My personal take is that at the point where the fetus can be turned into a neonate and be cared for by *any* semi-competent pre-adolescent or later human being, as opposed to being explicitly tied via umbilical cord and placenta to the bloodstream of a *specific* individual, it is morally incumbent upon the individuals involved to "evict" the fetus in as non-destructive a manner possible.
And I really wish any of these laws would be vetted by anyone who is even vaguely mentally competent. Oi.
ETA: The flipside being that prior to that point, the woman can evict the fetus as she desires, of course.
> "Unfortunately that mandates a violence and violation upon the woman."
Agreed and acknowledged. And please keep in mind, that I'm envisioning a law which was **actually** well written with every medical improbability taken into account, so that we're never talking about the physical well-being of the mother being placed at risk.
I'm merely attempting to account for the other end of the improbability scale, where a woman with an otherwise perfectly healthy 8 month fetus decides she just doesn't want it anymore, she's done, get it out. At that point, given that the fetus is very likely perfectly capable of surviving, the balance of rights between the two individuals there must favor removing the fetus intact. By waiting until the point where the fetus could survive outside the womb, the woman has given up some of her right to perform the removal in *any* manner she chooses, and must instead use one that isn't fatal.
If I had a squatter in my house, I'd be ethically required to at least *try* and get them to leave in peace.
At with all analogies, too close of an examination will of course show the cracks where the image doesn't match reality. I frame the debate in my head as one of competing property rights, with the prime property right being that one owns oneself.
Even in a scenario like the one the Fundies all picture, where a young lady goes catting about town in a biologically irresponsible manner, taking no precautions whatsoever, and so can thus be said to have "invited" the resultant fetus into her womb; An invitation to a party at my house isn't an invitation to move in for nine months and eat all my food.
She has the right to tell the guest to leave at any time. Because it is possible that the fetus might experience nerve sensations, it's important to do that in the least vicious manner possible. "Delivering" a 12 week fetus would do nothing but condemn it to a cruel and lingering death. But delivering a 20 week fetus... now we're getting well into the territory where we same preemies all the time, and if we'd gotten to 28 weeks before young Kitty decides she doesn't want to be a mom... well, it's reasonable to require that she do so in a manner that leaves the child intact.
The word "feminist" is like "Christian." It's too broad to have any real meaning. "Christian" is equally claimed by Barack Obama, Pete Buttigieg, and the Westboro Baptist Church. Likewise with "feminist." Anything that links me (I do in fact believe that I should have the right to my own credit, nondiscrimination in pay, etc.) to Andrea Dworkin is similarly worthless for communication IMO.
The vagueness of the F-word is part of its power. It allows for endless motte-and-baillery from "we want women and men to be equal" to "we hate men" and then to "man and woman are social constructs" and who the hell knows what else.
"Christian" is not so fuzzy. It means someone who believes God became a man who died for the sins of humanity and was resurrected two days later (with bonus points for failing to correctly count to two).
There's a lot of room for interpretation and variation within those parameters. But it it's still a meaningful definition.
I am sure you can show me people who don't believe that and still call themselves Christian. But if you do, then I can show you a heretic.
I appreciate your honesty. It's interesting how people weigh the rights of others, even in hypothetical. Given the difference in crime rates between men and women, I could make a strong case that removing freedom from all men, perhaps by restricting them to their homes during all non-daylight hours, would benefit everyone. Violent crime would go down dramatically. I would still never do it, because I see men as full human beings. I'm not meaning to imply that you don't see women as human, just that the point where we draw the line and say "they're full human beings so that's not ok" seems to be highly variable, and that's interesting. Thanks.
I also disagree with you about the why on the "jokes" -- it's got little if anything to do with that, in my opinion. Racism is just more socially unacceptable than sexism, is all.
I understand. Now imagine if someone looked at crime rates and welfare costs and fatherlessness and other stats where black Americans don't always looks great, concluded that ending slavery was a mistake and if they could vote NOT to fight the civil war, they would. Can you imagine anyone arguing that? I'm NOT trying to condemn you -- your perspective is interesting and I TRULY appreciate your honesty. I'm just pointing out how differently we regard these things, and I'm really not sure why. I just know taking shots at women is ok in a way that taking shots at other core Democratic Party constituencies *never* is.
Being raped and beaten taught me to hate and fear men. Feminism gave me reasons why that was acceptable and even virtuous. I had to unlearn those reasons.
