Seminal and Controversial Part 2

Back when I was in high school___

Looking back on it now, I now realize that this in fact revealed several things about the girls.  They would be ready and willing to accept responsibility for their decisions and their actions.  Because of this, they would most likely be better decision makers, they would weigh the pros and cons, the possible risks of making a major decision such as starting to sleep with someone.  This is not an action they would take lightly or regard casually.

They have a hell of a lot more respect for their bodies than the typical liberal.  They do not see or accept themselves as mere toilets for males' semen to be deposited, semen waste disposal systems.

They already knew about themselves that were they to discover that they were pregnant, they knew they would keep that child, and they would regard it as a child, a human being, and not just a lump of lifeless flesh to be discarded.  This means that they know they would love their child, even if it did come about from a casual encounter.

As for the boys, I realize now that they only parroted out loud the notion that they are pro-abortion due to r-- to make it more palatable for people.  For what sane human being___

But their internal motivations most likely did not concur with this at all.  Far from it.  Their real motivations were that if they accidentally got someone pregnant form casual sex, they could just throw some dollar bills at her the way you would with a stripper or a pros, and bark at her to go take care of it.  What the hell would that mean, though?  They don't want to be saddled with the responsibility of accepting the consequences of their decision, of their actions, order her to "go take care of it."

---------
Both sides, liberals and conservatives, have quite a lot in common in that the overall arching theme is that they are extremely misogynistic.  They do not give a flying sh9t at all about the woman who is carrying the fetus.

Both sides are relentless in insisting that a fetus is completely a separate entity, entirely disengaged from the women who is carrying said fetus.  Both sides do not give a shyte about the feelings, emotions, considerations, thinking, contemplating, mulling over that the woman would have to do who is carrying that fetus.

That’s right.  Make no mistake.  Both sides constantly try to hammer this message into the public’s collective skull.  Extreme cons and extreme libs say that a fetus is one hundred percent a complete separate entity from the mother.  This is even though biologically and medically, this is complete bullshyte.

And extreme libs say the exact same thing.  The only difference in their opinion is the details.  I will go into the details.  Cons think that a fetus is completely disengaged from the mother.  And libs think that a mother is completely disengaged from the fetus.

That's what libs say all the time, isn't it?  A piece of trash, it’s a nonliving clump of dead cells, it’s nothing more than a tumor, it's a dirty disgusting little secret.  Really, liberals?  So a part of a woman’s body is a piece of trash?  Something to throw away and pretend like it never existed?  Something to casually toss out of one's mind?

What if she has bonded emotionally with it?  What if she regards it as her child?

Extreme liberals like to champion themselves as defenders of women's rights.  And they constantly lambast extreme right zealot Christian conservatives as being abusive and oppressive toward women.  The latter part of which is true.  But as for the former -- in reality liberals are every bit as misogynistic and violent as any conservatives that they denounce.

Neither side seems to realize that it is her body, therefore it is her decision.  It is her body, she values it, she cherishes it, she treasures it.  Therefore it is her right and her choice not to feel obligated to go through with this procedure just to appease some selfish unrealistic liberals.

It is just inconceivable to me that neither side is able to reconcile the fetus' existence with the mother.  I mean, DUH.  Nature intended it that way.  The extreme right's ignorance of science is no excuse.  The extreme left's ignorance of human emotion, feeling, and parent-child bonding is no excuse.

Whenever a conservative woman starts screeching, “A child is a gift from God!  It is a blessed and sacred gift!”  And then of course the liberals start knee-jerking, "oh she's a brainwashed weak wummin brainwashed by the evil religious menfolk."

I don’t think it's that simple.  I think what is really going on is that the conservative is not great at articulating her thoughts.  And twofold -- the libs suck at reading between the lines.  What the conservative woman is really saying is,

"How dare you try to tell me that killing my child is supposed to empower me? Who the f- do you think you are?  It's part of MY body, therefore don’t you dare tell me that cutting out dilation and curettage, scraping out a part of MY body is the right thing to do just because YOU say so."

I think that this is what is really going on here.  Instinctively, it just feels wrong.  Gut instinct.  But they are not quite able to elucidate on specifically whhhyyy it feels wrong.  They reach for the nearest explanation within their grasp.  God said so.  Which is fine.  They made a well-founded equivalency between God's law and moral human law of instinct.  It makes sense.

I Have a Whole New Perspective on Something Seminal and Controversial

My mega mega flip-flop deserves an explanation.  I have completely changed 180 degrees on this.  I am now of the absolute diametric opposite mind that held my approval for the first thirty-one years of my life.

Just as it is impossible to consider the fetus and have complete disregard for the mother's well-being in pro-life viewpoints, so too is it equivalently impossible to pretend the mother has nothing to do with the fetus in pro-choice stances.

...That supposedly all men are absolutely unabashedly pro-life and pro-fetus and hate women's bodies and they absolutely love fetuses at all costs and that they absolutely love love love babies at all costs.

Ha ha.  Yeah fekkin right.

...And supposedly all women are pro-choice because they are all independent capable women in charge of her own life and they love sex and the city because it is a show about strong independent women who are capable of making their own decisions and are in charge of their own life.  And that any woman who is pro-life absolutely must be brainwashed and subjugated by the menfolk and regards herself as a submissive second-class piece of property for the Christian right-wing religious zealots.  Again, yeah fekkin right.

I used to champion this abortion curiosity, I held this idea up on the prodigal altar, it was my sacred inalienable right.  It was my sacred and precious life-affirming decree that honored my ability to live in peace, with complete freedom, dignity, and the right to my own bodily autonomy.

I have now changed my stance absolutely on this, from a moral, philosophical, and spiritual standpoint.

Up to and including about a month ago, I was one hundred percent in favor of abortion, philosophically, morally, existentially, ecumenically, epistemiologically.  I saw little difference between an abortion, and as one blog commentator put it, "setting a mousetrap, then taking an antibiotic medicine."

I know someone is going to call my attention to the fact that violation of women, r--, incest are still rampant.  There is r-- abuse of children who have gotten their menses and are therefore biologically capable of producing offspring.  Thus is the fact that they are being victimized twice -- once by the sick asshole that assaulted them, and once by being punished even further through a biological operation that they have no control over.

To you lot of debt debaters, I say, thank you for illustrating my point.

The sad thing is, I agree with you.  I am not disputing you on those statistics.  Those are all facts.  The CDC has documented that, local law enforcement, state law enforcement, and federal law enforcement have all documented that.  Practically, I know from a legal standpoint it must still be allowed.  Legally it still needs to be completely accessible, 100 per cent.  Philosophical about-face or not, the world is still a sick, misogynistic place in which some males think it is perfectly logical and justified to violate women.

That is exactly why it is so sickening.  What kind of sick, nauseating, depressing, disgusting, vile society do we live in?  What kind of violent, misogynistic, nasty world is this, that a woman is forced to kill her child -- and this is considered to be a *solution*?

It is one that is filled with hatred and seething vitriol towards women.

What kind of society do we live in wherein a culture is perpetuated, nay, encouraged to treat women like less than the separate assemblage of each of the individual body parts?

What kind of sick, sad society do we live in wherein something as sick as puncturing the forming skull of a human being is considered and actively proponated as a *solution*?

What kind of sick, sad society do we live in, that it needs to be safe and legal to offset the victim of a violent crime?  That it needs to be a readily available response so as not to add injury to injury?

Abortion is symptomatic of a society that does not give a 3hi+ about women.

I'm not necessarily worried about the fetus's rights.  The fetus is not its own entity; the fetus is part of a woman's body.  And this is precisely why abortion is violating a woman's right to bodily autonomy.  Sucking out the fetus is committing an act of violence against the woman who is housing said fetus.  I am concerned with the woman's rights.

