Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Monday, April 4, 2016
Abortion and Gestation
On the ongoing debate over abortion, sparked by the clumsy ramblings of Donald Trump and some interviews by Hillary and Bernie. . . Here is my unsolicited two cents:
These are parallel points, not mutually exclusive: a) science/biology tells us gestation IS a stage of human life b) if the fetus lives in her mother's womb she is subject to that real estate like it or not c) It is impossible to police everything an unhappily pregnant woman does and what she eats or drinks that might cause a deliberate miscarriage d) The real issue is whether the feelings of those who have had abortions need be protected from the reality of point a).
A sperm carrying 23 chromosomes is not a human being. It is cute to joke about and to put a voice-over onto a sperm or have Woody Allen dress as a sperm, but contrary to the Catholic teaching and the excellent satirical tune by Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" they are not sacred at all. If you believe human life has inherent value, then that issue begins when its 23 chromosomes join with the 23 chromosomes (and RNA) of the ovum and the process of cell division - the process of becoming - begins. That's the process that is still going on in your life at this moment. Whether or not the fertilized embryo attaches to the uterus wall (as Bill Nye the Science Guy tells us it must) the conception of a human being has occurred. A spontaneous abortion may occur if an IUD or such other obstruction prevents attachment. But whether that makes you sad or indifferent - and whether or not you feel anything for a homeless person freezing to death in the street for the inherent value of his/her human life - gestation remains a phase of human life just as infancy, childhood, adolescence and menopause are called stages.
If abortion were legally treated as murder there are pragmatic real work concerns that make it a solution worse than the problem. What would be the statute of limitations on that form of murder? Could someone be charged as an accessory if they drive the abortive mother home from the clinic? And context is everything. We are told it is not murder and not immoral to respect an agreement within the military to allow oneself to be deployed to a battle and kill people with whom we have no personal or business grudge. And yet it is illegal to kill someone we have witnessed personally killing friends or family or to kill a rapist whose existence is negligible. It is unfortunate that these discussions are spurred by the most careless opinion - like that of Trump - for whom punishment is an abstract thought and for whom everyday suffering can be shrugged off.
It's not a squeaky clean matter in any case. Anti-abortion law is a carrot appealing to emotion, something that just can't be sustained and that likely be one more way to make poor people miserable while rich people use connections to do as their whims dictate.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Why I'm Anti-Feminist and why Feminism does NOT equal equality
Had to share this in my blog. Not a fan of abortion, but I agree with much of what you said. "Slut-shaming" seems like a perfect term for this era being raised on advertisements and pandering. When people cross the street, I hear them complain that bikes and cars don't watch or abide the lights consistently, and yet the complainer persists in failing to LOOK BOTH WAYS before crossing, as he/she learned as a child. They see the green light and care only that it is their RIGHT to cross the street. Some drive defensively and avoid daydreamers and accidents; we also have to walk and live defensively. It is crazy to blame a rape on what someone is wearing, because responsibility lies with the rapist - or under the rapist - who in turn is expected to read rape-shaming blogs and tweets and socially responsible Facebook updates and learn to be a non-rapist. If I equate the aggressor with an animal - a predator - the answer from a "feminist male" will be, "Well I sure don't feel the impulse to rape when a woman is dressed sexy." That's because he is not the dangerous offender we are talking about. Bono sang, "I don't believe in forced entry / I don't believe in rape / but every time she passes by wild thoughts escape." I was once with my nephew at a hotel pool and my mother quietly made an observation that "girls today have no modesty" because there were girls anywhere from tween to 16 flaunting bodies and tattoos that cause an adult to turn his head and then blush and flinch away. The fashion industry has no problem photographing them and sexualizing them.
Some refreshing arguments, well put forth. Had to share this, even if there are
sub-issues with which I disagree. Not that anyone is asking. I'm no fan of
abortion, legal or illegal. That is to say that I don't respect it, and the rush to
whitewash it as a way to feel good about having done it I do not respect.
The fertilized human embryo with 46 chromosomes, begins a process that may
end 100 years later, that of a growing and aging human being. It may be
spun as the same as a (23 chromosome) sperm, but THAT can be called a
belief, just as "the baby becomes quick at birth" is a belief. Gestation being
a stage of human life is not a matter of belief nor of opinion.
