Erick Erickson, is a douche

In the event that you’re merely familiar with the sound of the name itself and not the differentiation in spelling…I don’t mean this one; in my opinion he actually contributed to society. I mean this one. Besides generally disagreeing with his conservative mental filter that spits out opinions that make me want to poke my own eyes out with a fork (eg. global warming is a fairy tale, it’s not okay to dissent against the Pope because good God-fearin’ Christians should hate them gays, eliminating co-payments for mammograms and pap smears is bad, and my personal favorite… feminists hate Pam Tebow and are all pro-abortion because they’re offended that a pro-life commercial (sponsored by an anti-choice, anti-gay organization) was allowed during Superbowl, To provide just a few examples.

I am capable of respecting someone despite whatever disagreement I may have with their opinions/views, etc. Erick Erickson appears to be an intelligent person, I’ve read his blog which contains his political views and he relays them in a well-formed way. I didn’t dislike him; until I read these ‘tweets’ in response to the Focus On The Families (note that I did not specify it as the “Pam Tebow” or “Tim Tebow”) ad for Superbowl:

that’s it?!?! That’s what the feminazis were enraged over? Seriously?!? Wow. That’s what being too ugly to get a date does to your brain 3:45 PM Feb 7th from TweetDeck

Thus ends the credibility of all pro-abortion groups. Thanks Mrs. Tebow for that. Ugly feminists return to their kitchens. #RSRH

That’s not smog in Miami. It’s bras burning from the sheer stupidity of the pro-abortion crowd’s reaction to the Tebow ad. #rsrh

Next the feminist groups will lash out at all the commercials praising manly men. They’ll trot out Lorena Bobbit to spade/neuter your man. 5:13 PM Feb 7th from TweetDeck

I have big fat zero respect for someone that resorts to this kind of primitive and obtuse method of responding to what someone else believes. Put simply, it makes someone sound like an absolute idiot regardless of how edited and polished they might come across in a blog.

I had read a pretty significant selection of varying articles, blogs, etc. about the whole F on the F ad drama prior to actually watching the ad. I did the same after watching the ad. Not one single thing I read decried either of the two actually involved in the ad for anything. In fact much of what I read had nothing to do with Pam Tebow at all; the “feminists” that even mentioned her specifically, applauded her for exercising her choice that was made despite medical opinion, about her own body and pregnancy (even though she’s a spokesperson for an organization that would love to take that very same choice away from women).

Via twitter Erickson simply demonstrated (in the most blockhead and imbecilic way possible) his ignorant inability to recognize the ad for what it actually was. A manipulative and duplicitous conduit (because it was portrayed in a very easy-to-swallow pill for all those watching the ‘big game’) to say the following:

• We are against abortion
• If you are a woman and you choose an abortion you are weak (you are not “tough”) regardless of the reason(s) why you might choose it
• We were privileged for various reasons and the choice to have a baby worked out for us…therefore new life is a miracle and you should make it work for you despite whatever you might be struggling with and despite the circumstances that found you with new life

The ad in the way it was done was actually more ‘offensive’ to anyone than it might have been had the Tebows just been scripted to come out and say, “we’re against abortion”. That’s honestly beautiful…their story that began with a seemingly sad beginning and was probably very harrowing, has a happy ending and it’s a wonderful thing to share. But how easy is it to put that in a package that people want to open to serve F on the F’s agenda? Pretty easy.

I’ve been to the F on the F website and watched their videos of people’s stories and “miraculous” endings.

I’d respect the organization a whole lot more if they had a video about a woman that was raped and ended up pregnant and turned it into a “miracle” by having a baby. Or maybe if they had a video about a teenager that ended up pregnant that didn’t have such a supportive family that thought babies are a “miracle”. At the very least depict it realistically, because unintended pregnancies are not always the result of “misguided” teens that have loving, caring families to help make it a happy ending. And it’s not always a happy ending for women.  

I 100% support another person’s right to have a different belief. But I have a lot more respect for it when it’s 1. realistic, and 2. not given in a way that disregards (see Focus on the Family) some and belittles (see Erickson) others.

Long story short…Erickson, you are a douche.

