Ohio State Sen. says if men are so worried about wombs, then turnabout is fair play

[fuelair]

So you are having trouble with the links in the Wonkette piece. It's okay; you don't have to "googlevestigate" anything, I'll walk you through it. See, right there in the Wonkette piece, there's a link to the Dayton Daily News article, helpfully labeled "Dayton Daily News" in bright red. All you need to do is click that, and you'll be able to read all about Senator Turner's proposal without any of Wonkette's icky girlcooties all over it.

You're welcome!



The topic of this thread is Senator Turner's proposal, which you seem oddly determined to avoid discussing.



How about I post a laughing dog at the notion of you trying to tell me what to do when it comes to my discussion of this topic instead?

Certainly seems appropriate to me!!! But, then, republickers are so evil they just make me have to speak foully of/about them - though no words can truly touch the depths of the evil they are working to perform. Makes me almost wish there was a hell for them after their time here.............On the bright side, IF the god they claim to work in the name of actually existed, I know they would burn for eternity - by his claimed words.

 

[Foolmewunz]

No need; you cited a tertiary source. It's obvious you want the discussion to be about Wonkette's commentary, rather than the bill itself. I'm not going to googlevestigate topics that you can't be arsed to cite from primary sources, and that aren't very interesting to me anyway.


Exactly.


The topic of the thread is Wonkette's commentary. You're mad that I'm discussing the topic you selected for the thread you started?

How about this: If you want to discuss the actual bill, go to the Ohio state government's website and find the actual bill. Start a thread, and link it there, and have that discussion.

Meanwhile, this thread is still about this discussion, as far as I'm concerned. Though, like most discussions about Wonkette's commentary, once it's been noted that its neither mature nor substantive, there's not much left to disucss. If the entire scope of your analysis is "what Wonkette said, just read her", then done and done.

I love it when drama llamas are ill-informed. You're obviously not aware of Nina Turner. This is the lady who closed out a speech last week suggesting that her fellow senators should "grow a pair... ovaries or otherwise". She's also running for Ohio AG, specifically on a platform of protecting voter's rights and stopping the legislation-a-month anti-woman festival that's been going on in state politics.

I think if you were to read her actual words you'd find that they don't differ that much from Wonkette's piece. Nina Turner makes Bella Abzug look like a school marm from Prarie Flats in 1919!

 

[mijopaalmc]

It's interesting that people are not commenting more on the analogy between the fetus and a penis. You'd be hard pressed to find a doctor who would perform a penectomy--especially if the procedure was part of a gender reassignment.

 

[marplots]

It's interesting that people are not commenting more on the analogy between the fetus and a penis. You'd be hard pressed to find a doctor who would perform a penectomy--especially if the procedure was part of a gender reassignment.

And some fetuses have penises - the kind of recursion that cramps my brain.

 

[theprestige]

So you are having trouble with the links in the Wonkette piece.

Not really. The links in her piece go to the Dayton Daily News, which doesn't interest me (or you; I imagine). If there were links directly to the text of the bill, or directly to the Senator's own comments and discussion about her bill, that might have been interesting.

The topic of this thread is Senator Turner's proposal, which you seem oddly determined to avoid discussing.

So you say, but the proposal itself is noticeably absent from the source material you cited. Your source material is mostly commentary, with occasional snippets of somebody else's report.

You claim the topic of the thread is the senator's proposal. Will you be citing the proposal and discussing it any time soon?

I mean, at this point you've spent more time discussing my review of Wonkette's commentary on the Dayton Daily News report about the Senator's proposal, than you have spent discussing the proposal itself. And you started the thread with Wonkette's commentary, already a couple degrees removed from the proposal itself. What does that tell you about the real topic of the thread?

How about I post a laughing dog at the notion of you trying to tell me what to do when it comes to my discussion of this topic instead?

I'm having a conversation with someone who lets Wonkette speak for him.

IDontKnowWhatIExpected.jpg

 

[A'isha]

You claim the topic of the thread is the senator's proposal. Will you be citing the proposal and discussing it any time soon?

We are discussing it. Just as Wonkette was discussing it.

I'm having a conversation with someone who lets Wonkette speak for him.

I must have missed where we're the only two people posting in this thread.

For the record, I also liked what JoeTheJuggler, geni, Magyar, RandFan, fuelair, marplots, NoahFence, and Foolmewunz said too, to the point where they pretty much also express my feelings on the matter (it's nice that so many of us appear to be of the same accord on this).

