagree with you on matters of faith and morals are simply wrong because you speak for god.
Let me put it to you gently. I don’t think the emotional investment you have in this issue allows you to even understand my point, and I have no interest in discussing it with you; you’re not stupid enought to be funny, but you’re a brick wall. It seems to amuse JJ and others to keep trying to engage you: but I only debate where there’s a chance of ideas being exchanged. Thanks for your comment.
“A single woman who goes out and gets IVF is not “staging our [own] mania”.
I don’t think you understand Balbulican’s point.
I am not familiar with your site or your personal arguments, Suzanne, but I am aware that a number of prolife canvassers appear to think exactly as Balbulican suggests, and deliberately structure their arguments and advocacy to present the unborn as a full human. They use the word “baby” to describe a fetus. They suggest that fetuses be “named”. As you did, they emphasize its physical development. And then they will push that “personhood” right back to the moment of conception.
That is absurd, and, IMHO, shows an amazing LACK of understanding of what makes us human.
Heh.
http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2009/02/eight-is-not-enough.html
Stephane
I would shoot back that pro-choicers deliberately structure their arguments to present the fetus as “non-human”. Consider the “cluster of cells” statement by balbulican.
Look at a fetus. He is not a cluster of cells.
I would say that most supporters of legal abortion cannot bring themselves to admit the empirical biological facts in plain English: that abortion kills a human being.
All manner of euphemism and inaccurate language are used to avoid this conclusion.
A fetus is an organism. That’s a fact. A fetus is a homo sapiens. That’s a fact. In English, we call homo sapiens human beings. That’s also a fact.
This is beside the moral argument. I’m not even engaging in the discussion of the moral worth of the fetus.
When I state, plainly, what abortion does– that is, kill a preborn human being– and the opposition cries “no fair! You’re constructing your argument that way!” it sounds a little weird.
What exactly is unfair about plain language?
It’s unfair, you might say, because the word “human being” is used, and that’s usually reserved for persons.
And what is unfair about that? It’s quite fair. Plain language is fair.
They use the word “baby” to describe a fetus.
So do a whole host of people who have no investment in the abortion debate. I’ve been pregnant several times now. Talk to a doctor when you’re pregnant. It’s “the baby”. Not “the fetus”. Until you want to abort. Then it’s “the fetus”.
They suggest that fetuses be “named”.
Lots of expecting couples name their children. And what of it?
As you did, they emphasize its physical development.
Exactly. Because many people are ignorant of the unborn child. You’d be quite surprised how many people still peddle the “blob of tissue” and “cluster of cells” euphemisms, when clearly, they are not amorphous masses those phrases tend to suggest.
The popular pro-choice discourse suggests that the fetus is some kind of alien non-human, or in some kind of biological limbo. I wish to dispel the public of this idea. There is no biological limbo. The fetus is as human as you or I: just at a different stage of development.
That is absurd, and, IMHO, shows an amazing LACK of understanding of what makes us human
Before we even talk about the moral worth of the human being, in the context of the abortion debate, we should at least come to terms with the biological facts.
That would be a good start to the discussion.
Let’s make it simple, SUZANNE.
Is a newly fertilized human ovum a “baby”?
I love this ad.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=bizJWtJ0xXo
Here’s a biological fact — at the gestational stage where most abortions take place the embryo/fetus looks more like a jumbo prawn than a human, and it’s the size of a freaking raspberry. It is NOT equally human to you or me (especially me).
“That would be a good start to the discussion.”
Oh please, now you’re using other peoples’ blogs as your personal manure-spreaders? You’ve got your own propaganda vehicle and we all know where it is.
Like JJ said, you have your own PR pulpit SUZANNE. Give it a freaking break.
I’ve had enough miscarriages to tell you that a blob of tissue most definitely looks like a blob of tissue.
Looks have nothing to do with it, JJ.
We’re talking about what it is. Tadpoles look nothing like frogs. They’re still frogs.
Lots of newborn animals don’t look like their parents. Caterpillars don’t look like butterflies.
In plain English, a fetus is a human being. A person? We can have that debate.
But it is a human being.
it’s the size of a freaking raspberry. It is NOT equally human to you or me (especially me).
Biologically speaking, the fetus is just as human as you and me. Just as a caterpillar is as much of the same species as the butterfly he turns into.
Oh please, now you’re using other peoples’ blogs as your personal manure-spreaders?
balbulican has demonstrated some interest in what I have to say by linking to my blog and criticizing it– at least indirectly. I’m responding to what he has to say. If he’s not interested in what I have to say– he can not link.
balbulican
I don’t want to get too technical on that question. But let’s say that I consider any young offspring a “baby”.
So with that brief preface, I’d say “yes”.
Thanks, SUZANNE. You have just graphically illustrated precisely what I was arguing: you equated a microscopic cell cluster, a fetus, and a full human being. I appreciate the confirmation.
Balbulican
Biologically, they are all “fully human”.
Thanks, Suzanne. No need to continue confirming my point (that you see no distinction between a microscopic cluster of cells and a baby), though it is appreciated.
Biologically, they are all “fully human”.
That actually comes close to a classic oxymoron.
A perfect tautology, I would say. “Thus I define ‘human’ – thus, therefore, is ‘human’ defined.”
Biologically, a non-viable fetus may have the same DNA as any of the rest of us, and in that may be human — it is of our species, just like anything with our DNA.
But is not anywhere close to the same thing as a human baby, or a kitten or a caterpillar or any other such things. A cluster of cells + the work of a mom’s body can produce a viable baby – in much the same way that a kitchen fully stocked with ingredients + a chef can produce a viable cake. But eggs and flour and baking soda and sugar and chocolate seperately are not a cake.
But there is work involved in creating a viable organism from a fertilized egg, a zygote, a 12 week old fetus. These human stages may be human, but none of them represent a viable organism; they represent an organism which must have work poured into it.
Personally, I have been a non-viable organism at the beginning of my life, and so will I also be at the end of my life. I’m okay with that. Frankly, I don’t really remember being a fetus and making dreams on my life, and so if my mom had decided – as she has had with dozens of eggs for which she prevented fertilization – that she hadn’t the resources to provide me with life and nutritive support systems during gestation, I wouldn’t have lost anything, but someone I love would have been protected from work that is sometimes dangerous and often exhausting and that I would never want to make someone I love do under duress. *I* wasn’t there yet; she was labouring in the potential of love.
And isn’t that what it comes down to? I have no ego-connection to the fetus I was; I was a non-viable organism in the body of a person I love. Some day I will again be a non-viable organism, and I have already happily written a living will to cover that situation. Me as a non-viable organism isn’t really me.
(Psst: Usually, here’s where we learn that some think we shouldn’t have gone INTO the kitchen if we didn’t want to bake a cake. And I say that that’s a pretty limited view of kitchens and cakes are not a moral punishment for kitchen use. Just to get that out of the way. Y’all use your kitchens as you and your religious systems see fit.)
It’s unshocking to see so many members of the pro-abortion lobby try to argue around the indisputable empirical fact that an unborn child — or a fetus, as you may prefer to call it — is still human life.
The DNA checks out. Is it a human being? That’s clearly a matter of some debate.
But it takes one away from the logical dead end that is the very point of this post.
Nadya Suleman has had a lot of children. How, precisely, do you expect anyone to believe that the anti-abortion lobby is responsible for her desire to have so many children? Because you say so?
I realize certain individuals in this thread have never encountered a slander against anyone who disagrees with their stance on abortion that they didn’t immediately love. (In fact, I’m sure JJ will be sending Mike along to start threatening people with guns any minute now.)
But before you want to make an argument that incredibly over-the-top, you may want to check twice to make sure it’s logically defensible, or at least convincing.
Is a fertilized ovum “life”? Well, it’s alive, and its DNA is human. Is it a “baby”? Nope.
‘How, precisely, do you expect anyone to believe that the anti-abortion lobby is responsible for her desire to have so many children? Because you say so?”
Nope. I don’t expect anyone to believe that. If you’re addressing me, you must have misunderstood something, somewhere.
“They invest in a pre-human cluster of cells the same emotional investment nature intended for a child.” So “nature” “intended” that we care for children … that doesn’t sound very much like you, Balb. Must we slip into metaphysical or personifying metaphors so easily?
On the other hand, if I’ve misperceived your outlook, and you do in fact think that “nature” has “intentions,” I’d be very interested in hearing your views in more detail.
Arwen: Though I don’t agree with your position, your comment is helpful. My retorts below are rather snarky; snark is just too much fun.
“Frankly, I don’t really remember being a fetus and making dreams on my life …” Oddly enough, I don’t really remember being a three-month-old infant, either.
“I have no ego-connection to the fetus I was; I was a non-viable organism in the body of a person I love. Some day I will again be a non-viable organism, and I have already happily written a living will to cover that situation.” If the reasoning here is that your mother could have safely assumed that you would not mind being aborted, then to make the two situations parallel, it should not be morally necessary (even if legally) for you to write a living will — we should be able to safely assume that you will not mind being unplugged, etc.
And what about the chap who is a selfish bastard and would not have given his mother retroactive permission to terminate him, even though he brought great pain? Actually, I suppose I’m creating an imaginary difficulty here; once we’ve aborted him, we never need worry about his dissenting opinion — problem solved!
Actually, if someone snuck up behind me today and killed me instantly with a bullet to the head, do you think I would mind? I would not have been aware of what was about to happen, so it would have brought me no distress. And many people (including, I suspect, a few here) would assume that I would not mind being dead either. I would be quite unaware of my deadness, and would happily rot (there, we’re one-for-one in our literary personifications, Balb). Of course, I don’t think that I’d be (permanently) unaware of my deadness. But as the rest of you know, death will free me from the superstitious delusions of a hereafter that currently enslave me, so after being shot, my non-existence would be so enjoyable that I would thank my slayer, if I could.
Of course, if you wouldn’t mind asking for my consent beforehand, I’d actually appreciate that. And I hear there are a large number of consent forms that didn’t actually get signed, unavoidably, of course, since the clusters of tissue hadn’t yet developed the fingers needed to grasp a pencil. I’m sure they would have all been unselfish people, however; and I have a stylish signature, so if you bring the papers along, perhaps I could sign on their behalf?
Oh, Balby.
Leave it to you to say something so unabashedly dishonest.
“This behaviour is clearly insane; but’s it’s a form of insanity that represents the culmination of the vision espoused by the radical anti-choice movement.”
Does that sound familiar? It should. You wrote it.
Then tried to defend it using a definition of “fetish” that actually defies the actual definition of the term.
I’ll give you an opportunity to look it up and correct yourself before I do it for you.
“So “nature” “intended” that we care for children … that doesn’t sound very much like you, Balb. Must we slip into metaphysical or personifying metaphors so easily?
”
We needn’t, but I assumed our readership would understand the boring, mechanistic Dawkinian meaning behind that chatty little metaphor.
Sorry, Patrick. You don’t actually understand the point.
If there were a point here worth getting, Balby, I’d almost be prepared to let you have that.
Sadly, there isn’t.
First off, your “fetus fetish” argument is, pure and simple, a logically indefensible mess.
First off, a fetish is inherently sexual in nature. It doesn’t merely have to do with the “emotional experience” of sexuality, it has to do with sexual gratification. Period.
Secondly, a fetish is with an inanimate object. A fetus — or unborn child, as I personally prefer — is not an inanimate object. It’s alive, regardless of whether or not you agree it is a human being.
If anything, you’re referring to a partialism here.
But hey, don’t just take my word for it. allow a couple of guys with PHDs to explain it to you.
Hey, I know that fetus partialist doesn’t sound as good as “fetus fetishist”. There’s no alliteration in it or anything. But at least it won’t make you sound so incredibly stupid.
Third and finally, I’d challenge you over who’s really “lost the context” on this one. You may not want to agree that a fetus is a human being. But nor is it a “jumbo prawn” as one particular intellectual coward in this thread described it.
Then, last but not least, I’ll point out that it was you who drew the parallel between Suleman’s behaviour and this alleged mental disorder allgedly shared by anyone who dares disagree with you on the topic of abortion.
I’m not too shocked that you’re looking for the intellectual coward’s way out on this one. I think we both know you can’t defend your stance on this one.
I’m curious, balby … why are you giving Suzie All-Crap free rein to comment here when she savagely curtails anything even remotely resembling dissent at her place, and bans people at the drop of a hat? Bit of a double standard there, don’t you think, SUZANNE?
Oh, and balby? If it were me, I would have told Suzie to fuck off until she stopped being so dishonest and arguing in bad faith so much. Case in point: in the article you link to, Suzie clearly accuses the pro-choice contingent of not wanting to give Suleman the “choice” to have eight kids at once.
No one suggested that. A number of people certainly suggested that doing something like that was unwise, unhealthy, obsessive and waaaaay bad judgment. But, as far as I know, not a single person proposed taking away Suleman’s freedom to do something that hideously stupid.
In short, Suzie was lying and misrepresenting people. And until she stops doing shit like that, you really should send her packing.
I do not curtail dissent.
I curtail rudeness.
I also ban you because you’re a jerk.
But, as far as I know, not a single person proposed taking away Suleman’s freedom to do something that hideously stupid.
Precisely CC. Freedom and liberty are all about letting someone do something you yourself would never do. Its about letting people make their own mistakes and deal with them as they see fit, so long as they do not harm another person.
SUZANNE’s little diatribe on Fern Hill exposes her authoritarian mindset in all its glory – it is inconceivable to her that someone would disagree with a choice, or question the motivation or mental health of a person making such a bizarre choice without deciding that the choice itself must be taken away. The concept is alien to her – if you disagree, you MUST want it banned from everyone. Everything for her and those of her ilk is about authority and forcing people to accept their view. So when they encounter people who think its ok for people to make poor, stupid or even bad choices because that’s what freedom is all about, she can’t understand it. That kind of thinking never enters her head.
As for the whole fetus-human thing, well, my appendix is “alive” (so long as it is attached to me) and it has the DNA to create another human (genetically, its human). But, much like fetuses up to 20 weeks, it has no independent brainwaves and is still a part of the mother’s body. Until it is born or delivered alive, it is as much a part of the mother as an appendix. It is a cluster of cells, albeit a specialized cluster, that is no more a sentient human as a fingernail until it is born alive.
Those are biological facts.
“I’m sure JJ will be sending Mike along to start threatening people with guns any minute now”
Oh my, Patsy spreading his lies again. Its simple logic Patsy:
If A then B.
If A is NOT true then B will not occur.
So when I said that I would defend my wife and daughter with deadly force if necessary if their rights to retain control over their bodies where in danger, then only people who should feel threatened would be those who are advocating such things. And if they are advocating putting my wife and daughter into a legal state of slavery and chattel, well, they are already doing something unspeakably evil and deserve everything they get.
If you feel threatened by that, they you are the one with a problem, not me.
