In the land of tree-hugging liberal crybaby empathetic whiners (Seattle) there are exactly two causes deemed worthy by the masses: Breast cancer and AIDS. It’s truly obnoxious.
Whoa! It reversed itself even before the first post decrying/celebrating its original decision appeared in this forum. I didn't even have time to discuss it with my lady friend with the pink license plate.
Here you go, better late than never:
Abortion is a monstrous practice, especially as a mere routine birth control method.
Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest abortion provider, so anything that hinders them is good. Karma is taking too long, we need something more fast-acting.
I applauded Komen's first decision. Even if it wasn't made for political reasons, it still was the right thing to do.
[Warning: Non-politically correct although possibly leftist statement follows] We should also do much more as a society to help minority teenagers (and their families) since statistically they are responsible for most of the abortions.
The media also shares the blame, for bombarding our kids with sexually-charged images and lyrics.
Choice? If a woman is pregant she's already made her choice (excluding cases of rape of course) to have sex. Now it's time to own up to the consequences of her choice, and choose life over killing. If she's not willing to keep the baby, tons of people are waiting in line to adopt.
Truth stated, problem solved. You're welcome. Next? ;-)
God, I hope this is a sick, ignorant joke. I actually used to read some of tesuji's posts.
In the land of tree-hugging liberal crybaby empathetic whiners (Seattle) there are exactly two causes deemed worthy by the masses: Breast cancer and AIDS. It’s truly obnoxious.
In the land of tree-hugging liberal crybaby empathetic whiners (Seattle) there are exactly two causes deemed worthy by the masses: Breast cancer and AIDS. It’s truly obnoxious.
Yes.
Breast cancer is a big deal in the USA in no small part because Americans have heavily sexualized women's breasts. I also thought that breast cancer may be "over-funded" when I saw the Komen pink ribbon on Reynold's Wrap and Duracell batteries at the grocery store.
Why don't we have Rectal Cancer Awareness month? Why don't we have brown ribbons on the Metamucil containers? (1% of all profits go to lower GI cancer research . . .) How about donating some profits from the sales of alcohol and tobacco to esophageal cancer research? That kills virtually every person who gets it within a couple of years; sometimes months.
And yes, I understand that sometimes breast cancer kills young women whereas prostate cancer does not kill young men. I still think SGK is too hyper-focused.
ETA: I'm a big fan of PP, however, and I'm happy to hear that SGK has decided to give them money again.
In the land of tree-hugging liberal crybaby empathetic whiners (Seattle) there are exactly two causes deemed worthy by the masses: Breast cancer and AIDS. It’s truly obnoxious.
Tell that to people who are dying of them.
Tell that to my relatives who have died of pancreatic cancer and Parkinson's.
Entertainment for those who don't think young & don't think old
jarredscott78 wrote:
Tell that to my relatives who have died of pancreatic cancer and Parkinson's.
Yeah, but do those have an early detection process that increases survivability as does Breast Cancer? It sounds like breast cancer is the low hanging fruit for prevention, as it's easy to detect, and has good survivability rate. Pancreatic cancer? Not so much.
We're not talking about funds diverted for a "cure" here.
Tell that to my relatives who have died of pancreatic cancer and Parkinson's.
Yeah, but do those have an early detection process that increases survivability as does Breast Cancer? It sounds like breast cancer is the low hanging fruit for prevention, as it's easy to detect, and has good survivability rate. Pancreatic cancer? Not so much.
We're not talking about funds diverted for a "cure" here.
Not necessarily "diverted" at all, as charitable donation is fair play, but... I do wonder at the panic to increase "awareness" of something of which the "awareness" is nearly as ubiquitously promoted in public as Coca-Cola. Who in the western world is unaware of breast cancer? Only the sorely uneducated and media-deprived (who are at similar risks for various other kinds of disease for the same reason). At this point it's turned into a two-pronged cultural thing: the legitimate promotion of awareness to those who are unaware, and the constant promotion of the "awareness mission," which seems more like a self-reinforcing goody-feely thing and that's where I have qualms with the gender-line nature of it all. Where it's not just "extra attention for my and mine," but "extra attention for that little bit of me and mine that's the very thing separating us from you and yours." The same would apply if one heard about prostate cancer on such a regular basis; women would be asking why men are so worried about prostate cancer instead of heart disease, which affects both genders.