----------------------------------
That aside, I like this woman's willingness to challenge the popular opinion
of her peer group. I personally think that in theory feminism is a good thing,
in the sense that equality is a good thing. Equal freedom and responsibility,
as well as equal treatment and accountability are vital. If that - in practice -
is officially part of feminism, then there is no problem. Otherwise, the word
seems arcane.
Some refreshing arguments, well put forth. Had to share this, even if there are
sub-issues with which I disagree. Not that anyone is asking. I'm no fan of
abortion, legal or illegal. That is to say that I don't respect it, and the rush to
whitewash it as a way to feel good about having done it I do not respect.
The fertilized human embryo with 46 chromosomes, begins a process that may
end 100 years later, that of a growing and aging human being. It may be
spun as the same as a (23 chromosome) sperm, but THAT can be called a
belief, just as "the baby becomes quick at birth" is a belief. Gestation being
a stage of human life is not a matter of belief nor of opinion.
----------------------------------
That aside, I like this woman's willingness to challenge the popular opinion
of her peer group. I personally think that in theory feminism is a good thing,
in the sense that equality is a good thing. Equal freedom and responsibility,
as well as equal treatment and accountability are vital. If that - in practice -
is officially part of feminism, then there is no problem. Otherwise, the word
seems arcane.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Justin Bieber on rape and abortion ?
Remember when the Internet had a collective meltdown over what Justin Bieber said about abortion to Rolling Stone? Well, the magazine apparently made a slight “editing error” (their words) when it came to his answer. “The full quote, his response to whether abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, reads: ‘Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.’” Do with this information what you will.
That's the blurb I've recently seen posted. I left this remark in the comments:
I missed hearing about the fuss over the truncated version. He seems to be giving a sensitive answer that should alienate nobody. It's a little fishy that he was asked anything other than a softball question. A question about abortion seems designed to trip up someone with his target audience. It could be noted that a fetus gets DNA and RNA from the mother but only DNA from the father, so it is more a part of her. Also, intelligence is supposedly passed maternally, so the kid is not likely a destined rapist. And there is a 51 percent chance the unborn mystery guest is female, so even less likelihood she will rape anyone. People will abort, but let's not varnish the why: she likely thinks she is getting back at the rapist, who most likely would be delighted to show she aborted. Forcing someone to give birth might very well be an extension of the rape, but if I were talking to the pregnant woman I would not spin the fact of gestation as a mere phase of human life. Justin is right in saying that it is sad.
That's the blurb I've recently seen posted. I left this remark in the comments:
I missed hearing about the fuss over the truncated version. He seems to be giving a sensitive answer that should alienate nobody. It's a little fishy that he was asked anything other than a softball question. A question about abortion seems designed to trip up someone with his target audience. It could be noted that a fetus gets DNA and RNA from the mother but only DNA from the father, so it is more a part of her. Also, intelligence is supposedly passed maternally, so the kid is not likely a destined rapist. And there is a 51 percent chance the unborn mystery guest is female, so even less likelihood she will rape anyone. People will abort, but let's not varnish the why: she likely thinks she is getting back at the rapist, who most likely would be delighted to show she aborted. Forcing someone to give birth might very well be an extension of the rape, but if I were talking to the pregnant woman I would not spin the fact of gestation as a mere phase of human life. Justin is right in saying that it is sad.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Published Philosophies
On Sex Talk
Attraction is an involuntary reaction and not a choice, as usually argued about gay people and their nature, not something to judge or debate, a reflex; conversation is a series of choices, political, and likely to invite judgment or debate. So it seems that a conversation about sexual attraction, even what you like or don’t in a sexual partner, is a useless exercise. It is bound to offend somebody needlessly. Suppose you are a dwarf, round, with goitres on your neck but you are in love with – or at – a supermodel. The likelihood of consummating that attraction doesn’t change the fact of it, and if you are disgusted by your own reflection chances are that being set up with someone who has the same afflictions will not solve your dilemma.