Performing an abortion is committing an act of violence against that woman's organs.  It’s like punching someone in the kidney to get rid of kidney disease.  It’s like cutting out a lobe of someone's lung to get rid of lung cancer.  The lung cancer thing is barbaric, but unfortunately it is the only thing that can be done for now.  We have no other alternatives currently.  Like I said, abortion is not a solution; it is a symptom of a society that has no other way to help that woman, and which also evidently does not have easily accessed birth control.  (I do not mean that there needs to be "free" birth control; only that birth control should not be so regulated as to be essentially blocked.)

I am talking about a consensual pregnancy, with a healthy mother and a healthy baby.

I'm not really sure quite how I stumbled upon this.  I was looking for atheist philosophy...  Oh, I know.  I was counter-pointing the insidious claim that just because people do not believe in a deity, that this somehow means they now have no morals.  Astonishingly, this claim is mostly being made by the very people that do not believe in a deity.

And then some desperate grasping for straws, some desperate reaching "atheists," in reality just badass-wannabes (some dumbass overgrown peter pan still stuck in teenager mode never having evolved past that trying to rebel and shock and awe against authority) were trying to say that, no there is no morality, morality does not really exist blah blah, morality is a fabricated made-up construct to force people into not being in charge of their own life, or something like that.

And then in an effort to counter-point this I began looking for vastly contradictory emblems of belief.  Honestly this was mostly out of irritation and impatience with rebel-wannabe atheists still-in-the-mindset-of-a-stupid-teenager.  Typical atheist theory states that supposedly the only objection to abortion would be religious ones.  If there is no religion nor deity, there is no case for being pro-life.  (Their argument, not mine.)

Well, just to put these rather predictable, profound-as-a-melted-ice-cube atheists in their place, by god I was going to find atheist arguments that were in favor of pro-life stance.  (I doubt they pondered atheism more critically before settling on it, seeing as how they automatically parroted all stereotypical liberal views.)  I tend to be contrary when I'm irritated.

The Liberal Case Against Abortion, By Vasu Murti, Carol Crossed
[Side note:  I think a better choice of semantics for the book title would have been "feminist" rather than "liberal."  Lord knows liberals are misogynistic underhanded sneaky aholes.]

The earliest feminists in this country, the ones in the late 1800s who genuinely were working towards women's human and family rights, educational rights, and employment rights, were surprisingly against abortion.

They were overwhelmingly AGAINST abortion because they rightfully saw through all the haze and dust and fleas and lies.  They were able to cut through all the rationalizing politically correct BS and were able to see abortion for what it truly is.

It has demeaned and objectified women in the absolute most disgusting sense of the word.  This has reduced women, into nothing more than a vehicle for sperm disposal.  Abortion is an abhorrent act that is in fact the sickest act of violence against women.

The society-wide acceptance and normalization of abortion has done inconceivable harm to women.  And of course it has done harm to children.

Liberals claim that conservatives are trying to shame a woman into keeping the fetus.

But no; now I feel that I see a little more clearly.  Liberals are trying to shame a woman into getting rid of the fetus.  It is a dirty little secret, a filthy little piece of trash that she should just "take care of" by having an abortion.  They are trying to psychologically bully a woman into pretending that she has no feelings toward her child.  Extremists no matter what the stripe, will go ballistic and rabid and foaming frothing at the mouth when confronted with logic, be they liberal or conservative.

Liberals are forcing a woman into not having any emotional connection to her fetus.  They force women into thinking that a new life growing in her body is simply an inanimate object, a throwaway, disgusting piece of trash.  Which she should be ashamed of housing.  A non-living object, no different from a shoe or a toothpick.

----
I had seen a few little whispered snippets of this prior to now, scattered here and there, but not many.  Just a few hushed hurried whispers of this from some republicans who, astoundingly, were not talking about being anti-abortion in regards to the fetus.  They were talking about being anti-abortion in favor of the woman who is getting an abortion.  They were not discussing the fetus taking priority over the woman.  They were genuinely concerned with the well-being of the woman who found herself in such a desperate, bleak situation that she saw this as her only recourse.

If that is the case, then the woman does not honestly, truly have a "choice."  She is in fact being forced into having an abortion.

I noticed it, I put a tabulation on it, then I moved on.  But not before drawing up a list of mental arguments about why this does not solve much.  I was receptive to their opinion and I saw the logic in it.

They saw the [[[combined]]] effect that society imposed on a woman to put her in such a situation that she saw abortion as a logical solution.  So in a way, these republicans convincingly made a pro-woman case against abortion.

And I do remember that even Ms. magazine, pain in the azz though it was to read, was somewhat prescient on this.  Back about twelve years ago, they had a feature article documenting how abortions are forced on local women in vacation hotspots around the world.  And I remember thinking, 'wait a minute, "forced" abortions?  If abortions are good, if abortion is my right as a woman, then why is it ever bad?  Shouldn’t a woman be jumping for joy if she is given a chance not to have to carry a fetus to term?'

I also do remember wondering way back in the day, about particular disconnects that existed.  One school of feminist thought used to love the old pagan nature-y tribal matriarchy-based belief systems.  They were all pro-woman up in this biz.  We are told that those olden, pre- abrahaimic/monotheistic thought systems celebrated women's fertility.  Women's monthly menstruation cycles were referred to as life blood, wise blood, all that good stuff.  The female menarche, the onset of puberty bringing about the ability to carry life within their bodies, was a joyous occasion in a girl's life.  Women were hailed and revered as the bearers of life.  Women gave the greatest possible gift a human being can give another human being:  they gave life.  For this, women were cherished and shown utmost respect.

So if all that is true, then how can this possibly be reconciled with abortion, in which the life blood is sucked out of a woman?  Straight answer, it cannot.

Pro-Woman, Pro-Life.

A Continuation of Crackpot Evolutionary Psychology Theories

Cockamamie Theories -- A Sociological Study

Hey, I can do that too.  Why should I not get published in one of those laughable evolutionary psychology journals?  I can come up with a crackpot theory with the best of them.  I can reference anecdotal tidbits and call this "evidence."  I can conduct selective research in searching for scientific support.  I can pull from history whatever agrees with my preconceived opinions.  Read very carefully, because in some places, mere select *words* from a particular whole sentence are biased.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why have so many inventions, innovations, technology, applications of the laws of the natural world been fueled, been driven, been pursued with such gusto, such fanatical devotion?

•To explain the birth of the universe.
•To explain the origins of humankind.  Every culture and civilization in the history of our species has a creation myth.
•The seeking, the drive, the thirst for knowledge.  This has fueled the quest to seek, to unlock the secrets of the universe, perhaps in vain hopes of unearthing some support that the universe is inherently male.
•To invent and innovate things.  The need to create, to be bestowed with the honor of “Creator.”
•And now, the god particle.  Large supercolliders have been built, essentially for the purpose of creating something out of nothing.
•The search for life on other planets in our solar system or in the Milky Way
•The search for life in the Local Group or anywhere in the universe
•More recently, the search for other universes and yes, the search for possible life in other universes

For one simple reason:  men cannot create life from their bodies.

So, spinning along this trend that has been the dominant controlling factor lording over males' psyches since the inception of hominid species.  They are searching, painstakingly, for some sign that males are the origin of the universe or at least creators in some vein.

Humorists, aphorists, and pundits alike have long commented on the supposed phenomenon of "penis envy."  Then Viagra came along and exposed penis envy for what it really is.  Oh, it exists, all right.  But penis envy is not a feeling women harbor towards men.  Quite the opposite is true -- penis envy is something that men feel towards other men.

So I suppose viagra, levitra, and cialis are marketed to make women's penises stiff for longer periods of time, and indeed, at all?  And I guess all those spam emails that people get, which thankfully are a little less prevalent and irritating now than back when the internet was still called the "information superhighway," that want the recipients to enlarge their penis -- these are aimed at enlarging women's penises?  And I guess whenever men admit to feeling inadequate when compared to, say horses, or to other men that have bigger penises, I guess the insecure men are saying that they feel jealous of the horse's *mind.*

However, if you mean a metaphorical penis, then there might be something to that.  Power, authority, power in politics, formal education, business, running an economy.  Running a government.  Having education.  Having higher education, studying in universities, monasteries.  Men have historically prevented women from entering these and all other fields.  If that is the subject, then sure, women have metaphorical penis envy.  However, actual penis envy is something that men feel towards other men.

