35 Comments

1. 

   Lee Knuth on 27th December 2017 at 12:20 pm

   Amanda’s Advent calendar was so enjoyable. Hope she does it again next year. Hope you had a Happy Christmas.

   Reply
   • 

     Heather Hastie on 27th December 2017 at 12:40 pm

     Thanks Lee – I hope she does too. I had a -pretty good Christmas thanks. Young nieces and nephews were involved, which was nice. Christmas is always good with kids. Another couple of nieces are on their way right now, so I have to make another of Aunty Heather’s special desserts for tonight! (It’s got ingredients in it I can’t eat at the moment though, which is a nuisance!)

     Reply
2. 

   j.a.m. on 27th December 2017 at 3:07 pm

   No, it’s not “outrageous” that people with Down syndrome should be protected. It’s outrageous that anyone would find that outrageous.

   Reply
   • 

     Jenny Haniver on 27th December 2017 at 4:50 pm

     No one is denying that people with Down syndrome shouldn’t be legally protected — that is, PEOPLE — these are foeteses. I’m sure that to you, these embryos are people, ‘pre-born’ people, and so you’re concerned about the human right of these defenseless ‘people’, damn the consequenses.

     Frankly, I do happen to find it outrageous that foeteuses (call them ‘people’ if you will) with Down syndrome should be singled out as a protected class, when as far as I know (please correct me if I’m mistaken) there are no similar proscriptions regarding other severe congenital conditions, — so why single out Down syndrome? I agree with those who say this bill is a first push for outlawing abortion in Ohio.

     Reply
     • 

       nicky on 28th December 2017 at 9:09 am

       I do not think that law is constitutional or legal. Unless Roe v Wade is overturned, it would be struck down by the first challenge.

       That being said, what I find particularly nasty is that it aims to criminalise doctors, who are forced to either become a criminal, or let their patients down. Evil. It also arguably aims to infringe on patient confidentiality.
       To think I was under the impression Kasich was some kind of moderate! Well, he did support CHIP (that is why I thought so), but this is unspeakably unconscionable.
       [And then, there is a good chance that if his daughter were pregnant with a Downs syndrome foetus, he would be first in line to demand abortion (and confidentiality), because their case is ‘different’, it always is, of course. A well known phenomenon.]

       Reply
   • 

     Yakaru on 27th December 2017 at 10:08 pm

     It’s so easy to decide that other people should be forced to carry a fetus with Down syndrome to term and raise them, regardless of their life circumstances and existing state support.

     It’s a different story when it comes to being prepared to pay taxes for state support for everyone involved in that decision.

     It’s really about maintaining control over women’s bodies, by men who clearly fear them and know nothing more to do with them than grabbing.

     But it’s also great for the ignorant, self righteous political trolling that has become so fashionable lately.

     Reply
   • 

     Linda Calhoun on 28th December 2017 at 12:36 am

     Why don’t you can the phony outrage. You and yours don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone with Down syndrome, as evidenced by your political position that there should be no societal support for them or anyone else. The second they take their first breath, to you they become parasites, and you can’t get away from them fast enough.

     You want control over other people. Add to that the pleasure you get from watching people suffer (I believe the word you used in a previous thread was “beautiful”), plus the smug satisfaction of alleging your moral superiority, and you have the perfect formula: make decisions about others’ lives, and walk away with no consequences at all for yourself.

     And, the US has the highest maternal mortality in the developed world, and it’s getting worse, not better. If you’re so concerned about “the sanctity of human life”, what are you and yours doing to address that? Nothing? Gee, who woulda guessed.

     L

     Reply
     • 

       j.a.m. on 28th December 2017 at 3:35 am

       Some might say your own non-reply reply pretty well exemplifies “smug satisfaction of alleging your moral superiority”.

       Reply
       • 

         Linda Calhoun on 28th December 2017 at 6:28 am

         Non reply? My reply is that your viewpoint is inconsistent with your behavior.

         I freely admit that I think it’s a morally superior position that we as a society not abandon people in need. I also freely admit that I think it’s a morally superior position to allow people (women) to make decisions about their own lives and their own bodies.

