gotborked's Comments (626)

“yes, i can see the physcial differences, thanks for your cheely commnet.

there are no 'truths' --there are only social constructs.

1000 years ago what was considered truth about human nature would shock people today.

100 years ago it was considered truth that certains races--in general, basaed on actions of few and socially constructed and institutional roadblock--were inferiror to other races.,

proof of dark skin was considered proof of the races being 'different' . When are educated people going to learn that physical differences do not lead to substantive differences. hello. there are more difference in personality, likes, dislikes, capabilites, etc at the individual level within genders than there is across the divide.”

“"truths" about human nature? according to whom? and did the big man in the sky reveal these truths to you himself?”

“good point...(m­an) caves are for "neanderth­als"...is there a message in there somewhere.­.??”

“"...more mundane history studies...­"
Right. Because girls like studying mundane, boring things. Your argument assumes that these schools are optimized for girls. That's just not true. Our current school system isn't optimized for anyone, it's just that girls are more likely to sit quietly when bored instead of interrupting class. We need to change our schools, but I find it unlikely that "separate but equal" is the answer. I don't find Brown v. BoE dated in the least, nor subsequent decisions based on it.”

“"The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men" by Christina Hoff Sommers is a good book that explores this topic.”

“I agree. We are making a mess of educating and encouraging our boys in most schools. They want to take care of their families, They want to be heros to their women and families and but as boys many retreat into sports and rock and roll, or maybe even drugs or gangs at the deviant end. Sports and rock and roll are great but few men are going to make at good living at that. They need a strong education and career path. There can still be equality at the same time that boys and men are allowed to be boys and men. Responsible, nurturing, respectful, understanding, kind men who feel competent in the world. The one thing men are getting that women don't get these days is selective service.”

“"Girly" English class? Are you serious?

It sometimes seems that fearful reactionaries will only be happy when every last inch of this country is militarized, Haliburtonized, red meatified. You know, everything that has made us as great as we are today.”

“Yeah, I think that's what's going to happen..ev­eryone over 30 will be taken care of...poof.­.just like that movie "Logan's Run"”

“You appear confused about the realities of pregnancy and the harms it can and does inflict on women. A short list has been provided elsewhere, and I'll list here, however this does not begin to cover the full range of physical harms women suffer due to pregnancy.

Auto-immune disorders (see microchimerism and scleroderma, lupus)
Bacterial Vaginosis
Cholestasis
Death
Depression
Infection
Incontinence
Ectopic Pregnancy
Fistula
Gestational Diabetes
HELLP Syndrome
Immune deficiency
Hyperemesis Gravidarum
Miscarriage
Molar Pregnancy
Placenta Accreta
Placenta Previa
Preeclampsia
Pregnancy Induced Hypertension
Ruptured Uterus
Urinary Tract Infection

When people stop pretending that women aren't human and don't *really* suffer from pregnancy or that their suffering and pain is of no concern, then they can begin to use the words "health care" and "necessary" without sounding as if they are either wholly ignorant or willfully hateful and cruel.

Further, if you reduce health care to only those treatments that are necessary to stop a person from dying, then you've basically eliminated the vast majority of health care. That isn't really health care, it's health neglect.”

“> We disagree about promoting a lifestyle of dependency.
> That is good for no one, and can increase the number
> of abortions, since it is the dependent who would be the
> ones who would struggle to provide for a new child.

"A lifestyle of dependency," huh? Okay, give me names and addresses of people who would rather accept government assistance than work at a factory.

(That was mean of me -- it's a trick question. Under Repub-created laws, all the factory jobs have been outsourced to China.)

Oh, BTW, you just proved you didn't read the article, which proved that when social services ("gimme programs") are well funded, abortion rates go down. Dem presidents make abortion rates go down, while penny-pinching Repub presidents make abortion rates go up.”

“>> I call them Birth Canal Christians. So long as the baby
>> remains a fetus, the birth canal Christian will support
>> its right to life. Once the baby passes from the womb
>> into the real world, support ends. Christians scatter
>> like insects fleeing a forest fire.