Now, perhaps we need to acknowledge the existence of a different social, personal, philosophical sleeper trend that has plagued males since the dawn of time.  This has afflicted males the universe over ever since the very first protobiont worked its way out of the primordial ooze.  This is an insecurity phenomenon that men feel towards women.

All male humans are afflicted with the psychosocial condition named "Uterus Envy."  They can never create a life from their bodies.  They know that women have this power, this extraordinary gift, and that they do not.

Women have of course, always known and appreciated the power of their life-creating bodies.  Many early civilizations around the world had theistic beliefs and customs that were female-centric.

On some subconscious level, men have always known this to be ultimate truth.  This is why all throughout the course of human history, males have done their damnedest to co-opt and bastardize this right that was God-given to women.  This is all betrays their extreme jealousy and insecurity.

They have resorted to even going so far as to fashion a creation myth in which a man gives birth to a woman from one of his ribs.  Then, as if that weren't illogical enough, some males made the declaration that women were made to endure pregnancy and childbirth as a "punishment."  This punishment is supposedly meted out due to some sort of original sin.

This disturbing psychosocial biochemical characteristic is manifested in the ways that violence, legal gymnastics, pseudo-philosophy, skewed, twisted, warped mental acrobatics are used as to why a woman's body is not her own.

Males have forcibly denied females their reproductive rights, including the right not to have a child if one does not want to.  They have also denied, very importantly, the right *to* carry a fetus to term if a woman does want to.

Males have co-opted and bastardized women's reproductive rights since the beginning of time.  They cling to their ideals of superiority out of desperation and panic.

This actually explains why men are driven to invent things, to innovate.  It all speaks of a desperate, frantic, frenzied need to create _something_.  It is a need to be on equal footing with women, who create life on a regular basis.  They are constantly attempting to prove to the world, to other men, to women, and to themselves that they are capable of creation.

Most people have heard the comical offerings that a man that buys a very large car or sponsors the production of very tall buildings is compensating for something.  But perhaps we have been mistaken as to what that "something" is.

This also would explain why scientists, supposedly learned, rational, logical, thinking men, have been so loathe to allow women into scientific and thinking circles all throughout human history.  They have delved so far as to concoct various theories, conjecture, convoluted, cognitive labyrinthine schemes as to why women should not be allowed to study the sciences.  They cling to these precepts as supposed logic supporting their opinions for why women would not make good scientists.  This is much like how when someone is stranded out in the desert or lost in a tropical natural jungle, he would have to rig some digs out of a few found objects, tarp, rope, twine.

This betrays an unease, a fear, a dread that women will yet again surpass men in their collective abilities as a gender.  Men are shaken by the fact that, one, women can already create life from their bodies, and, two, if women are able to enter engineering and technology fields and are allowed to practice, think, create, and innovate at the same rate as men, then this would prove that women have the capability to create in other tenets of the universe, thus doubly demonstrating their superiority over men.  Women are able to create life, and are also able to create things that make life a little bit easier to live.

This fear and unease manifests itself in baffling contradictions:  the Catholic Church has in the past proclaimed that anything having to do with the female reproductive system, including fertility and ovulation, is of paganism, the devil's work, filthy, vile, et cetera et cetera.  Yet at the same time the Church claims that a fetus is precious, innocent, deserving of life, and that aborting said fetus is murder.

Holding a woman hostage to her uterus.  Holding a woman prisoner to her own uterus by bastardizing the power of life and creation that her body holds.  They say that a woman's menstrual period makes her "unclean."  A woman that is menstruating is considered a pariah, is treated like a leper.

But guess what, folks, that is where babies come from.  A healthy, menstruating uterus.  How are they not able to reconcile a fetus's existence with how that fetus came to exist in the first place?

Women in various tribal societies who are menstruating are shunned from the tribe for the duration of their menses.  They are forced to live in filthy secluded huts because they have been announced “unclean,” and therefore are not deserving of being included and acknowledged in the greater community like the fully-functioning normal human being that she is.

Males have gone so far as to maintaining the false assertion that elderly men well past the "prime years" can still produce healthy, viable spermatozoa capable of joining ova to produce a viable, healthy zygote.  This was spurred on by a few stories of old celebrity goats that supposedly fathered children well into their triple-digit annums.  However, this was later medically proven to be false.

----
If faced with this ___ males would have to concede with a truth of this universe:  That the power of reproduction and creation are in the hands of females, and it always has been.  The ultimate decision to create life belongs to females.  This truth might make males uneasy, but that does not make it any less a truth.

But there are benefits to this perpetual, incessant inadequacy that males feel.  If nothing else, this jealousy and insecurity drove civilization, technology, and progress forward.  So that they may truthfully moniker themselves creators of at least something.  Taking great pains, blood tears and sweat, to be able to manipulate the natural world in some way so that they may pride themselves with the title of "creator."

"Necessity is the mother of all invention."  But what exactly is this necessity?  Is it for the lone physical object that was invented?  Or is it for the inventor to prove something?

----
It is also ludicrous that anyone, male or female, would insist that a fetus's right to life be divorced wholly from a woman's right to her own bodily autonomy.  This is another baffling, nonsensical anomaly that has no place in rational and moral discourse.  The claim that many make that a fetus's right to life is immaterial of a woman's right to her own bodily autonomy is ludicrous.

*It is usually divided into two extreme theaters, each stripping a woman of her humanity and choice in its own sick way.  One, the "conservative" form of misogyny is taking the fact that women are the bearer of life, and cruelly using this against a woman in any way possible.  That is turning a woman into a baby factory, a prisoner of her own uterus.  Forcing a woman's body to be used as a weapon against her.

*The other extreme cancer is possibly worse.  The "liberal" form of misogyny, which denies that women have any reproductive or even productive capabilities at all.  This manifestation, by taking away a woman's ability to become pregnant and bring forth a child.  This has veritably stripped women of any value to the human race at all.

Very important -- do not make the mistake of thinking that anyone that is okay with abortion is automatically on par with women's rights.

The fact is that forced abortions have also been used to control women's bodies.  Oh, how I wish I were making this up.  In sexual slavery practiced around the world in various countries, women are kidnapped from their homes, sold, and forced into prostitution.  In other words, they are forced into being ra--- on a regular basis.  They are also forced to go through abortions so that the brothel does not have to deal with the atrocities it is committing against human rights.

In this case, abortion is used as an aid, as a tool *against* acknowledging a woman as a conscious, whole, complete member of the homo sapiens species.

This so-called “liberalism” incarnates into some inexplicable ideologies.   Women are casually regarded as little more than empty hollow mannequins.  Abortion, here, is just another type of violence against women.

That's right; do not be fooled.  Just because abortion is "allowed" in these locations, it does not mean that the women are living in some sort of magical utopia wherein they are valued as equals to men and esteemed as whole human beings.  Here, abortion is also used as a weapon against a woman's right to bodily autonomy.  It is not the only evil committed against women, I'm not trying to make that claim, but it is one of the many evils used to abuse and subjugate women.

This is possibly even worse than the monotheistic patriarchal religions that force women to not be able to consider abortion even in the case of safety and health.  At least those religions acknowledge the fact that women's bodies bring life into the world.  However, I truly think that these forced abortions are worse.  This is because in these horrific crimes, a woman as a human being is reduced to less than the sum of her body parts.

She is certainly not acknowledged as a whole human being.  That much is clear from the fact that she is kidnapped, sold into slavery, and systematically r--ed by the society, by the economy, by the local government that forces this to happen.  Then, just to knock her down a few pegs more, she is also not even considered a bearer of human beings.  A woman here is regarded as little more than a blow-up doll.
---

___is almost worse because it trivializes the ___ that women____.  "come on baby, it's not a crime, it's just a sin!"  Suddenly, saying "No" to a male became tantamount to denying him “rights.”  It became politically incorrect to say "No" to any male.  Reducing a woman to a soulless shell, a hollow meat carcass that does not have any redeeming, life-affirming qualities.