Of course, my original “threat” was to refer to a button on JJ’s site, so its really hard to imagine how you can imagine I threatened anyone with a gun…
You don’t understand the Cynic boy Suzanne…maybe toss a couple of fucks, cunts, a douchebagcunt here and there into your reasonable discussion or exchange of ideas and top it all off with a FELLATIOTASTIC! and you’ve got a winner…a real winner…and a new best friend called Cynic…sheesh, bringing people together is not always easy.
Patrick;
I’m a bit embarassed to be your defender here. But you’ve actually shown yourself to be capable of mature thought and rational discussion…we had quite a good argument once at Right Girl’s, I think.
The truculent bullshit that’s your stock in trade at Nexus is fine at home: everyone gets to set the tone of discussion on their own blog. But it doesn’t play well here. Try again, this time like a grownup, okay? We need some articulate dissent here, and you might be capable of it.
CC:
“I’m curious, balby … why are you giving Suzie All-Crap free rein to comment here?’
Two reasons, CC: we never edit or censor, and I like having folks come here to defend their views.
“If A then B.
If A is NOT true then B will not occur.”
Actually, this is not true – it’s an example of an inverse error. If A is not true, you have absolutely no information about whether B occurs or not. It is not definitive (or necessarily even likely) that B will not occur. Formally, you mean Only if A then B. It doesn’t change your argument at all, but it’s what I do.
“I’m a bit embarassed to be your defender here. But you’ve actually shown yourself to be capable of mature thought and rational discussion…we had quite a good argument once at Right Girl’s, I think.
The truculent bullshit that’s your stock in trade at Nexus is fine at home: everyone gets to set the tone of discussion on their own blog. But it doesn’t play well here. Try again, this time like a grownup, okay? We need some articulate dissent here, and you might be capable of it.”
Like you said yourself, Balby. You set the tone.
You’re trying to peddle an idea that equates resistance to abortion as a mental illness. Then you’re trying to draw parallels beween this non-existent mental illness — which is, quite frankly, nonsense mostly because you can’t even define a fetish properly — and some lady who wants to have kid she can’t support. Then you won’t even bother to defend that.
Then, to top off the utter hilarity, you, of all people who runs with a pack of glorified children want to lecture someone else about maturity when you’re the one who can’t stand being called upon to defend your own insipid ideas?
It’s an exercise in comedy at best.
“You’re trying to peddle an idea that equates resistance to abortion as a mental illness.”
Nope. Wrong. With all due respect, you don’t seem to understand the point.
Read again, carefully, and stop looking for a facile, sophomoric rebuttal. Try to understand the real statement. Respond to that, or please stop embarassing yourself. (Or not.)
You know, Balby, the people actually paying attention to what’s going on here are starting to think you’re getting cold feet about actually, you know, defending your ideas.
I’m going to make this very easy for you.
You define “fetus fetishism” in a manner that contradicts the psychological definition of a fetish.
You claim you enjoy making people defend their ideas. Let’s see how much you enjoy defending your own.
Patrick, I’m being polite here. But you don’t quite understand what I was trying to say. I actually thought you could, but I appear to have been mistaken. And frankly, referring to yourself as ‘The People Actually Paying Attention to What’s Going on Here” (a group of one) seems just a little self-aggrandizing, and a tad delusional.
There’s no shame in not getting a point. But stop humiliating yourself by republishing your incomprehension.
“I curtail rudeness…you’re a jerk.”
oh! the irony!
KEvron
You keep saying that, Balby, and yet you can’t seem to explain precisely what that point allegedly is.
Whatever you’re going to claim it is, I’m uninterested. My patience with your evasiveness on this has ended.
Do I need to make this even easier for you?
Your definition of a fetish defies the actual scientific term:
“A fetish is an object. Fetishism is really a disorder whereby a person is experiencing extreme difficulties in their lives because of the fact that they like these particular objects to provide for them a great deal of sexual arousal. The only way they can achieve this type of sexual satisfaction is with an inanimate object, a non-living object.”
So not only am I not interested in your fictional “other point” you’re claiming you made, I’m not about to allow you to try and deflect around this one.
In contrary to this defnition, you defined opposition to abortion as a mental illness under the pretences of this concept. Then you alleged links between that “mental illness” and the behaviour of Nadya Suleman.
No more, Balby. No more fiction. Defend your ideas.
“maybe toss a couple of fucks, cunts, a douchebagcunt here and there into your reasonable discussion or exchange of ideas and top it all off with a FELLATIOTASTIC!”
up ’til this point, you’re the only one to have done any of that, neo-cunt.
KEvron
“Of course, my original “threat” was to refer to a button on JJ’s site, so its really hard to imagine how you can imagine I threatened anyone with a gun…”
It’s funny, Mike, that you would whine about “lies” even as you mischaracterize the truth as a lie — all while you lie in order to accomplish that task.
What was that button, Mike? It was a picture of a gun pointing at someone.
Oh yeah, there’s no threat implied there at all.
The ironic thing about it, Mike, is that the button read, as I recall, “I’m pro-choice and I shoot back” whereas it probably should have read (in this particular case): “I’m pro-abortion and I shoot first. At unarmed people.”
Logically, I, being a software engineer, am speaking in psuedo-code. In most C languages it is literally written like:
if(A)
{
B
}
Where A must be true before B occurs, else B is by-passed and does not occur. I suppose I should have mentioned that, but its second nature to me…its what I do.
You’re trying to peddle an idea that equates resistance to abortion as a mental illness.
More lies Patsy. At no point in anything above does Balb say or even infer that. Perhaps you have Aspergers, where you cannot seem to understand sarcasm, or understand social cues for metaphor, irony or satire. I’ll bet you actual think Jonathan Swift wanted to eat Irish babies, don’t you?
No, check that, that is an insult to people with Aspergers.
Unlike Balb, I won’t be as polite – I suspect you are actually not getting it because you are stupid, or you are purposely being obtuse and lying, in an attempt to somehow “win” an argument not being argued by anyone but you. You have a history in doing both.
So, stupid or lying?
a little from column a and a little from column b.
KEvron
I’ve followed the discussion, Patrick. Balb’s making an obvious point about pronatalism. Some folks are missing that point. Tough nuggies.
I’m not sure that fetus fetishism needs to be sexual in the Freudian sense–I see the phrase more as a Marxist usage: regarding objects as having meaning and significance of their own, inhering in them like a kind of magic, rather than finding that meaning in social relations (e.g., “commodity fetishism”). I think that sufficiently covers a lot of “pro-life” discourse, in which fetuses are invested with a significance that erases the women who carry them–although I’m not entirely happy with the phrase.
But in any case, making statements about fetal biology, as though that proves “personhood,” is, if I might say so, akin to Dawkins’ somewhat sterile view of what it means to be human. Strange bedfellows, etc….
Enough for now.
Wow. And you are claiming Balb is the one contradicting himself?
“What was that button, Mike? It was a picture of a gun pointing at someone.
Oh yeah, there’s no threat implied there at all.
The ironic thing about it, Mike, is that the button read, as I recall, “I’m pro-choice and I shoot back” ”
Its a pretty clear statement of self-defense Patsy and pretty clearly refers to the shooting of abortion doctors and clinic workers – unarmed, innocent people either going to work or in their homes – by the so-called “pro-life” folks. Or are people who are actually being threatened and whose side have actually been shot at and killed not allowed to say they will defend themselves.
“The ironic thing about it, Mike, is that the button read, as I recall, “I’m pro-choice and I shoot back” whereas it probably should have read (in this particular case): “I’m pro-abortion and I shoot first. At unarmed people.”
Well, I don’t know what kind of English they teach out in Alberta these days, but “I shoot back” means the exact opposite of “I shoot first”. And it really is irrelevant what you in your fevered imagination thinks “it probably should have read”, it matters what it actually said.
If you were seriously threatened by that button and what I said, they you really must have Aspergers. Only an idiot would not get the obvious references and subtext.
And believe me Patsy, if I had threatened you with a gun, I would happily admit it. And I would make it way more obvious for all to see.
Yes, I think it is Apsergers. Pity.
No, your feeble attempts to take the thread somewhere else are over, are you going to answer Balb and explain what you are talking about?
Patrick, what is your comments policy? I ask because I attempted to respond to your serious misinterpretation of my post on your site, and it’s not appearing.
Mike, if you weren’t such an irrational cretin you would not even try to push a horseshit line like that.
Seriously, you are so fucking stupid that even trying to talk to you is like talking to a wall.
I’m going to go over this with you very slowly, Mike. Even if you don’t need the extra time to understand what’s being brought forth here, I know you’ll at least need the extra time so you can lie about it.
First off, Balbulican defines something here called “fetus fetishism”. He insists that its something promoted by the “radical anti-choice movement” (a label the the pro-abortion lobby delights in applying to anyone who disagrees with their stance on abortion).
He describes it thusly:
“A fetish, in the sexual sense, is an object or behaviour that, in and of itself would normally not evoke a sexual response. Through association, however, the non-sexual becomes imbued with all the power and emotion of sex itself, triggering an emotional response. This obsession can range from harmless to morbid to psychotic.”
I hate to force your attention back to the PHDs, but a fetish is explicitly a matter of a sexual attachment toward a phyiscal, inanimate object.
You cannot have a fetish toward a “behaviour”. A fetish is a sexual response demanding an inanimate object.
A fetus, by the way, is not an inanimate object, and thus cannot be the subject of a fetish. It can be the subject of a particularism, but not of a fetish.
Furthermore, a fetish isn’t considered a fetish until it becomes a pattern of behaviour that negatively impacts the life of the individual in question. That is the defnition of a mental illness.
“The foetishists have performed the same trick, an unhealthy severance of object from context. They are utterly fixated on the foetus, which in their mind assumes all the attributes of personhood. They invest in a pre-human cluster of cells the same emotional passion nature intended for a child. The foetus IS their fetish. Some of them seem barely aware of the mother except as a kind of ambulatory, pre-birth incubator.”
First off, it takes an extreme amount of arrogance to insist that one is qualified to draw an arbitrary line between what nature intended and what nature didn’t intend.
Secondly, it’s all there in black-and-white: the “radical anti-choice movement” — once again, defined by the pro-abortion lobby as anyone who disagrees with them — are applying the principles of a fetish to a fetus.
Despite the fact that this defies the psychological definition of a fetish.
Not to mention that, interestingly enough, whomever drummed up this tripe in the first place chose a mental illness that is inherently sexual in nature. Whether you like it or not, or are honest enough to admit it or not, that’s a statement.
Can the outrage, Mike. Considering your thuggish past behaviour, you have no credibility for it.
twats, you’re in full “wilfully obtuse” troll mode tonight. as per usual.
KEvron
“Patrick, what is your comments policy?”
heh.
KEvron
“Its a pretty clear statement of self-defense Patsy and pretty clearly refers to the shooting of abortion doctors and clinic workers – unarmed, innocent people either going to work or in their homes – by the so-called “pro-life” folks. Or are people who are actually being threatened and whose side have actually been shot at and killed not allowed to say they will defend themselves.”
And yet you referred someone who simply stepped into a blog post and said “hey, wait a minute, there is a debate on abortion” toward that button.
Someone who had never made, or even implied, any kind of a threat against an abortion provider, or even an abortion supporter.
There was an obvious intent to that, Mike. You know this because these were your intentions. Your intentions which you now lie about.
“Well, I don’t know what kind of English they teach out in Alberta these days, but “I shoot back” means the exact opposite of “I shoot first”. And it really is irrelevant what you in your fevered imagination thinks “it probably should have read”, it matters what it actually said.”
So then what was the purpose of referring someone toward that who simply said, “hey, there is a debate on abortion going on”. What was the purpose, Mike?
Usually that’s the kind of warning you would reserve for someone who’s actually made a threat, implied a threat, or even suggested a willingness to make or imply such a threat.
Yet you pulled it out right on the get-go.
And you — who, as I recall, was very supportive of the assault on Ed Snell — want me to believe that you didn’t intend that as a threat.
No, Mike. I’ve had far too much exposure to the depths of your irrationality and instability to ever buy that.
You’re a thug, pure and simple. And you know it. Grow up and stop lying.
Gawd KEVvy you’re a thickheaded buffoon, maybe think a bit before firing off gibberish and stay the hell outta the way…I wanna observe Ross hold Balbull’s feet to the fire…we got a ring-ding-dong-dilly goin’ on here.
KEV-cunt-ron…LOL
Balbulican, the comments policy on my site is currently wide open. Your comments should be appearing there.
I don’t even use those stupid letter confirmation boxes, so I can’t see what the problem would be.
I’d advise you — actually, I’d invite you — to try again.
Folks, Patrick has demonstrated that he’s both rude and stupid – to my disappointment (if not surprise, I’m afraid) he’s confirmed CC’s assesment of him.
We don’t ban and we don’t censor here (unlike a number of sites, like Patrick’s, that loudly and hypocritically trumpet their commitnent to freedom of speech while blocking respondents). He can post without fear of being censored, as he seems wont to do. But let’s let him fulminate in solitude, as we would any cretin.
stinks like feet in here….oh, it’s just neo-cunt, bravely donning yet another redundant moniker. how terrifying for you.
KEvron
gladly, balb. and i’ll give neo-cunt the cold shoulder, too.
KEvron
Jeebus, but you are incredibly dense and a very, very stupid man
Patrick, you are a university student, correct? An undergrad in Sociology, correct?
The admissions standards appear to be much, much lower than when I attended university. That’s three and a half decades ago, Patrick.
Dictionary, Patrick. Dictionary. Is Merriam-Webster good enough for you or should I pull out the OED?
As a sociology undergrad you must have a basic understanding of the word ‘fetish’? If you don’t you should ask U of A for your $$$ back because their educators have failed you. Maybe it isn’t your teachers and it’s just you.
Brrrrrr…it’s chilly in here.
KEV-vagina-ron…LOL.
As for comment policy… from Patrick’s comment box. It does seem somewhat vague and rather subjective (except for the last sentence).
ps – It’s spelled ‘KEvron’ (lol)
Suzzane,
You know that I agree with you wrt the definition that a fetus (any fetus) is also a human being.
That does not mean that I agree with what this woman with all her fetuses did.
In the first instance — by getting herself implanted with 8 embryos, AND keeping them all – she put her life (and ALL of theirs, at risk)
Further: She took an action that could very well have left her born children with NO mother or father to take care of them.
Further: WRT her BORN children, she has no means of support to properly take care of them that appears to be independent of her elderly parents.
I made the choide to go through an adoption — For many reasons.. but a biggie for me in that decision was that I had already gone through single-parenthood with my son, and I did not want to have another child go through that again, if it was on me to make the decision. — I did the RIGHT thing by both my born child and my *then* Unborn child. I made arrangements to make sure that no matter what, BOTH would be properly taken care of.
This woman seems to have not a thought in the world about the quality of life for her BORN children… NOR her Unborn children (with the risk she put them ALL through by her decision to carry them all to term AND Have them all at once). In that respect, as a parent – she is an extreme liability to her children — both born and unborn.
There was NO medically sound reason in the world for her to implant herself with 8 embryos. It put herself AND all those embryos at risk, as well as putting the quality of life of her born children at risk – should something bad happen to her because she was carrying 8 children to term.