That's the point where I depart from allegiance, because if one is already performing maximally in the first part and then doing more in the name of enhancing the goody-feely, then at that point it's time to look for some other things to help out with instead of just pushing for one's home team even harder. I feel much the same about M.A.D.D., which after decades of getting exactly what they wanted and pretty much dictating the shape of the legal area they influence, is still going strong.
Naturally I do not think that women should go without breast cancer screenings. But I also do not think that people should go for decades without dental care, should have electroencephalograms on something resembling a per-decade basis, should have the bones of their feet cared for far more regularly, and any number of things that could lead to a longer happier life--and none of them is special or should be a political darling of any sort whatsoever.
But then, what do I know.
(edit: this response is slightly prodded into existence by some snarky behavior I'm seeing on a much less anonymous social media site. It seems enough of a cause celebre that people are throwing stones without bothering with their shields.)
Whoa! It reversed itself even before the first post decrying/celebrating its original decision appeared in this forum. I didn't even have time to discuss it with my lady friend with the pink license plate.
Here you go, better late than never:
Abortion is a monstrous practice, especially as a mere routine birth control method.
Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest abortion provider, so anything that hinders them is good. Karma is taking too long, we need something more fast-acting.
I applauded Komen's first decision. Even if it wasn't made for political reasons, it still was the right thing to do.
[Warning: Non-politically correct although possibly leftist statement follows] We should also do much more as a society to help minority teenagers (and their families) since statistically they are responsible for most of the abortions.
The media also shares the blame, for bombarding our kids with sexually-charged images and lyrics.
Choice? If a woman is pregant she's already made her choice (excluding cases of rape of course) to have sex. Now it's time to own up to the consequences of her choice, and choose life over killing. If she's not willing to keep the baby, tons of people are waiting in line to adopt.
Truth stated, problem solved. You're welcome. Next? ;-)
Well firstly you're an I***t
But let's move on.
I have met many women who have had an abortion over the years and not Once, Not FUCKING once you m*r*n, has that decision been made lightly, casually or as a 'mere birth control method. It is the hardest decision they have ever made. It is never taken lightly, and it is a scarring one either way.
Now as my service to society in general please provide your address so I can kick your disgusting balls so hard you cannot reproduce.
We still call him a murderer, even though he's killed fewer than 3% of the people he's met.
Would it matter if he spent most of his time being a saint, counselling women about their health, etc.?
No, and for precisely that reason I don't think the 3% number is aimed at persuading those who consider abortion to be murder that PP is non-murderous. I don't think anyone at Planned Parenthood is thinking, "Now how do we get the hardcore pro-lifers to like us?" any more than Focus on the Family is wondering how it can win over P-FLAG.
Back to the (sub-)topic, I think the 3% number is useful because most people are unaware that most of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. It helps draw attention to the fact that virtually all the "defunding" that Republicans are calling for relates to services like STI testing, birth control, GYN services, education, often for low-income populations that depend on non-profit clinics like PP's and who can really suffer if those services are cut off.
We still call him a murderer, even though he's killed fewer than 3% of the people he's met.
Would it matter if he spent most of his time being a saint, counselling women about their health, etc.?
No, and for precisely that reason I don't think the 3% number is aimed at persuading those who consider abortion to be murder that PP is non-murderous. I don't think anyone at Planned Parenthood is thinking, "Now how do we get the hardcore pro-lifers to like us?" any more than Focus on the Family is wondering how it can win over P-FLAG.
Back to the (sub-)topic, I think the 3% number is useful because most people are unaware that most of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. It helps draw attention to the fact that virtually all the "defunding" that Republicans are calling for relates to services like STI testing, birth control, GYN services, education, often for low-income populations that depend on non-profit clinics like PP's and who can really suffer if those services are cut off.