“Rights”

Today while eating lunch in my office I was perusing blogs and after a few links came across an entry about “reproductive rights” and how it relates to a 69 year old woman who has unfortunately passed away recently, leaving behind the two twins that she gave birth to three years ago. It kept me agitated all day, and I’ll tell you why (probably in the most long-winded way possible unfortunately).

The writer of the entry (blog: The Pursuit of Harpyness-I could write for an entire day about that choice of title alone) made arguments that women of any age should be allowed to undergo fertility treatments in order to conceive. That it is a “reproductive rights” issue. On the contrary, I feel that it is certainly not a reproductive rights issue…it’s a moral issue that centers around the well-being of children that have absolutely no choice as to what they’re born into. I encourage you to read the original article via Fox News; especially since it details how Maria del Carmen Brousada deceived a fertility clinic about her true age in order to even be considered for fertility treatment.

The most significant point of disagreement the blog author had about the content of the Fox article was the quote from Allen Pacey:

Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society, said the organization recommends that assisted conception generally not be provided to women beyond the natural age of menopause.

“The rationale for all that is that nature didn’t design women to have assisted conception beyond the age of the natural menopause…once you get into the mid-50s, I think nature is trying to tell us something,” Pacey told The AP.

He added: “I think many people would worry about providing fertility treatment to women in their 60s. I think as a general rule, to embark on pregnancy when you may not see your child go to university is potentially a very difficult situation.”

I agree on both counts, simply because what he said is true. Nature did not intend for women to give birth after menopause…if it did intend for that then most women would be able to conceive until the day they died. Pure and simple. And yes, having a child when your life expectancy after a certain age is decidedly up in the air is a potentially difficult situation…for the child.

Bullshit was called in that entry on both reasons and I’m calling bullshit on the bullshit that was called.

Yes, nature didn’t intend for a lot of things to be possible that our medical knowledge now allows. Does that mean we have carte blanche to do whatever we want? No. We have the science to clone people and nature clearly didn’t intend for that to be possible but does it mean we should? No.

Secondly, to completely dismiss the issue of what it means for a child and to do so in a sarcastic manner is completely narrow-minded. And I quote:

Secondly, the whole “Oh, what about teh babeez?” cry doesn’t take into account that parents die all the time and leave their children behind.

Truth be told the whole “Oh, what about teh babeez” comment is what really got me sideways today. Yes, parents die all the time before they thought they might and they leave children behind and it’s a sad situation. But it is simply selective thinking to banish the fact that statistically a parent bringing a child into the world that is say 30 or 40 has a much better chance of being around for that child than someone who is 63. Yes, people with various illnesses and longterm ailments also conceive at younger ages…I would wager that most likely someone that had battled cancer at the age of 30, or 40 even, probably has a better chance than someone at the age of 60+ of being around for the duration of what that child needs. So, yes “what about teh babeez” is exactly right. The slippery slope idea applies to both sides of the argument. Sure, it’s a “slippery slope” to get involved in who shouldn’t be allowed to conceive. But it’s also a slippery slope to argue for who should be able to conceive based simply on an ideal. I would be shocked to find anyone in their right mind who would argue that on the basis of reproductive rights a mother in active heroin addiction should be able to receive fertility treatment. That’s what the flimsy “slippery slope” argument can get you.

The online dictionary gives 62 different contextual definitions for the word “right”. Clearly as it pertains to this not all of them apply…some of them do:

1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.

Is it good, proper, or just to pay for treatments that allow for birth at the age of 63, or 70, or 75? I think most people would probably agree that it falls on the side of “not”, otherwise it would be neither an anomaly nor newsworthy when we heard about someone doing so.

2. in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.

Is it in conformity with some current standard or principle that people should have children regardless of what those children will have to deal with…simply because they feel they have the “right” to do so? I don’t think it is.

4. fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time.

Is it appropriate or fitting that we reproduce with no thought to the consequences, simply because our “wants” are seen as the most important? Many people can afford to pay for fertility treatments. Does that mean they should? Not necessarily. Many people can naturally conceive children. Does that mean that they should? Not necessarily.