If she was actually concerned with NOT putting her embroyos lives at risk she could have had a series of IVF done to implant the different embryos – rather than just ONE single IVF treatment, where ALL of the embryos were implanted.
What possible reason do you think could be given by her as for her needing to implant ALL 8 at the same time?
Think about it… – It’ll come to you…
And while you are thinking about that… consider that IVF treatments costs tens of thousands of dollars. Do you think ANY reasonable person who actually cares about her BORN children, Who–(being that she- was reliant upon her parents to provide for her children), had ANY business spending tens of thousands of dollars (That could have been providing for her born children) on the IVF?
In so many ways Suzzane, when you put the interests of her BORN children into the equation — what she has done is indefensible.
When you consider that because she was either too cheap, or too poor, she decided to have 8 implants at once, and carry all of them to term — she was ALSO risking the lives of those implanted embryos (*HUMANS) — what she did is again totally indefensible morally.
There is NOTHING that compelled her to have ALL 8 embryos implanted – with all the attendant risks. Hell Suzaane – it’s possible that All 8 embryos could have died because of the risks she took… — I’m amazed you don’t care about that?
But this underlies the point… the pro-life movement makes itself vulnerable to justified and severe criticism – when it ONLY looks at the picture from the point of view of “SAVING THE HUMAN-FETUS- NO MATTER WHAT”
M
Joel Kropf – You rather missed the point about viability. If I were, today as an adult, suddenly non-viable and needed another adult to attach to in order to keep me alive – because machines couldn’t do so for me – then we’d be sort of comparing apples to apples. I imagine kidney donation is an analog I’d be okay with. I can imagine consenting to donate a kidney (to a family member?), but I would not accept legal responsibility for doing so under duress, even if my kidney was the only thing between life and death for the person in need of it.
As for shooting people, I rather don’t connect abortion and shooting grown men in the back of the head.
(I am a person of faith, so let’s assume you and I both have faith you will know about it; neither of us has anything but faith in the human soul, no proof, and I cannot understand why we’d try to legislate our faith. Bad for faith and legislation. Also, my faith is obviously quite different from someone who is has pro-life understanding, so legislating faith is bad for faith. You and I would never agree. So let’s stick to tangibles, nu?)
So. If we HAD to connect the death of the fetus with a shooting of a man who I honour as the viable human animal that he is (oh yes, even a 14 week old fetus with its brainstem and fingernails and heartbeat is not the same as a viable baby, because it is a cake with ingredients mixed but the work of putting it together has not been done yet), well – you’d likely shoot a man who was going to take your kidney without consent, right?
Or someone who ordered that if you were in your kitchen, and all the cake ingredients were there – or if you’d even mixed them together – you HAD to finish the baking OR ELSE…. Or else what?
So. Viability. The point that seems to get lost, often and always.
Even if a fetus is a full grown human being who has thoughts about the meaning of infinity and the knowledge of how to cure cancer in its tiny fetal brain, it is a non-viable creature who, because of that, is a guest of the creature providing it life (and growth) support. Even if. I don’t even bother with with the “potentiality” – pro-life people seem to think they are the same as fetuses, and that’s fine with me. Go ahead. Ya’ll aren’t invited without consent, either.
Viability is the gold standard; the soul is a discussion for a different day.
Of course, now is when generally people start talking about how sex is the same as consent to pregnancy.
That is why I suspect the argument is really about sex, and not babies.
(… and discussions about “what sex is for” often descend into those murky, faith and preference based discussions, which are even less easy to legislate. Again since you would probably rather not be forced to all participate in my particular set of preferences. Yes?…)
“she has no means of support to properly take care of them”
oh, but she realized that the multiple births would generate media interest, and she’s hoping to capitalize on the exposure. she wanted to have octos because she intends to exploit them.
KEvron
pps – It’s spelled puerile. Them fancy words sure are hard, eh?
People have traditionally had large families for survival. My great great grandmom was a good Mennonite farmwife and had 14 babies because that’s how a farm survived.
This woman isn’t doing anything terribly unusual in the history of our species. What’s unusual is pregnancy with 8 embryos.
That’s not something that usually happens without the active participation of medical professionals; in this case, he grossly disregarded major scientific and professional medical guidelines constraining the number of embryos to 2 or 3, for reasons of safety of the health of both mother and embryos.
Makes no sense. The medical profession will have to deal with this guy.
Tangibly, he was putting 9 patients in danger by putting – if you would – 8 non-viable humans on one life support system. Ridiculous to all involved.
Kev,
“she wanted to have octos because she intends to exploit them.”
That certainly does seem to be the case… AND if so – that simply underscores the point that I was making about the issue of WHY she decided to have 8 implants at once.
It wasn’t an attitude of “PRO-LIFE” that was the reason for her to have 8 planted at once. If she actually gave a shit about the embryos she WOULD have had IVF done at different times to allow those embryos a better chance of all actually being born — without the attendant risks to their lives – from having them all being done at once.
For this woman — the decision to only have ONE single IVF treatment involving 8 implants – involved MONEY.
She cared MORE about saving money – than ensuring the safety and well being of her UNBORN HUMAN CHILDREN.
She also cared more about the possibility of becoming some sort of celeb, and getting rich from it – MORE than she cared about the possibility of leaving her BORN children orphans without a mother or father in their lives.
Pure selfishness from start to finish!
And for BOTH these reasons and more she should NOT be defended (as Suzie is doing) She should be roundly condemned.
I don’t think this woman is crazy. I think she is in full possession of her faculties. The kind of calculation she clearly put into this – indicates that she IS in fact rational. She’s just greedy – AND she’s a menace to ALL her children.
@balbulican – It’s funny, Balby. No one else seems to be having trouble posting comments on my blog.
I’d like to take you earnestly on this one, but I can’t get around it: you have to be lying. There’s really no other explanation.
ROTFL
Oh, yeah, that’s right, Frank.
Let’s argue with the guy with the PHD. That’s gonna work out real well for you.
I mean, I’d almost like to take you seriously, Frank. Really, I would.
But just like Balbulican, just like Mike, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. And just like those individuals it’s obvious that you’re incapable of honesty, and unable to admit it.
So how do I take you seriously? We’ve got Balbulican here trying to make opposition to abortion out to be a mental disorder, we’ve got a guy with a PHD demonstrating that a fetish cannot apply to a living being of any sort, and we’ve got you trying to pile on as if you think it’s going to make any kind of a difference.
Sorry to have to be the one to tell you, kids, but I have all the marbles. I win.
@craig -
Yes, university is hard work.
Ah, yes. Try again. Is blogger broken? I don’t think so.
9:34pm PT (12:34am ET) and Balbulican’s original comment still has not appeared on Patrick’s blog. I’m positive Patrick still can’t see what the problem might be.
Clearly, he never made the comment. After today I don’t credit Balbulican with an overabundance of intelligence, so I assume he couldn’t bungle that.
Nor do I credit him with an overabundance of honesty, so there’s no question that it’s a very calculated lie on his part.
Yeah, Frank, let’s argue with the guy with the PHD. That’s going to work out real well for you.
Balbulican is trying to describe this “fetus fetish” in psychological terms. But as we can see — that is, provided that you aren’t afraid to open the link and actually read — a fetus cannot be the subject of a fetish, at least not in psychological terms.
Of course, being the intellectual coward that you are, we know you won’t actually open the link. That would mean coming to understand that Balbulican doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and that it goes double for yourself.
Could someone in the studio audience(craig maybe)hep ol’ Balbull wit teh wird “commitnent”…someone, can’t recall who…hmmm….hmmm…would say “when ya got nutting, korrect yer burr in da saddle’s fancy werd arrowrs.”…nope, just can’t remember who said that.
Interestingly, a few of the comments I’ve made haven’t appeared on this site. So not only does Balbulican seem to be lying about having posted a comment on my blog, but he’s also lying about not restricting the comments that appear here.
Such as the one where I point out to Frank Frink that he’s trying to argue against a guy with a psychology PHD about what a fetish is.
I’ll put it you this way: given the choice between Frank Frink or a psychology PHD, I know which side I’m coming down on.
“She’s just greedy – AND she’s a menace to ALL her children.”
she’s no shirley partridge….
KEvron
“Interestingly, a few of the comments I’ve made haven’t appeared on this site”
i see them all.
KEvron
No, you don’t.
between you and me, one of us is lying.
goodnight.
KEvron
“As a sociology undergrad you must have a basic understanding of the word â€fetish’?”
But the funniest part is the fact that the word “fetish” not being strictly sexual in nature is implicit in the title of the very link Patrick provided “Psychology of Sexual Fetishes” and he even quoted from it “A fetish, in the sexual sense.”
Of course he’s the same guy who saw an 8 sided object and said “triangle!”
And interestingly enough, Balbulican himself described his so-called “fetus fetish” in the sexual sense.
Fuck, Lenny, but you are stupid.
“between you and me, one of us is lying.”
And considering that you have a history of lying for little more than your own amusement, we both know who that is.
And because Balbulican describes “his” fetus fetish” in a sexual sense, therefore the word “fetish” is strickly sexual in meaning?
If you want to keep pretending even after being presented with a dictionary, knock yourself out, but you’re dumb enough without playing at it.
And I’m not going to be your enabler in further polluting balb’s combox.
Like I said, Lenny: fuck, but you are fucking stupid.
If Balbulican himself describes his theorized and so-called “fetus fetish” according to a sexual fetish, then the definition of a sexual fetish is what applies.
If Balbulican wanted to use a different definition of a fetish, then that’s up to him. But at this point he’s pretty much committed to the definition of a psychological sexual fetish.
And I’ve already knocked that particular ball right out of the park.
O, fer christ sakes, Patrick.
In the completely clinical sense, the word that Balb probably should use, instead of fetish, is PARAPHILIA. Maybe FEOTUSPHILIACS.
However, in ENGLISH, instead of in DSM-IV speak, fetish works just fine, because it implies obsession/fixation, and with the sex-item meaning, can handle the loaded implication of sexual fetish.
Which is why you will hear clinical psychologists talking about frotterism as a fetish, even though it is technically a paraphilia.
In other shocking news about the evolving world of language: people who ask for a Kleenex often mean any facial tissue, and people who talk about Skidoos sometimes just mean snowmobile, and people who call other people douchnozzles don’t acutally mean to imply that the person in question is the nozzle of a douche.
ROTFL
You have got to be kidding me.
If you want to theorize based on psychology, use the terminology properly. Otherwise, think twice. Then think again.
If you think I’m going to tolerate being called stupid by a bunch of idiots who would get themselves laughed out of a psychology classroom, you need to think four times. If you think I’m going to tolerate being called stupid because I know more than the aforementioned idiots, you’d better make it five times.
And I’m still waiting for Balbulican to explain away the loaded terminology as well. It seems to me that the selection of sexual fetishism was rather calculated.
Mike
Your appendix is not an organism of the species homo sapiens, i.e. a human being. People don’t get excited about their internal organs. They do get excited about their unborn children. They can recognize their offspring when they see it.
Dr. Dawg
My point in arguing that a fetus is a human being is to bring to the fore what abortion actually does. I have noticed that supporters of legal abortion are almost never upfront about it. They use euphemism to describe the fetus and the procedure (e.g. abortion eliminates the products of conception).
I have said that that line of argument does not make a moral argument about abortion.
It does underscore that the movement to keep abortion legal has something to hide.
MW
When I wrote that it was a good thing that she did not kill the child, I did not have all the information. This was before it came out that she’d WANTED 8 children and that she was unmarried.
I didn’t have in my mind that she was a single mother who wanted a dozen children. I think we both agree that most people would not want that and it would have been a little far-fetched at the time to assume that that was her goal.
I am still glad that she did not kill any of her unborn children. I am not happy that she had IVF, or that she’s a single mother with no apparent means of support, or that she’s thinking of doing a reality tv series. But then, many women conceive children in less than ideal circumstances without IVF. I am happy when they choose not to abort as well.
The value of a human life is absolute.
FFS, Patrick, the term “fetus fetishist” was coined years ago by an American blogger, Twisty at “I Blame The Patriarchy”. Everyone knows what it means. What’s the point in quibbling about it here? If you want to yell at someone about it, you should be yelling at Twisty. Go on. I dare you.
Besides, if you want to get anal about it, which you obviously do, even the page you linked to specifies sexual fetish — it does not say that all fetishes are sexual (they aren’t).
You missed Balb’s point, get over it and move on. Stop humiliating yourself… it’s becoming a fetish with you.
Ah, the douchebagitude of the Twatsy.
For those of you who have never had the pleasure, you have by now learned that any debate with one Patrick “Twatsy” Ross is an utter waste of keyboard, pixels and oxygen for one simple reason: Twatsy does not argue honestly. Rather, as we over at CC HQ learned waaaaaay back, Twats argues utterly dishonestly and in bad faith using the same technique SUZANNE does — by deliberately distorting and misrepresenting your point so as to attack you for something you never said or a point you never held. This is not an occasional thing with Twatsy — it is inevitable as it’s the only way to debate that he knows.
Any discussion with Twatsy is guaranteed to proceed thusly: You publicly take position “X”, at which point Twats responds with great gusto, “You believe Y?? Only a complete idiot would believe Y. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Moron!”
Thinking that Twatsy might simply have misheard or misunderstood you, you repeat your fondness for position “X”, perhaps a bit more forcefully and with more clarity, at which point Twatsy continues to insult you for being such a moron as to take “Y” seriously. (A perfect example of Twatsy’s deliberate misrepresentation of someone’s position can be found here, but I digress — let us not lose the thread here.)
At this point, it is easy to think, “Jesus Christ, can anyone really be that fucking stupid?” But that would be making a mistake. Actually, Twatsy isn’t that stupid — he’s simply being hideously, relentlessly dishonest by deliberately misunderstanding what you’re saying. You see, Twatsy can’t win an argument by arguing honestly; hence, the constant mangling of what you say or write so he can criticize something totally different. It’s his shtick; it’s what he does and it’s all he does. As poor Balby is now discovering.
We at CC HQ learned all of the above quite some time ago, which is why we don’t bother engaging Twatsy on any topic whatsoever. We just mock him because he is so eminently mockworthy. But we don’t waste any time in discussion. We know exactly where that leads and we have better things to do.
P.S. And in case you hadn’t noticed, there is a certain irony in the way Twatsy “debates.” On the one hand, as you’ve noticed, Twatsy can be excruciatingly pedantic in hanging his argument on a precise definition of a single word, and God help anyone who dares to disagree with Twatsy’s reliance on strict, by-the-book definitions like that.
And yet, for all his painful pedantry, Twatsy can be stunningly sloppy with the English language when it comes to the point you’re trying to make. It really is an amusing sight — watching Twatsy careen from lovingly caressing the English language in all its precision in one sentence, to bending it over a table and boning it up the ass in the next. It’s a miracle the two halves of his brain haven’t strangled each other by now.
