Do they give out degrees in psychology in Cracker Jack boxes?

Probably. It’s the best theory I can think of that fits the known facts.

Wherever anyone stands today on the issue of Abortion…

When a paragraph begins with a construction such as this, it inevitably can be shortened to finish up with “…they’re wrong, unless they agree with me.”

Dr. Sanity is in, but not where she thinks.

Wow.

I’m keeping this. Into the google notebook it goes.

I’m pretty sure I can win every argument I’ll ever have as long as I use this piece as a template. The good doctor may well be sane, but as a logician she occupies by herself alone a perch from which she surveys the world and sees a cartoon.

Sure seems to me if I can make the logical leaps, zigs, zags and non sequitors that she makes here, my helpless opponent in any disagreement will merely gaze at me in stunned silence, draw breath to respond, hesitate, shake his head and walk away.

Ta Da!

Winner, winner, chicken dinner…

mikey

It’s weird that conservatives keep saying liberals wanted Palin to abort her baby, as if somehow we are out here applauding abortion. They don’t seem to get that choice means choice. I don’t care whether Palin had her baby or not; it was her decision and I don’t take a stand on it. I do dislike the way she hauled him around to every photo op, but that’s got nothing to do with abortion. I never heard anyone say, in a serious way, that they thought Palin should not have had that child.

If, indeed, she DID have it, heh heh. Sarah Palin slammed the Anchorage Daily News for even questioning the issue in their blog section; the ADN said that they had never taken the “rumor” seriously, but added that Sarah could have made the whole question go away forever by posting the state birth certificate of Trig (Tripp? Track? One gets confused), and allowing the doctor who delivered him to go on record as such, confirming that Sarah was, indeed, the mother. Instead of Bristol’s “Irish twin.”

One expert posting at a link at http://www.palindeception.com (an excellent site hosted by a childbirth educator married to an ob/gyn, both apparently recovering Republicans) noted that Down syndrome children are likely to have compromised immune systems. So dragging a Down infant around before thousands of germy people, not giving him regular/quiet nap and sleep hours, etc., was hardly in the best interest of the little tad’s health.

Yes, conservatives love to say that liberals wanted Palin to abort her baby, but there has yet to appear one single actual example of anyone saying so. Of course, that doesn’t get in the way of a b*tchslap…

The right’s fall back postition on every social issue is to declare every disagreement with censorship. It’s like a soccer player who looses the ball, so they fall on the ground clutching their leg and moaning, hoping to draw a foul. Fucking floppers.

YEAH!!! Why don’t you just get this?

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

I, on the other hand, believe strongly and unequvicocally that Palin should have aborted her whole goddam awful, ugly family. Double for Babs Bush Senior and triple quintuple for Dick fucking Cheney’s awful fucking mother.

Fuck. Idiots.

“I happen to believe that any decision about one’s body is a personal one that should not have anything to do with the federal government–in other words, I do not believe in a “right” to an abortion on demand.”

Is that one of those non-sequiturs I’ve heard do much about?

She graduated top of her class at Loon U.

…Forcing abortion down the throats of those deeply offended by it was–and remains–a terrible mistake in a free country…

I’m pretty sure that if someone is performing abortions through the throat they’re doing it wrong. No wonder Wingnuts have such a bad attitude about it.

I’ve personally never known anyone who was held down and forced to have an abortion against their will, but apparently the practice is rampant in those parts of the country that spawn such deep thinkers as Dr. Sanity.

How do you find these posts? I took a look at the comment thread and they’re crazier than the good Doctor.Oh and the tie in to ‘Nam is precious.

Wow. Cognitive dissonance, much? She doesn’t even agree with her own disagreement. Poor thing. I think freedom from the scourge of on-demand abortions is the least of her problems. On the plus side, I bet she has no weight issues. Twisting yourself into logic pretzels of such exquisite inanity must consume lots of calories.

I think I’ve finally figured out a way to comprehend the right’s gobbledy-gook. Here is the process I used.

1. Slam your head in your car door seven times.
2. Drink at least two fifths of Jim Beam.
3. Crazy glue your eyelids open and then watch ten straight hours of Fox News, followed by an encore showing of Red Dawn.
4. Down 200 mg of Oxycontin and hire a prostitute, prefereably someone “brown” and of the same sex as yourself.

Believe me, it all starts to make sense then.