It doesn’t escape me that putting legal limitations on the conception of babies is certainly a precarious arena, especially in light of what we still go through today to exercise what is actually our reproductive rights as they pertain to the sovereignty of our bodies. But at the same time it also doesn’t escape me that choosing to bring a child into the world is an incredibly serious matter. I don’t have children and I’m sure it would be easy for someone to say that since I don’t how could I possibly have the right to weigh in on the matter. I’ve been in a position to make the choice of whether to have one or not and I chose not to. My choice was not made on the basis of what I wanted or didn’t want. It was made based on what I didn’t want to put a child through considering the situation it would be born into (as a disclaimer I wouldn’t ever judge a woman that chose not to have a child based on any other reasoning). And anyway, people that have never even been in a position to have a child have no less of a reason to feel one way or another about the issue, because we’ve all been children.

And that’s what I have to say about that.

 

Leaps of logic and what should have been done

Today I illegally perused blogs while at work on my lunch break. I say illegal because technically it wasn’t work related and they’re (the infamous ‘they’) cracking down lately. I came across an entry in a popular feminist blog (Feministing) detailing a messy little situation that the Supreme Court is ruling on. Bottom line really, is that they must decipher and clarify what is said to be a poorly written law. 

As a result of the alleged poorly written law the current ruling could allow those who have been convicted of misdemeanor DV crimes to own guns:

Congress in 1996 sought to strengthen the laws against domestic violence. Before, only persons convicted of violent felonies in such situations lost their rights to own a gun. Going a step further, lawmakers adopted an amendment to take away gun rights for those who had a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” on their records.

Problem with that?

But last year, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia cast doubt on the law’s reach. Its judges decided the federal gun ban did not cover misdemeanor convictions involving assault or battery at home. Instead, it said the federal ban applied only to those convicted under a state’s domestic violence law. 

Not good. Most states don’t have specific misdemeanor laws re: DV. No misdemeanor laws + upholding the constitution = violent wife/husband (because yes, there are women that beat mean…statistically not as high, but it happens) beaters could have guns with which to do more harm.

Instead of focusing on these small facts, the website I read chose to verbally nail the judge in the case to a cross for doing his job. Choosing instead to paint him as a sexist a-hole who doesn’t care about women.

In this case the judge ruled per the law.

Justice Antonin Scalia was unswayed by that argument. “People are governed by the law that is passed, not by the law that Congress intended to pass,” he said…But during Monday’s argument, Scalia said possessing a gun was “lawful conduct,” and a wife-beating charge lodged against a West Virginia man was “not that serious an offense.” The government lawyer shot back that the defendant “hit his wife all around the face until it swelled out, kicked her all around her body, kicked her in the ribs. . . . “

“Then he should have been charged with a felony,” Scalia interjected, “but he wasn’t.” (emphasis mine)

The bottom line for the blog? Judge thinks DV is not serious and does not matter. Judge is dismissive towards DV. Reality? Judge does his job and rules on the law alone. Did he write it? No. Did the U.S. tell him he could just make decisions willy-nilly based on his emotions? No. By saying it’s “not that serious an offense” I might guess that he was talking strictly about the actual charge; the state decided it wasn’t that serious an offense.

This I think, is what is irksome about how some of us demonstrate feminism. Leaps of logic based on emotion. It sort of makes the whole thing look bad.

It just gets funnier

It continues…the hilarity, to be specific.

Depending on how you look at it, it was successful (via The New York Times):

The message, which began circulating widely on the Internet last week, had one more instruction: request that the personalized thank-you card from Planned Parenthood be sent to Ms. Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee and a vocal opponent of abortion, at the McCain-Palin campaign headquarters in Virginia.

So far, the scheme seems to be getting a strong response. As of Friday, Planned Parenthood had taken in $802,678 in donations from 31,313 people, said a spokesman for the organization, Tait Sye. More than two-thirds of the individuals are first-time donors to Planned Parenthood, Mr. Sye said, and money came in from all 50 states.

Personally, I think it a fascinating testiment to how a lot of people feel.

Hilarity is priceless

Ha!! Is what I say.

Via feministing those of you that appreciate Planned Parenthood might want to consider the following:

Make a donation! In Sarah Palin’s name. :)

How To: Click on “donate”, then make sure you click on “in honor/in memory of”, and be kind enough to designate it to Sarah Palin. They will send a grateful card in thanks for the gift!

FYI: If you want an address to send the thanks to use the following:

McCain for President
1235 South Clark Street
1st Floor
Arlington, VA 22202

I did it. I think you should too.