> This is pretty lame pontificating.

Actually, it's an accurate summary.

> "Christians scatter like insects fleeing a forest fire." Proof?

Christian TV, Christian websites, Christian shortwave broadcasts­... If you can't see the proof, it's because your eyes are closed.

> You seem to confuse being against expanding a culture
> of government dependency and forfeiting liberty with
> washing your hands of the newborn.

Better that we set up the "law of the jungle," right? Only the strong survive?

Of course, we know what "a culture of government dependency" is code for, hmm? It incenses you that a white person might have to pay tax money that then gets handed to a black person. It's so much better when it's the other way around (Wall Street bailout), right?

> All agree that we should have a safety net for our neediest.

And who, exactly, are "the neediest"? I presume you mean elderly white Southerners who can't see well enough anymore to run their moonshine stills.

Actually, only in the context of a theoretical discussion will you Repubs grant even that, regarding the value of social programs.”

“It is important to frame (label) the issue appropriately. In the Nordic countries, people became alarmed because the population was decreasing. Young women were electing not to become pregnant or they were putting off their pregnancies until they had obtained financial independence thus increasing the chances of complications. They were having abortions. The governments of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland instituted programs of support for young families. This included laws that insured generous family leave time (sometimes as much as a year with pay for one of the parents, either the father or the mother). As well, free daycare services are available. Government employed health care workers visit in the homes and provide support for the young families. Tax-supported free pre- and post-natal care for the mothers, a system of universal health care for the families, and excellent schools, colleges, and universities are provided to everyone. Far from fostering a culture of dependence, it has freed young couples and single young mothers to have families and support themselves. It has provided tax revebye for the government. It has resulted in more young women electing to have their babies. They call it support for families and children. We call it welfare.”

“Providing low-cost nutritious food for young children increases their intelligence, allowing them to be more productive members of society when they grow up. This is done currently by WIC and foodstamps. How would increasing these programs be "expanding a culture of government dependency"? Government programs help young mothers finish high school, go to college, get job training, and start a new career. This makes mom more able to support herself and her children with less government help in the long run. How is this "promoting a lifestyle of dependency"? These are just your fancy words to justify greed. You would rather keep your $20/week than donate it to help support single moms, and in this country you have that right. Just don't blame it on the single moms.”

“So, what do you propose? Women should have babies & starve to death with them?”

“Thousands born into poverty every day, millions living in poverty in this country, billions the world over. That should be obvious. No proof needed. Whether we use government or the church, we simply have to do better than turning our backs. Poverty is growing worse and the problem can't be ignored much longer.

Fleeing from the problem promotes a lifestyle of dependency.

Pontificating? Please stop with the complaining. You sound like my wife.

Actually, I pontificate all the time. She's fed up with it too.”

“To put it more briefly, gotborked: where is the doctrinal reconciliation of the clearly stated hedging position of the CC (as you and I both recognize it) and the doctrinal principle of the sacredness of human life that underlies the fundamental argument against abortion, euthanasia, etc.?”

“It would be appropriate if you supported your claim with citation to doctrinal authority.

The Catechism states: "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. "

John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae states "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existe­nt."

There is a strong theological argument that the execution of criminals convicted of capital crimes is immoral on the same fundamental grounds that abortion is immoral.

The CC is wishy washy because it avoids any need to reconcile the fundamental doctrinal argument against abortion with its bland, keep-the-d­oor-open-f­or-places-­like-USA stance on capital punishment.”

“"...ever increasing welfare system that is being pushed today..."

Where? By whom?”

“gotborked - you are wrong and the evidence refutes you. There is no strong commitment by "good pro-lifers" to protect the well being of mothers and children in this country. If there were such a strong commitment, the abortion-parenthood calculus would disappear on its own, because it seems obvious to me that if you make parenthood a more attractive option than abortion, more women will choose parenthood. But if parenthood continues to mean having to drop out of school, take a low-paying, no career path job, and trying to raise a child in a social prisonhouse of economic poverty, which is what many women face under your conservative, economic laissez-faire model that currently dominates our society, then of course the decisionmaking process of women is going to be nudged towards abortion..­.”