==
The most desperate ploy thrown out in the ether recently is the assertion that r-- is justified by evolution.  Here again, we have males grasping for straws, trying somehow to find some way to justify their abject disregard for women's bodies.  This just smacks of yet more desperation.

==
Modern-day treatment of pregnant women
Yet you vilify the woman who gets pregnant.

If the fetus is so damn godly and wonderful, then why the hell isn't the woman housing that fetus treated with parallel dignity and respect?  It only follows to logic that the pregnant mother should be lavished with grace, praise, love, reverence.  The pregnant mother should be exalted for her ability to bring forth life into this world.

"Well, there are maybe a handful of social programs that might be able to aid a woman who needs help..."
No, you have turned her into a beggar, a streetwalker.  At the mercy of violent criminals, exploiters, anyone else that would prey on the physically weak.

---
Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (Mary Shelley to you) foresaw this phenomenon nearly two hundred years ago when she authored the story of Dr. Frankenstein.  She had sensed the unease that permeates males' subconscious psyches.  Males want to be able to create life on their own, without the intervention of any woman.  But the only way they can do it is through gruesome unnatural means.

This is reflected in efforts for human cloning.  These research efforts were begun by males, not by females.

There was another research project in Japan a few years back wherein a group of biologists tried to grow a mammal fetus to term in an incubator of sorts, which was supposed to supply all the nutritional requirements, cushioning of the body, O2, et cetera.  All of the things that a placenta would provide in the case of a normal mammalian pregnancy.

Do not make the mistake of considering this casually and concluding that this is a nod to feminism.  Quite the opposite.  I truly think that the researchers working on this were spurred on by the fact that females hold the power of creation in their bodies.  Males, when they embarked upon this puzzling experiment, were trying desperately to take the power of growing a life away from females.  This way, males would not be so reliant on females for reproduction.

---
The notion that evolution dictates that females want males to stick around and help raise the offspring.  And females prefer to be monogamous.  As much as gullible liberal females have tried to refudiate (hehe) this claim, there is probably quite a bit of truth to this.  And I do not think this is a bad thing.

Women have always been more evolved than men.  Females have a long history of having to be the ones to drive and usher the rest of humanity, including males, out of the Stone Age.  The responsibility of evolution has always been one that women have shouldered proudly.

This is true on the micro scale of a single human life. 
•Baby girls learn to talk earlier than baby boys.
•Earlier puberty.  Earlier emotional maturity and responsible behavior patterns.
•Female brain has thicker corpus callosum, which links the right and left hemispheres of the brain.  Buzzing snapping, electrifying back and forth between the hemispheres.  Provides stronger, more sturdy connection  (mapping of brain, putting together missing pieces of a puzzle such as solving a mystery.  Seeing links in concepts that appear superficially unrelated, but upon closer inspection turn out to be connected.)

This is also true on a hyper-iteration macro scale.  A leap forward in biological progress has always depended on a greatly increased investment from the female of the species.
•Early mitochondria provided the gateway for primitive unicellular organisms to morph into more complex unicellular organisms.
--Metabolism of nutrient sources, then being converted into energy sources for the cell.  The ATP production is much more complex than substrate-level which occurred at the cell membrane of primitive unicellulars (bacteria).

•The skeleton Lucy.  Australopithecus afarensis.  She is the missing link that was discovered to have lived so long ago, that connected early primate species to our distant hominid ancestors.

*Females being the ones responsible for well-being and protection of the young.  Laying eggs.
--Leaving them there in lower species.  Turtles, spiders.
--Sitting on them and hatching them.  Birds.  These are considered slightly higher than reptiles since they are warm-blooded.

*The transition from laying eggs and subsequently affecting external gestation.
Internal gestation for offspring in mammals.  Coupled with the mother feeding her young milk from her mammary glands.  This continues to nourish the offspring with much-needed carbohydrates, proteins, even some humoral (molecular) immunity.  This also strengthens the emotional bond between mother and child.
    (poss this http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html

With every great leap in evolutionary progress, comes an accompanied far greater investment from the female parent.  It is the female that always makes the greatest contribution to the nourishment of the offspring.  Evolution is tilted far more in favor of the contributions of the female.  In gestational requirements, nutritional supply, oxygen, blood supply, and with mammals, food supply from the mother’s body in the early year of the offspring's life is required *after* it has already been born.  This places enormous demand on the female parent.  But that is okay because the payoff is evolution.

*Women on average, are less violent, less sexually promiscuous, and more prone to forming emotional bonds with their offspring.  These are all hallmarks of more evolved species.  Compare the human species to gorillas, baboons, dogs, lions, reptiles, whales, dolphins.  It is established as fact in the scientific community that humans are more evolved than all of those other animal species.

Humans as a whole are superior to those other species in terms of intelligence, emotional bonds forming with pair-bonding, less aggression, less inclination to violence, higher morality, more emotional attachment to offspring, less likely to give in to impulsive behavior, and greater cooperation with other members of the species -- while also being physically weaker.  This comparison of humans-to-other-animalia is mirrored in the comparison female-humans-to-male-humans.

And male evolutionists keep encountering and getting bombarded by this at every turn.  It’s like shuffling a deck of cards, and no matter what happens, the queen always come out on top.  They have no choice but to concede that females drive evolution.  So how do male evolutionary scientists cope?  They must find some way to rationalize male brutality, justify it in their minds.  They must find some way to make sense of it, insist that it did contribute to evolution.  Even though what it really did was wreak terror on humanity.

This is why they try to make excuses.  The d--- getting hard excuse.  Trying to pretend they have any say in the matter.  For example, they ask in vain, what do women want?  However, what they are really asking is, how do I bag a hot chick.  They already know what women want.  With all the nonstop incessant chattering that women do all the time, I mean seriously, we will not stop, the entire freaking population of the developed world knows what women want.

The "teh poor menz" arguments predictably follow along thusly:  well whut abut teh poor menz why cant dey choos wimmen dey want????

That's a bullshyte argument, because you already have what you want.  Human women have already been selected for through a few million years of evolution.  The mammalian species have already selectively bred for females that have a significantly increased investment in producing offspring.  Nature did all the picking for you, so you men don't have to worry your pretty little heads off about it.

So what do teh poor menz get out of the deal?  They get mates who gestate the offspring for nine months, producing an infant that has an enormous brain with enormous brain-to-body mass ratio, proceed to breastfeed after that, and then stick around and raise the child throughout their formative years.  Psychologically, socially, and through physical and sexual maturity.

And mates who normally produce only one infant at a time, thereby allowing all nutritional and oxygen supply to go to that one infant.  At most twins and much more rarely triplets.  Beyond that, none without the help of fertility drugs.  But on the whole, human females do not produce litters.  In terms of evolutionary progress, this is a good thing.  Add the fact that human women internally gestate, and the fact that they generally do not leave or die after hatching the infant, a la turtles or spiders.

So quit complaining.  You already got the best that you can hope for.

So why do males still act as if their queries are unanswered?  It is because they are trying to maintain the pretense that they have a realistic shot with those hot chicks, as if those hot chicks are not going to magnetically gravitate to alpha males exclusively and automatically.  The poor male dears.  They try so hard to maintain the illusion that they are in control of the mating situation in some way. 

Again, this all comes down to uterus envy.  They try to pretend that they are in some way, any way at all, in control of reproduction.  They entertain the illusion that they possess a smidgen of any input whatsoever, a voice in the continuation of the species.

The Truth: Margaret Sanger Was Not Racist, Nor Was She Pro-Abortion

Why do so many people keep demonizing Margaret Sanger?  She was not, as far too many people mistakenly believe, in favor of abortion.  Nor was she preoccupied with exterminating non-white races.