P.P.S. Oh, and when Twatsy turns out to be gloriously, spectacularly, galactically wrong about something — like here — you will never hear about it again. For someone who shrieks constantly about “lefties” never acknowledging their mistakes, I guarantee that you will never, ever, ever see an apology from Twats for that gigantic boner. I’ll give you odds.
Are we done here? Yeah, I think we’re done here.
I should point out one more favourite tactic of Twatsy’s — dragging the dialogue hopelessly off-topic when it’s clear he’s getting his nads handed to him.
This thread started off well by addressing a fairly significant issue. It has since degenerated into a heated and utterly worthless argument over the technical definition of the word “fetish.” Twatsy pulled a fast one on all of you, and you all gullibly followed him. You should be embarrassed.
SUZANNE – “I have noticed that supporters of legal abortion are almost never upfront about it.”
Bullshit.
“They use euphemism to describe the fetus and the procedure (e.g. abortion eliminates the products of conception).”
LOL, and you never indulge in twisted semantic exercises like “supporters of legal abortion” (instead of “pro-choicers”).
It’s a medical procedure — why is it necessary to describe medical procedures down to the finest detail? Do you have “knee surgery” or do you have a surgeon make incisions into your femur to shave off your torn anterior cruciate ligament? Give me a break.
I suspect JJ might have something to say about how Twatrick perpetually misrepresents what others say. JJ?
JJ
It’s not bullshit. Why do I have on-going debates about the topic on my blog (where most of the commenters support legal abortion)? It’s because they do not admit to the facts. If we all admitted to the facts, there would be no debate. I have had countless debates online, and SOLAs do not admit that it kills a preborn human being.
LOL, and you never indulge in twisted semantic exercises like “supporters of legal abortion” (instead of “pro-choicers”).
I use that phrase because it is accurate, respectful and less politically loaded than “pro-choicer”.
It’s a medical procedure — why is it necessary to describe medical procedures down to the finest detail?
When you have a debate on an alleged medical procedure, then it’s a good idea to discuss the nature and details of that act.
Our Lady of the Blastocysts writes:
“When you have a debate on an alleged medical procedure, then it’s a good idea to discuss the nature and details of that act.”
Good thinking, Suzie, since we pro-choicers probably have no idea what’s involved in an abortion. So what exactly happens? By all means, clue us in.
Excuse me? Come again? A fetus is terminated? You mean something that, in five or six or seven months, might actually be a viable life form is ruthlessly snuffed out?
Holy fucking shit!! Are you serious? I had no idea! That’s … that’s … awful! Something should be done! Does Parliament know about this?
“My point in arguing that a fetus is a human being is to bring to the fore what abortion actually does.”
I understand that. As I’ve noted before, you’re a committed propagandist, framing an argument in the strongest possible terms. Unfortunately, I think you and many of your fellow ideologues have wholly absorbed (or been absorbed by) her own propanda – it’s an occupational hazard.
If your definition of a” human being” is a fertilized ovum, you are at odds with reality, and frankly that’s the problem with your movement. As propagandists, you’re not very good. You can’t sicken, scream, threaten or deceive people as a strategy for social change. It simply doesn’t work.
Balby:
Why do you continue with this pointlessness? SUZANNE is not “arguing” anything — she is simply stating an unchangeable position on her part. SUZANNE considers a fetus — from the moment of conception — to be a human being. We get it. Honest to Christ, we get it, and no “argument” is going to convince Suzie All-Caps differently or change her addlepated world view in the slightest.
That’s not an argument, Balby; it’s just SUZANNE saying the same thing over and over and over and over and …
Let it go, Balby. It’s time to move on.
It seems to me that Patrick Ross is arguing semantics. Suppose he is 100% correct in his assertion that balbulican has misused the term fetish in his post. While such an error might be worth pointing out, it certainly does not affect the argument nor does it call for god knows how many words of response. Replace “fetish” with “” and the argument is unaffected.
I will agree with CC here in saying that Patrick Ross has been a bit dishonest in this thread, for in the comments PR says: “First off, Balbulican defines something here called ‘fetus fetishism’.” Generally when an author defines something, you can’t turn around and tell him he’s using the term incorrectly.
Oooooh, LS, you’ve really stepped in it now. You are apparently unaware that the only reasons that anyone would agree with me and disagree with Twatsy is because a) they’re stupid, b) they’re a moron, c) they’re really stupid, d) they’re an idiot, or e) they’re a mindless, unthinking member of the CC Sycophantic Group Temple Mindthink whatever-the-hell random label Twatsy is using these days.
Under no circumstances could it be that I am, in fact, correct and Twatsy is wrong. That is simply not an option. Just ask Twatsy.
Patrick, go away. Please.
Let me have one more go at the “fetish” thing.
Marx used the term “commodity fetishism” to refer to the apparently magical properties of commodities, their “inherent” value–he borrowed the term from African magical practices, and strictly speaking it’s a slur. But what he was getting at was that this fetishism obscured the actual source of the value–the labour that went into the commodity, and the workers who sold their labour-power to produce it.
By the same token, fetus fetishism erases the woman. I’ve read “pro-life” articles several hundred words in length that never mention the woman at all. Like the workers who produce commodities, she simply–disappears.
Fetishism is more than mere obsession, but, with all due respect to Balb, I think the Freudian version of it is irrelevant to the discussion. Fetus fetishism (and the term was around in the mid-seventies, by the way) obscures the complex social relations of reproduction by endowing fetuses with magic properties. There’s really not much more to it than that.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, Dawg, you have no idea what you’ve just done. On occasion, I also have asked Twatsy to please, for the love of God, just take a hike because, quite simply, he had ceased to have any entertainment value and he was doing nothing but lying.
Rather than take my invitation to piss off as a sign that absolutely everyone was fed up with his relentless dishonesty and bad faith debating tactics, he concluded instead that we were simply overwhelmed by his crushing intellectual superiority and couldn’t take any more humiliating rhetorical smackdown.
That’s what’s coming. I guarantee it. You read it here first.
P.S. I don’t think this is going to get old anytime soon, as much as Twatsy wants it to disappear.
Uhh Balby, the Boy from the CC Sycophantic Group Temple Mindthink is telling you and the others to stop engaging Ross and Suzanne…What are you, Deef?…now, altogether Group Temple people…a)ignore, b)ignore, c)ignore, d)ignore, e)ignore…please disregard CC, the Boy’s last request to “Just ask Twatsy.”…because that is simply not an option…ignore this too.
“Why do I have on-going debates about the topic on my blog (where most of the commenters support legal abortion)? It’s because they do not admit to the facts. If we all admitted to the facts, there would be no debate. I have had countless debates online, and SOLAs do not admit that it kills a preborn human being.”
You are so delusional.
The reason for the “ongoing debates” is to debunk your BS as fast as you can write it, because BS should be called wherever it’s found. And a lot of it is found at your blog.
“I use that phrase because it is accurate, respectful and less politically loaded than “pro-choicer”.”
Bullshit. You use it because it has propaganda value, to push the idea that since there is no law governing abortion, it is somehow “less than legal”.
Stop lying.
Claims Our Lady of the Fetus Fetish:
‘I use that phrase [supporters of legal abortion] because it is accurate, respectful and less politically loaded than “pro-choicer”.‘
And yet, curiously, Little Suzie Douchebag can be found writing:
“And they wonder why we call them “pro-abortion”?”
Wow … “pro-abortion,” Suzie. That’s certainly more respectful and less politically loaded than “pro-choice.”
What a worthless lying sack that woman is. For God’s sake, Balb, can you please toss that cretin out into the street somewhere, then fumigate this place? You used to run such a nice establishment, and now look.
CC, SUZANNE’s contribution to this thread was invaluable.
The whole point of my post was ably summarized by the Dawg a few responses back. Foetishism is about endowing the foetus, from the moment of conception, with all the properties of social being, while stripping many of those properties away from the mother. It’s an obssessive and unhealthy reduction of human life, not “reverence” for it.
SUZANNE generously confirmed exactly that, and I appreciate her candour.
O.k. that’s it, I’ve had it…could all CC Sycophantic Group Temple Mindthink people please report to the Ignore Room, that’s the Ignore Room, located on the lower level of the Bunker and to the left of the loo…we will henceforth and forthwith the following and in no particular order repeat after me…Do not engage the Hijacker “Suzanne” and the Liar “Ross” …do not engage the Hijacker “Suzanne” and the Liar “Ross”…from the desk and order of our Dear Leader CC also affectionately known as “The Boy.”…FYI, all and any transgression of this Order can and will be used against you and may result in loss of the treasured link to the CC Sycophantic Group Temple Mindthink…you’ve been warned!…ignore this.
The problem, Balby, is that while you and I understand that you’ve identified her intellectual dysfunction once and for all, she has absolutely no idea what just happened here and will deny that she has been exposed as a deluded crackpot in any way.
So, yes, Balb, in one sense, this was a useful exercise. But in another sense, it will make not one iota of difference to SUZANNE’s crippling dishonesty.
In any event, she’s served her purpose. Now toss her and get back to sanity.
“FFS, Patrick, the term “fetus fetishist” was coined years ago by an American blogger, Twisty at “I Blame The Patriarchy”. Everyone knows what it means. What’s the point in quibbling about it here? If you want to yell at someone about it, you should be yelling at Twisty. Go on. I dare you.
Besides, if you want to get anal about it, which you obviously do, even the page you linked to specifies sexual fetish — it does not say that all fetishes are sexual (they aren’t).
You missed Balb’s point, get over it and move on. Stop humiliating yourself… it’s becoming a fetish with you.”
ROTFL
Oh. My. Dear. Lord.
Do I actually have to quote Balby again here? Do I actually have to quote the portion where he describes “fetus fetishism” as a sexual fetish? Again?
JJ, we all know by now that you simply aren’t capable of being honest about any issue regarding abortion.
You idiots can rant to your heart’s desire. I’ve got the guys with the PHD backing me up on this one. That means I win, I don’t really give a fuck if you like it or not.
“For those of you who have never had the pleasure, you have by now learned that any debate with one Patrick “Twatsy” Ross is an utter waste of keyboard, pixels and oxygen for one simple reason: Twatsy does not argue honestly. Rather, as we over at CC HQ learned waaaaaay back, Twats argues utterly dishonestly and in bad faith using the same technique SUZANNE does — by deliberately distorting and misrepresenting your point so as to attack you for something you never said or a point you never held. This is not an occasional thing with Twatsy — it is inevitable as it’s the only way to debate that he knows.”
Holy fuck.
Does anyone ever get the idea that this idiot actually believes the horseshit he peddles?
Apparently, even quoting Balbulican directly ad nauseum won’t squeeze any honesty out of this piece of shit.
For anyone paying close attention, this what amuses me about dealing with this guy. I call it the Canadian Cynic technique of debating. It goes a little something like this:
Step one – lie.
Step two – accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.
Step three – ignore reality.
Step four – lie about that.
Step five – when it doubt, lie some more.
The fact of the matter is that, in this very post, Balbulican described “fetus fetishism” as a sexual fetish, according to the psychological definition. Which, of course, turns out not only to be loaded, but pure bullshit as this defies the proper psychological terminology.
Not to mention some extremely dubious links drawn between this so-called “Fetus Fetishism” (which, again, even according to Balbulican’s own description, is unadulterated bullshit) and Nadya Suleman.
Not to mention the fictional “other point” we’re expected to believe Balbulican was really trying to make, and yet can’t be bothered to try and explain.
Then the lies.
But at the end of the day, what is ultimately most amusing is this:
I’m not too terribly shocked that Balbulican has no clue what he’s talking about, just like I’m completely unshocked that Canadian Cynic won’t admit to that.
Foetishism is about endowing the foetus, from the moment of conception, with all the properties of social being, while stripping many of those properties away from the mother.
Balbulican
Concern is not a zero sum game. As someone who’s actually carried fetuses, I know that.
The reason for the “ongoing debates” is to debunk your BS as fast as you can write it, because BS should be called wherever it’s found. And a lot of it is found at your blog.
They were trying to debunk the idea that abortion kills a human being.
Which refutes your point: people who support legal abortion are not upfront about what abortion does.
Bullshit. You use it because it has propaganda value, to push the idea that since there is no law governing abortion, it is somehow “less than legal”.
You fail as a mind reader.
I use it because it is an accurate moniker.
“Marx used the term “commodity fetishism” to refer to the apparently magical properties of commodities, their “inherent” value–he borrowed the term from African magical practices, and strictly speaking it’s a slur. But what he was getting at was that this fetishism obscured the actual source of the value–the labour that went into the commodity, and the workers who sold their labour-power to produce it.”
ROTFL
Well, Balbulican didn’t describe his “Fetus Fetishism” as a commodity fetish — he described it as a sexual fetish. No one’s putting words in his mouth here.
“By the same token, fetus fetishism erases the woman. I’ve read “pro-life” articles several hundred words in length that never mention the woman at all. Like the workers who produce commodities, she simply–disappears.”
By the same token, Dawg, the same argument could be raised about a lot of pro-abortion arguments, wherein the fetus utterly disappears.
“Fetishism is more than mere obsession, but, with all due respect to Balb, I think the Freudian version of it is irrelevant to the discussion. Fetus fetishism (and the term was around in the mid-seventies, by the way) obscures the complex social relations of reproduction by endowing fetuses with magic properties. There’s really not much more to it than that.”
Well, holy fuck, did you see that?
Someone finally figured out the fucking point, and all it took was a few hours of slugging it out with complete idiots.
Although I’ll dispute this notion of fetuses being endowed with “magic properties”.
I hate to bring this little fact to your attention — I know how poorly a lot of you do with facts — but I wasn’t the one who dropped the idea of a sexual fetish here in the first place. That was Balbulican.
It’s pretty simple. You want to challenge other people to defend their ideas? You’d better be ready to defend your own. Too bad that on this particular occasion, he couldn’t.
“Concern is not a zero sum game. As someone who’s actually carried fetuses, I know that.”
It was an okay line first time you used it, SUZANNE, but you’re wearing it out. Nobody claimed concern was binary – on or off. For most of us, it’s a continuum. However, you’re the one who appears to attribute full humanity to a fertilized ovum. For most us, humanity is a bit more complex.
(Oh, Lord … it’s like Twatrick lays his nads on the anvil and presses the 10-pound lump hammer gently into my palm.)
So, Twats … argument from authority, is it? You want to base your argument on who has more “credibility?” Sure, let’s play that game.
Back here, my co-blogger PSA (and a very smart dude) wrote:
“Canada is now likely to record a budgetary deficit for the first time in over ten years.”
That’s what he wrote; you can go read it for yourself. In response, Twats, you howled with laughter and accused PSA of being a dishonest idiot, going as far as to counter with:
“… there is no deficit, and there won’t be …”
So, Twats … how did that little prediction of yours work out? No, really, who ended up being more correct? Or, put another way, Twats, using your own argument based on credibility, which of you or PSA should be taken more seriously on the topic of the economy?
Come on, Twats … let’s see if you can follow the rules of your own game here. I’m waiting.
(P.S. Just between you and me, kids, I know exactly how Twats is going to respond. And it’s going to be a lie. Let’s watch.)