Note also that the 3% number started being bandied about in response to that idiot Senator John Kyl, who got up on the Senate floor and claimed that over 90% of what PP does is perform abortions. When this claim was challenged (with the 3% number), one of his aides responded by saying that his remarks were "not intended to be factual."
So as a response to that stupidity, the 3% number is perfectly appropriate.
I have met many women who have had an abortion over the years and not Once, Not FUCKING once you m*r*n, has that decision been made lightly, casually or as a 'mere birth control method. It is the hardest decision they have ever made. It is never taken lightly, and it is a scarring one either way.
My anecdotal evidence trumps yours.
I have a personal friend (wife of a good friend, I was recently in their wedding) who is a nurse practitioner and WORKS FOR Planned Parenthood. She told me there are a lot of women who come in there for their second and third abortions and that they are using it as birth control and that it doesn't appear to be a hard decision for them. She told me particular story about two women who were in the waiting room LAUGHING about how many times they had been in for abortions.
Whether or not abortion is right or wrong, these stories about how hard a choice it is for everyone who has one are simply not true, unless my pro-choice-and-employed-by-PP friend is lying.
I have met many women who have had an abortion over the years and not Once, Not FUCKING once you m*r*n, has that decision been made lightly, casually or as a 'mere birth control method. It is the hardest decision they have ever made. It is never taken lightly, and it is a scarring one either way.
My anecdotal evidence trumps yours.
I have a personal friend (wife of a good friend, I was recently in their wedding) who is a nurse practitioner and WORKS FOR Planned Parenthood. She told me there are a lot of women who come in there for their second and third abortions and that they are using it as birth control and that it doesn't appear to be a hard decision for them. She told me particular story about two women who were in the waiting room LAUGHING about how many times they had been in for abortions.
Whether or not abortion is right or wrong, these stories about how hard a choice it is for everyone who has one are simply not true, unless my pro-choice-and-employed-by-PP friend is lying.
I have met many women who have had an abortion over the years and not Once, Not FUCKING once you m*r*n, has that decision been made lightly, casually or as a 'mere birth control method. It is the hardest decision they have ever made. It is never taken lightly, and it is a scarring one either way.
My anecdotal evidence trumps yours.
I have a personal friend (wife of a good friend, I was recently in their wedding) who is a nurse practitioner and WORKS FOR Planned Parenthood. She told me there are a lot of women who come in there for their second and third abortions and that they are using it as birth control and that it doesn't appear to be a hard decision for them. She told me particular story about two women who were in the waiting room LAUGHING about how many times they had been in for abortions.
Whether or not abortion is right or wrong, these stories about how hard a choice it is for everyone who has one are simply not true, unless my pro-choice-and-employed-by-PP friend is lying.
I have no doubt there are some women who use abortion as a convenience. I also have no doubt there are people who cheat on their spouses and at the game table. But opposing abortion on the grounds that those women are misguided is akin to saying abolish marriage and Fantasy Flight in the latter cases.
I have met many women who have had an abortion over the years and not Once, Not FUCKING once you m*r*n, has that decision been made lightly, casually or as a 'mere birth control method. It is the hardest decision they have ever made. It is never taken lightly, and it is a scarring one either way.
My anecdotal evidence trumps yours.
I have a personal friend (wife of a good friend, I was recently in their wedding) who is a nurse practitioner and WORKS FOR Planned Parenthood. She told me there are a lot of women who come in there for their second and third abortions and that they are using it as birth control and that it doesn't appear to be a hard decision for them. She told me particular story about two women who were in the waiting room LAUGHING about how many times they had been in for abortions.
Whether or not abortion is right or wrong, these stories about how hard a choice it is for everyone who has one are simply not true, unless my pro-choice-and-employed-by-PP friend is lying.
It doesn't have to be her who is lying.