Take the time to read her own accounts of this.  She had originally been charged with performing abortions for women who did not want to have more children.  Margaret Sanger herself was shocked, appalled, disgusted, and horrified at the fact that the women had to resort to this to keep from carrying pregnancies to term.  These women had no choice but to rely on having their insides sucked out, probed, prodded, scratched out, and subject to this kind of violence simply because they wanted to give their bodies a break from the grueling labor that was pregnancy and childbirth.

Because of what Margaret Sanger witnessed, she became a staunch advocate of birth control.  Precisely because she was against abortion is the reason that she founded an advocacy group that provided women with contraceptives.

She was a happily married woman who wanted safe, reliable birth control for herself and her husband.  The vast majority of women for whom she wanted access to birth control were married women who just wanted reasonable spacing between having children.

Margaret Sanger advocated BIRTH CONTROL.  Say it with me, people, birth control.  Now spell it:  B-I-R-T-H-space-C-O-N-T-R-O-L.  She did this for the express purpose of reducing abortions.

People seem to think she was racist.  Why, because she thought mentally handicapped people and poverty-stricken people should not have children?  How the hell is that racist?  That is not racist; that is common sense.  It is good judgment and it is showing concern for the future of society not to desire reproduction from mentally handicapped people.  Mental handicap and poverty can strike anyone of any race.

The fact is, mentally handicapped people and poverty-stricken people are NOT equipped to be good parents.  Social and emotionally-evolved creatures such as human beings need parents who are fully capable of raising a child with love, discipline, structure, and order.  A child fares best if he/she is raised in a stable, loving household where the two parents are married and treat each other right, neither one is violent or asshole-ish, neither one does drugs, and both are educated.  Mentally handicapped people are not capable of this.

It is a crying shame that general pop society is given to stupidly-swayed political correctness, because this prevents truth from being broadcast.  Raising children costs money.  Raising children requires nutritious, healthy food, it requires clothing, it requires ample hygiene and sanitation, that means laundry detergent, soap, toilet paper.  Raising children requires the parents to be able to afford regular doctor check-ups; it requires being able to easily afford rent each and every month; it requires being able to live in a safe, clean, secure place and not just any old ragtag slum housing; that means working functioning pipes with clean water.

I have witnessed that the type of people that are convinced that Planned Parenthood is "evil" are twisted, messed up people with horrific, tragic lack of intelligence.  This includes both extreme conservatives as well as extreme liberals.  They have a complete lack of good judgment.

----
More on Sanger and the Negro Project: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html

The Margaret Sanger Papers Project at NYU (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/) is an excellent resource for debunking many of the other myths about Sanger.
----------
Original Link: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/sanger-hitler_equation.html

“The Sanger-Hitler Equation” #32, Winter 2002/3

Search for Margaret Sanger’s name on the Internet and you will quickly be bombarded by claims that she supported Hitler and the Nazi’s human elimination programs, or at the very least inspired the Nazi architects of race improvement. “Hitler and Sanger Join Hands” blares one anti-Sanger diatribe; “Margaret Sanger, Sterilization and the Swastika” is the title of another; “Let us look forward to the day when Planned Parenthood clinics are made into holocaust museums,” concludes another attack on Sanger’s writings. One web site features photos of Sanger and Hitler united under a Swastika. Another inserts the phrase “concentration camps” into a 1932 Sanger speech to demonstrate her real motives, a novel form of textual annotation that is then passed on like a virus to other sites who point to the phrase as documented evidence of Sanger’s final solution.

Though this disinformation campaign, designed to arouse anger and anti-choice activism, resides largely on the Internet, in colorful, sensationalized pages, even the more respectable print outlets have picked up many of the most extreme Nazi-related allegations about Sanger as voiced by anti-abortion activists at newsworthy events or on Op-Ed pages. They then print them without comment, in effect publishing them as fact. The Associated Press, for example, reported on an anti-abortion march in Birmingham on October 14 of this year, quoting a participant who described Sanger “as racist as she could be,” and linked her to Hitler’s race policies. A Canadian paper, the Calgary Sun, ran a Sept. 1 opinion piece that claimed Sanger “backed the Nazi race purification program until it became unfashionable.” And even though mainstream publications are not actually calling Sanger a Nazi, they are, increasingly, referring to her (as the New York Times did in a September 19 article on the opening of the Museum of Sex in New York City) as a “eugenicist” before associating her with birth control.

Every year there are dozens more characterizations of Sanger as a pro-Nazi, genocidal racist appearing in newspapers, right-wing biographies and purported histories of planned parenthood, and especially on the Internet. Sanger is by no means alone among controversial social reformers and liberators painted as grotesques by extremist opponents of their beliefs and accomplishments; Martin Luther King, Jr., and Eleanor Roosevelt can ably compete with her for this posthumous fame. But the attacks against Sanger resonate in a way that attacks on others do not, largely because of the emotions generated by the abortion debate.

Unfortunately these misrepresentations of Sanger as a Nazi sympathizer who carried out her own quiet form of genocide through abortions, the spread of harmful contraceptives and the advocacy of racist “eugenic” policies – supported by the circulation of Sanger’s controversial writings on eugenics – have begun to infect unbiased student research that is increasingly dependent on unverified and unsubstantiated information only a mouse click away. Granted most of the Internet sites that link Sanger and Hitler as the dark angels of human carnage don’t hide their pro-life, anti-choice associations. But the “Big Lie” theory works – the more you say it, the more it sticks.

Sanger never met Hitler, except in her unconscious (see below). And the reality is that despite the fact that Sanger’s anti-militarism and isolationism during the 1920s and 1930s at times obscured her abhorrence of the Nazis, she was deeply shocked and horrified by the evils and dangers of fascism, Hitler and the Nazi party. “All the news from Germany is sad & horrible,” she wrote in 1933, “and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria.” (MS to Edith How-Martyn, May 21, 1933 [MSM C2:536].) She joined the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda and “gave money, my name and any influence I had with writers and others, to combat Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.” (“World War II and World Peace,” 1940? [MSM S72:269].) For Hitler the feeling was mutual; in 1933 the Nazis burned Sanger’s books along with those of Ellis, Freud, German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, and others. (Ellis to MS, Sept. 3, 1933 [LCM 3:385].)

How then does Sanger end up keeping company with Hitler? In this predominantly Internet-based netherworld of revisionist Sanger profiles there are two paths linking Sanger to Hitler, and they frequently intersect. On one, Sanger is accused of murdering millions through abortion, either directly as an abortionist, or as the primary force in creating a culture that devalues human life as evidenced by the rising number of abortions through the twentieth century. This is the unacknowledged “holocaust” commandeered by Sanger. In these absurd depictions she was an even more efficient killer than Hitler or Stalin. One well-quoted assault on Sanger’s legacy, George Grant’s 1995 book, Killer Angel, charges Sanger with the “brutal elimination of thirty million children in the United States and as many as two and a half billion worldwide.” The fact that Sanger’s clinic did not offer abortions and that she advocated birth control as the only remedy for abortion does little to dispel the myth that Sanger pressed abortion upon the masses.

But the main vehicle used to metamorphose this feminist liberator into a Nazi is Sanger’s limited and largely self-serving role in the short but spectacular rise of American eugenics – a movement that sought to apply the principles of genetics to improving the human race. By lifting passages from Sanger’s writings on eugenics and sterilization while failing to provide the complete argument or proper context, and by linking her with notorious racists within the eugenics movement, debunkers of Sanger’s achievements have given her a fiendish make-over.