@lenny – Nodding head in complete agreement, lenny. Honestly, it was also completely expected that such would be the case.
Maybe Patrick should be holding Suzanne to same level of medical accuracy about the definition of a human being. After all, doctors have very precise medical terminology about what a fertilized egg is called and all the other various stages of development for a human fetist.
Seriously Patrick, you look, and sound very foolish here because you are stuck on a couple of words that Balb decided to use and that they don’t conform to your textbooks.
Heh. I don’t mind. The folks whose opinions I care about got the point: SUZANNE graciously confirmed it: and Patrick’s etymologorrhoea pushed the thread to 110 responses.
Zorph:
I’m still waiting for Twatsy to address that awkward backfiring in his argument from academic accomplishments. After all, I have a Master’s degree, and I’m pretty sure Twatsy doesn’t. By his own logic, that means I’m smarter than he is.
Are you folks finally starting to understand why I don’t waste a lot of time on Twatrick over at CC HQ, except to mock him mercilessly? It’s because he’s a total assclown. Sort of like SUZANNE, but I’m betting with an uglier hairstyle.
CC, I usually hold to that but I also occasionally enjoy watching him get… erm… frothy. Besides I see little harm in exposing his frothiness to a (somewhat) new audience.
Oh yeah, ‘teh hairstyle’. In some parts of North America that’s known as a ‘Tennessee Waterfall’. Lest any Tenesseeans feel slighted I have it on good authority, from a friend currently on the road with a major ‘Rawk’ act, that Cincinnati is unquestionably North America’s mullet HQ.
Your hourly Twatsy-flavoured stupid:
Man, I’m having all kinds of fun with this. Unlike the Twatster, when I want to accuse someone of being a total retard, I got me some Intertoobz to back it up.
Once again, back here, we have my inimitable co-blogger PSA quoting from the Grope and Flail:
“Finance Minister Jim Flaherty fell in line with private economists Friday and cut his outlook for economic growth this year.
Mr. Flaherty used his department’s monthly fiscal update to announce that the federal government has revised its working estimate for growth to 1.1 per cent from the 1.7 per cent forecast in the February budget.”
A reduction in the estimated growth from 1.7 per cent to 1.1 per cent. Big deal? Not a big deal? Let’s ask Twatrick:
“The “flaming disaster” [PSA] is referring to? A .6% reduction in projected economic growth. That’s right — a whole 60% of a single percentage point.”
If I have to explain the breathtaking dumbassitude in that statement, you are utterly beyond help.
I could do this all day. Seriously.
@SUZANNE –
Your appendix is not an organism of the species homo sapiens, i.e. a human being
Nor is a fetus – it lives only as part of the mother, like an appendix. It is not morphologically human in shape until well after 12 weeks and has no brainwaves until after 20. It cannot survive independently of the mother until around 26 weeks and even then not without extreme medical and technical intervention and a lot of luck.
So until it is born – the traditional Judeo-Christian stance for centuries, I might add – it is not a person, not a full human being. Only when it is a separate entity that does not share a circulatory system or feeding system is it a human being.
But you are welcome to differ in that opinion. You may choose to act according to your convictions in that regard. You are not welcome to make anyone else follow your convictions. Period.
But let me be clear. Even if I fully accepted your preposterous conclusion that a zygote or blactocyte is as fully human as you or I (and I really really don’t) that still is not reason to restrict or deny abortion. A woman’s bodily control and bodily integrity trumps any other creatures right to live. Just as it does for a man – again, I can deny my kidney and cause the certain death of another fully-formed human (one whose humanness is not in question), because my right to control what happens to my body, within my body and with its parts is more important that someone else’s right to live. I cannot be compelled against my will to carry some kind of parasite within my body either. That right to bodily control and integrity is EXACTLY the same as a woman’s right to have an abortion to control her body.
The right to bodily security and control trumps the right to life. And unless you are proposing that the state or anyone else has the right to harvest organs against the donors will (like the Chinese Communists are alleged to have done with Falun Gong prisoners), you agree with this too.
Plain enough?
If you truly want there to be less abortions, instead of trying to make women into chattel or slaves (which morally and ethically is what you are trying to do) how about working so there are less unwanted pregnancies – better sex ed and availability of contraceptives (which is responsible for the ongoing drop in the abortion rate in Canada, despite having no law). Or better choices for women who find themselves pregnant – better childcare, better education opportunities for the mother and the children and better support (rather than righteous indignation and osetraciation that normally occurs). Make abortion the choice NOT chosen.
But you don’t do that. You are, in fact, against those very things which would make abortion rare and less attractive, leading to the conclusion that Balb and Meaghan are right – you are so obsessed with the fetus, you forget about the mother and, more importantly, already born children.
In short, you are wrong.
As someone who in the past gave PR more latitude than most bloggers would, I can say with great certainty that “discussion” with him is an exercise in futility. Not because we disagree, but because he deliberately misinterprets and/or misrepresents what’s been said and keeps flogging his misinterpretations/misrepresentations ad nauseum. Rather than address the substance of a post, he routinely focuses on some bullshit point (like the exact meaning of the word “fetish” — who cares!?), immediately starts insulting the blogger and other commenters, and hijacks the entire discussion. Any thread he takes part in is guaranteed to degenerate : guaranteed. It’s to the point where if I see he’s in the discussion, I usually won’t even bother reading the thread.
For whatever reason (maybe it’s the only way he can get attention), this is PR’s “shtick”: to irritate people, spew insults and highjack threads, as evidenced by this one. He has no interest in “discussion” and shouldn’t be acknowledged as anything more than a troll. I generally ignore him; to do otherwise is to invite a migraine.
And with that, I will go back to ignoring him.
“Which refutes your point: people who support legal abortion are not upfront about what abortion does.”
Yes, none of us knows “what abortion does”. When I had one I thought I was just getting a brazillian wax job. Who knew???
I’m sooo confused…are we or are we not ignoring Twatrick?, please CC(also affectionately known as The Boy)make-up your edimicated Master-degree mind-up…being a member of the CC Sycophantic Group Temple Mindthink can be a stressful if not a confusing experience and we should and I think I speak for all us CC Sycophantic Group Temple Mindthink peoples when I say…” CC(also affectionately known as The Boy), we expect better from our Dear Leader, especially one with a Master’s degree”…sooo are we or are we not ignoring Twatrick?…ignore this…seriously, The Boy has a master’s degree?
Arwen:
Actually, I agree with you that the abortion argument stems to a significant degree from disagreements about sex, not only about babies (though I don’t know whether other anti-abortionists would agree). Babies get made through sex, so the two issues are intertwined. We end up considering “what sex is for,” as you pithily put it, and, more generally, what people are for — issues about which we all make at least a provisional decision as we try to figure out how to live. I agree with you, too, that personhood, ensoulment, or whatever we think it is that gives an individual prima facie moral status does not actually settle the moral conundrum — as you say, issues like viability are part of the equation. But it’s bunk to say that viability is the sole question, and personhood/moral status irrelevant — our conclusions draw upon both issues.
Take your own example of the stranger needing the kidney. I’m of course going to object in the way you anticipated. You may not feel morally obliged to let the guy have your kidney, even though he will die without it. But that probably has something to do with the fact that you did nothing to bring about his illness. However, if you knew that having sex with your partner in certain circumstances (say, without contraception) would give said stranger the kidney condition in which he would die without your intervention, you would probably be careful to use contraception. And if you and your partner failed to do so, one of you would probably feel morally compelled to donate the needed kidney (even if you thought there should be no legal demand to do so).
I don’t know whether or not you would accept the same reasoning in the case of abortion, but if not, why not? Presumably because you see the guy needing the kidney as “a person” — as someone who is self-aware, or who desires to live, or who is rational, or who knows how to speak, or who is embedded in a web of social relationships, or who meets whatever the criteria are by which you assign morally protected status — and because you think that a fetus does not meet the criteria. While viability is a part of the equation, our conclusions about it are interwoven with our assumptions both about the non-viable being’s moral status and about the responsibility that we either do or don’t have for that being.
Also, I don’t agree that this argument is primarily about the law or about who shall be legally compelled to do what. You and I both know good and well that abortion is legal in this country and that, for at least the vast majority of abortions, that is very unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The majority of Canadians appear to want abortion to be available, and any substantial restriction would face furious opposition from elites, would lack popular legitimacy, and could not be enforced.
But as many of you like to point out, no one in Canada is forced to get an abortion; those who consider it morally dubious can steer clear of it. So when the topic comes up, we who oppose abortion will argue that it’s morally dubious, and hope that others will decide to avoid it voluntarily (which is obviously the ideal on any ethical question). Perhaps it’s unlikely that anyone will change their minds. But my reading sometimes brings me around to positions I didn’t originally share; maybe others are like that too. This isn’t an argument about whether abortion should be legal; it’s about whether or not we should choose to practice or endorse it.
yaaaaaa, we now have sock puppets, and they are so original
“Gigantic Boner” must be NAMBLA member, aka Dick
oh that was bad,…
Tip your veal and enjoy your waitresses
Don’t be stupid Zorpheous, ignore the nonny/sockpupetty/trolly…sheeeesh.
“So when the topic comes up, we who oppose abortion will argue that it’s morally dubious, and hope that others will decide to avoid it voluntarily (which is obviously the ideal on any ethical question). Perhaps it’s unlikely that anyone will change their minds. But my reading sometimes brings me around to positions I didn’t originally share; maybe others are like that too. This isn’t an argument about whether abortion should be legal; it’s about whether or not we should choose to practice or endorse it. “
Joel, that is an admirable position and lays bare the lie that “pro-choice”==”pro-abortion”. I have absolutely no issue with someone who holds the beliefs you do and chooses to act accordingly, or to advocate accordingly without resorting to making the action illegal, without compelling those who do not agree with you to act as you wish them. Call it personal responsibility. It is exactly what I advocated above, and I am vehemently pro-choice (actually I’m vehemently “pro-choice” in everything, not just abortion…).
Yes, none of us knows “what abortion does”
Some know. Some don’t. Of those who know, many don’t state it in plain English. And then when I type a factual statement, like abortion kills a human being (AND I explain what I mean) there is a huge debate.
I’ve encountered this many times in the past.
Nor is a fetus – it lives only as part of the mother,
The fetus is an organism. The fetus ingests nutrients, moves and grows.
The fetus is not the mother’s body part.
He is a distinct bioloigcal entity, i.e. an organism. He is of the species homo sapiens.
He is, in plain English, a human being.
Just as it does for a man – again, I can deny my kidney and cause the certain death of another fully-formed human (one whose humanness is not in question), because my right to control what happens to my body, within my body and with its parts is more important that someone else’s right to live.
You are not obliged to save everyone.
But no one has the right to take direct action to kill another.
In no instance of conflict of rights must one human being *forefeit* his life for the sake of another.
I cannot be compelled against my will to carry some kind of parasite within my body either
A fetus is not, biologically, a parasite. A parasite is an invader of a different species.
Humans have obligations to one another, the number one being not to kill or hurt another.
If you truly want there to be less abortions
I want the rights of all human beings recognized because I believe in the equality of all human beings.
you are so obsessed with the fetus, you forget about the mother
In Communist countries, there were all those things. There was no want.
And abortions are still astronomically high.
Because the rights of the unborn are not recognized.
Suzanne:
1. Do the supposed “rights of the unborn” trump the right of women to control their own minds and bodies?
2. If you consider a foetus a person and state that “…no one has the right to take direct action to kill another”, does this mean a woman’s right to control her body ends at pregnancy?
ROTFL
Anyone notice how badly Canadian Cynic suddenly wants to change the subject?
Heh. If I were that worthless piece of shit, I would, too.
And let’s not even mention how hilariously hypocritical that makes him. No need to. Everyone already knew.
“Maybe Patrick should be holding Suzanne to same level of medical accuracy about the definition of a human being. After all, doctors have very precise medical terminology about what a fertilized egg is called and all the other various stages of development for a human fetist.”
To be honest with you, I’m not fully aware of how the medical community defines a human being. If I had a medical definition of “human being” handy that isn’t wrapped up in either side of the abortion debate handy, I may be interested in that,
Sadly, there doesn’t seem to be one readily available to me at this point in time.
“Seriously Patrick, you look, and sound very foolish here because you are stuck on a couple of words that Balb decided to use and that they don’t conform to your textbooks.”
If you’re desperate to turn a crushing defeat into some kind of victory, maybe a person buys that.
But it was Balbulican himself who brought the idea of a psychological sexual fetish into play. Apparently you think I’m supposed to feel bad because I know what that actually is and Balbulican — who, again, brought the idea into play — evidently doesn’t.
If you’re desperate to treat anyone who dares disagree with you as foolish, maybe that’s one thing. But I’ve been laughing my ass off for hours now watching these idiots fall over each other trying to argue against the definition of a concept that Balbulican himself brought to the ball park.
We all know who really looks foolish here, even if most of you are too dishonest to simply admit it.
LOL. I guess that would be you: the one person in the entire thread who doesn’t seem to understand what the post is about.
“As someone who in the past gave PR more latitude than most bloggers would”
Allowing someone to threaten another poster with a gun is a unique definition of “latitude”, JJ.
“I can say with great certainty that “discussion” with him is an exercise in futility.”
Heh. JJ, I’m not the one who freaks out on being asked very simple questions.
“Not because we disagree, but because he deliberately misinterprets and/or misrepresents what’s been said and keeps flogging his misinterpretations/misrepresentations ad nauseum.”
JJ, you don’t seem to understand the idea that words, ideas, and concepts have meaning, and you don’t seem to be willing to accept them.
I recall that your most recent freakout dealt with the idea that someone would call you on the logical inoperability of your claim that doctors don’t need to have their right to refuse to perform an abortion they deem to be unethical when it intersected with your advocacy of a course of action that would make that very much necessary.
“Rather than address the substance of a post, he routinely focuses on some bullshit point (like the exact meaning of the word “fetish” — who cares!?), immediately starts insulting the blogger and other commenters, and hijacks the entire discussion.”
Thou doth protest too fucking much. You’ve shown absolutely no compunction about allowing the jackals to run with to spout insults at anyone who dares offer a dissenting voice, and suddenly it’s only bad when that person starts fighting back?
That, folks, is called hypocrisy, and like some of the other participants in this thread, JJ is absolutely awash in it.
Oh, she isn’t going to like to hear that. The truth hurts, and all of that. But you know what, I’ll level with you:
I have an idea for you, JJ: let’s settle things down a little bit. Why don’t we just take a step back, so you can go fuck yourself in the face?
Because at this stage I have nothing but sheer contempt for you and your viewpoints. You lie, you expect to be indulged in rhetoric that contradicts itself, you think that you have some right to decide what facts will and will not be considered, and you think that you have some sort of right to unilaterally declare the debate over.
Worse yet, you whine petulantly whenever you’re called on any of these points.
“Any thread he takes part in is guaranteed to degenerate : guaranteed. It’s to the point where if I see he’s in the discussion, I usually won’t even bother reading the thread.”