On Scandals and Celebrity Gossip
There is no even trade-off between the artist’s need for publicity and the media’s need for copy or content. If there were, Paris Hilton’s music and movie career might be in better shape and Anna-Nichole Smith might have. . . No, maybe that train of thought is already derailed. (I remember a director’s commentary on Naked Gun 33 and a Third describing the way he had to direct Anna-Nichole to shift her eyes to indicate thinking about something; he had to point to objects for her to look at.) Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. Obviously if an actor calls a press conference or babbles in an agreed-upon sit-down interview then it is his or her own fault whatever damage is done. But some of the most respected figures in Hollywood appear on front covers heralding “What they Look Like Without Make-Up” or speculating on who is secretly gay or heading for a break-up or may have had a miscarriage. None of this helps up anyone’s asking price. Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Jodie Foster, any well established performer with a body of work and a foothold in their respective industry has earned respect. The current 18-25 demographic may not be aware of or may not have seen the best of their credits and may only have the word of bottom-feeding gossips to round out their public image. In the worst case scenario, should a celebrity choose to keep some of his/her personal life “on the down low” they should be as entitled to do that as a gay or lesbian is to come out. They will however be branded as “self-loathing” by morons who presume that “self” is entirely defined by how that person gets his/her kicks romantically. Public speculation about whether someone has had an affair, an abortion, lived on welfare or has paid for sex might fall into the same class of journalism – gutter trash scum. Performer or athletes may reinvent themselves or overcome something or change their fortune and are entitled to consider their new status as a survival story without having old dirt rubbed in their faces by garbage picking low-lives. The celebrities usually are people who generate a product that we want; the gossip industry (loosely calling itself entertainment media) is a parasite giving us nothing. At most the latter group creates is filler in a newspaper or a website homepage cluttered with anti-news and moronic, misinformed opinion. Paparazzi are a dangerous extra element in public events and in the private lives of artists and athletes which can impede their movement and even contribute to fatal accidents as in the case of Princess Diana’s car crash. (If they were not present it either would not have happened or the assassination attempt would have been more efficiently reported.)
Gossip rags need to be boycotted and held more accountable. Celebrities can party on.
On Abortion
People tend to retro-fit their philosophy to support whatever they have done or plan to do.
To avoid or suppress a feeling of guilt, some will go so far as to change or spin definitions of human, life, gestation, or death. It may be considered rude to publicize the fact that doctors and nurses use codes or numbers to refer to arms, legs, or head (Number 1 being head, the last item typically removed during a D&C). This can cause undue stress to a woman who has suffered a miscarriage and may not need be reminded that her foetus had human body parts. But sensitivity to her feelings or those of the abortive mother need not prevent the facts from being confronted.
Since an unhappily pregnant woman can malnourish, injure and neglect the resident of her womb any number of ways up to and including back alley abortions, it is a compelling argument that enforcement of anti-abortion laws would be a waste of energy and attention. This concession seems to be pro-choice, but it need not be a picket-waving embrace of that “side” in the debate. There are, after all, many abortion issues and not simply the question of keeping it legal or forcing doctors in remote areas to perform it.
Whose choice is it? Many woman are compelled by boyfriends or husbands to abort.
Is abortion pro-female? Women around the world routinely have ultrasounds to determine the gender of the foetus and if it is female have a sex-selection abortion.
Does an act have to be spun into ethically pure before it can be accepted? The tiny soap-bubble cluster of cells that is a fertilized human embryo can be harvested and used for stem-cell research without denying that letting it attach to the lining of the uterus and come to term likely will result in a baby with birth certificate, crying and shitting. Medical advancement historically straddles the fence of morality. People are so used to being told what they want to hear by advertisers and media that it is easy to believe that no baby exists before the umbilical cord is cut and that nine months of gestation is merely time to arrive at that unimpeachable stage of choice. It may also be tempting to believe that because a sperm and the fertilized embryo are both microscopic they are of equal value, forgetting that a sperm left alone will die merely a sperm and an ovum left alone will be evacuated as unused but the fertilized embryo left to its process may potentially grow to cast a vote in an election 18 years and nine months later.