In one of the seminal texts in this extremist assault on Sanger, the 1979 Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society (both its title and cover – pictured here– prepare the reader for the many leaps of faith to come), the author suggests that Sanger, through her “eugenic” writings and speeches, put into motion a “‘polite’ genocide with an army of biologists, sociologists, eugenicists and psychologists at her side,” and did so without raising any suspicions among the people. (p. 24) So effective was Sanger as a propagandist, claims the author, that her debased “values” have become “those of modern Western civilization and are rapidly becoming the morals which dominate the rest of the world.” (p. 9)

What is, of course, overlooked is that Sanger used the popular eugenics movement to help promote birth control as a science-based remedy for overpopulation, poverty, disease and famine. Incorporating the rhetoric of the eugenics movement into her writings allowed Sanger to make a stronger biological argument that fertility control was necessary for the improvement and health of the entire human race, not only as a means to liberate women. Sanger did seek to discourage the reproduction of persons who were, in the terms of her day, “unfit” or “feebleminded,” those, it was believed, who would pass on mental disease or serious physical defect. And she did advocate sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use birth control. This was a popular position espoused by many progressive medical leaders, scientists and health reformers of the day – those groups who Sanger hoped to win over to the birth control fight. But in approaching eugenics as a propagandist rather than a scientist, Sanger’s language became dehumanizing, her eugenic recommendations overly simplistic, and her understanding of genetics flawed. Take the oft quoted 1931 “My Way to Peace,” in which Sanger recommends that the government:

  . . . keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphiletic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class . . . apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. (Jan. 17, 1932 [LCM 130:198].)

These are harsh words intended to appeal not only to eugenicists, but social and health workers who came in contact with all manner of sickness and suffering. Sanger was not referring to short stature or pattern balding when she used the phrase “objectionable traits,” rather she was talking about diseases such as syphilis that were ravaging especially the poor. Unfortunately, she did sometimes apply the term to moral as well as mental defects, though never as virulently as others in the eugenics community.

Offensive terminology aside, Sanger’s beliefs, however inhumane they may seem in the current age of medical enlightenment when human suffering is much less visible in our daily lives, actually came from her direct experience with the poor and oppressed. An illustration can be found in a 1932 letter written to Sanger by a woman requesting birth control advice:

  “I will be thirty-six years old on December 16, 1932. and I shall have been married fifteen years on December 13, 1932. During this time I have given birth to eleven children, of whom four are now living–a boy of 13 1/2 years–a girl of 12 years and twin boys two years old. Three of these eleven children were born badly deformed–one with a hare lip and split palate and two with excessive water and a frog-like form. The last birth (one of the deformed ones) was in August 1931 and had to be accomplished with instruments and the Doctor . . . feared for my life and warned us against further pregnancy.” (Client to MS, July 5, 1932 [MSM S7:218].)

Such dilemmas led Sanger to the strongly held belief that the best way to reduce human suffering was to first provide greater access to birth control. It was also necessary, she argued, to somehow regulate the procreation of those individuals likely to pass on physical or mental disease and disability who were incapable of using or denied access to contraception. But her writings on eugenics, including her 1922 book Pivot of Civilization, argued that eugenic measures in and of themselves were not practicable. Instead, she concluded that women’s empowerment through birth control offered the only viable means of improving the human condition.

While “My Way to Peace” is brutally frank and among the most extreme of any of Sanger’s eugenic writings, it does not condone race-based eugenics. Sanger never accepted the racial hierarchies that led to the deadly racist policies of the Nazis. Rather, she vehemently rejected any definition of the “unfit” when it referred “to race or religions.” (MS to Sidney Lasell, Jr., Feb. 13, 1934 [MSM S8:541].) This was not true of the broader eugenics movement, both in Europe and the United States, which blurred the distinction between good science and racial prejudice, and generally failed to protest the perversion of its ideals under the Nazis. A number of American eugenicists excused or even commended reprehensible Nazi race policies camouflaged, however poorly, under the veneer of science.

Sanger did write to and share organizational memberships and conference programs with any number of eugenicists, including such champions of scientific racism as Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, who ran the genetics laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, New York; and Leon Whitney, secretary of the American Eugenics Society. All of them conflated physical and mental deficiencies with racial ones. While Sanger publicly criticized these most notable eugenicists for their opposition or indifference to birth control, she never publicly condemned their racial views. Her silence is damning in retrospect, but it does not make her a Nazi.

Those who insist on labeling Sanger a Nazi claim time and again that she inspired the men who unleashed the barbarism lurking in eugenics, yet many of the men she supposedly roused to action had, in the main, only a grudging respect tinged with contempt for the woman they saw as a major deterrent to their quest to breed more of the “best.” And though Sanger sought their support for birth control, in most cases she failed to win their endorsement. With few exceptions, American eugenicists advocated increased breeding among the “fit,” defined by them as white Anglo-Saxon Protestants with middle or upper class values, and viewed birth control as the major impediment to the proliferation of these “better stocks.”

Even more than her links with American eugenicists, Sanger’s so-called association with Ernst Rudin, the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry in Munich, who helped align prevalent eugenic theories with Nazi race policy, has been featured in nearly every right-wing assault on Sanger’s legacy. The grounds for charges that she knew, corresponded with, or influenced Rudin stem from the April 1933 Birth Control Review (BCR), a special “sterilization number.” Rudin did contribute an article to this issue, as did Harry Laughlin and Leon Whitney and other eugenicists. The issue also included excerpts from the works of Havelock Ellis and influential gynecologist Robert Dickinson. Taken as a whole, the issue presents a clear, if not always comfortable, debate on compulsory sterilization, with forceful arguments for and against, and calls for further research on sterilization as a eugenic measure. But Sanger had resigned as editor of the BCR in 1929 and no longer had any affiliation with the publication. Nevertheless the BCR issue has been held out like a smoking gun in the campaign to brand Sanger a sterilization missionary and Nazi sympathizer. What is never noted is that the one voice absent in the issue is Margaret Sanger’s.

Historians must grapple with the phenomenal amount of material that is being dumped on the Internet. This flood of historical “evidence” is at once liberating and dangerous, for it includes information and disinformation, and there are no help menus to tell the difference. This has become an immense challenge to historical editors who seek to deliver accurate texts in historical context. Some of the incredible attacks on Sanger have existed in book and pamphlet form for several decades now, but in the past only the most zealous would pay for them or go to the trouble to track them down. Now search engines bring them in an instant to our desktops. With sensational headlines, comical juxtapositions, bold assertions and a kind of Twilight Zone aura about them, these anti-choice, anti-Sanger web sites appear to have a sizeable and growing audience. And therein lies the problem; the proliferation of extremist material makes it all seem less extreme, more acceptable to students, journalists and others looking for a quick take on a controversial and complicated figure. History is never that easy.

Liberals and Other Babies

*This is a copy of a post entry on my other blog.  But it is of such great importance that it bears repeating.
----------

Sigh of exhaustion.  Okay, look, I have tried my damnedest to pretend that unplanned pregnancies are equally the male and the female's fault, that responsibility is shared 50/50 between the two parties, that it takes two to tango, et cetera.

But sigh, I just can't keep up this charade any longer.  I have been beating myself in the head forcing myself to feel what I do not feel, forcing myself to be politically correct, forcing myself to pretend that my feelings are not what they truly are, and forcing my logical to not arrive at the conclusions to which it arrives.  I have been shoving my cognition processes and natural feelings into doing what society at large approves of, and when I say "society," I mostly mean the mass media.  Ever since time immeasurable, liberal media pop culture has promoted an unrealistic extreme stance that is mostly reactionary to religious zealot born-again Christian unrealistic extreme stance.

My long treatise where I am taking mostly females to task for not wanting to accept any responsibility whatsoever for creating a fetus.  The females are saying it's entirely the male's fault for getting them pregnant, that she herself had no hand in the matter, she was a good pure angelic little angel that did absolutely nothing to warrant a pregnancy.  The males do not want to take any responsibility whatsoever, they skip town, they haul ass, they take a bus ticket and leave, blah blah.  Conservatives tend to only blame the female, and liberals tend to only blame the male.  Come on, people, Lauryn Hill has already told us all this, twelve years ago with “That Thing,” but it seems that skulls have only gotten thicker since then, so it bears repeating.

First of all I need to establish clarity that I am specifically talking about consensual acts between two people similar in age.  I am NOT talking about r---, pedophilia, statutory, or other sexual abuse.  That is not the same thing as sex between two people who both agreed to do it.  Those are sick depraved crimes that the a-hole needs to rot in prison for, and after that in hell, and that is another issue entirely.