Granted, but so what? Given the very large numbers of people in existence we know that all sorts of extremes show up simply because of the bell curve distribution. Rather than try to argue that even if someone is laughing and joking about how many abortions they've had it doesn't really mean we don't know that anyone treats abortion casually I'd say that this is beside the point. We don't stop letting responsible gun owners own guns because some people actually play Russian Roulette, we don't take away people's right to have sex with strangers because some people want to get or want to give STIs. Let's stipulate that there are some people who are careless about becoming pregnant and see abortion as an easy fallback (even though it is expensive...in time and discomfort, even if you're somehow not paying for it). What follows?
In the land of tree-hugging liberal crybaby empathetic whiners (Seattle) there are exactly two causes deemed worthy by the masses: Breast cancer and AIDS. It’s truly obnoxious.
In the midst of all the usual RSP hand grenades, this caught my attention. Do you that "liberal whiners" only care about two causes, and therefore are hypocrites, or that they ought care about more or both? Also, do you reckon this is a Seattle thing or an America thing as far as us "crybabies" go.
There is nothing wrong with empathy. It might be the best trait a person can have. Just have to throw that out there. Now hugging trees, that is just sappy. Oh yes, I went there.
Whoa! It reversed itself even before the first post decrying/celebrating its original decision appeared in this forum. I didn't even have time to discuss it with my lady friend with the pink license plate.
Here you go, better late than never:
Abortion is a monstrous practice, especially as a mere routine birth control method.
Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest abortion provider, so anything that hinders them is good. Karma is taking too long, we need something more fast-acting.
I applauded Komen's first decision. Even if it wasn't made for political reasons, it still was the right thing to do.
[Warning: Non-politically correct although possibly leftist statement follows] We should also do much more as a society to help minority teenagers (and their families) since statistically they are responsible for most of the abortions.
The media also shares the blame, for bombarding our kids with sexually-charged images and lyrics.
Choice? If a woman is pregant she's already made her choice (excluding cases of rape of course) to have sex. Now it's time to own up to the consequences of her choice, and choose life over killing. If she's not willing to keep the baby, tons of people are waiting in line to adopt.
Truth stated, problem solved. You're welcome. Next? ;-)
Sorry, but having sex does not equate to a choice being made about having a child... Having to remove a small clump of brainless cells from your body is a possible choice as well.
In the land of tree-hugging liberal crybaby empathetic whiners (Seattle) there are exactly two causes deemed worthy by the masses: Breast cancer and AIDS. It’s truly obnoxious.
In the midst of all the usual RSP hand grenades, this caught my attention. Do you that "liberal whiners" only care about two causes, and therefore are hypocrites, or that they ought care about more or both? Also, do you reckon this is a Seattle thing or an America thing as far as us "crybabies" go.
There is nothing wrong with empathy. It might be the best trait a person can have. Just have to throw that out there. Now hugging trees, that is just sappy. Oh yes, I went there.
I was just being a dick with my string of insults for Seattleites. I both love and hate my people.
But to answer your main question:
I believe breast cancer and AIDS are both very "politically correct" causes that lefties tend to appreciate. Add to that the Hollywood effect and that's enough to create the tipping point ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point) required to cause these causes to go viral and in doing so suppress all others.
I grew up here and even in high school there were countless AIDs walks and breast cancer runs and I never heard much of anything about any other charity. Once I mentioned to a girl who was trying to get a pledge from me that maybe next time she could raise money for another disease. She wasn't impressed by my suggestion. Now days things are Breast Cancer pink everywhere (pink Kitchen Aid mixer I saw the other day), many of the cars in Seattle have a pink or red ribbon on the back along with their obligatory Obama/Biden '08 sticker. And yet I don't hear peep about any other disease or cause. Not even other liberal-friendly causes (PETA, World Peace, etc.) get much attention because they've been choked out by breast cancer awareness.
Although I assume it's worse here in Seattle because we're a super sweet left coast lefty haven, even professional sports are promoting the wearing of pink uniform items during some of their games.
Is the fund raising and awareness game zero sum? Probably not but it's close to it. There's only so much money and attention one can spend on altruistic causes.