Which “side” is more silly and illogical, the idea that gestation from conception to birth is a phase of human life or the idea that we “become” human at birth? Avowed atheists have been heard to say that the baby becomes “quick” at birth, which would seem to attribute to them such a thing as a soul. There is a high-handedness in both camps, but it is not accurate to perpetuate the pro-life side as religious and the pro-choice side as secular. Long before Christ managed to live without weighing in on the subject, Aristotle suggested that the potential of the unborn feeling pain should determine right and wrong on the matter; he also said that no abortion should be allowed unless the baby was expected to be “deformed or female.”
On voting under a veil
Is a passport photo ID valid if the person is depicted with face covered by a veil or a mask? If not, and a woman voting has posed for a passport photo without a veil then she has set a precedent that there is no religious urgency that should outweigh the obligation to show her face to the returning officer when giving ID to vote in an election.
Furthermore, it should be understood that a person becoming a Canadian citizen renounces allegiance to their country of origin. Arguments that values and conflicts or traditions carried over such as female genital mutilation or female circumcision / castration or patriarchal tolerance of domestic abuse therefore have no merit.
Attraction is an involuntary reaction and not a choice, as usually argued about gay people and their nature, not something to judge or debate, a reflex; conversation is a series of choices, political, and likely to invite judgment or debate. So it seems that a conversation about sexual attraction, even what you like or don’t in a sexual partner, is a useless exercise. It is bound to offend somebody needlessly. Suppose you are a dwarf, round, with goitres on your neck but you are in love with – or at – a supermodel. The likelihood of consummating that attraction doesn’t change the fact of it, and if you are disgusted by your own reflection chances are that being set up with someone who has the same afflictions will not solve your dilemma.
On Scandals and Celebrity Gossip
There is no even trade-off between the artist’s need for publicity and the media’s need for copy or content. If there were, Paris Hilton’s music and movie career might be in better shape and Anna-Nichole Smith might have. . . No, maybe that train of thought is already derailed. (I remember a director’s commentary on Naked Gun 33 and a Third describing the way he had to direct Anna-Nichole to shift her eyes to indicate thinking about something; he had to point to objects for her to look at.) Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. Obviously if an actor calls a press conference or babbles in an agreed-upon sit-down interview then it is his or her own fault whatever damage is done. But some of the most respected figures in Hollywood appear on front covers heralding “What they Look Like Without Make-Up” or speculating on who is secretly gay or heading for a break-up or may have had a miscarriage. None of this helps up anyone’s asking price. Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Jodie Foster, any well established performer with a body of work and a foothold in their respective industry has earned respect. The current 18-25 demographic may not be aware of or may not have seen the best of their credits and may only have the word of bottom-feeding gossips to round out their public image. In the worst case scenario, should a celebrity choose to keep some of his/her personal life “on the down low” they should be as entitled to do that as a gay or lesbian is to come out. They will however be branded as “self-loathing” by morons who presume that “self” is entirely defined by how that person gets his/her kicks romantically. Public speculation about whether someone has had an affair, an abortion, lived on welfare or has paid for sex might fall into the same class of journalism – gutter trash scum. Performer or athletes may reinvent themselves or overcome something or change their fortune and are entitled to consider their new status as a survival story without having old dirt rubbed in their faces by garbage picking low-lives. The celebrities usually are people who generate a product that we want; the gossip industry (loosely calling itself entertainment media) is a parasite giving us nothing. At most the latter group creates is filler in a newspaper or a website homepage cluttered with anti-news and moronic, misinformed opinion. Paparazzi are a dangerous extra element in public events and in the private lives of artists and athletes which can impede their movement and even contribute to fatal accidents as in the case of Princess Diana’s car crash. (If they were not present it either would not have happened or the assassination attempt would have been more efficiently reported.)
Gossip rags need to be boycotted and held more accountable. Celebrities can party on.
On Abortion
People tend to retro-fit their philosophy to support whatever they have done or plan to do.
To avoid or suppress a feeling of guilt, some will go so far as to change or spin definitions of human, life, gestation, or death. It may be considered rude to publicize the fact that doctors and nurses use codes or numbers to refer to arms, legs, or head (Number 1 being head, the last item typically removed during a D&C). This can cause undue stress to a woman who has suffered a miscarriage and may not need be reminded that her foetus had human body parts. But sensitivity to her feelings or those of the abortive mother need not prevent the facts from being confronted.