****

I thought feminism was supposed to be about women having rights, including rights over what do with their own bodies.  And rightfully so.  That is absolutely correct.  That is finally having some long-awaited evolution in human thought and procession that has been a long time coming.  Women should not have to sell their bodies.  Women, just like men and children, have the inherent human right to decide not to do something with their bodies.  They have the intrinsic, undeniable right to say NO.  Women should never have to be faced with the cruelty of having to cough up a reason NOT to do something with their bodies.  You have to believe me on this, I am glad that this is the case.

But then you know what?  That also means you have to take that much *responsibility* for your actions.  That means you have to take that much responsibility for your body.

I'm sorry women, but the notion that someone else has to take responsibility for what *your* body does is illogical bullshyte.  I do not understand the justification for this pseudo-philosophy at all.  It is frankly insulting to me as a woman that some people think that a female should not be considered responsible for causing her own damn pregnancy.

It is also insulting, not to mention illogical, that a woman should only be considered 50% responsible and no more.  That's right, I said it.  I fervently believe that a woman inherently carries greater responsibility for causing a fetus than a man does.  I don't care how politically incorrect this sounds; it is common sense.  Not to mention, it is simple biology.  It is the truth.

I rescind statements in my earlier articles wherein I insisted that a pregnancy is equal responsibility of the two contributing parties.  Pregnancy is NOtttt equally the responsibility 50/50 of the two participants.  I had been beating my brains out for many years trying to force myself into believing that the fault lies equally with both parties.  But I cannot deny what I truly think.  Sorry, but I don't buy that.  I never truly have.  It just seems plainly illogical.  Your body, you are the one that would get pregnant, therefore your share of responsibility is greater than the male's.

It is insulting for a woman not to be considered the responsible party, because it implies that she is a stupid invalid who does not understand cause and effect, actions and consequences.  It implies that she is a primitive idiot that has no control over what she decides to do with her body.  It is insulting because it means that a given female does not possess rational decision-making capabilities.

Shockingly and unfortunately, in this modern day and age females are the ones primarily making this false claim that they bear little responsibility for creating a fetus.  Females are astoundingly the ones making the false claim that men are responsible for making sure females don't get pregnant.  Females are trying to make the claim that what their own damn uteruses do is someone else's fault.

This is illogical and bizarre.

You can't be all, "it's MY body, I have the right to do whatever I want with MY body" -- But then at the same time, then refuse to take responsibility for what you consensually did with your own body.

Sorry girls, but it doesn’t work that way.  From a practical, logical standpoint it does not work, and from a philosophical standpoint it does not work.  Come on, females, I figured this out when I was twelve years old in the seventh grade while watching news stories about teen pregnancies.  And now that I look over things, I realize it does not work that way with anything in life.  If you have that much rights, then you have that much responsibility.

Why are you girls being that ignorant and expecting someone else to care about YOUR body?  If you can’t even be careful enough to respect your OWN body, you sure as hell can't expect someone else to care about your body for you.

For god's sakes, it's *your* body, so act like it.  It's YOUR body, so it's YOUR responsibility.

I just don’t get the way some females think.  For goodness sake, it’s YOUR body; YOU are the one who would have to pay the biggest price if things go wrong with sex.  Therefore it only makes sense that YOU should be more careful and less sloppy than a guy would.  It only makes sense that you would be more vigilant.  Have some goddamn accountability for what you do to yourself.

Being a woman, I know for a fact that if something goes wrong with the birth control, anything at all, *I* am the one who would have to pay the biggest price, *I* am the one who would have to suffer the worst consequences.  This is basic biology.  Therefore, it only makes sense that I am the one who should be more vigilant about these things.  It is the logical, common sensical thing.  That I should be more vigilant about taking care of MY body, more vigilant about respect for MY body.  Why the hell would I want to risk screwing up my life, screwing up my body, screwing up my health for some guy?  If some guy doesn’t respect that, then you need to respect yourself and kick that guy out of your life.

Feminism has demanded that men, and other women of course, respect our bodies.  They should, there is no question about that.  It only works, however, if you respect your own body first.

Do some of us girls need to review basic biology?  Ever heard of pregnancy?  Ever heard of how it happens?  Ever heard of which of us humans would have to do it?  If you are pregnant, you are not going to be able to unload and shove the pregnancy onto the guy with whom you got that way, as much as you would like to.

I remember back in the early 1990s, the news was ablaze with all those reports of how "ohmigosh the guys are getting girls pregnant.  The teenage boy pigs with their evil sadistic sperm are getting these sweet angelic pure little teenage girl angels pregnant."  And yet almost simultaneously, the current events were also fired up with stories of how "strong capable women are in charge of their own bodies."

Even back then to my own tween ears, this sounded patently asinine.  If she is really in charge of her own body, then why is it only the guy's fault?

If the consequences are such a biiigg responsibility that it would jeopardize your life, then guess what.  It should have been a big enough risk to think about before you had sex.  Do me a favor and don't tell me, "hindsight is twenty-twenty" or "Monday morning quarterbacks" or any of that crap.  One, this is a basic rule of biology.  And Two, this is a major derailing from course if things go wrong.  Together, that should give anyone with half a brain lobe enough incentive to think before they act.  (Not even half a brain is required; only half of one lobe is sufficient.)

YOUR body -- YOUR responsibility.

You are greater than 50 percent responsible for bringing that baby into the world.  Yet you are sitting there acting as if you are zero percent responsible.  When you made the decision to have sex possibly with crappy birth control, you knew what the consequences were going to be.  Again, perhaps we should review basic biology.

I will not ever, nor do I ever plan to, understand why so many females sleep with males that do not give a crap about them.  I am going to declare the following statement and I do not care how much this offends liberals.  I do not care how much this offends those rather unhinged, few-screws-loose whory nutbags who deign to call themselves "feminists" or "girl power" or whatever.

Here is the statement:  If you females don't want to get pregnant, then don't have sex.  Simple as that.  This quite literally is not rocket surgery.

Perhaps we need a trip back to sixth grade sex-ed class.  Believe it or not, sex can lead to pregnancy.  Yeah, new groundbreaking research, just discovered.  (Turn to the person on my right.)  Did you know that sex can lead to pregnancy?  (Turn to the person on my left.)  Did you know that sex can lead to pregnancy?  Cause I did.  And apparently I am alone in this super duper multi looper top-secret Pentagon-security clearance-level knowledge.

Especially if you did not bother to be hyper-vigilant with the birth control.  This is a subtle truth that seems to be lost on a lot of people.  Just one form of birth control alone is usually not enough to prevent pregnancy.

This is also something that was covered in middle school sex ed.  I remember we got a chart that listed all the different types of birth control available, and it also listed the statistical efficacy of each of those birth control options.  I remember that condoms hovered at about 90%.  Hormonal birth control pills were at a crisp 99%.  But again dood, if you are only relying on your sex partner to take care of fetus prevention, then it is your own fault for being a gullible idiot.  You don't want to face responsibility, then take precautions yourself.  Just because you didn't learn about this stuff in sixth grade is no excuse not to know now.  What the hell are any of you thinking, having sex without making sure you don't reproduce?

YOUR uterus -- YOUR responsibility.

Oh, waaaaiiiiit now I like totally get it.  So you’re saying you're nothing but a plastic mannequin dummy that does not participate in your own life.  You have no control, you have no say over what happens to you, no control over what you make happen to yourself.  You’re saying you’re an auxiliary spectator bystander in your own damn life.  Suuuurrrrreee.

You don’t want to take care of your own body, and you expect him to take care of your body for you?

Wrong.  YOUR body -- YOUR responsibility.

This is going to elicit a predictable response from a lot of people -- “Oh you have no respect for women, you think women should be staying in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.  Oh you hate strong independent women.”  These people think I am saying that the girl is wrong for giving it up without a wedding ring and the ilk.  And then they accuse me of not liking strong women, ad nauseum.

Sigh.  Forehead into my hands.  Lord, you don't even know.  You really don't have a clue, do you?  I am NOT saying you females are being too strong and independent.

