fpb | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

British media, including the supposedly conservative ones, are supporting Obama and (especially) hounding Sarah Palin, with a ferocity unknown even to their American counterparts, and looking more like the Daily Kos than anything, so to speak, human. This is appalling in itself, and may well end up being disastrous if by any chance McCain and Palin win. These creatures are planting poisonous ideas in the average British reader, which will take decades to weed away. And incidentally, it does nothing to disprove my view that at the roots of all serious modern political conflict in the West there is abortion; for the British media and establishment, including the so-called conservatives, are completely sold on the practice, and anti-abortion forces are marginalized to an extent unknown and hard to believe in Italy or America. This goes back a long time - Margaret Thatcher always voted in favour of abortion. Now, Sarah Palin, simply by being who she is, is a living rebuke to all the abortion-is-necessary crowd; and this explains the ferocious hatred and the avalanche of pathological lies with which this attractive, polite, competent female politician has been welcomed. Find me another explanation that makes sense! It also accounts for the complete silence that has been enforced on anything that might make Obama, the most pro-abortion candidate in history, look bad or even moderately dubious. It is not about race; if Judge Clarence Thomas were running for President, he would be treated like Palin has been. It is not even about party; if Condoleeza Rice had run and got the Republican nomination, you can bet your life that she would have had a much smoother ride than Palin. She, after all, has no children. You cannot underrate the power of repressed and concealed guilt feelings, crawling under the skin of all the career women who got rid of unwanted babies in order to please bosses and boyfriends, and indeed among all the men who were complicit in their crimes or even demanded them; when faced with a brilliantly successful career woman who not only had five children, but opted against aborting even the disabled one. (I don't suppose it helps that she is beautiful and looks ten years younger than her age. The sheer unfairness of the distribution of beauty is salt on any open wound, and the wound in question is painful enough in the first place.) Sarah Palin is a mirror who tells them the truth about themselves; and it is a truth that they cannot bear to see.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If you are stupid enough to believe otherwise, you do not live on planet Earth. Coercion takes many forms, and cooperates with female selfishness, but it is plainly the main reason. And I find it significant that the apostle of selfishness, Margaret "there is no such thing as society" Thatcher, was a committed and extreme pro-abort who saw nothing wrong with abortion at 27 weeks, and who corrupted her whole party till there was no place in British politics for anti-abortion forces. If you want to lie to yourself that there is anything in there besides a collusion in squalid and short-term selfishness between boss and employee, boyfriend and sex object, you are, again, lying to yourself.

have you ever actually talked to a woman who's had an abortion, or who's had friends or relatives that have had them? have you ever talked to a fifteen-year-old girl, scared out of her wits, who got knocked up by her boyfriend when he poked holes in the condoms he used so that she'd get pregnant and she'd never to be able to leave him? have you ever talked to a woman who got abandoned by her husband who promised to be there for her forever, and now she's got no income and no support and can't land a job because she's going to have to take maternity leave soon if she keeps the fetus? or a woman who's pushing thirty and being pressured to have a baby by her family and her husband and even her co-workers because otherwise she'll be too old soon, and just sort of smiles and says nothing when they start in on the nagging because she just plain doesn't want a baby and doesn't even think she'll be a good mom?

first one was my niece, second one is one of my co-workers, third one is my sister.

and now she's got no income and no support and can't land a job because she's going to have to take maternity leave soon if she keeps the fetus

And on the planet you live in this is not coercion?

because she just plain doesn't want a baby

And on the planet you live in this is not selfishness?

And on the planet you live in this is not coercion?
maybe if they'd offered her a free abortion to come work for them. but they didn't, she just got a lot of "oh, you're going to have a baby! how nice! you should go stay home with it. come back when it's four years old and you can put it in company day care for a monthly fee" from the interviewers.

And on the planet you live in this is not selfishness?
knowing your emotional and personal limitations is not selfishness.
how many babies have you adopted? or are you childless and selfish yourself?

Being squalidly sentimental and placing one's own poor wee feelings is not selfishness. It's not, is it? I already told you that all that talk about feelings is nothing but excuses, and what is more the selfishness is plain - it's all about me, me, me. If I want a baby, it's about me, not about the baby. As for your other sob story, take it to someone who cares. In Europe, such behaviour is illegal and could cause the company to be taken to court and heavily fined.

so how many unwanted, unaborted babies have you adopted?

or are you as selfish as those nasty murdering women you rail against?

Adoption is immensely difficult in this country for legal reasons, and I am not within the parameters of the law. Nor am I rich enough or selfish enough to go buy babies in the third world. What is more, I am unmarried; and what is more, I regard the current adoption laws as inhuman and degrading, and would like to seem them changed at the same time as abortion is outlawed.

You have to get through your twisted mind that apologies and excuses don't cut it with me. The only thing I am interested in is what people actually DO. You keep finding excuses for not adopting; to me, that only means that you need excuses. Because at the end of the day there is only one thing that comes out of all those excuses - more dead babies.