I've been thinking about this. There is no doubt that sympathy and support were what I found from the secular world and mental health professionals. I've never talked much about what happened when I disclosed in the Christian world, frankly because nobody would believe me. This is partly why it's taken me so long to come around to understanding that not all Christians are like that. If I could go back in time somehow and revoke tax exemption or have an infant Billy Graham die in his sleep or whatever and prevent American Christianity from taking over the country the way it did, leading to much of the current mess, like spanking as a normal childhood experience, purity culture and the damage it does, and so many other things....I don't think I would. Not now. But for a long time, I would have. It's taken me a long time to come to respect freedom enough that I wouldn't take freedom from other humans, even knowing bad consequences would come from respecting their humanity and inherent right to enjoy freedom.
I'm not saying my position is better than yours, because I don't know that "better" is a concept that applies here. I think I'm just saying that I get it, maybe more than you think. And I hope your position changes one day. I like myself better now than I did when I absolutely would've weighed the consequences and revoked freedom from the group responsible for hurting me and damaging society.
I really want to understand how you can think that feminism is not ill-defined. I get a ton of email, and I have a ton of it berating me for being anti-feminist and a ton of it berating me for being a radical feminist and feminazi. As far as I can tell, it is probably the greatest word that means nothing in the English language.
What does it mean and which am I? Which set of haters understands it correctly?
And I can't imagine ***anyone*** on the R side that would stand a chance. Unlike the 2020 election, I would actually legitimately believe that a Michelle O candidacy would drive higher vote totals than Barack's first run. I think that short of being caught on video going "KALI MA! KALI MA!" and slicing the still beating heart from a nine-year old, she would obliterate anyone the Rs ran.
“I personally think the Right is highly unlikely to bend at all, because they’d rather virtue-signal than win elections.”
But of course that precisely describes the woke left. As you say (and it’s a quote one doesn’t see often enough), politics is the art of the possible. Whatever you may think of it, if you look at landmark legislation like LBJ‘s great society programs, they got passed because of skill in compromise – LBJ was a legendary horse trader. That skill is, if not gone, at least highly devalued. It doesn’t earn you any points on social media.  so basically we’re screwed. 
The left just had an historically good midterm performance despite incredibly bad conditions that should've resulted in an historically bad performance for them. I don't see their strategies hurting them electorally these days.
I agree completely, but there’s the relative scale and the absolute scale. As you say, Democrats did overwhelmingly well, given Republicans’ massive own goal.
Given the numbers, both sides will still need compromise to get legislation passed; winning elections doesn’t guarantee you’ll pass laws. And I think that ability to compromise is gone. I think we’re going to see two years of near complete gridlock. Which, candidly, is not necessarily the worst thing in the world. Cf. the Mark Twain quote about how no man’s goods are safe when the legislature is in session. But there are real problems that will be tough to fix.
It is finally getting cold here in Texas. Talking 50 degrees, sweater weather for most folks. I did my duty and voted. The lack of candidates, and the same ones over and over, so no real change. Next year our legislators will be in session.
I moved from a strictly blue state to a red one. Culture change for sure. While I was brought up a liberal I saw first hand the changes it brought to society. Lots of it good and in my case no grown up in several generations of family. My grandmother hated all her sons-in-laws, her husbands, and to some extent her grandsons. Her daughters all picked men that were just like her mother, ensuring trauma for all children born. My father an alcoholic, abusive to children, women totally unsuitable for marriage much less raising children. My mother raised as a Jewish princess expect to do no hard work in her life. No heavy lifting emotionally, physically and psychologically. the princess with moats, broken glass, razor wire, and of course in her high tower. Never to hold, comfort, praise her children, a void the children lived with their entire life. Some did better some became causalities of a country in change.
I always saw women who were feminists as women with choices, money, college educated, opportunities that I could have if I went to college. That was a big lie to me. I never had the family, support infrastructure, the basic education to get me there. So I worked a variety of jobs to support myself, and did well given the times. Early 1980s. Feminism to me was about rights, to work, make the same salary as a man, same opportunities as everyone else. Feminism never discussed poverty, laws against women, the dissonance between what we were told and what is reality. It had no power really, to make substantive changes. It still doesn’t.
Did my life turn out success or not? Some successes and some failures. Never made over $35K a year, which has impacted me in terms of financial success. I still have had some great things happen to me. I got to see England and Hawaii and that was wonderful. I eventually married a wonderful man and we have a nice life. I worked for everything I have. In fact, I still work today, part time it helps out with medical bills.
To me both parties are the same thing. There are some people who are going to succeed and some that don’t. I have no idea what components, what percentage of luck, family, come into play. I know sadly that we are going to have to make our own way, meet people along the way, some will be helpful, some not. But we go forward. Right now we don’t know where we are going, don’t know the lies we have been told and are feeling totally isolated. We will get through this, we will survive and boy the crap we can cast aside will be wonderful. Take care one and all.