That’s because you’re terrified of debate, because you know that with all the previous stances you’ve taken, you’ll lose.
“For whatever reason (maybe it’s the only way he can get attention), this is PR’s “shtick”: to irritate people, spew insults and highjack threads, as evidenced by this one. He has no interest in “discussion” and shouldn’t be acknowledged as anything more than a troll. I generally ignore him; to do otherwise is to invite a migraine.”
ROTFL
That’s kind of funny, actually. Because I found this post through a post on your blog where you were whining about Suzanne showing up here to defend herself.
Suzanne would comment on a post that comments on her in the first place? Oh, noes! What an outrage!
Suffice to say, JJ, that your parody of yourself has become complete.
“I guess that would be you: the one person in the entire thread who doesn’t seem to understand what the post is about.”
Right. According to Balbulican, and his fictional “other point” he was allegedly trying to make, and yet can’t seem to explain.
Sheesh, what a fucking idiot.
“The fetus ingests nutrients, moves and grows.”
So does my appendix.
The fetus is not the mother’s body part.
He is a distinct bioloigcal entity, i.e. an organism. He is of the species homo sapiens.
It is physically attached to the mother and receives blood, oxygen and all nutrients from the mother. Just like my appendix. Yes, it can grow and change into a full human, but that does not occur until birth. Until such a time as it is physically separate from the mother, operating on its own systems for breathing and sustenance, it is part of the mother.
But no one has the right to take direct action to kill another.
In no instance of conflict of rights must one human being *forefeit* his life for the sake of another.
But by not taking action, and enforcing my right to retain my bodily control, someone’s right to life is over-ridden. You can waffle all you want, but not taking action and causing a death is morally identical to taking action and causing a death.
It happens every day that people who value their bodily integrity, or value their religious tenets cause one human being to forfeit their lives against another.
A fetus is not, biologically, a parasite. A parasite is an invader of a different species.
I never said it was. I said that my bodily integrity is paramount and I cannot be compelled to carry any foreign biological entity within me against my will. After all, it is the basis of your entire argument that a fetus is a distinct and thus foreign biological entity and you are trying to compel a woman to carry this entity within her against her will. I cannot be compelled to carry such an entity even if it means certain death for the entity or someone else.
“Humans have obligations to one another, the number one being not to kill or hurt another.”
Says who? My obligation is to survive and the best way to do that is to cooperate and act altruistically, to ensure my genes are propagated down to the next generation.
“I want the rights of all human beings recognized because I believe in the equality of all human beings. “
So you’ll for go actually helping to reduce the number of abortions by promoting birth control to achieve this. For a cluster of cells with no morphological human features, not brainwaves and no ability to survive independently.
How about all those orphans that are actually already born?
In Communist countries, there were all those things. There was no want.
And abortions are still astronomically high.
Because the rights of the unborn are not recognized.
Ok, what does any of that even mean?
Are you seriously thinking that in Communist countries there was no want? That there was easy access to birth control and sex education? Funny that it is Nicolae Ceaucescu that is the model for the kind of society you advocate. Or the sexlessness and state intrusions of Maoist China.
Because the rights of individuals to control their bodies was not recognized.
But yet again, you demonstrate Balb’s point in spades… all of that and not a single worry about actual fully human women, who are the life support system for your precious fetus, or already born children – only rights for things with 32 cells logged into the wall of a uterus. Or pea sized jumbo prawns. Or worry about abortions at 24+ weeks that never take place except for dire medical emergencies.
Your obsession is unhealthy and you are still wrong.
“Right. According to Balbulican, and his fictional “other point” he was allegedly trying to make, and yet can’t seem to explain.”
Hm. Doesn’t it seem strange to you that you’re the only person who seems to have a hard time understanding it? Everybody else, including suzanne, seems to get it, although they don’t all agree.
Does anyone know if the UofA has a clock tower? (I’ve only ever seen Dinwoodie’s, the Butterdome and the Powerplant there.)
“Doesn’t it seem strange to you that you’re the only person who seems to have a hard time understanding it? Everybody else, including suzanne, seems to get it, although they don’t all agree.”
I find it more interesting — and amusing — that Balbulican was so hilariously wrong about what a sexual fetish is. And that individuals like yourself can’t muster the honesty to admit that.
“(I’ve only ever seen Dinwoodie’s, the Butterdome and the Powerplant there.)”
Does it shock anyone that Frank Frink has only been to the U of A to drink?
“It is physically attached to the mother and receives blood, oxygen and all nutrients from the mother. Just like my appendix. Yes, it can grow and change into a full human, but that does not occur until birth. Until such a time as it is physically separate from the mother, operating on its own systems for breathing and sustenance, it is part of the mother.”
Yes, Mike, a “part of the mother” which, once past a certain stage of pregnancy, has its own heartbeat and its own brainwaves.
“I said that my bodily integrity is paramount and I cannot be compelled to carry any foreign biological entity within me against my will.”
If the fetus is “part of the mother”, as you insist, it is not a foreign biological entity.
Even if we accept the argument that the fetus is separate from the mother — although we shouldn’t, as the two are connected via umbilicals and the fetus recieves life-sustaining support from the mother — simply being separate isn’t enough to make it foreign.
The fetus exists within the mother, and exists as a result of natural processes that take place within the mother. You’d have to severely warp the definition of foreign in order to argue that a fetus is foreign to its mother.
“I find it more interesting — and amusing — that Balbulican was so hilariously wrong about what a sexual fetish is.”
Yes, it’s clear that you think that’s very important. Fortunately the real discussion managed to both elude and survive you.
“Because I found this post through a post on your blog”
LOL
“But no one has the right to take direct action to kill another.”
Our legal conception of self-defense, and our political conception of Just War Theory disagrees with you, SUZANNE. I think you’d have a hard time convincing even the most die-hard pro-life people that it is morally wrong to use lethal force in self defense. Similarly, you’re going to have a hard time selling the argument that all war in any circumstances is wrong (well, unless it’s a war with 0 casualties). Now, you might be tempted to say something like, “but babies are innocent”. There are other problems with this defense, but the most notable is that it contradicts your claim that:
“I believe in the equality of all human beings.”
If all human beings are equal then their legal/moral innocence or guilt is irrelevant. If innocence matters, then all human beings are not equal — they’d only be equal with those who are equivalently innocent or guilty. Thus, unless you are a complete pacifist and deny the right to self-defense, your two statements are logically inconsistent.
“The fetus exists within the mother, and exists as a result of natural processes that take place within the mother. You’d have to severely warp the definition of foreign in order to argue that a fetus is foreign to its mother.”
I don’t think “different DNA” is that much of a warping of the definition of foreign.
That said, I find most of these lines of reasoning rather tedious and dishonest (this is directed at the person you were responding to, not you). Pro-choice supporters outline necessary conditions for personhood that a fetus does not satisfy while pro-life supporters detail sufficient conditions for personhood that a fetus does satisfy. They’re both dishonest because they’re done with the conclusion already reached, begging the question essentially.
“If the fetus is “part of the mother”, as you insist, it is not a foreign biological entity.”
I’m not the one claiming it is a separate and foreign entity, Suzanne was. I have always maintained it is a part of the mother until it is born.
“Yes, Mike, a “part of the mother” which, once past a certain stage of pregnancy, has its own heartbeat and its own brainwaves.”
And luckily Patsy, when the part of the mother reaches that stage, it is rarely if ever aborted, except when the mother’s life and health is in danger or the fetus is severely deformed and will not survive birth. But it still gets all nutrients and oxygen from the mother, is inside the mother and is completely dependent on ONLY the mother. Thus, part of the mother.
But I’m confused Patsy, one paragraph you ridicule me for saying its a forieign entity and in the very next one, you ridicule me for saying its part of the mother. So, which is it? I’ve mad my position pretty clear.
@LogicallySpeaking –
That said, I find most of these lines of reasoning rather tedious and dishonest (this is directed at the person you were responding to, not you).
Well, I’ve made it pretty clear that even if I accepted the pro-life position that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, I would still be in favour of abortion because the right to bodily control and integrity of one person always overrides the right of another person to live.
I think that is rather honest.
The whole concept of personhood is a legal one, rather than a biological one anyway. Thus, I think it is reasonable to have the debate at one level, but it is a red herring, Regardless of whether the fetus is a legal person, the mother’s right to control her body take precedence.
I advocate the exact system we have now, and let women and their doctors make these decisions, rather than legislatures. So when it is pretty obviously not morphologically human, abortion is more acceptable and as the fetus becomes more human, abortion becomes less acceptable, until the point when the simply aren’t performed, law or no law. Thus 98% of abortions occur before 20 weeks (before brainwaves), 92% before 12 weeks (giant prawn) and almost never, except in medical emergencies, after 24 weeks (0.02%).
Most women and doctors in Canada are capable of looking at this in a nuanced and logical way, even if Suzanne and her ilk are not. So, if it isn’t broke, you don’t fix it.
Again, this demonstrates the radical anti-choice “fetish” for fetuses, rather than facts.
I’ve stayed out of this one because two ideological camps with deeply entrenched and opposing positions arguing with each other is just about as productive and sensible as listening to drunks trying to prove a point.
This however jumped out at me
Not to mention rather disturbing – think about that statement in a broader context and then tell me if you are you sure you actually want to say it that way Mike.
Patrick is so obsessed about the exact definitions being used and adhered to that he fails completely to understand Balb’s point of the post.
You know, I understand Patrick preoccupation with correct definition, but it is akin to people splitting the difference between mass and weight, an engineer (or even a grade 10 science student can tell you the difference) but in the end when I discuss physics with people whom confuse these two concepts I know what they are asking or the point they are trying to make. Sure I could spend all day lecturing them about the correct usages of the two terms, or I can polite correct and then move one.
Patrick, is appears to be one of these people who can’t move from A to B unless is 100%, a minor error and his program crash (aka no error handling protocols)
So Patrick, who gives a flying frack about the “clinical definition” of “fetish”, one might say you have a fetish about definitions.
If you’re desperate to treat anyone who dares disagree with you as foolish, maybe that’s one thing. But I’ve been laughing my ass off for hours now watching these idiots fall over each other trying to argue against the definition of a concept that Balbulican himself brought to the ball park.
We all know who really looks foolish here, even if most of you are too dishonest to simply admit it.
Patrick, you are obsessing over a very minor point here, Balb used his definition to paint what he considers an unhealth scewed POV that some people put forth, I got the idea he was putting across. So freaking what if his definition of fetish doesn’t match your textbook definitions and I sure I could find other PhD’s who will define the word fetish diferently, but that doesn’t mean they are correct either.
Also I only called you foolish for getting stuck on this very minor point. Maybe you need need to get your nose out of the book and view the big picture, jebus,…
“I’m not the one claiming it is a separate and foreign entity, Suzanne was. I have always maintained it is a part of the mother until it is born.”
Suzanne said separate (I disagree with her). You said “foreign”.
“And luckily Patsy, when the part of the mother reaches that stage, it is rarely if ever aborted, except when the mother’s life and health is in danger or the fetus is severely deformed and will not survive birth.”
Right. According to skewed statistics, this would be the case.
Yet we do know that in other countries — countries with much more stringent laws regarding abortion (which is any law at all) — “lifestyle” abortions have been recorded on numerous occasions.
As certain individuals have noted elsewhere, statistics collected in Canada don’t record a late-term abortion as an abortion at all. Apparently, they’re recorded as stillbirths.
You’ve never bothered to explain precisely what it is that you believe makes Canada so allegedly exceptional on the topic of late term abortions — just like you’ve never bothered to defend your assertion that Henry Morgentaler’s ethical stand on late-term abortions is the minimal standard held by all Canadian abortion providers.
In other words, Mike, you say these things. But you never back them up with a trustworthy source. As I’ve challenged you on other occasions, you’ve used material for which the only available evidence of its existence was actually yourself talking about it.
When asked to produce some kind of collaboration for this material, you’ve always declined. Highly suspect.
“But I’m confused Patsy, one paragraph you ridicule me for saying its a forieign entity and in the very next one, you ridicule me for saying its part of the mother. So, which is it? I’ve mad my position pretty clear.”
And I’ve just made it perfectly evident that your argument isn’t logically cohesive, and seems to rely on a warped definition of “foreign”.
“I don’t think “different DNA” is that much of a warping of the definition of foreign.”
I’m sorry to tell you that there isn’t really much of an argument in this.
Foreign suggests an external origin. A fetus could not originate within the mother and still be foreign.
“That said, I find most of these lines of reasoning rather tedious and dishonest (this is directed at the person you were responding to, not you). Pro-choice supporters outline necessary conditions for personhood that a fetus does not satisfy while pro-life supporters detail sufficient conditions for personhood that a fetus does satisfy. They’re both dishonest because they’re done with the conclusion already reached, begging the question essentially.”
That I couldn’t argue with. These arguments by their very nature provide an answer then demand that the question be crafted in a manner that satisfies the answer.
It’s backward reasoning. I concur with you fully.
“Balb used his definition to paint what he considers an unhealth scewed POV that some people put forth, I got the idea he was putting across. So freaking what if his definition of fetish doesn’t match your textbook definitions and I sure I could find other PhD’s who will define the word fetish diferently, but that doesn’t mean they are correct either.”
The PHD is usually a dead giveaway that this individual at least has some expertise on which to back the definition. I have no problem with differing points of view within the scientific community.
What I have a big problem with is people butchering those definitions in order to make their opposition seem mentally ill. We see this all over with insipid arguments about liberalism or conservatism being mental illnesses.
It’s very simple: if you want to bring an idea to a debate you’d better be able to use it properly. If you have to utterly overlook the very meaning of a particular idea in order to use it, you aren’t merely misusing that idea, but you’re being extremely disrespectful of it.
That’s only one more criticism that Balbulican’s ridiculous bungling of the very concept of a sexual fetish demands.
Clearly the other is that you would have to prove that the “fascination” in question is unhealthy for those who hold this particular view. You would have to prove that this forms a behavioural pattern that is unhealthy and negatively impacts the lives of those who hold it.
Not to mention: how do you honestly expect me to take this argument seriously? You run with people who will pick at any particular detail in order to denounce their ideological opponents as uniformly stupid.
Far be it for someone to actually hold your cohorts responsible for their own stupidity, right?
I’m simply beyond amused by this entire affair. I’ve cited my sources on this. This concept, as defined by the science of psychology, speaks for itself. You people are arguing against a very well-defined set of psychological principles, as defined according to distinguished individuals practicing in the field.
And you continually demand that the evidenct misuse of this concept isn’t supposed to matter.
There’s no reason in the world why it shouldn’t. There’s no reason in the world why it doesn’t. Your say-so simply isn’t enough.
Umm… no, idiot child. I’ve only been there to work. Make money. I think I’ve been pretty open here and anywhere else I’ve commented that I’m a musician, and guess what? I am a musician. Hired to provide entertainment and diversion for people who drink in such establishments. Consider me more of a ‘beer seller’ and ‘beer consumer’ if that’s easier for you to understand.
Although a cool and frosty beverage between sets is certainly always welcome. Mind getting me one while your up?
