Senate Abortion: Why not?

Guys are just lazy about not using birth control. That's pretty much it. Our birth control is the easiest to use and doesn't have any side effects. But we still whine about it.

We're basically wimps. That's one reason I said if men could get pregnant, the birth rate would drop like a rock suddenly.

"You want me to be the one to carry our baby?!"

 

Nah. Life begins at ejaculation.

Didn't you know?

 

She says she's disappointed she hasn't had an abortion yet (she's never been pregnant).

Wanting an abortion. In the same way people want a new iPhone.

Mind-numbing level of stupid.

Link

 

Even taking into account the point about social stigma she was trying to make, that is about the worst possible way to phrase it.

 

Well leave it to her to do that.

 

When I saw who the article was about, it pretty much explained everything.

 

Lena Dunham is an idiot, and more importantly, scum. This is from her own book describing what she did to her younger sister.

I'm putting it in spoilers because it's genuinely disturbing and squick squared.

Spoiler

As she grew, I took to bribing her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a "motorcycle chick." Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just "relax on me." Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl, I was trying. Maybe, I thought, she would be more willing to accept kisses if I wore the face mask my grandmother had for when she did her dialysis. (The answer was no.) What I really wanted, beyond affection, was to feel that she needed me, that she was helpless without her big sister leading her through the world. I took a perverse pleasure in delivering bad news to her—the death of our grandfather, a fire across the street—hoping that her fear would drive her into my arms, would make her trust me.

We should never listen to what she says on any topic.

 

How old was Dunham herself in the events she describes in that passage?

 

She wasn't an adult.

That doesn't make it less ick.

 

Well, I think children are basically sociopaths and in the age of middle school they're even worse, until they begin to become decent human beings in high school. Therefore, I would be more inclined to forgive what she describes there depending on how young she is. If she is high school age, she is a horrible human being. If she is middle school or younger, she was a disturbing child for sure, but has hopefully grown into her senses.

 

I remember that passage causing a real flap when that book came out. I think the way its written about makes clear that she repudiates it. But, yeah, it's gross and I have no interest in reading that book, but wouldn't go so far as to say that it means she's a bad person now and, of course, she could very easily have just not written about it.

 

Dunham is gross and awful, but I don't really see how the horrifying stuff she said in her memoir is relevant to the horrifying stuff she said about abortion yesterday.

I saw a good, succinct recap of her comments that said basically "I wish this topic, which is only tangentially about me, could be even more directly about me." That pretty much sums it up.

 

i think being candid about being cruel as a child could maybe help others cope with feelings of guilt or shame regarding similar events in their own lives. i doubt that was lena dunham's intent as she seems utterly self-obsessed and not very good at or interested in helping others, but it's possible that it could have value. she's also the type of borderline celebrity who seems to be brilliant at saying just the right "controversial" thing to stay trending. maybe not such an admirable talent, but it did just get another idiot elected president.

 

Nah, I was trying to show there's a history of her saying and doing dumb horrifying stuff.

 

I wish Dunham's Mom had had one.

 

I don't like her either, though that comment seems a bit mean.

 

YOLO!

 

I don't have an opinion on exactly when something gains consciousness, but I don't believe it happens right when the gametes join. I mean, it's not even a blastocyst yet, and those don't have nerves or a brain. They have programming, but they don't feel.

 

RogueOne: There's nothing strange about being conflicted over abortion; there's not an existing issue more laden with proverbial mines, for the simple reason that we were all fetuses once, and have held loved ones who were fetuses once themselves. It hits us on the most primal of levels.

As a progressive who's communicated and marched with many like-minded folks over various causes, I can tell you there's a distinction between those who are strident in being pro-choice, and those who, while supporting reproductive rights, would dearly wish never to broach or discuss the subject. (And yeah, I happen to belong to the latter group. I've eagerly tackled economic inequality, environmental degradation, imperialism, and the prison-industrial complex. But abortion? You'll find me somewhere else. Four of my grade school/high-school-aged family members are adopted, and not to offend anyone, but I'm glad they're alive instead of...)

 

I'd chalk that up to the fact that progressives have no idea how to articulate what they really believe, and simply settled on the "it's my body" slogan.

Sure, once a fetus grows into a developed human being and we start to form connections to this human being, we don't question whether it was worth it. But, when the fetus is still has yet to reach the third trimester, the parents ought to still have the right to choose whether they really want to have the child.

 

The approach to fighting this should be two-pronged, consisting of both "soft" and "hard" tactics:

1) "Soft"-couples who've had IVF babies should hold press conferences and town halls on the subject, and ask those who support the bill whether or not their "precious baby" should not have been born. Ask Donald Trump that question, too.

2) "Hard"-blast from every bullhorn possible the "unintended consequences" of this bill. Namely, that any action that results in either preventing or ending a pregnancy will now be open to legal scrutiny and potentially, prosecution.
-Will birth control now be banned? (It prevents implantation, which under this bill would end a human life, even though science does not consider a pregnancy to have begun until implanation occurs).

-Would miscarriages be investigated by the federal authorities? Sounds crazy, but there's precedent for this. When building a legal case for the late-term abortion ban during W's first term, John Ashcroft tried to subpoena the medical records of every woman on birth control from the New York Presbyterian Health system. Their argument was they needed to know who was taking contraception to help "build their case". A federal judge threw out the request and they left it alone, but it could easily come back.

-Will doctors be forced to require women to report their periods, or women themselves? Sounds crazy, but just such a bill was introduced in the Virginia state house back in 2005, and this requirement has since been a part of several "personhood" bills across the country over the past decade.

***
For my part, if something like this passes, I'd like to see physicians and scientists nationwide go on strike. We all call out sick until the bill gets repealed. I can't call out myself since I work in a hospital, but doctors could shut down every office and clinic in the country, which would flood emergency rooms and cause complete and utter chaos. I normally would never advocate for something like this, but enough is enough.

If we're going to stop this crap, we need to get tough.

 

i hate republicans so much.... yes lets let a man decide what to do with my body **** no.