Now, do you have anything to say about Senator Turner's proposal about legislating men's reproductive organs the way the Republicans have been trying to legislate women's, or do you prefer to just whine about Wonkette some more?

 

[marplots]

I will volunteer to have my reproductive organs legislated. Have a go.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I do not volunteer to have mine legislated. Pity I'm not afforded such a luxury as the choice.

 

[Minoosh]

There is a fundamental difference between men's and women's bodies and that is that women are capable of incubating a genetically complete person and the intrusive laws are (ostensibly) aimed at protecting that work in progress. If people want to stand on principle I might respect that, but what often comes out of pro-lifers' mouths reflects so much ignorance that I don't want these people writing any laws.

The first sentence of this post is laughably obvious, yet people using the argument "keep your hands off my body" seem to miss the obvious ... at some point a fetus becomes a separate human and IMO that is before birth.

I've never taken a principled stance - 100% pro-life or pro-choice - because I don't find either particularly defensible. IMO children have a right to be wanted, and under most if not all circumstances I would not want to force a woman to bear an unwanted child. When does this become infanticide, and at what point is infanticide morally wrong? Because in certain circumstances it's justifiable.

ETA: I'm interpreting the Ohio proposal as theater/satire, not a serious policy push. To address the topic: If she means it seriously, then the rationale, costs and benefits of carrying it out as public policy should be addressed.

 

[A'isha]

The first sentence of this post is laughably obvious, yet people using the argument "keep your hands off my body" seem to miss the obvious ... at some point a fetus becomes a separate human and IMO that is before birth.

Yes, but abortion laws already take that into account, and always have.

EDIT: Plus what Silly Green Monkey says below. This thread is becoming chock full of people saying things I want to say better than I could say them myself!

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Abortion laws touch more than just those women currently harboring a parasite, desired or unwanted. If I want to get birth control, no baby inside, I first have to be tested for a baby whether or not I know there isn't one there. My freedom is limited because of the *ability* to become pregnant, not whether I am or not. If the birth control has a lapse of even a short time, it's time for another urine test. It's kinda like the license to kill----anyone who knows how can kill with his bare hands, but no man will ever be forced to wear manacles because he 'could' kill someone.

My body, but because there might be an ability to produce a baby, I must be limited. Well then so should men, because they could produce a baby with any ejaculation.

 

[Minoosh]

Yes, but abortion laws already take that into account, and always have.

This point needs to be played up by defenders of choice, then. IMO of course. If the rhetoric sounds like getting an abortion is exactly analogous to, say, getting your tonsils removed, you could lose some people with that argument. I don't hear the pro-choice side acknowledging that an unborn child is at some point a separate individual. I don't pay much attention to anyone's party line so I could easily have missed it.

One of my problems with pro-lifers is that so often they also appear to be anti-contraception. If both sides want to prevent abortion that seems like common ground. Abstinence is a solution for some people but not a realistic expectation for everyone.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

What about getting govt out of people's personal lives.

That's what I've been saying.

 

[Minoosh]

My body, but because there might be an ability to produce a baby, I must be limited. Well then so should men, because they could produce a baby with any ejaculation.

It's not 1-1 analogous. Pregnancy is a medical condition that men are not subject to. It's reasonable to me to run a urine test before prescribing drugs that could affect a fetus's development. Even if you're pretty sure you don't want the fetus to be there.

I disagree that a man could produce a baby with any ejaculation - he doesn't have the equipment for conception. But, for what it's worth, I wouldn't in principle be against regulating men's reproductive activities. Sometimes I wish everybody could be temporarily sterilized at puberty, with restrictions lifted as people mature. It could save a lot of grief. Do I want society to be that intrusive? Probably not.

 

[A'isha]

This point needs to be played up by defenders of choice, then. IMO of course. If the rhetoric sounds like getting an abortion is exactly analogous to, say, getting your tonsils removed, you could lose some people with that argument.

The problem is that Republican rhetoric and legislative efforts are aimed at erasing that line, to the point where a fetus is declared to be a person (so that aborting it would be illegal) before the fertilized egg even has a chance to get implanted.

I don't hear the pro-choice side acknowledging that an unborn child is at some point a separate individual. I don't pay much attention to anyone's party line so I could easily have missed it.