Umm… no, idiot child. I’ve only been there to work. Make money. I think I’ve been pretty open here and anywhere else I’ve commented that I’m a musician, and guess what? I am a musician. Hired to provide entertainment and diversion for people who drink in such establishments. Consider me more of a ‘beer seller’ than ‘beer consumer’ in this context. Hope that’s easier for you to understand.
Although a cool and frosty beverage between sets is certainly always welcome. Mind getting me one while your up?
ROTFL
So then you’re in one of the terrible bands that used to play at the Power Plant?
ROTFL
Congratulations for helping the campus bar go out of business.
Not to mention: how do you honestly expect me to take this argument seriously? You run with people who will pick at any particular detail in order to denounce their ideological opponents as uniformly stupid.
Welcome to politics and blogosphere debates Patrick, and it seems you should take your own advice. Guilt by association and you dare bitch “people who will pick at any particular detail in order to denounce their ideological opponents as uniformly stupid”, LOL, now that is funny.
Patty, pot, kettle, sauce, goose, gander and all that stuff.
It is funny, isn’t it?
Someone’s turned the tables and now you don’t like it.
~smirk~ You obviously have no clue as to what I like or dislike Patrick. I guess my end ending with “LOL, now that is funny.” was not obvious enough for you to even semi-grok, I’ll leave you to muddle your way through it though.
You have been entertaining to a limited degree, but I have finished my server work and my RAID Arrays are now rebuilding themselves, so I heading home for sleep.
Joel – Oh, hey! Interesting conversation about a complex issue! Heart it!
However, if you knew that having sex with your partner in certain circumstances (say, without contraception) would give said stranger the kidney condition in which he would die without your intervention, you would probably be careful to use contraception. And if you and your partner failed to do so, one of you would probably feel morally compelled to donate the needed kidney (even if you thought there should be no legal demand to do so).
I think this comes into that zone where we’ll likely disagree on “what sex is for”, and further, the way our fundamental drives affect the world.
For example, I well know that my lifestyle, clothing, and food in the first world does active harm to people who I don’t see in the 3rd: I can (as with birth control) attempt to mitigate that harm, but I do not wear sackcloth in response. So I’m not sure I would necessarily give a kidney to a stranger who was damaged incidentally by my sexual behaviour, although I would certainly try to prevent that from happening, because – and this is really where the rubber hits the road – I’ve only got two kidneys and I’m going to have a lot of sex in my life.
(Frankly, STDs probably are a good way of framing your new perspective – because you can give a stranger an STD by way of your partner, right?)
Since most of us are sexual beings and we will have lots of sex in our lives – and all abstinence education does is slightly delay the time of first sexual contact, so short of … chemical inhibitions or chastity jocks/belts, I’m not sure how we’d prevent sex from being had – I’m not sure you can work a system in which kidneys for birth control (kidney protection?) failure is a fair exchange.
Ignoring rape, coersion, youthful stupidity, and proper usage failure — and that is ignoring a lot — your major methods of birth control still provide pregnancy rates – or failed kidney rates, if you’d like – of 1 per100 couples humping per annum. That’s a big big number, in the aggregate. Enough to really create a public health problem.
And if there’s only one group of people giving up a kidney for that failure rate, it creates a social problem, too.
So it might be ideal to only ever have sex in a… time you would happily donate a kidney, or mitigate the risks. But even in those scenarios there would be an awful lot of kidneys given.
Pregnancy can happen more often than kidney donation, which has a limit of one, but it has dangers, notably economic ones. It’s no big mystery to me why many of the notable women in history were unmarried, virgins, or “barren”. Pregnancy is hard WORK – when you’re building a baby, you’re working hard. It can make waiting tables difficult, not to mention curing cancer or knowing what the hell to say to Katie Couric. And that’s without all those pregnancies that go slightly awry — I’ve had 2 babies and in my second pregnancy was unable to work due to the barfing and exhaustion, which is not typical, but it’s not unheard of, either. Plus, it is sort of like being in puberty again, with the rush of hormones and the emotional ups and downs.
And that’s without the responsibilities of child rearing added to. That’s *assuming* the possibility of adoption. And adoption has a carrying cost, too: I came from good Catholic stock, and I’ve seen the post-partum as debilitating. Well, either with adoption or not, really. But it’s not like adoption ends the work of building and birthing.
When you are baking a cake in your kitchen, other chores become harder or impossible.
SO: Just like I live my life in clothes made in the third world – and try to mitigate, but do not take personal responsibility for every person I’ve affected, and just like I try to mitigate my carbon footprint, but don’t personally stop breathing for the carbon cost of shipping my tomato from the okanagan, we are immoral in our needs. Those of us in the first world are causing kidney failure in other people the world over; it’s a hard truth, but that doesn’t mean we should hide from or explain it away. Our coal causes blacklung in towns with no other industries … and the 10 year old sweatshop worker doesn’t have a whole lot of “freemarket choice” about working conditions. Has about as much environmental choice as a fetus, really.
That said, and I would personally really consider where I was before having an abortion. I would say, okay, can I do a year of work here? Should I? Should I bake this cake, make this person viable?
But it is the case in my life where some times the answer would be yes, and other times, the answer would have been absolutely no.
And I would never make that moral judgment for another person. That is between each person and their own connection to the divine, to their own morality, to their own sense of ability. And to their doctors -there are sometimes when donating a kidney is seriously counterindicated. Like, for example, if both your kidneys are failing and everyone’s going to die.
So, for me, this is pretty clearly not something with a definite moral answer.
Twatsy gets unintentionally hilarious:
“Anyone notice how badly Canadian Cynic suddenly wants to change the subject?”
Heh — this from a guy whose entire repertoire of rebuttals consists of “Wanda Watkins! BRAAAWWWKKK! Wanda Watkins!”
Why do you do this to yourself, Twats? Why do you so desperately try to prove yourself my intellectual superior, only to get spanked soundly each time?
Do you like humiliating yourself in public this way? And did you ever figure out how many sides a triangle has?
Seriously, folks, I got a million of ‘em. Seriously.
P.S. And, yes, kids, Twats really is the only person who can’t keep up with the thread. He has a long history of that. Take my word for it.
ROTFL
Which spanking would that be, Cynic?
I mean, other than the one I’ve been dealing out here?
You really do live in a fantasy world.
Someone who goes by the handle of “Gigantic Boner” writes:
“I’m sooo confused…are we or are we not ignoring Twatrick?, please CC(also affectionately known as The Boy) … CC(also affectionately known as The Boy), …”
How curious … this is the first time in blogosphere history that I have been “affectionately” referred to as “The Boy.” One suspects that GB is trying desperately to hang a cutesy nickname on me, and praying everyone else joins in the fun so that it sticks. Sadly, GB, it doesn’t work that way.
If you want to give someone a nickname, it kinda has to be, you know, funny. And perhaps appropriate. Like the handles I’ve hung on people that stuck, like “Twatsy” and “NAMBLA Dick.”
Sad to say, I don’t think “The Boy” is going to cut it. But keep trying. It clearly entertains you.
Three, Twatsy. A triangle has three sides. Just in case you hadn’t figured it out yet.
Our Lady of the Blastocysts writes:
“ … when I type a factual statement, like abortion kills a human being (AND I explain what I mean) there is a huge debate.”
Shorter SUZANNE: “I’m prepared to debate the topic of abortion. First, let us assume I’m right.“
@stageleft –
Well, it is a bit clumsy, but look at it this way – even today, with this very heated debate going on, you cannot be compelled against your will, to give up an internal organ or be forced to carry a new internal organ, even if doing so would save another person or not doing so would result in their death. Why? because most people realize maintaining control and ownership, if you will, over one’s body is THE basic human right. All other notions of rights are really meaningless if as an individual, someone else can decide what happens to or within my body. That makes me chattel of another person, something that is too horrible to envision.
Yet this is exactly what Suzanne and the others want. They won’t look at it any other way because they have equated a zygote with a 6 month old baby.
“Suzanne said separate (I disagree with her). You said “foreign”.”
And, in that exact same paragraph, I quite clearly explained how it connected with what Suzanne said:
After all, it is the basis of your entire argument that a fetus is a distinct and thus foreign biological entity…
Read much?
“As certain individuals have noted elsewhere, statistics collected in Canada don’t record a late-term abortion as an abortion at all. Apparently, they’re recorded as stillbirths.”
Sorry but that individual is lying. Stats Can records them, which is why there are 0.02% – JJ has on numerous occasion posted links to the numbers. The latest numbers our of Australia show the same thing.
“just like you’ve never bothered to defend your assertion that Henry Morgentaler’s ethical stand on late-term abortions is the minimal standard held by all Canadian abortion providers.”
I never such an assertion. I have only pointed out that doctors in Canada, EVEN the dreaded Dr. Henry Morgantaler, will not perform late term abortions. Again, JJ has linked numerous times to the CMA guidelines on this. If you don’t want to read them, its hardly my fault.
Still trying to be purposefully obtuse eh?
(Note to self – when the kids are old enough for University, don’t let them go to U of A – the quality of the teaching is clearly substandard)
SUZANNE has blogged on this thread at her site, showing a series of beautiful shots of fully formed foetuses, with the scornful caption: “This, according to Stageleft, is a cluster of cells”.
Oddly, her choice of imaging does begin with a shot of a fertilized ovum, or a tiny “cluster of cells”, although these both, as she acknowledges, are, by her definition, human beings. I guess that might tend to diminish the impact.
The Boy whines thusly…
“How curious…this is the first time in blogosphere history that I have been “affectionately” referred to as “The Boy.”
I know and I’m doing the very best I can to rehabilitate your image in the blogosphere…no need to thank me Boy, just ignore the nonny trolls and continue on with exposing the hatemongering/racist/bigoted/homophobe/Bushluvin’/Harperites/Islamaphobes/CBChaters/abortionhaters/homelesshaters/welfarehaters/crunchy-peanut butterhaters/American beerhaters/TimHortonlovin’/God lovin’, fearin’ neoconservatives…whew!…How do you do it?, Thank God(I realize you’re a non-believer but let’s make an exception here and thank him anyway)for your tireless and relentless pursuit of the truth…you are “The Boy” bar none.
I am as always your faithful and “affectionate”
Gigantic Boner
This all so…FELLATIOTASTIC!
This all so…FELLATIOTASTIC!
It’s not polite to talk with your mouth full.
Good grief, we were having a decent discussion here until Patrick showed up with his new chew toy. Back to Widdowson-baiting…
Fetish means an unhealthy sexual attraction to inanimate objects??
Well then, I’ll have to delete all my foot-fetish pr0n…
Mike responds to Twatsy with a hilariously familiar objection:
“I never [sic] such an assertion.”
Get used to it, Mike. When one is “debating” with the Twatster, by far the most common objection you’re going to hear from one of his opponents is, “Hey! I never said that!!”
It’s how Twatsy debates, Mike. But I’m sure you’ve figured that out by now. Everyone else has.
We need to see posts like this, so everyone can see what those on the left are thinking, well done.
I think, Patrick has got it right, he gets exactly what you are saying balbulican. Read his comments more carefully.
Anti-abortion side….”The foetus IS their fetish.” The “foetus” IS their concern, an obsession for some, but a fetish?!?!?!?!?! Completely incorrect.
The pro-abortion side….. an obsession for some, a fetish….. come on.
People are equally rabid on both sides.
If the content of the human womb is not a human life what is it? It has human DNA. The DNA is as individual as any other human.
When a woman goes for an ultrasound and she wants the child it is a baby, when she does not want the child it is a “foetus”. A great deal of dishonesty going on.
Having an abortion is killing. No different that an extreme late term abortion of a Taliban.
By the way, as soon as the Circus Clown and his moonbat sheeple showed up, the debate went subzero.
Fetish is an unhealthy sexual attraction to inanimate objects??
Well then… I guess I’ll have to delete all my foot-fetish pr0n…
Wayne,
The thread went “sub zero” when Patrick went hell-bent on being willfully obtuse on a completely parenthetical point.
And regarding your ‘rabid’ idea–some people get rabid on forcing their views on everyone else. Some people get ‘rabid’ when they see their rights being taken away. I know which ‘rabid’ pack I’m going to hang out with.
You want to discuss and debate the issue? Absolutely. You want to enforce your worldview on me to my detriment?? Not so much…
@CC – CC, I’ve know that for years. I’m hear to discuss the topic, not Patsy…I’m trying hard to avoid his stupidity.
Folks, it’s not that difficult just to jump over his comments, and those of the other disruptors.
Being the curious person that I am, I’m curious as to why Suzie All-Caps never responded to my observation here, where she claims to refer to the pro-choice camp in a “respectful” and “less politically loaded” way, yet uses the demeaning phrase of “pro-abortion” (and the even more offensive short form “pro-aborts” in her topics listing) on her blog.
How about it, Suzie? Where’s that vaunted “respect” of yours? Surely you realize that pro-choicers find that description insulting, not to mention inaccurate. Any time you’re ready to explain that hypocritical double standard, we’ll be right here.
@CC – And let’s not forget SUZANNE’s oh-so-precious usage of the term “poor-choice” when referring to the “pro-choice” side of the debate. It’s nice to see such respect from our gal Susie when it comes to opposing opinions.
Hmmmm… First Patsy, then Wayne rears his head to further foul the nest. Are we shooting for a trifecta of willfully dense here?
Frank:
Wayne showing up was no accident — whenever Twatsy appears, you know his personal fluffer won’t be far behind. Bringing up the rear, as it were.
@CC – I’ve said it many times before – I don’t believe in coincidences.
CC, snark for the sake of snark, no substance. He and his CCbots just entrench peoples view points with their venom. What good is that? How does one debate the Circus Clowns comments?
Patrick, gets accused of being picky and obtuse, when many lefty blogs go frothy if somebody makes a spelling error. Patrick makes valid points for debate, he has more than held his own.
I agree with what Mike said in his comment above, about the ownership of ones organs. Very good point. But, I don’t agree that a zygote is just a piece of tissue. It is not a regular body tissue it is a potential human etc. etc.
Having said that, I don’t think it is any of our business what a woman does and does not do. The choices each of us make should be our choices.
Mike says “the right to bodily control and integrity of one person always overrides the right of another person to live.
I think that is rather honest.” Good thing I am well armed. LOL.
“And, in that exact same paragraph, I quite clearly explained how it connected with what Suzanne said:
After all, it is the basis of your entire argument that a fetus is a distinct and thus foreign biological entity…
Read much?”
Here’s a proposition for you, Mike:
Run a search for the word “foreign” in this thread, and see where it first came up.
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, which is why I did so myself, and do you know what I discovered? That it was you who suggested that if the fetus is separate from the mother — and I’ll remind you that I actually disagree with this — then it’s foreign.
And yet you can’t defend this particular idea, can you?
The fetus comes about as the result of natural processes within the mother’s body. Thus it simply cannot be considered foreign to it.
It isn’t my fault that you can’t support or defend your ideas, Mike.