Since an unhappily pregnant woman can malnourish, injure and neglect the resident of her womb any number of ways up to and including back alley abortions, it is a compelling argument that enforcement of anti-abortion laws would be a waste of energy and attention. This concession seems to be pro-choice, but it need not be a picket-waving embrace of that “side” in the debate. There are, after all, many abortion issues and not simply the question of keeping it legal or forcing doctors in remote areas to perform it.
Whose choice is it? Many woman are compelled by boyfriends or husbands to abort.
Is abortion pro-female? Women around the world routinely have ultrasounds to determine the gender of the foetus and if it is female have a sex-selection abortion.
Does an act have to be spun into ethically pure before it can be accepted? The tiny soap-bubble cluster of cells that is a fertilized human embryo can be harvested and used for stem-cell research without denying that letting it attach to the lining of the uterus and come to term likely will result in a baby with birth certificate, crying and shitting. Medical advancement historically straddles the fence of morality. People are so used to being told what they want to hear by advertisers and media that it is easy to believe that no baby exists before the umbilical cord is cut and that nine months of gestation is merely time to arrive at that unimpeachable stage of choice. It may also be tempting to believe that because a sperm and the fertilized embryo are both microscopic they are of equal value, forgetting that a sperm left alone will die merely a sperm and an ovum left alone will be evacuated as unused but the fertilized embryo left to its process may potentially grow to cast a vote in an election 18 years and nine months later.
Which “side” is more silly and illogical, the idea that gestation from conception to birth is a phase of human life or the idea that we “become” human at birth? Avowed atheists have been heard to say that the baby becomes “quick” at birth, which would seem to attribute to them such a thing as a soul. There is a high-handedness in both camps, but it is not accurate to perpetuate the pro-life side as religious and the pro-choice side as secular. Long before Christ managed to live without weighing in on the subject, Aristotle suggested that the potential of the unborn feeling pain should determine right and wrong on the matter; he also said that no abortion should be allowed unless the baby was expected to be “deformed or female.”
On voting under a veil
Is a passport photo ID valid if the person is depicted with face covered by a veil or a mask? If not, and a woman voting has posed for a passport photo without a veil then she has set a precedent that there is no religious urgency that should outweigh the obligation to show her face to the returning officer when giving ID to vote in an election.
Furthermore, it should be understood that a person becoming a Canadian citizen renounces allegiance to their country of origin. Arguments that values and conflicts or traditions carried over such as female genital mutilation or female circumcision / castration or patriarchal tolerance of domestic abuse therefore have no merit.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
G8 controversy on paying for abortion
Reading this article. . .
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=24037654
I just find it interesting that Bob Rae argues that Canada should extend "our" Canadian laws to third world countries, I suppose minus P.E.I. and any Canadian who isn't a big fan of abortion. If the G8 were to lump abortion in with contraception under the "birth control" banner, would it pay for sex sellection abortions as well? Because that seems to be a norm in the third world. At what point are we imposing our values on a culture and not just money? I think it's one thing to keep abortion legal where it is already legal in Canada; the genie is already out of the bottle. It may be another thing to allocate funds overseas for abortion unless the goal is to thin out the herd. I can see many Canadians just leaving the third world off the scope and figuring the more abortions the better over there. Reminds me of the MacLean and MacLean song, a choir prayer, "Keep it over there, Lord, keep it over there
Famine and diseases, keep them over there."
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=24037654
I just find it interesting that Bob Rae argues that Canada should extend "our" Canadian laws to third world countries, I suppose minus P.E.I. and any Canadian who isn't a big fan of abortion. If the G8 were to lump abortion in with contraception under the "birth control" banner, would it pay for sex sellection abortions as well? Because that seems to be a norm in the third world. At what point are we imposing our values on a culture and not just money? I think it's one thing to keep abortion legal where it is already legal in Canada; the genie is already out of the bottle. It may be another thing to allocate funds overseas for abortion unless the goal is to thin out the herd. I can see many Canadians just leaving the third world off the scope and figuring the more abortions the better over there. Reminds me of the MacLean and MacLean song, a choir prayer, "Keep it over there, Lord, keep it over there
Famine and diseases, keep them over there."