My personal take is that at the point where the fetus can be turned into a neonate and be cared for by *any* semi-competent pre-adolescent or later human being, as opposed to being explicitly tied via umbilical cord and placenta to the bloodstream of a *specific* individual, it is morally incumbent upon the individuals involved to "evict" the fetus in as non-destructive a manner possible.
And I really wish any of these laws would be vetted by anyone who is even vaguely mentally competent. Oi.
ETA: The flipside being that prior to that point, the woman can evict the fetus as she desires, of course.
> "Unfortunately that mandates a violence and violation upon the woman."
Agreed and acknowledged. And please keep in mind, that I'm envisioning a law which was **actually** well written with every medical improbability taken into account, so that we're never talking about the physical well-being of the mother being placed at risk.
I'm merely attempting to account for the other end of the improbability scale, where a woman with an otherwise perfectly healthy 8 month fetus decides she just doesn't want it anymore, she's done, get it out. At that point, given that the fetus is very likely perfectly capable of surviving, the balance of rights between the two individuals there must favor removing the fetus intact. By waiting until the point where the fetus could survive outside the womb, the woman has given up some of her right to perform the removal in *any* manner she chooses, and must instead use one that isn't fatal.
If I had a squatter in my house, I'd be ethically required to at least *try* and get them to leave in peace.
“Evict” -- like serving an eviction notice? You realize they can’t read, right? Plus the light is no good in there. 😉
At with all analogies, too close of an examination will of course show the cracks where the image doesn't match reality. I frame the debate in my head as one of competing property rights, with the prime property right being that one owns oneself.
Even in a scenario like the one the Fundies all picture, where a young lady goes catting about town in a biologically irresponsible manner, taking no precautions whatsoever, and so can thus be said to have "invited" the resultant fetus into her womb; An invitation to a party at my house isn't an invitation to move in for nine months and eat all my food.
She has the right to tell the guest to leave at any time. Because it is possible that the fetus might experience nerve sensations, it's important to do that in the least vicious manner possible. "Delivering" a 12 week fetus would do nothing but condemn it to a cruel and lingering death. But delivering a 20 week fetus... now we're getting well into the territory where we same preemies all the time, and if we'd gotten to 28 weeks before young Kitty decides she doesn't want to be a mom... well, it's reasonable to require that she do so in a manner that leaves the child intact.
The word "feminist" is like "Christian." It's too broad to have any real meaning. "Christian" is equally claimed by Barack Obama, Pete Buttigieg, and the Westboro Baptist Church. Likewise with "feminist." Anything that links me (I do in fact believe that I should have the right to my own credit, nondiscrimination in pay, etc.) to Andrea Dworkin is similarly worthless for communication IMO.
The vagueness of the F-word is part of its power. It allows for endless motte-and-baillery from "we want women and men to be equal" to "we hate men" and then to "man and woman are social constructs" and who the hell knows what else.
"Christian" is not so fuzzy. It means someone who believes God became a man who died for the sins of humanity and was resurrected two days later (with bonus points for failing to correctly count to two).
There's a lot of room for interpretation and variation within those parameters. But it it's still a meaningful definition.
I am sure you can show me people who don't believe that and still call themselves Christian. But if you do, then I can show you a heretic.
I appreciate your honesty. It's interesting how people weigh the rights of others, even in hypothetical. Given the difference in crime rates between men and women, I could make a strong case that removing freedom from all men, perhaps by restricting them to their homes during all non-daylight hours, would benefit everyone. Violent crime would go down dramatically. I would still never do it, because I see men as full human beings. I'm not meaning to imply that you don't see women as human, just that the point where we draw the line and say "they're full human beings so that's not ok" seems to be highly variable, and that's interesting. Thanks.
I also disagree with you about the why on the "jokes" -- it's got little if anything to do with that, in my opinion. Racism is just more socially unacceptable than sexism, is all.
I understand. Now imagine if someone looked at crime rates and welfare costs and fatherlessness and other stats where black Americans don't always looks great, concluded that ending slavery was a mistake and if they could vote NOT to fight the civil war, they would. Can you imagine anyone arguing that? I'm NOT trying to condemn you -- your perspective is interesting and I TRULY appreciate your honesty. I'm just pointing out how differently we regard these things, and I'm really not sure why. I just know taking shots at women is ok in a way that taking shots at other core Democratic Party constituencies *never* is.
Being raped and beaten taught me to hate and fear men. Feminism gave me reasons why that was acceptable and even virtuous. I had to unlearn those reasons.