“I never such an assertion. I have only pointed out that doctors in Canada, EVEN the dreaded Dr. Henry Morgantaler, will not perform late term abortions. Again, JJ has linked numerous times to the CMA guidelines on this. If you don’t want to read them, its hardly my fault.”
It’s interesting for you to note this. I’m taking a look for this right now, and I can’t seem to find any examples of JJ actually linking to these CMA guidelines. I’ve found a few examples of her talking about them without a link.
Kind of like you and the various different reports that you rant about, and yet it seems to be very difficult to find any corroborating sources.
I’m interested in particular in the matter of Margaret Somerville, as I’ve read elsewhere. Somerville, as you may recall, notes numerous occasions in which late term abortions were sought and received without due medical cause. I’ve also found more than a few “rebuttals” to Somerville where this “Canadian doctors will not perform late term abortions” argument is forwarded merely on the respondent’s say-so.
Like I’ve said elsewhere, Mike, your own say-so simply isn’t enough. If you can’t support your argument, you can’t expect it to be treated as decisive.
“The fetus comes about as the result of natural processes within the mother’s body. Thus it simply cannot be considered foreign to it.”
Exactly.
“say-so simply isn’t enough”
You are so right Patrick, how the hell can one be credible without the actual data to back it up. Otherwise, everyone is just talking around in a circle about speculation of what they think they know is right. The don’t confuse the issue with facts logic. Sheesh.
The really interesting thing is that Suzanne didn’t even use the word “separate”. She used “biologically distinct”. And while I agree that Suzanne’s argument implies separateness, I’d point out that “biologically distinct” doesn’t even logically lead to “separate”.
After all, conjoined twins are biologically distinct but not separate. They’re biologically distinct to the extent that they can be separated successfully, but interconnected enough that they often don’t survive the process.
And once again neither separate nor biologically distinct logically leads to foreign.
But what more do you really expect someone who actually described an unborn child as being akin to a parasite?
Good god but these people are nuts.
Twatsy writes:
“It isn’t my fault that you can’t support or defend your ideas, Mike.”
This from the guy who, to this day, refuses to admit that we’re running a deficit.
Yes, Twats — you’re just the person to lecture the rest of us on rhetorical accountability.
Man, that’s rich.
Here we go again.
Don’t worry, Boris … I’m done here. I can only paddle Twatsy’s ass for so long before my hand gets sore.
ROTFL
…And there goes Canadian Cynic.
Trying to manufacture a victory out of abject defeat. By changing the subject.
Hypocrisy, thy very name is Canadian Cynic.
Too bad your gang of fluffers didn’t come riding to the rescue on this one, huh, Cynic? Seems like they, at least, were smart enough to realize they were already beaten. Crushed, in fact.
Thank you CC for your usual philosophical input, it is truly off topic and dumb. Does the information you have provided have anything to do with what has been debated here? No.
“But what more do you really expect someone who actually described an unborn child as being akin to a parasite?”
Not much, Patrick, it is quite sick.
Shorter every single one of Patrick’s endless comments: Blar-har-har … I win because I say I do!!1!!111!!
ROTFL
No, Lulu, I won because it’s evident.
Let’s go over the score sheet, if we may:
Balbulican’s “fetus fetish” definition – debunked.
Balbulican’s “other point” he was trying to make — undefended.
Mike’s “foreign fetus” argument — destroyed.
Canadian Cynic’s desperate attempts to try and change the subject — unindulged.
What we’re seeing here, kids, is what happens when you try to make a worshipper from the Groupthink Temple defend their ideas like an adult: it just doesn’t work because at the end of the day these clowns are little more than petulant children.
*yawn*
Have you ever wondered why everyone you’ve ever run into seems to actively dislike you, Patrick?
I’d be happy to clear that little issue up for you but only if you say “pretty please” first.
CC: I didn’t actually see your comment until after I posted. I was groaning at PR’s acquisition of a new fetish-term. Paddle away (although I think he likes it)!
Where oh where is Don Pardo (when I need him) to tell Patsy what he’s ‘won’.
@LuLu – there’s always Werner. He’ll always have Werner.
@CC – If your hand gets sore you can always continue with the foot.
@Frank Frink – I think this would make a lovely parting gift, don’t you?
Possibly. Can we be sure he can operate w/o instructions?
“Have you ever wondered why everyone you’ve ever run into seems to actively dislike you, Patrick?”
It’s interesting to see the things that you seem to think you know about my life.
If I were to suspect that you were stalking me I’d likewise suspect that you’re pretty inept at it.
So Patrick, with regards to the definition of ‘fetish’ and its relevancy to balbulican’s thesis, do you deny that you’re arguing semantics?
Wayne:
You can feel free to respond to the above, as well. You’re very critical of Canadian Cynic for a lack of contribution to the discussion. Do you think Patrick’s diatribe over whether balbulican should use the word ‘fetish’, ‘partialism’ or some other term which means “sexual obsession” is central to the claim put forth by balbulican?
@Balbulican:
Oddly, her choice of imaging does begin with a shot of a fertilized ovum, or a tiny “cluster of cells”, although these both, as she acknowledges, are, by her definition, human beings. I guess that might tend to diminish the impact.
They are not fetuses.
Surgical abortions are done beginning at 5 weeks gestation. And I started at 5 weeks gestation.
Surgical abortions are not performed on zygotes, morulas, blastocysts or very young embryos.
Why? because most people realize maintaining control and ownership, if you will, over one’s body is THE basic human right.
Control of anything does not include the right to kill an innocent human being.
I own my house. But if a child strays into my house, that doesn’t give me the right to kill that child.
Even a burglar, if I can reasonably ascertain he is no threat– like say a small young adolescent– I have no right to kill.
There is only one situation in which a person has the right to kill, and that’s when they are being threatened with death.
I would also add that parents have obligations towards their offspring. Even if you don’t want to parent your infant any longer, you must care for that baby until other arrangements are made. The same could be argued for the unborn.
Patrick:
We were trying to have a grownup conversation here. Why don’t you stop running around the room in your pyjamas with a toy in your hand yelling at the top of your lungs? It’s way past your bedtime.
So Balb got the “fetish” part right but the Freudian element wrong? So what? He was focussing on the obsession with fetuses that “pro-lifers” amply demonstrate, and noting their pronatalist values. That was the topic of discussion.
And you yourself claimed the objects of a fetish had to be inanimate. We didn’t pile on over that–one person mentioned feet, that was that, and we moved on.
Because we’re adults. You’re not. Christ, I’m going to be glad when you finally graduate.
“…an innocent human being”.
Please note your assumptions, SUZANNE. Thanks.
SUZANNE:
Now you’ve got my attention.
You mean that you part company with your allies regarding life beginning at conception, and are reverting to something like the old ensoulment doctrine of the early Church? I’ve never heard of the five-week cutoff before in the current “pro-life” discourse.
Dawg, seriously, why are you reading him? Just skip over. As someone noted, even SUZANNE is trying to discuss this. Leave Patrick fuming and stamping outside…it’s just noise. Ignore it.
Where’s your perfect parable where you compare a fetus in a womb to a parrot in a cage? I want to read you make that argument again.
Oh wait. That was a special fabulation that you crafted for Bill C-484. So sorry. My bad.
Congratulations on your 201st comment! May there be 200 more to come.
[via Twitter]
“So Balb got the “fetish” part right but the Freudian element wrong? So what? He was focussing on the obsession with fetuses that “pro-lifers” amply demonstrate, and noting their pronatalist values. That was the topic of discussion.”
And tried to cast it in the mold of a mental illness. And not merely a mental illness, either – but one that he can’t properly define.
And by the way, I haven’t said anything about Balb having the “fetish” part objectively right in any regard. What I am willing to admit is that if Balb were to do what you attempted to do, and cast the fetish in the Marxist sense, he’d at the very least have an interesting argument, as opposed to one that’s just plain wrong.
If you think I’m blind to the notion that the alleged obsession with fetuses is the topic of discussion? In casae you haven’t pulled your head out of your ass and taken notice — and evidently you haven’t — my objection is with the context Balb is trying to place that alleged obsession within.
That context being mental illness. Which is an utter folly any time it’s applied to any political matter.
“And you yourself claimed the objects of a fetish had to be inanimate. We didn’t pile on over that–one person mentioned feet, that was that, and we moved on.”
A foot fetish isn’t really a fetish. It’s a partialism. This has already been addressed.
If Balbulican hadn’t appealed directly to the definition of a sexual fetlish vis a vis the science of psychology, he could at least appeal to the layman’s term of a fetish, but it’s too late for that now.
If you’re going to try to make use of that concept, you’d better be able to apply it properly.
“Because we’re adults. You’re not. Christ, I’m going to be glad when you finally graduate.”
That’s utterly hilarious, Dawg.
Apparently you think that adults are supposed to tolerate being called stupid when they’re the ones who are actually right about the topic of discussion.
Only a child expects that.
Ha ha ha, I thought of the parrot in the cage too dBO
Based on Suzanne’s analogy of a woman being a house:
There is only one situation in which a person has the right to kill, and that’s when they are being threatened with death.
Funny thing is that the above exception is exactly what accounts for late term abortions.
Nonsense, Beijing. As we all know, over 92% of pregnant Canadian women wake up two days before they’re due to deliver, and think to themselves: “Damn. Didn’t I have a pedicure appointment this weekend? Oh, shit. Better get an abortion”.
[...] I was following a somewhat convoluted thread over at stageleft that followed a post about the fetish like quality of some folk in the anti-choice [...]
You mean that you part company with your allies regarding life beginning at conception, and are reverting to something like the old ensoulment doctrine of the early Church? I’ve never heard of the five-week cutoff before in the current “pro-life” discourse.
Of course I consider all the unborn to be human beings.
But balbulican called the fetus a “cluster of cells”.
I think this is objectively wrong.
I posted the pictures of the embryo/fetus starting from 5 weeks because that’s when surgical abortions begin, and those are the biggest flashpoint in the abortion debate.
The Church has always assumed that science points to when ensoulment occurs. Physical life and spiritual life are considered to be co-terminous (if permit me allow that metaphor). When Thomas Aquinas taught that ensoulment began at 40 days for boys and 80 days for girls, he was using the science that he knew at the time.
Shame on me, I forgot about the 92% of frivolous women who look at abortion as a convenient solution to jumbling their busy schedules.
The Church has always assumed that science points to when ensoulment occurs. Physical life and spiritual life are considered to be co-terminous (if permit me allow that metaphor). When Thomas Aquinas taught that ensoulment began at 40 days for boys and 80 days for girls, he was using the science that he knew at the time.
Two things:
Why the discrepancy between male and female “ensoulment”?
Why don’t Catholics baptize embryos (or fetuses for that matter)?
“But balbulican called the fetus a “cluster of cells”. I think this is objectively wrong.
SUZANNE, do you have any idea what an utterly silly statement this is???
A foetus IS a cluster cells, as is a grapefruit, an orangutan, or my father.
But mostly I like this formulation:
“I THINK this is OBJECTIVELY wrong.” (my emphases.)
No, my dear. You are completely, utterly, wrong, and there’s nothing “objective” about a querellous assertion of an untenable personal opinion.
@balbulican
However, you’re the one who appears to attribute full humanity to a fertilized ovum. For most us, humanity is a bit more complex.
Humanity isn’t the issue, really. It’s moral worth. A zygote is just as much a human being as an adult, just like a caterpillar is a butterfly.
The unborn stage of our lives is just as much a part of our humanity as infancy and toddlerhood.
A foetus IS a cluster cells, as is a grapefruit, an orangutan, or my father.
I took it to mean that you were calling the fetus an amorphous mass of undistinguished cells.
“A zygote is just as much a human being as an adult.”
Patrick? Paying attention?
Thanks, SUZANNE. Further confirmation of my initial post.
Control of anything does not include the right to kill an innocent human being.
Not true. I have demonstrated when control over one’s body usurps another’s right to live. I assume you do not support forcibly taking organs, cornea or bone marrow from some one, against their will and without their consent, in order to save the live of another. Think about why that is.
I own my house. But if a child strays into my house, that doesn’t give me the right to kill that child.
Even a burglar, if I can reasonably ascertain he is no threat– like say a small young adolescent– I have no right to kill.
First, your body is not a house – you cannot retreat from your body, nor can you transfer. And if a child strays into my house, I can certainly kick it out. If a burglar enters, I certainly do have the right to defend myself, even using lethal force.
Neither the kid nor the burglar have the right to stay in my house, against my will and live off of my food for as long as they want. I am perfectly able to use physical force, as much as is necessary, to evict them.
You analogy is rather flawed, so I won’t bother with it any longer. I’m quite certain you don’t to start equating fetuses with trespassers and women’s bodies with houses.
Removing a cluster of cells with no brain is not killing, any more than stepping on an acorn is the same as cutting down an oak tree.
My point is, unless a human being, as a living, separate individual, has the right to control their body and their bodily integrity, then we have no basis for private property, no basis for any human right. If I cannot control my body, then I am nothing more than chattel, to be bought or sold, destroyed or used by whomever sees fit. This is what allows the Communists to harvest organs from the Falun Gong in their slave labour camps – YOU don’t own your body, the state does and they can do with it as they see fit, not you.
That is what you are arguing for. Do you even realize it?
I would also add that parents have obligations towards their offspring. Even if you don’t want to parent your infant any longer, you must care for that baby until other arrangements are made. The same could be argued for the unborn.
I hate to be crude, but a woman seeking abortion is making those arrangements. A 12 week old fetus is not a child, not a baby and in my opinion, due to the lack of a functioning brain, not a full human. If the woman does not want it in her body, then she has the right to control her body get rid of it.
Those stats aren’t a lie – almost all abortions occur before there is a functioning brain, when the fetus is the biological equivalent of a shrimp.
I’m getting rather tired of making the same points over and over, so let me say this:
I admire you passion, but the end state you strive for – all abortions being illegal, where women’s right to control her body stop when the become pregnant, immediately making them chattel of the state or whomever else is in control – is more horrible than what we have now, no matter how many abortions are taking place. You vision would have these unwanted children brought into the world to unwilling mothers – what a recipe for familial disaster and crime.
If you really want to stop abortions, then you really need to find a way that does not involve taking away the right to control one’s body.
Which is more important, trying to push for abstinence in the face of nature, or preventing abortions? Because so long as you are not willing to demand more birth control and sex ed, you are going to have more abortions.
If a woman is faced with an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy, should having the baby be the more attractive options? Shouldn’t you be pushing for child care, better investment for mothers? Shouldn’t you be doig something about the thousands of kids in the CAS and the CCAS that can’t get adopted now?
All of those would obviously reduce abortion without taking away anyone’s rights. But you are obsessed with the fetus. It has to be outlawed, drive women to back alleys, to coat hangers and “car accidents”, to poisons and alcohol. And to hell with them after they are born…then the mother is on her own.
This is why we call you fetus fetishist – you have endowed the fetus and elevated it to something it is not, to the point where you are actually hurting your own professed cause, and dream of a world of untold totalitarian horror as better than what we have now, because of the fetus.
In short, Balb is right.