Lydiafree

*lol* that's because there is no difference. Notice how often the excuse for faith is "I KNOW x is true". In what other area of life would that fly? Would you go to a doctor who tells you have cancer, not because she's done any testing, but because she KNOWS you do? People KNOW god exists because they WANT god to exist. I WANT to have superpowers. Tragically, this does not make them real.

religion does not create morals. Morality far pre-dates religion. In many ways it is the source of immorality (i.e. murdering dr.s in church, for example). Teaching your children contradictory, arbitrary absurdity in order to make them moral seems like the backwards way of doing it. Morality comes from empathy with other humans - something religion teaches directly against. I can only speak for me, but volunteering, donating, striving to be a better person only started for me after leaving religion and abandoning belief in a god. Up until then it was a "hey, I'm saved. I'll be forgiven" sort of thing.

This is the part where fingers get jammed into the ears and "nah nah nah can't hear you" fills the air.

So, you believe that it's absurd for a woman to believe she has the right to control her own body. So, cough up that kidney, Patty.

Of course a fetus matters - it's potential human life. It does not, however, trump the mother. No matter how often you ignore this basic fact. If you want to believe that God, that's wonderful. However, understand that your belief in god has absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand.

4/20/2005 Thank you for proving my point. Faux-lifers don't practice what they preach. They simply want to "punish the sluts". The point is, the person will die without your kidney. You are compelled to give it up, if you honestly believe people (or, more specifically, women) do not have the right to refuse the use of their bodies to others. So you're not against sex ed, you're against qualified, informed people teaching sex ed. And you're not against birth control, just the kinds that you don't like. So, you're against abortion, you just don't want anything done to prevent it that makes you personally uncomfortable. Luckily, fauz-lifers are not the rules of the country. What convoluted logic this is. That's what you tell yourselves to give justification for your proto-fascist misogyny. Pro-lifer bigotry is of no relevance to reality. Women matter. Their safety, their health and their well-being matter. Regardless of what exists in their uterus.

To quote Voltaire: Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

It matters little what any one person thinks. Abortion is not compulsory, anyone who doesn't like them doesn't have to have one. That is the end of their involvement in the matter. Someday, when they grow up and stop believing that the world must obey their personal whims, they'll understand that.

*LOL* it's called "politics".

FTR, atheists, generally speaking, aren't "sure". We simply go on the available evidence. After thousands of years and thousands of gods, there's never been a single shred of honest evidence for the existence of any of them. Now, granted - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But it certainly isn't evidence of existence, either. That said, while I am an atheist, I am entirely open to real evidence of the existence of a god. Show me something actually useful and I'm all ears.

This is actually a good point. One's belief in a god is a personal choice and, in America anyway (where I am), that's a protected right. Nothing wrong with it at all. The problem is in giving power to mediators and allowing the mediators to speak FOR a god, who, of course, can make their god then agree with and support whatever the mediator wants. And then giving political clout to that mediator. Who then, of course, use it to crap on everyone they don't favor. It always seemed somewhat odd to me that if such a supernatural being existed, it would need fallible humans to speak for it.

They like to pretend otherwise, but that is the general gist of their position. They want personhood granted to fetuses, but not those annoying, expendable incubators that carry them.

In America, yes I do think it would still be true. It may lessen over time, but we're a sex-obsessed yet oddly prudish country that loves its bigotry. I've seen too much to believe we're capable of anything else. At least right now. Now, I'm certainly not saying that it shouldn't be legalized. I'm saying America isn't mature enough for it. Decriminalization is a step in the right direction - it would prevent the prostitutes from being the sole focus of punishment. But, it's not the last stop on the tour. I agree with you - the benefits to sex workers is numerous in a legal atmosphere. I'm just not convinced that it solves the problems inherent in the industry. Human trafficking won't be stemmed by legalization. Rape, abuse, etc. won't be stemmed by legalization.

That is their goal, of course. It's no coincidence that a majority of anti-choicers are also conservatives/right-leaning religious/etc. Their anti-sex ed, anti-birth control - anti- everything that actually reduces the abortion rate. Make no mistake - their desire has nothing to do with protecting babies. +++ I don't know if anyone addressed this (apologies for not doing it myself - i lost track of this thread for a while) The organ donation thing refers to a hypothetical situation used to try and illustrate to faux-lifers exactly what they're advocating for when they make anti-choice statements/arguments. Say, you're debating with a faux-lifer and they are taking the position that a woman has an obligation to the fetus she's carrying, that she has no right to remove it under any circumstances (or, as a variation, under only certain circumstances deemed okay by the faux-lifer), that all life is precious, etc. etc. Basically, the organ donation thing goes something like this: "I know a man who needs a kidney right now. You (the faux-lifer) are the only person whose organ is suitable. Since people don't have the right to refuse the use of their body to others, give it up." Personally, I like to make the person needing a kidney a hypothetical 9-year-old child, as faux-lifers routinely prove that their interest in adult life is somewhat less than equal. The idea being to point out that they themselves will not practice what they preach, i.e. they certainly don't agree to give this person a kidney and will come up with impressively convoluted reasons why they don't have to. It also serves to air the slut-shaming misogynstic nature of faux-life arguments. Sometimes a faux-lifer will agree that rape and incest victims should be allowed abortions, but not women who just had unprotected sex, or sex with BC that failed. So, it becomes clear that the aim is to punish women for having sex willingly. The case of Dr. Tiller is a good example because he specialized in late-term abortions. In other words, abortions performed on women who wanted to have a baby but whose pregnancy went wrong somehow, rendering the fetus inviable. He was still referred to as a "baby-killer". Nevermind that what he did literally saved women's lives. Women don't matter.