I've been thinking about this. There is no doubt that sympathy and support were what I found from the secular world and mental health professionals. I've never talked much about what happened when I disclosed in the Christian world, frankly because nobody would believe me. This is partly why it's taken me so long to come around to understanding that not all Christians are like that. If I could go back in time somehow and revoke tax exemption or have an infant Billy Graham die in his sleep or whatever and prevent American Christianity from taking over the country the way it did, leading to much of the current mess, like spanking as a normal childhood experience, purity culture and the damage it does, and so many other things....I don't think I would. Not now. But for a long time, I would have. It's taken me a long time to come to respect freedom enough that I wouldn't take freedom from other humans, even knowing bad consequences would come from respecting their humanity and inherent right to enjoy freedom.
I'm not saying my position is better than yours, because I don't know that "better" is a concept that applies here. I think I'm just saying that I get it, maybe more than you think. And I hope your position changes one day. I like myself better now than I did when I absolutely would've weighed the consequences and revoked freedom from the group responsible for hurting me and damaging society.
I really want to understand how you can think that feminism is not ill-defined. I get a ton of email, and I have a ton of it berating me for being anti-feminist and a ton of it berating me for being a radical feminist and feminazi. As far as I can tell, it is probably the greatest word that means nothing in the English language.
What does it mean and which am I? Which set of haters understands it correctly?
I've got a third option that lets the Ds not run Harris in '24. Two words: "Michelle Obama".
This would probably work, yes! Thank you!
And I can't imagine ***anyone*** on the R side that would stand a chance. Unlike the 2020 election, I would actually legitimately believe that a Michelle O candidacy would drive higher vote totals than Barack's first run. I think that short of being caught on video going "KALI MA! KALI MA!" and slicing the still beating heart from a nine-year old, she would obliterate anyone the Rs ran.
“I personally think the Right is highly unlikely to bend at all, because they’d rather virtue-signal than win elections.”
But of course that precisely describes the woke left. As you say (and it’s a quote one doesn’t see often enough), politics is the art of the possible. Whatever you may think of it, if you look at landmark legislation like LBJ‘s great society programs, they got passed because of skill in compromise – LBJ was a legendary horse trader. That skill is, if not gone, at least highly devalued. It doesn’t earn you any points on social media.  so basically we’re screwed. 
The left just had an historically good midterm performance despite incredibly bad conditions that should've resulted in an historically bad performance for them. I don't see their strategies hurting them electorally these days.
I agree completely, but there’s the relative scale and the absolute scale. As you say, Democrats did overwhelmingly well, given Republicans’ massive own goal.
Given the numbers, both sides will still need compromise to get legislation passed; winning elections doesn’t guarantee you’ll pass laws. And I think that ability to compromise is gone. I think we’re going to see two years of near complete gridlock. Which, candidly, is not necessarily the worst thing in the world. Cf. the Mark Twain quote about how no man’s goods are safe when the legislature is in session. But there are real problems that will be tough to fix.
It is finally getting cold here in Texas. Talking 50 degrees, sweater weather for most folks. I did my duty and voted. The lack of candidates, and the same ones over and over, so no real change. Next year our legislators will be in session.
I moved from a strictly blue state to a red one. Culture change for sure. While I was brought up a liberal I saw first hand the changes it brought to society. Lots of it good and in my case no grown up in several generations of family. My grandmother hated all her sons-in-laws, her husbands, and to some extent her grandsons. Her daughters all picked men that were just like her mother, ensuring trauma for all children born. My father an alcoholic, abusive to children, women totally unsuitable for marriage much less raising children. My mother raised as a Jewish princess expect to do no hard work in her life. No heavy lifting emotionally, physically and psychologically. the princess with moats, broken glass, razor wire, and of course in her high tower. Never to hold, comfort, praise her children, a void the children lived with their entire life. Some did better some became causalities of a country in change.
I always saw women who were feminists as women with choices, money, college educated, opportunities that I could have if I went to college. That was a big lie to me. I never had the family, support infrastructure, the basic education to get me there. So I worked a variety of jobs to support myself, and did well given the times. Early 1980s. Feminism to me was about rights, to work, make the same salary as a man, same opportunities as everyone else. Feminism never discussed poverty, laws against women, the dissonance between what we were told and what is reality. It had no power really, to make substantive changes. It still doesn’t.
Did my life turn out success or not? Some successes and some failures. Never made over $35K a year, which has impacted me in terms of financial success. I still have had some great things happen to me. I got to see England and Hawaii and that was wonderful. I eventually married a wonderful man and we have a nice life. I worked for everything I have. In fact, I still work today, part time it helps out with medical bills.
To me both parties are the same thing. There are some people who are going to succeed and some that don’t. I have no idea what components, what percentage of luck, family, come into play. I know sadly that we are going to have to make our own way, meet people along the way, some will be helpful, some not. But we go forward. Right now we don’t know where we are going, don’t know the lies we have been told and are feeling totally isolated. We will get through this, we will survive and boy the crap we can cast aside will be wonderful. Take care one and all.