Yeah, because “litmus test on abortion” is not synonymous with right wing politicians and Supreme Court appointments or anything, and you never hear left wing politicians and strategists suggesting that we need to “compromise” on reproductive rights to peel off swing votes. What planet does this person live on?

I made a slight edit. Can someone email it back to her and see if she still thinks the logic is valid?

“I happen to believe that any decision about one’s religion is a personal one that should not have anything to do with the federal government–in other words, I do not believe in a “right” to religion. Forcing Christianity down the throats of those deeply offended by it was–and remains–a terrible mistake in a free country.

A great deal of rightist energy is invested in watchdogging, maintaining, protecting, and promoting the Christian agenda. To them, it would be the end of the world as we know it if something should happen to take this sublime victory away. Anyone who disagrees is “taking us back to the dark ages.” They are obsessed because they cannot understand that Freedom means being free to agree or disagree with them.”

1973 – 2009 36 years not 26. On top of everything else she’s bad at math.

1973-2009 = 36 years not 26. On top of everything else she’s bad at math.

Yep.

nejeff got the same answer twice.

Gotta love this math stuff…

mikey

I fervently hope someone — or many someones — on this thread can help me.

I understand the sentiment of not having the government play a part in a woman’s decision related to any reproductive topic. Now comes my question, which I’m trying to word carefully so as to avoid sounding foolish — I promise my goal is to become informed: If the government cannot play a role in reproductive issues, how can the government participate through funding those same reproductive measures? I guess what I’m wondering — and again, I’m asking because I want to learn. This is the only topic I know of on which I’m conflicted with the progressive stance. Anyhow, what I’m wondering is if we, as patients, can demand for example gastric bypass surgery. Can we demand that a doctor/hospital perform any specific action? I don’t know the answer to that.

Thank you –

is this really good more three or four times a week? After that, doesn’t it screw up your surgical practice and marksmanship?

The alleged doctor claims to have an MD and a degree in aerospace medicine. She says she’s a psychiatrist (which means she’ll likely know precious little about the field of psychology). I free associate to this cartoon of Peter Steiner’s.

I believe you should have the civil right to find a doctor to perform a gastric by-pass surgery without it being a criminal act. You should not be able to demand that each and every doctor perform this procedure, just that you have the choice to find one who will. Whether it is covered by medical insurance is a private matter between you and your issuer. Whether the government assists you with the funding of your surgical procedure because you are low income, or whether it has contributed to the facility for any number of reasons is an issue between you and your congressman. But the government should not prevent you nor criminalize you for wanting a by-pass surgery.

The alleged doctor claims to have an MD and a degree in aerospace medicine.

She’s a space cadet?

Thanks, smartlady — I appreciate the clarity of your explanation. Should every hospital be required to offer every procedure?
I was aghast a few months back to read of the pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for birth control. And I realize the very real risk — especially to low-income patients throughout the country (world) — if facilities pick and choose what they offer.

big sigh.

And I guess that the ridiculously vicious acts of bombing clinics would further reduce the odds that patients could find the care they desired.

At the same time, I believe facilities like Catholic hospitals ought not be required to perform procedures that go against their core values.

Thus, I’m terribly conflicted — I wish that funds would go toward massive distribution of contraceptives of every kind, along with education in schools from day one.

I believe that if we ever had the opportunity to return to thoughtful treatment of fellow human beings — including when it comes to sex — that era is now. I know, though, that those of us fortunate to be in healthy, loving relationships can only imagine the daily horror for those who feel trapped and are consistently abused.

no, she’s an aerhead! bwahaha.

Wherever anyone stands today on the issue of Abortion…

Wait, you mean this month’s issue of Abortion? I have a subscription, you know.

My take has long been that we have become too passionate about the wrong end of the problem. Let’s become active in preventing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. And that does take education and access to methods of… here’s that word again… choice.

Quite. Wherever you stand on abortion rights, it’s hard to think of abortions as good things.

Likewise, it’s hard to think of root canals as a good thing, so let’s focus on teaching everybody to brush and floss and not grind their teeth, and then it won’t matter if dentists close shop because of intimidation and endodontist offices get blown up and people stop learning dentistry.

Abortion will be necessary for some people, no matter how much emphasis you put on contraception and education. There’s really no way around that fact. The most careful women in the world will still have accidents or failures of method or be raped or have their birth control sabotaged or discover the fetus is dead or going to be born with no brain or whatever else. There’s no way to stop that.