Sunday, March 28, 2010
I don't know
That could be the new title of my blog, or my autobiography which I should write and keep on hand in case I get famous and someone asks for it. Because if I had to write it when famous I might be too busy having fun. I say I don't know because though they say write about what you know I think I fill more space by focusing on what I don't know.
I don't know about the word respect. Is it regard? Is it acknowledgement that a person or thing exists? Because I hear people "respect" each other many times who have not earned, say, admiration which is the main word I think respect means. I don't like to throw that word around. How can I "respect" an obstreperous A-hole and have my respect for Nelson Mandela not be devalued?
I don't know about homophobia. Who was the first to coin the term? If I'm writing a script that takes place in 1942, can a character say "homophobic"? I don't know where it comes from. I'm sure the break down has been done before. It doesn't mean fear of same, or fear of people or men fearing men. There are guys I might fear, but not because they are men. I've heard a guy called homophobic because his first fear about going to jail is being sodomized by another inmate. If a woman fears being raped I don't know if anyone would pipe up and call her heterophobic. They might regard the context - say walking alone down a dark street filled with thugs - and give her some credit. But a guy gets the third degree if he fears being raped? I don't know. I thought prejudice was unfairly painting people with a wide brush, and yet I see that go on a lot - by some gay people. Canadian playwright Brad Fraser deleted me from his Facebook because I defended Mel Gibson. When Edge of Darkness was released, Brad posted at least four status updates on his page that were slamming Mel. That's in one day, along with other random updates. I'm lucky if I update my facebook status once a day. But I understand in the case of a high profile playwright it is marketing - he must want everyone to know how brilliant his plays will be if we get around to actually seeing them. In this case, I don't know from brilliant. He didn't seem capable of engaging in reasonable debate. As far as he is concerned Mel is an alcoholic and anti-Semite and don't confuse him with the facts. And so I find Brad Fraser annoying, yet I don't fear him. So is it homoannoya? The folks who run Defamer or TMZ or Out Magazine (assuming that still exists) or even GLAAD seem very willing to disregard the rights and privacy of others, pulling celebrities out of a "closet" even if they are action stars. I don't know if Tom Cruise is gay, but in any case I still consider him cool and responsible as a businessmam. Jodie Foster was right to keep her personal life to herself all those years. It's none of her business, and she has NO obligation to show up at parades and be someone's role model. What if someone's personal kick is the secrecy if being "on the down low"? Who is to say they have a civic responsibility to pay lip service to GLAAD and or any other brand of gossip monger? Jerry Lewis attends a golf tournament in Australia and makes gay joke, so GLAAD asks him to. . .what? Recant what he said? To pretend he doesn't laugh at non-PC jokes. at fat jokes, at fart jokes, at gay jokes? And is a member of the Rat Pack really all that concerned with whether his rainbow stripes are in the right order? How many Dean Martin or Sinatra fans are supposed to give a rat's ass? Hypothetically, what would it serve a movie star with a business and a production company to run to suddenly faunt a love life that heartland America - a sizable market - has not granted equality let alone embraced? Or are they expected to make a mea culpa for all the years they dated the opposite gender? I sense that a lot of these people who claim to be all about personal freedom are quite nasty, rubbing someone's nose in shit, just loving it when Family Values icon Gibson falls off the wagon and sputters incoherent drunken rantings about his own media persecutors (in that case David Geffin and some anonymous rabi and random uninformed yahoos on Youtube). Neil Patrick Harris became cool in Harold and Kumar Go to Whitecastle, and frankly stayed cool after outing himself. Ellen DeGeneres is terrific. They're also not Brad Fraser. They're not annoying. But I don't know. Maybe they do the same thing he does and I just don't hear about it because I'm not paying attention. Maybe they do a variation of writing a letter to a theater who has rejected a play and trying to find out why it has been rejected. . .gradually trying to back the theater's aquisitions person into dismissing him for a non PC reason when frankly all they have to say is that his work is generally boring and pretty much peaked with the line "Honey, I'm Home - o!" 20 years ago. Now if, because of this, I am called homophobic, it will just be more laziness. It's an easy accusation because it's tough to refute. So it's over used and barely has meaning. There is a big difference between someone getting beaten up in Timmons for "being gay" and someone lingering and prancing in the health club shower hoping to cruise someone and causing some guys to wait it out frozen by the lockers until he leaves. The latter is actually a reasonable and healthy discomfort over someone being rude. As for how someone gets beaten up for being gay, I don't think that means he sand a Shania Twain song in front of the courthouse. I'm assuming it was unprovoked, and hateful prejudiced bullies descended and swarmed the poor little guy. He might have made fun of their plaid shirts or their low I.Q. (those involved in the attack, not the population of Timmons). But I don't know.