And to answer Chad's question: So what? I agree. My post was responding specifically to the guy who wanted to paint the picture that abortions are such hard decisions for the people who get them. A lot of pro-choicers use that angle as one of their primary talking points when discussing the issue. I just don't believe it's accurate. It's hard for some, it's easy for others. So what?
So we're performing over 800,000 abortions a year and that's down from over a million a year in the 80s and 90s. I'd like to know how many that is per year per fertile and sexually active woman. That number seems really high.
I believe breast cancer and AIDS are both very "politically correct" causes that lefties tend to appreciate. Add to that the Hollywood effect and that's enough to create the tipping point ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point) required to cause these causes to go viral and in doing so suppress all others.
I grew up here and even in high school there were countless AIDs walks and breast cancer runs and I never heard much of anything about any other charity. Once I mentioned to a girl who was trying to get a pledge from me that maybe next time she could raise money for another disease. She wasn't impressed by my suggestion. Now days things are Breast Cancer pink everywhere (pink Kitchen Aid mixer I saw the other day), many of the cars in Seattle have a pink or red ribbon on the back along with their obligatory Obama/Biden '08 sticker. And yet I don't hear peep about any other disease or cause. Not even other liberal-friendly causes (PETA, World Peace, etc.) get much attention because they've been choked out by breast cancer awareness.
I could not agree more on this. That is a symptom of the postmodern left, where people have pet causes rather than grand and/or practical ideas. My hope is that the pet cause brand of leftism will give way to something new, bold, and meaningful. More vague adjectives to come.
Quote:
Is the fund raising and awareness game zero sum? Probably not but it's close to it. There's only so much money and attention one can spend on altruistic causes.
Or any cause really. After all, do the banks need more money and less regulation?
I think altruism is far too marginalized in America outside of the domain of pet causes, which often strikes me as a selfish fetish of sorts. I'm sure all those with friends and relatives who had AIDS and/or breast cancer will firebomb me for that one. But I am not talking about them. I'm talking about the weak-kneed who might buy a snickers to give money to breast cancer research to feel good. That occurs when guilt meets vanity.
Quote:
My post was responding specifically to the guy who wanted to paint the picture that abortions are such hard decisions for the people who get them. A lot of pro-choicers use that angle as one of their primary talking points when discussing the issue. I just don't believe it's accurate. It's hard for some, it's easy for others. So what?
So we're performing over 800,000 abortions a year and that's down from over a million a year in the 80s and 90s. I'd like to know how many that is per year per fertile and sexually active woman. That number seems really high.
Pro-life I take it? Same here and I agree with this point as well.
Just to be clear before my fellow lefties call for my head, I say bring on the birth control and be as open about sex as you and those near you are willing to be. Abortion, outside of special circumstances, strikes me as morally dubious but I will not call it murder since a fetus is not a person. After all if it was we would bury them on a regular basis.
My post was responding specifically to the guy who wanted to paint the picture that abortions are such hard decisions for the people who get them. A lot of pro-choicers use that angle as one of their primary talking points when discussing the issue. I just don't believe it's accurate. It's hard for some, it's easy for others. So what?
Perhaps a nitpick on a sideline, but in my experience that's not a "primary talking point" but a rebuttal to the inevitable claim that abortions are done for convenience, casually, etc.
Quote:
So we're performing over 800,000 abortions a year and that's down from over a million a year in the 80s and 90s. I'd like to know how many that is per year per fertile and sexually active woman. That number seems really high.
Well, let's do the math in rough numbers. There are about 62 million women of childbearing age in the U.S. Let's figure 75% of them are sexually active -- that would get us to around 45 million. 800K abortions would mean less than 2% of women have abortions in a given year.
Hrm, Guttmacher says my guess is a bit off -- it's 70%, so 43 million. That's women who are sexually active, fertile (and with a fertile partner) and not wanting to become pregnant. 7% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy are not using contraceptives. 89% use contraception. The remainder are infertile, pregnant, in same-sex relationships, etc.