“No, no absolutely not. We can't all agree that conservatives care about humans out fo the womb. As a movement, you've only shown your contempt for humanity and humane behavior. A person who supports war, the death penalty, and is against social justice, is NOT pro-life. Conservative individuals may have some kind of pro-life stance, but as a philosophy, they don't truly care about human life.”

“gotborked - you have ignored the fundamental facts of the abortion issue: namely that we live in a society where women are allowed to choose whether to abort or not, and these women are doing a sort of cost-benefit analysis in their minds in order to decide if they are better off as mothers or as abortion procedure patients, and for some reason, many women are coming to the conclusion that they are better off aborting. I take as a starting premise that these women are behaving rationally. So the issue is: what is it about the choice they face that leads them to conclude they are better off NOT choosing parent hood? You and other social conservatives may think you are doing enough, or committed enough, to the idea of a social safety net, but your actions, and the basic evidence on the streets, contradicts you.”

“Are you high? What is the most effective way of dispensing the most good to the most people in the most effective manner? When a hurricane hits the Gulf Coast, we don't have potluck suppers thrown by the local church to feed the thousands left homeless-we get the combined efforts at the state and federal level. I cannot refer all my indigent patients to the same church to get help with their medication costs. The flaw that you and every other neo-con has is that government is unnecessary so it's okay if it sucks. The reality is, we need our government and we should fix it. As a little history lesson, since you and your ilk are so history knowledge challenged, our founding fathers came up with a very strong state, weak central government model based on the first document that defined us as a nation. It was called the Articles of Confederation. it lasted 12 years before it became an unworkable document”

“What about the lives of those fetuses once they've been born? Do you conservatives care about their lives when our leaders want to send them to be aborted on a battlefield? Do you care about their lives when someone says "they did it", and now they've been put on death row? Do you care about their lives when they get cancer after having lost their jobs in a recession, and now have no healthcare? Do you care about their lives when they want to have a family of their own, but are told they can't, because of a sin they committed by being true to themselves? You can't be "pro-life", if you don't advocate for that life after it leaves the womb. Pro-lifers are people who care about humans who are out of their mother's womb. Call them what they are, Anti-choice.”

“head in sand troll”

“"the fact that the universe is ordered--that we can actually practice science at all, that we can know things, and that there are explanations and reasons for things--evidence of some intelligence behind creation?"
So you look at things that seem ordered and designed and you say that they must have been created by God, correct? Then who or what created God? If God is the designer he must be at least as intelligent and ordered as the things he designed, so who or what designed the designer? If you say God always was then you are just ignoring the problem. Why not say that the universe "always was" why introduce an extra step in God?

The fact is that science can explain a lot. How life that appears designed evolved over billions of years due to natural selection. But there are still some things we don't know yet (unlike most religious people we LIKE that) such as what came before the big bang. You can pounce on that and say "ah ha God!" but you haven't really explained anything, just given it a different name and declared the problem to be solved.”

“"Isn't the fact that the universe is ordered--that we can actually practice science at all, that we can know things, and that there are explanations and reasons for things--evidence of some intelligence behind creation?"

No it is not evidence of a intelligent designer, it is just a lack of understanding of the universe”

“What are you talking about? What "evidence"? Gibberish.”

“And good citizens have a duty to prevent -- and stop -- the injustice of smear campaigns based on lies.

Apparently, you have decided to join the "bad" citizens, and promote injustice.”

“Not fit? Why? Because he is not like you? Or maybe you are much more like him than you want to be, and your self loathing bubbles up as misplaced anger.....”

“How about some examples, yeah, maybe just one example? And not something you heard from rushie the druggie.”

“Your doing the spinning.”

“ah yes facts, like the fact that:

The National Association of School Psychologists,
Learning First Alliance, National Education Association,
National Association of Secondary School Principals,
The Council for Exception Children and the Social Workers Association of America.

all endorse him!!!

oh yes..... and associations - like the Obama Bill Ayers association.

were you fot for your position when you gotborked?

Get real”

“Prove it.”