I don't know about pro-life and pro-choice on abortion. Some Family organization bought air time during the Superbown on CBS to run a carefully crafted spot promiting what was ostensibly a pro-life message, but I don't know if I get it. I had been told all along was that the pro-life position was "against abortion unless the mother's life is at risk." Notice I'm not even saying health, because that's a legal wording from back in the day. The pro-life position still put the mother's LIFE first. That's just common sense. A bird in the hand. . . But the main thrust of this Superbowl ad was that an NFL player would not have been born if his mother had listened to the doctors (plural) who told her not to go full term. And these presumably weren't abortion providers angling for a gig. So the ad throws out a significant pro-life point. What about the choice part? The mother CHOSE to ignore the doctors because it was her own life to risk. So it was a pro-choice ad, and I haven't seen anyone on the left give CBS credit for being so subversive. They helped write the ad. They were afraid of offending anyone. On the one hand you have the visual reinforcement that gestating fetuses can grow up to be mediocre football players. That has kind of a poor man's Save-Sarah-Connor-So-John-Connor-Can-Be-Born vibe, like the great pro-life movie The Terminator. But how many millions in contributions did that Family Values banner organization spend to promote the choice of the mother to ignore doctors and to under-value the pro-life message by turning ii into something other than a sane and relatable acknowledgement of gestating human beings AND their HOST organism? Was the message intended for any confused young women watching the football game that day? No, it was just for idiots to mark territory and piss off other idiots. Why? I don't know.
I don't know about the word respect. Is it regard? Is it acknowledgement that a person or thing exists? Because I hear people "respect" each other many times who have not earned, say, admiration which is the main word I think respect means. I don't like to throw that word around. How can I "respect" an obstreperous A-hole and have my respect for Nelson Mandela not be devalued?
I don't know about homophobia. Who was the first to coin the term? If I'm writing a script that takes place in 1942, can a character say "homophobic"? I don't know where it comes from. I'm sure the break down has been done before. It doesn't mean fear of same, or fear of people or men fearing men. There are guys I might fear, but not because they are men. I've heard a guy called homophobic because his first fear about going to jail is being sodomized by another inmate. If a woman fears being raped I don't know if anyone would pipe up and call her heterophobic. They might regard the context - say walking alone down a dark street filled with thugs - and give her some credit. But a guy gets the third degree if he fears being raped? I don't know. I thought prejudice was unfairly painting people with a wide brush, and yet I see that go on a lot - by some gay people. Canadian playwright Brad Fraser deleted me from his Facebook because I defended Mel Gibson. When Edge of Darkness was released, Brad posted at least four status updates on his page that were slamming Mel. That's in one day, along with other random updates. I'm lucky if I update my facebook status once a day. But I understand in the case of a high profile playwright it is marketing - he must want everyone to know how brilliant his plays will be if we get around to actually seeing them. In this case, I don't know from brilliant. He didn't seem capable of engaging in reasonable debate. As far as he is concerned Mel is an alcoholic and anti-Semite and don't confuse him with the facts. And so I find Brad Fraser annoying, yet I don't fear him. So is it homoannoya? The folks who run Defamer or TMZ or Out Magazine (assuming that still exists) or even GLAAD seem very willing to disregard the rights and privacy of others, pulling celebrities out of a "closet" even if they are action stars. I don't know if Tom Cruise is gay, but in any case I still consider him cool and responsible as a businessmam. Jodie Foster was right to keep her personal life to herself all those years. It's none of her business, and she has NO obligation to show up at parades and be someone's role model. What if someone's personal kick is the secrecy if being "on the down low"? Who is to say they have a civic responsibility to pay lip service to GLAAD and or any other brand of