So our excitable old friend MarkyMark (not the actor-singer) just put up a not-very-original rant of the “women are worse than Hitler because of abortion” variety. More interesting than his post — which is frankly not very interesting — is this comment from an anonymous fellow that takes misogynistic self-righteousness to a whole new (low) level:
This is one of the reasons that I use women for my convenience. They can kill with impunity – nothing I do to them comes close to that level of evil. So they are for my pleasure, then I ditch them although I do come back sometimes. (They aren’t very bright which is what makes it workable.)
Yep: He’s not just a self-righteous prick; he’s self-righteous about being a prick.
I can only hope his own “evil” is mostly of the “slept with a woman and didn’t call her back” sort — or is just imaginary internet boasting — because his “logic” could pretty much justify anything short of violent murder.
We know that you’re not very good with words, tediousbitch, but the fact remains that a fetus and a baby aren’t the same thing. You can call a fetus a baby if it’s easier for you to wrap your head around, though.
@judgybitch
I think we just call wanted fetuses “babies” out of respect for the parents. Otherwise, what does fetus refer to?
Also, if it’s inside your body at the time you can call it whatever you want, regardless of medical accuracy, because at that point you’re expressing your feelings about it rather than giving a medical dissertation.
Smugboringbitch: it’s really not a person, no matter how many semantic games you want to play.
semantics plural of se·man·tics (Noun)
1. The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
2. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
So, yeah, calling a fetus a fetus and a baby a baby would be semantics. You are correct, judgybitch. Words mean things.
I wouldn’t call what someone lost in a miscarriage a fetus, though, because they might think it was cruel.
Arrrgh. A friend of mine from high school is like this. She wanted to wait for a while to have kids after getting married, and when she finally decided to go for it she found out she was infertile from PCOS (which had, ironically, been somewhat better over the years due to pill use). Cue several years of fertility treatments that made her gain about a hundred pounds and which didn’t work at all. Now she wants to adopt, but there’s so much red tape involved that she’s now looking for one of those “oops I got knocked up” girls who wants to give away a baby. And always says that it’s doing “the responsible thing” by giving a baby up for adoption (rather than aborting it).
I also found out she voted for Romney because she didn’t like the mandates on Obamacare. I kind of wish I were close enough geographically to throttle her just a little bit.
(I do feel bad for her because her m-i-l has been pressuring her like crazy and saying nasty, passive-aggressive things to her because there’s been no baby yet. But lordy. Still.)
Someone has never hunted. Hunting is a very social activity, even with the advent of rifles. Hunting without firearms was almost always a group endeavor. If you can’t even get your basis for evo-psych BS right stop trying.
@Clairedammit
Thanks for the update. I SO didn’t know that!
Here are two more words for you to look up:
Connotation
Denotation
Have fun!
You know, it keeps me up nights knowing I could accidentally sleep with one of these pricks. I do find some consolation in the fact that they won’t call me. At least there’s that mercy.
Notice that whether the individual woman in question has had an abortion is irrelevant. She could have an abortion, therefore she is subhuman scum.
That was the first thing that popped out at me, as well. Someone, somewhere, did something terrible, so Imma gonna fuck you up. It’s a logical flaw so obvious a small child should be able to see and reject it. Or we can straight-up Godwin the argument: there has not yet been a female Hitler, so we can ____________ (fill in whatever horrible thing you were going to do anyway).
FFS, I wish these forced birthers would stop with the emotional pleas about ‘mass murdering babies’ and ‘holocaust’ as they are so obvious in their propaganda that it’s an insult to human intelligence. I haven’t seen a single case for anti-choice values that wasn’t based on religious directives to be disposable broodmares, self-loathing, or the need to shame women for having used their vaginas.
The primary reason the “baby” label is in dispute is because “baby” refers primarily to a child that has been born. Anti-choicers use “baby” to conflate the pre- and post-birth states of development. Considering that even Morning-After Pills are an issue to anti-choicers, I find it very relevant to point out that, say, a blastocyst is not a baby. Plus, I’m pretty sure almost nobody is for legalizing infanticide.
tiresomebitch, why don’t you go be a condescending asshole somewhere else? kthx.
I actually agree with Judgy to the extent that there’s a lot of disagreement over what aspect of “living thing” is relevant when it comes to moral quandaries… to some people (e.g., my catholic family) the question is metaphysical and not up for logical debate. if the pope says life starts at conception, then for them it does, and for that reason the ‘bodily integrity’ argument is the crux of the whole thing for me.
obviously, “fetus” is the more precise term for what we’re describing here, though.
For clarification: an elective abortion is not an objectively terrible act. But the for the purposes of the argument, even if “abortion is always terrible” is something we could agree to, the logic is still shit.
@ Tulgey
Anti-choicers use “baby” to conflate the pre- and post-birth states of development.
But who cares? Even if it IS a fully conscious human from the moment the sperm hits the egg, who cares? We don’t hold people down and retreive life-saving bone marrow from them against their will, no matter how many lives that would save. Let’s say we can PROVE, definitively, that life begins at conception? So what? That life can’t proceed without a woman’s body and that makes HER in charge. End. Of. Story.
Even if one wanted to go with the “baby” designation, it doesn’t answer the point that nobody is allowed to use someone else’s body against their will, even to save their own life. No need to reiterate the details, we all know the argument.
What are you actually arguing here, judgybitch? A woman’s bodily autonomy or forced birth/bone marrow donation and so on? Serious question, your last post wasn’t clear to me.
I think tediousbitch is trying to say that the fact that you can’t be forced to give someone a kidney is a bad thing.
I’m also curious if when the conversation turns to rape Bitchy will suddenly decide that actually it is OK to use a woman’s body against her will.
She’s definitely arguing out both sides of her mouth.
Hi JB!
You can’t argue wit Booblets; they aren’t constrained by the limitations of logic.
Hey Boobzie! Nice work! You utterly eviscerate a straw man, and then resort to comment-mining and pinch off a steaming rant against “Anonymous,” all in less than a week! Thank you! So, are you an MRA,and is the goal of this blog to highlight the growing desperation and increasingly obvious idiocy of feminism?
You’re becoming an asset to the MRM.
Holy macaroni, judgybitch is pro choice?? I’m going back to the control room, to look for recent disruptions in the space-time continuum.
Driversuz: I hate to break it to ya, but ranting on and on about “sluts” and their supposed inability to bond ’cause penis, isn’t logic. Now, there is a standard MRA remedy of peppering your screeds with fifty-cent words like “imbroglio”, “logical fallacy”, “ipso facto”, “sundry” and “ad hominem” to give them the appearance of being “logical”, so you are welcome to try it — but I don’t think it’ll fool anyone here.
Weirdly kind of agreeing with judgy right now… *checks prescriptions* Nope, I took everything I’m supposed to…huh. o_O