I so do not understand this attitude. Even if it surgery was "cheating" - what difference does that make? Does improving one's health and happiness not matter if its not done this way or that? Such a baloney thing to say. Ugh. This is why I've told only a handful of people as well. Only the Need-To-Knows need to know. :party:

OMG yes. Looking forward to finally getting to stop pretending that I'm "shy" in order to avoid doing new things or be around new people out of fear of not being able to keep up or be accepted. Looking forward to being able to go shopping with my sis-in-law and how having to make stops at plus size stores, just for me. Looking forward to finding out if there is a Mr. Right out there for me. (just dumped the last Mr. Wrong. So tired of those!) that list is miles long.

The life of a living, breathing woman is more important than a developing fetus. To say anything else is misogyny. To say that something else has the right to use a woman's body against her will is nothing but misogyny. I personally believe abortion to be a terrible tragedy. However, a far, far worse one would be denying a living, breathing woman the basic human right to autonomy. Has anyone brought up the organ donation exercise yet?

You're absolutely right about that. It's frequently the prostitute that gets arrested, while the man who sought them out (and yes, it's virtually always men - whether the prostitute is female or male), gets a slap on the wrist, if anything. Misogyny. That's what that is.

I guess that's a subjective sort of thing, but yes, I do think so. Sex workers already face horrifying treatment at the hands of law enforcement and a dismissive, apathetic attitude from the public at large. As an example, the rape and abuse of prostitutes is frequently referred to as "NHI" in police departments. NHI means No Human Involved. If it were flat out legal (as opposed to decriminalized for those selling it (not pimps, btw)), that coupled with the dehumanizing attitude held towards sex workers, would only increase the apathy towards them, and do little to decrease the hostility focused on them (and amazingly enough, not the men whose demand creates the damn problem). So, while there are positive benefits to legalizing - such as allowing sex workers to unionize, get benefits or get health care, etc. - there's no guaranty that the number of people willing to do such work would increase. The demand side is always present and VERY demanding, and unfortunately, will be supplied by any means necessary. I don't see how legalizing it combats that. Decriminaliztion might not either, but it seems somewhat more effective to punish those demanding it and those forcing people to supply it, then the actual sex workers themselves. What's to be gained by punishing victims? If the human trafficking and coercion problem could be dealt with, then there's no reason not to legalize. This, by the way, is the common attitude of the sex workers I've worked with. Decriminalization first, then, if Americans ever grow up, legalization. All that said - I don't want to give the impression that they all victims. They're not. Or that they're all women. They're not. I (or the public at large) may not agree with their choice of employment, but it's damn lucrative so i understand its appeal. And, even those who do sex work because they want to deserve protection, safety and respect. they're human beings. (This, of course, unearths a number of feminist arguments as well, but that's for another time.) :smile:

and many of them start addictions to deal with prostitution. I've worked with current and erstwhile sex workers (which includes strippers and porn actresses) for years. In my experience almost none wanted to be in that "industry", but through some circumstance, were forced into it. Addiction is a way to cope with an often times dehumanizing and violent situation. I say, decriminalize the selling, and put those who buy it and the human traffickers who force people into it in jail. Legalization, i feel, simply makes it easier to hide the overwhelming problem of human trafficking.

Did anyone else find it just a little, well, convenient, that this story broke just in time for the new series premiere? Seems a little fortuitous to me.

No. none of them are.

I eventually did tell the office manager in my firm. Only because, as you pointed out, there are a number of appointments and the time off required for surgery, etc., which I needed her help with (since I don't have enough time to cover all the time off I needed and will need). However, I chose to be specific with her simply because she has a young child that has multiple health problems and is frequently in the hospital, etc. So I knew she'd be understanding. Other people I know who have undergone WLS have simply told their bosses they were having some "health issues" that needed to be attended to. I think bosses are generally reluctant to ask for specifics. I told my office manager, but my actual boss only knows that I'm having "pro-active surgery to counteract possible future health issues". he's never asked any questions. :thumbup:

That's a good point. I had not thought about something like that - there will be sitchs that require telling someone.

Thank you! Good to know it's a normal thing. I was worried it signified something might be wrong, or something.