This is where we always wind up in trouble with those who want to find common ground with the anti-choicers. They’re supposed to consider agreeing that maybe if we teach kids the truth about sex while still emphasizing abstinence, then there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies. But we’re still supposed to agree that when there *are* unwanted pregnancies, those women can’t get access to an abortion anyway. The only way it works is if we pretend that all pregnancies can be prevented, or we decide that those who need abortions are untidily screwing up our amicable solution because they were too stupid or careless to learn how to prevent them in the first place. And it just isn’t the case.

We can’t just try for common ground, because the only compromise anti-choicers will ever accept is going to leave some women without the care they need. So someone *has to be* passionate about the abortion part of reproductive rights, because otherwise it becomes even more inaccessible than it already is, and more women suffer.

dsidhe: Word! That is the clearest and sanest explanation of why it’s so important to respect women’s choices — whatever they are — for themselves, and equally so important to reject the idea that anyone else has a right to forbid those choices. Thanks!

don’t know if any of you who responded to my question will re-visit this thread, but I just wanted to thank you.

Regarding the “catholic hospitals” question, years ago when I wanted to get my tubes tied, the local dominant hospital group (in a smaller town, which I have since gladly left) was catholic and therefore did not allow doctors to perform any sterilization procedures, period. Of course abortion was verbotten as well. I sincerely doubt that has changed, given that the catholic church and it’s head honcho Ratzi are becoming more conservative by the day.

Perhaps new techniques in prevention will obviate the need for abortions, and root canals.

I understand what you’re saying about the need for a staunch defense, but finding as much common ground as possible seems to be a cornerstone of a republic.

So I just had to go check out her site. Totally weird. She’s carrying so much emotional baggage that its hard to imagine that she claims to be a shrink. Can we say: “Appears to be very stupid!” ?

But, I gotta love you more ‘cuz she hates you!

And did you know that you have to provide a friends email address to post on her site? Paranoia will destroy ya…

I can’t wait. Until then, though, I’m not willing to stake the republic on the shifting common ground with those who will not negotiate in good faith.

They don’t want *any* abortions. (Which is understandable, if I thought it was murder I probably wouldn’t either.) But some abortions are necessary. But they also don’t want legitimately accurate sex ed, or contraception, or emergency contraception even in cases of rape, they try to close down women’s clinics even if there are no abortions performed there, they seem utterly uninterested in convincing society that rape and domestic abuse are unacceptable, and I rarely hear them talk about the sorts of societal programs–child care, living wages, early education–that would make bearing and raising a child easier.

So when you come down to it, the people who want *not* abortions seem to be okay with lots of unplanned pregnancies, since statistics show that’s what abstinence-only education causes. I don’t see any common ground there that doesn’t mean abandoning women who need a legal medical procedure, and I’m not willing to do that.

So you don’t belive in the existence of people who oppose abortion and refuse to impose their POV upon the rest of society?
You don’t think that there are any people working in ORs in which D&Cs are being performed who are opposed to abortion?

I know those people exist. But they’re not the people who are driving the public debate. They’re not the ones pushing the initiatives or lobbying Congress. Really, they’re probably okay with the status quo. If you want to find common ground with them, great, but I think we’re already there. They’re not the problem, they’re not the ones pushing us to concede that abortion can never be the answer.

As to hospitals, sure. Absolutely I accept your premise. And to some extent I sympathize. But I sympathize a lot less when they’re the only medical care provider around. And if we want to tell people it’s okay to act your conscience, A) we have to worry about where that ends, because there are going to be pharmacists out there who believe people are not morally entitled to anti-schizophrenia meds, either and B) we have to make provisions for people who need those services that are not available in their area to get to somewhere they are. And maybe that means taxpayer funding.

I grant both your points, but they don’t change my stance, and I guess I’m not seeing why you think they should.

I’m not trying to get you to change, I was trying to understand and also to emphasize that extremists are not the bulk of the population.
Perhaps, as a big-city hospital worker, I’m unfamiliar with the problem of unavailibility of medical or pharmaceutical service. If such unavailibility exists in this country, would you be able to supply some information.
Sometimes my ignorance doesn’t stop me from commenting, and if this is one of those times, please accept my apology.