I believe breast cancer and AIDS are both very "politically correct" causes that lefties tend to appreciate. Add to that the Hollywood effect and that's enough to create the tipping point ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point) required to cause these causes to go viral and in doing so suppress all others.
I grew up here and even in high school there were countless AIDs walks and breast cancer runs and I never heard much of anything about any other charity. Once I mentioned to a girl who was trying to get a pledge from me that maybe next time she could raise money for another disease. She wasn't impressed by my suggestion. Now days things are Breast Cancer pink everywhere (pink Kitchen Aid mixer I saw the other day), many of the cars in Seattle have a pink or red ribbon on the back along with their obligatory Obama/Biden '08 sticker. And yet I don't hear peep about any other disease or cause. Not even other liberal-friendly causes (PETA, World Peace, etc.) get much attention because they've been choked out by breast cancer awareness.
I could not agree more on this. That is a symptom of the postmodern left, where people have pet causes rather than grand and/or practical ideas. My hope is that the pet cause brand of leftism will give way to something new, bold, and meaningful. More vague adjectives to come.
Quote:
Is the fund raising and awareness game zero sum? Probably not but it's close to it. There's only so much money and attention one can spend on altruistic causes.
Or any cause really. After all, do the banks need more money and less regulation?
I think altruism is far too marginalized in America outside of the domain of pet causes, which often strikes me as a selfish fetish of sorts. I'm sure all those with friends and relatives who had AIDS and/or breast cancer will firebomb me for that one. But I am not talking about them. I'm talking about the weak-kneed who might buy a snickers to give money to breast cancer research to feel good. That occurs when guilt meets vanity.
Quote:
My post was responding specifically to the guy who wanted to paint the picture that abortions are such hard decisions for the people who get them. A lot of pro-choicers use that angle as one of their primary talking points when discussing the issue. I just don't believe it's accurate. It's hard for some, it's easy for others. So what?
So we're performing over 800,000 abortions a year and that's down from over a million a year in the 80s and 90s. I'd like to know how many that is per year per fertile and sexually active woman. That number seems really high.
Pro-life I take it? Same here and I agree with this point as well.
Just to be clear before my fellow lefties call for my head, I say bring on the birth control and be as open about sex as you and those near you are willing to be. Abortion, outside of special circumstances, strikes me as morally dubious but I will not call it murder since a fetus is not a person. After all if it was we would bury them on a regular basis.
How is an abortion of some cells with no brain matter morally dubious? Stepping on an ant outside is worse... At least that had some sort of brain matter.
Love? I consider certain institutions and activities to be a necessary evil, but love? I don't love animal euthanasia, prison, or the IRS, but I think they are arguably quite necessary to keep society together.
"Among Komen's reasons for discontinuing grants to Planned Parenthood was its policy of avoiding entanglements with entities under government investigation. Planned Parenthood has been and is under congressional and criminal investigation (by attorneys general, local prosecutors and various regulatory agencies in Arizona, Indiana, Alabama, Kansas and Texas) for allegations including failure to report criminal child sex abuse, misuse of health-care and family-planning funds, and failure to comply with parental-involvement laws regarding abortions." -- The Wall Street Journal, February 6, 2012
Failure to report criminal child sex abuse? They sound more like the Jerry Sandusky of organizations to me. One should not defend sexual abusers of children whether they are family doctors or members of the clergy.
Besides an activist showed Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms -- at least with any regularity:
Diversifying one's business to include other non-controversial businesses is something that businesses such as tobacco companies have done for years to shift the blame away from their number one activity. At least R. J. Reynolds and Philip Morris with Nabisco and Kraft made a decent snack food. They didn't need an undercover investigator to call up several grocery stores to find out the whole thing was a complete scam, except for perhaps a few stores to keep good publicity.
And why breast cancer instead of prostate and testicular cancer? Are men not parents too? Parents get pancreatic cancer. I think that's supposed to be the most deadly one. Why not focus on that one?