Touche'. Your first real hit in this entire exchange. But if I as a single middle-aged person with few means of my own were in some way to get a child, you would accuse me of selfishly wanting one while not having the means or the environment to bring it up properly.

nah. i've seen plenty of impoverished single moms and dads who love their kids and do a great job bringing them up, because they wanted them and are devoted to them. i've also seen some very rich people with stable marriages who have made their children miserable and driven their kids to suicide because they don't pay attention to them and never wanted them in the first place.

if you thought you'd be a good parent and were willing to go through all the red tape and trouble to give a home to a kid without one, i would salute you. ...but you haven't. so yeah.

As a single middle-aged white male with no regular income, I would not get one. So I don't even try. But I would have loved to have married and had four or five children (my ideal family size). And that is the truth and you can make of it what you like. We can't always have what we want.

There are thousands, maybe even millions, of childless married couples who would absolutely love to adopt an unwanted baby. This issue is therefore a red herring.

I have a suggestion: you go to Fandom_wank with your likes and work off your issues there. You are not going to get one shred of sympathy from me, and you are not going to enjoy being answered to. Just go flock with birds of your feather.

You have to get through your twisted mind that apologies and excuses don't cut it with me. The only thing I am interested in is what people actually DO. You keep finding excuses for abortion; to me, that only means that you need excuses. Because at the end of the day there is only one thing that comes out of all those excuses - a dead baby.

Because at the end of the day there is only one thing that comes out of all those excuses - a dead baby.
and a woman who is once again capable of handling her life, and who even might be able to raise a healthy, happy child later, when she so chooses. but i guess they don't matter much to you.

NO, they don't. They are yet another excuse - a woman who has gone through that trauma is healthy and happy? Are you serious? Do you realize that your own words, your list of tragic terrible dreadful reasons to have an abortion, confirm in themselves that abortion is a trauma and a tragedy, and that the only kind of woman who would not feel it as such would be one so naturally selfish (and women can be as selfish as men) that she could walk through Auschwitz untouched? In other words, a sociopath? And is that your idea of a person who can raise a happy child: a sociopath? Your ideas contradict each other, as do your excuses.

i like how your definition of a healthy, happy woman is one who thinks that her worth is defined solely by what's in her womb, or who can't get over a simple medical procedure that in most cases is less physically traumatic than actually giving birth.

so what are you doing to change the world so that fewer women have to have abortions? lobbying for stronger anti-abandonment laws so pregnant women aren't on their own? teaching women about condoms, or about leaving abusive relationships, so that they can have babies when they're less likely to abort instead of getting pregnant and getting rid of them? taking on big business to make them provide paid maternity leave, better health insurance, and free daycare for pregnant women so they can be assured of being able to care for their child instead of aborting it out of fear of being fired?

Your assumption that I am not going to do any of those things says more about your own native selfishness. Of course, you cannot conceive of an anti-abortion person as being anything else but a hypocritical swine, because, if you were anti-abortion, that is the kind of anti-abortion person you would be. I am different from you in every way, and in so far as I can make a difference in various areas, I intend to. But abortion is the central issue, and so long as it is legal anything else is a sticking-plaster over cancer.

i just asked. what are you doing to ensure that women don't feel the need to seek out abortions in the first place, besides calling them selfish?

I want the adoption laws changed so that a woman who is willing to give up her baby is not punished for that by being barred from it for life. I regard these laws - which are pretty universal in the West - as both inhumane and based on a false premise (that is, that you can get a baby to bond with any couple as it would with its physical parents; which has repeatedly been shown to be nonsense). My view is that adoption should be changed to be something more like fostering, allowing some contact with the original parents if they wish, and with less huge and absurd bureaucratic obstacles - which at any rate do not keep real villains away and only manage to send willing parents to purchase babies in unregulated third world countries.

I also approve of European laws against dismissing or victimizing pregnant women employees.

so you're writing letters to your representatives showing them your support for changing these laws? getting people to sign petitions urging the government to pass new laws and change the structure of their bureaucracies? donating money to social service organizations which support your views? any of that?

If you knew more about British politics, you would not ask such stupid questions. Where the parties are agreed, which is over most things, the ordinary citizen has all the chances of the fire-cat pursued by the ice dog through Hell. Anyway, you asked what I would do, I answered. Now you find reasons to pretend that my answers are inadequate.

i asked what you're doing, not what would you do. but whatever.

INcidentally, your business about a woman defining her worth by one thing or another is clean off the point. It is a feminist cliche' which I would not touch with a bargepole, because it is still based on the usual "it's all about me me me" crap. It's not about your sense of self-worth; it has FUCKING NOTHING to do with it. It has to do with a human life. If your sense of self-worth depends on murdering a baby, your sense of self-worth can go to Hell. And will.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

yeah, we all want things.

Re: yeah, we all want things.

Re: yeah, we all want things.

no subject