I am saying that you females are not being strong and independent *enough*.  For god’s sake, have some cynicism.  Have some healthy skepticism, have some suspicion.  It will serve you well in life.  If the guy says, "yeah baby don’t worry about it, I’ve got it covered, I’ll wear a condom" -- don’t believe him.  Take whatever precautions you have to, to protect yourself.  You need to worry about yourself first.  You need to do what you have to, to preserve your own physical health and safety.

YOUR body -- YOUR responsibility.

Some analogies:  a) Free speech -- the first amendment is supposed to mean that with great freedom comes great responsibility.  (However in weird ways this has been both abused and restricted, but that is a different essay.)  b) Medical doctors -- if they are given that much authority, given that much power in society, then so too do they have that much responsibility to be benevolent and magnanimous to their patients.  c) Corporate execs that run the economy thought they were above and exempt from responsibility that naturally accompanies economic power, and look where the country is now.  d) Celebrities, though not actually powerful, more like just subject to constant peeping tomfoolery, engage in cheap publicity stunts all the time -- sex tapes, wardrobe malfunctions, cokeouts and other forms of public OD-ing.  But then they turn around and whine and complain that people don't respect their privacy.  It is a comical, pathetic degree of non-self-awareness.

What I’m hearing is that apparently a lot of guys say to girls, "don't worry baby, nothing will happen, nothing will go wrong."  Apparently the girl believes him.  Again, let us review basic sex ed class from sixth grade.  (Well, then again, I had sex ed in fifth grade, sixth grade, seventh grade, and eighth grade, and then also in tenth grade, so maybe I'm more informed than most.)  There is no birth control that exists that is one hundred percent fool-proof effective.

"""Well I totally say he should stay and take care of his responsibility..."""

Oh yeah?  How’s that working for ya?  He could skip town, and then what would you do?

*****

And YOU.  (Rounding on the males this time and yelling at them.)

Unfortunately, this is the reality for males.  After you have delivered your genetic material, there is not much more you can do after that.  The male is not really able to take part in the decision of whether or not the blastula and zygote will be allowed to grow to full term.

You are probably thinking this is incredibly unfair.  I agree, it is unfair.  Unfortunately, once the horse has left the starting gates, there is not much you can do about it at that point.  After that, because the fetus is housed within the female's body, it becomes solely her decision whether or not to keep it.  And once it becomes an actual human being and is popped out, you have to support it.  That is the morally right thing to do.  After it is born, it is a human being, and it the duty of both parents to support it and take care of it.

I know what you are thinking.  You are thinking that with this mention of being "morally right," the female should have been morally right and not had sex with a casual acquaintance in the first place.  I agree with you, she should not have.  But we have witnessed that she is phenomenally stupid.  Her decision-making abilities, judgment, and morals are woefully subpar.  Her respect for her own body and reproductive capabilities is nil.

By associating with a female like that, you are stuck.  You should not have taken a chance with a chick that is so stupid that she can't be bothered to care about her own reproductive health.

I remember an episode of ER where a girl came into the emergency room, and she was pregnant in addition to whatever ailment befell her.  She wasn’t showing yet, it seemed the pregnancy was in the early stages.  She wanted to keep the baby.  The um, father, sperm donor, whatever you want to call it, vehemently did not want her to keep it.  I honestly don’t remember if she expected anything from the guy or not.  (If she did expect the guy to stay with her and help with everything, she was 100 percent justified in doing so.)  But she was willing to keep the baby.  She was going to be a mother -- she had accepted that it was happening and she made her peace with it.  And I dare say, now that she had accepted it, she was looking forward to it and was happy about it.

Unfortunately... he served her some sort of herbal concoction, some sort of tea or something -- that induced a miscarriage.  He served it to her with the specific purpose of inducing a miscarriage, will full intent of doing so.  I believe he had to go to some sort of specialty shop that was really far out of the way to obtain that herbal stuff.  In short, he aborted the baby without her consent.

And the ER resident physician called the cops on his ass for committing murder.  I agree with the physician one hundred percent.  Damn right he should have called the police.

Look, biological father dude, she has decreed that the fetus will become a human being, and that decision is final.  She decided it is.  Therefore it is.  This is reality.  Accept it.

Dear reader, whether you are a man or a woman, you might have picked up on another point I’m trying to make.  I've noticed this for a very long time, at least since high school.  Women in general are not nearly as “pro-choice” (i.e., pro-abortion) as the media makes them out to be.  And men are not nearly as pro-life as the media makes them out to be.  To be honest, this is really rather puzzling to me, but it is what's out there.

Sure, the media hypes that all women are pro-choice and all men are pro-life, but this is a far cry from what I have witnessed in my dealings with actual people.  Most women I have seen and read comments from, are overjoyed to be growing a fetus.  This is usually regardless of their marital status with the biological father (which frankly I find exasperating and abhorrent but that's not the point).  I have also seen in message boards the internet over, in various word-choice permutations, men keep writing sickening crap synonymous with the following:  "waaaaaahhh!!  why don't us poor mens get a choice not to take responsibly for keeping a fetus???  if it takes two to create it, then it should take two to decide if it lives!!!  this is going to cramp my game!!!  I don't want a fetus so she should have killed it!!!"

I’m pro-choice enough, but even I have to admit that if a woman does not want to kill her fetus, then she does not want to.  End of discussion.  To demand a woman kill her fetus against her will is pretty gruesome and abusive.

*****

I will end this diatribe with addressing all of society, specifically both the men and women conservatives that demand, that do not want women to be in control of their own bodies.

Extreme conservative republicans in society will probably reply aghast, offended.  "So wait a minute -- are you saying that it’s all up to her??!  Are you dare saying it is ultimately up to the person who is actually carrying the fetus and would potentially have to go through forty grueling weeks of backbreaking labor beginning with morning sickness; completely changing around her metabolism and chemistry; devouring a great deal of her body's nourishment, blood supply, and oxygen requirement; making her more susceptible to various viral or bacterial illness because in order for a pregnancy to work a woman's immune system has to almost completely shut down?  What about the rest of society?  Are you saying WE don’t get a say in whether or not she should keep the fetus?"

DAMN STRAIGHT.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying.

That is the pregnant woman’s decision -- the decision is ultimately hers, about whether or not to have this fetus.  It is the woman’s job, that right, the pregnant woman’s decision, whether or not this fetus is a baby or not.

If she decides to keep the baby, and raise it and grow it into a human being, then back the hell off.  That is her decision.  If she decided to get rid of the fetus, then back the hell off.

You conservatives don't want her to abort the fetus.  But she wants to, get the hell over it.  Now, I do agree with conservatives in my personal opinion of abortion.  I do consider it morally reprehensible, if it is not in the case of extreme need and is simply used as a form of birth control.  However, it is that woman's body and she has a right to keep her body healthy.  Nobody on this planet has a right to harm her body.  Yes, that's right, from a medical scientific standpoint, pregnancy does more harm to the body than good.  And therefore if the woman is not one hundred percent consenting to grow the fetus to term, that is harm to her body.

Some conservative will ask, aghast:  Oh dearie me, are you saying that the woman who houses the fetus has the ultimate say in what happens to that fetus?  Are you saying that it's up to the woman tasked with the burden of carrying it, to decide whether it will live or not?  To decide the course of time-space that this timeline will travel?  The course of what will potentially or won't potentially happen in this crossroads??

Yes.  That is exactly what I am saying.

Liberals and conservatives are both incredibly stupid for the most part.  They usually fall neatly into two very disturbing, pathologically far-gone camps.  One school of thought states that people including women should take responsibility for their own actions, for their decisions, for what happens in their life.  That's fine, but unfortunately this is extended to the notion that absolutely anything that happens in a woman's life is her fault.  Including the situation where (god forbid) she is a crime victim.  Still conservatives have the sick, nasty notion to blame the woman for a crime that some sickeningly subhuman hominid carried out on her.  The other equally depraved, troubling, but on the opposite extreme of the spectrum notion, that of liberals, declares that nothing, absolutely nothing that happens in a woman's life is her responsibility.