gossip monger? Jerry Lewis attends a golf tournament in Australia and makes gay joke, so GLAAD asks him to. . .what? Recant what he said? To pretend he doesn't laugh at non-PC jokes. at fat jokes, at fart jokes, at gay jokes? And is a member of the Rat Pack really all that concerned with whether his rainbow stripes are in the right order? How many Dean Martin or Sinatra fans are supposed to give a rat's ass? Hypothetically, what would it serve a movie star with a business and a production company to run to suddenly faunt a love life that heartland America - a sizable market - has not granted equality let alone embraced? Or are they expected to make a mea culpa for all the years they dated the opposite gender? I sense that a lot of these people who claim to be all about personal freedom are quite nasty, rubbing someone's nose in shit, just loving it when Family Values icon Gibson falls off the wagon and sputters incoherent drunken rantings about his own media persecutors (in that case David Geffin and some anonymous rabi and random uninformed yahoos on Youtube). Neil Patrick Harris became cool in Harold and Kumar Go to Whitecastle, and frankly stayed cool after outing himself. Ellen DeGeneres is terrific. They're also not Brad Fraser. They're not annoying. But I don't know. Maybe they do the same thing he does and I just don't hear about it because I'm not paying attention. Maybe they do a variation of writing a letter to a theater who has rejected a play and trying to find out why it has been rejected. . .gradually trying to back the theater's aquisitions person into dismissing him for a non PC reason when frankly all they have to say is that his work is generally boring and pretty much peaked with the line "Honey, I'm Home - o!" 20 years ago. Now if, because of this, I am called homophobic, it will just be more laziness. It's an easy accusation because it's tough to refute. So it's over used and barely has meaning. There is a big difference between someone getting beaten up in Timmons for "being gay" and someone lingering and prancing in the health club shower hoping to cruise someone and causing some guys to wait it out frozen by the lockers until he leaves. The latter is actually a reasonable and healthy discomfort over someone being rude. As for how someone gets beaten up for being gay, I don't think that means he sand a Shania Twain song in front of the courthouse. I'm assuming it was unprovoked, and hateful prejudiced bullies descended and swarmed the poor little guy. He might have made fun of their plaid shirts or their low I.Q. (those involved in the attack, not the population of Timmons). But I don't know.
I don't know about pro-life and pro-choice on abortion. Some Family organization bought air time during the Superbown on CBS to run a carefully crafted spot promiting what was ostensibly a pro-life message, but I don't know if I get it. I had been told all along was that the pro-life position was "against abortion unless the mother's life is at risk." Notice I'm not even saying health, because that's a legal wording from back in the day. The pro-life position still put the mother's LIFE first. That's just common sense. A bird in the hand. . . But the main thrust of this Superbowl ad was that an NFL player would not have been born if his mother had listened to the doctors (plural) who told her not to go full term. And these presumably weren't abortion providers angling for a gig. So the ad throws out a significant pro-life point. What about the choice part? The mother CHOSE to ignore the doctors because it was her own life to risk. So it was a pro-choice ad, and I haven't seen anyone on the left give CBS credit for being so subversive. They helped write the ad. They were afraid of offending anyone. On the one hand you have the visual reinforcement that gestating fetuses can grow up to be mediocre football players. That has kind of a poor man's Save-Sarah-Connor-So-John-Connor-Can-Be-Born vibe, like the great pro-life movie The Terminator. But how many millions in contributions did that Family Values banner organization spend to promote the choice of the mother to ignore doctors and to under-value the pro-life message by turning ii into something other than a sane and relatable acknowledgement of gestating human beings AND their HOST organism? Was the message intended for any confused young women watching the football game that day? No, it was just for idiots to mark territory and piss off other idiots. Why? I don't know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)