Because the vast majority of abortions happen long before that point, and the few doctors who do happen to perform late-term abortions for medical reasons tend to get themselves shot by religious fanatics.

One of my problems with pro-lifers is that so often they also appear to be anti-contraception. If both sides want to prevent abortion that seems like common ground. Abstinence is a solution for some people but not a realistic expectation for everyone.

Because the Republicans don't just want to prevent abortion, they want to make sure women have children, like God intended.

 

[Minoosh]

The problem is that Republican rhetoric and legislative efforts are aimed at erasing that line, to the point where a fetus is declared to be a person (so that aborting it would be illegal) before the fertilized egg even has a chance to get implanted.

I know that's the rhetoric and disagree with every bill I've read about. GOP leadership has/will alienate a lot of moderate people.

Because the vast majority of abortions happen long before that point, and the few doctors who do happen to perform late-term abortions for medical reasons tend to get themselves shot by religious fanatics.

About every 5 years someone kills an abortionist (a medical professional every 2.5 years). Is it fair to say these are extreme outliers in the pro-life camp? I understand why both sides strategically ignore the ambivalence of people in the middle and wish it didn't have to be that way. Does it have to be that way? It might be a good conversation.

Because the Republicans don't just want to prevent abortion, they want to make sure women have children, like God intended.

Or stop getting laid.

If states are trying to out-fundie each other I'm glad they're obvious about it. I believe the majority of Americans are (sometimes quietly) OK with legal abortion and certainly OK with contraception. That includes "Plan B," which can prevent conception or keep zygotes from getting a toehold, or a chance to grow toes.

 

[A'isha]

I know that's the rhetoric and disagree with every bill I've read about. GOP leadership has/will alienate a lot of moderate people.

The only silver lining is that the moderates outnumber the crazy base they're appealing to, so they will lose in the end. The question is, how much damage can they do in the meantime?

About every 5 years someone kills an abortionist (a medical professional every 2.5 years). Is it fair to say these are extreme outliers in the pro-life camp?

Yes, but their position, if not their violence, dominates the Republican side. Just look at Bill O'Reilly's statements about Tiller.

I understand why both sides strategically ignore the ambivalence of people in the middle and wish it didn't have to be that way. Does it have to be that way? It might be a good conversation.

As long as the Republicans keep pulling so hard in their direction, the natural response is to pull just as hard in the other in an effort to keep things balanced.

Or stop getting laid.

Hence the disgusting "the only 'birth control pill' a woman needs is an aspirin held between the knees" type of comments (and the absolutely vile reaction to Sandra Fluke).

If states are trying to out-fundie each other I'm glad they're obvious about it. I believe the majority of Americans are (sometimes quietly) OK with legal abortion and certainly OK with contraception. That includes "Plan B," which can prevent conception or keep zygotes from getting a toehold, or a chance to grow toes.

Like I said, the Republicans will lose on this in the end...but how much damage can they do until then?

 

[trustbutverify]

Hence the disgusting "the only 'birth control pill' a woman needs is an aspirin held between the knees" type of comments (and the absolutely vile reaction to Sandra Fluke).

Whenever a situation like the Fluke incident makes its way into mass media, it's like turning over a rock in an overrun garden. You get a disturbing jolt, but at least you get a window into what's really going on.

 

[Foolmewunz]

We are discussing it. Just as Wonkette was discussing it.



I must have missed where we're the only two people posting in this thread.

For the record, I also liked what JoeTheJuggler, geni, Magyar, RandFan, fuelair, marplots, NoahFence, and Foolmewunz said too, to the point where they pretty much also express my feelings on the matter (it's nice that so many of us appear to be of the same accord on this).

Now, do you have anything to say about Senator Turner's proposal about legislating men's reproductive organs the way the Republicans have been trying to legislate women's, or do you prefer to just whine about Wonkette some more?

Why, it's almost like he didn't see my post. Wonkette's article is very much in the flavor of Nina Turner. There's not much in there that Nina wouldn't say, herself, IMHO.

[Vito Corleone]BTW, any progressive activists in Ohio? Please get behind her campaign. I will consider it a personal favor and if at some time in the future you should need to avail yourself of the services of the Corleone family, I would consider this a debt of honor that must be repaid.[/Vito Corleone]

 

[fishbob]

The simplest thing would be to re-name the bits of anatomy that you don't want legislated.

Keep your government out of my .40 cal.
Don't background check my 9 mm.