         But, I’m not smug about it. I don’t do “God speaks to me personally”, or any of that related horseshit. I’m not into pointless cruelty, and I don’t take pleasure in watching other people hurt.

         L

         Reply
         • 

           j.a.m. on 28th December 2017 at 8:00 pm

           We as a society should not abandon people in need. We should protect the vulnerable and their rights, including the right to life. That’s really not a morally superior position — it’s the bare minimum. It’s the most basic, rock-bottom criterion of a civilized society.

           It’s not a morally superior position to simply turn away and deny what’s happening.

       • 

         Heather Hastie on 28th December 2017 at 10:08 am

         Which shows just how screwed up your morals are by your religion. You are unable to made proper, independent, moral and ethical choices. Everything has to be seen through the filter of what you’re told to believe by your religion.

         Reply
         • 

           j.a.m. on 28th December 2017 at 7:40 pm

           @HH: No, I’m afraid this is another case where you are grievously misinformed. The right to life is indeed a tenet of my faith, but it is also a universally recognized human right. Another tenet of my faith is that I, and all persons regardless of religious affiliation, have the ability and duty to make proper, independent, moral and ethical choices by the light of reason. That is precisely why I say that whenever possible a state that has any claim to legitimacy should prevent the direct, intentional, and avoidable killing of an innocent person, and that disability is an insufficient reason to deny someone the right to life.

         • 

           Heather Hastie on 29th December 2017 at 9:13 am

           A foetus is not a person. A person has a right to life – it is one of the many reasons I oppose the death penalty.

           Since when has any religion had a full funeral, or even a specified rite, for a miscarriage. Parents have always been given far more sympathy for the loss of a baby than a foetus. As always, most religions are hypocritical on this issue.

           I can understand people opposing abortion, especially in the later stages of pregnancy. However, there are certain arguments I have no time for and one is this personhood crap.

           Think to yourself of the ten most important things that make a person. Now try to get a foetus to meet more than one or possibly two.

         • 

           Mark R. on 29th December 2017 at 8:31 am

           A fetus is not a person and does not have a “right to life”. Every argument you state in this thread falls short (you use emotion, not logic) because your premise is false. “Potential life” doesn’t cut it. Don’t worry, the fetus won’t mind if its aborted. You might, but that’s your faux outrage and religious indoctrination working the strings.

         • 

           j.a.m. on 29th December 2017 at 9:36 am

           @HH: A person is an individual member of the human race.

           Assuming that you do believe that you possess an individual right to life, at what point in your personal development did you acquire it? What is your reasoning?

         • 

           Heather Hastie on 29th December 2017 at 9:46 am

           I acquired it once I was born. At that point I was a separate individual and didn’t require my mother’s organs, blood supply etc to survive. Although I would, of course, need help, I could live without her. It wasn’t specifically her I needed.

         • 

           j.a.m. on 29th December 2017 at 11:52 am

           You reached that point — i.e., not requiring your mother’s organs, blood supply etc. to survive — well prior to birth.

         • 

           Mark R. on 29th December 2017 at 2:18 pm

           Only technology has allowed a premature baby to live without the mother, even if the baby is not sharing the mother’s blood and organ function. Lungs are the biggest problem…not needed until born, even if the baby is independent of the mother’s functions. Among many other problems is the lack of the sucking/swallowing reflex. This is only mitigated by modern technology. So again, mankind is responsible for the success of premature babies; no god needed, thus no religious tenet needed. And babies aren’t self-conscious until 18-24 months of life. What are the implications of that?

           This is also important to know for those who would ban abortions.

           Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20%, while rates among all fertilized zygotes are around 30% to 50%. The precise rate is not known because a large number of miscarriages occur before pregnancies become established and before the woman is aware they are pregnant.

           Some idiots actually think women should be punished for a miscarriage. Another stark example of how reality does’t mesh with religion.

         • 

           j.a.m. on 29th December 2017 at 3:16 pm

           @MarkR: “Only technology has allowed a premature baby to live”
           -Same is true in many situations, e.g., victims of accident or heart attack.

           “And babies aren’t self-conscious until 18-24 months of life. What are the implications of that?”
           -More evidence that personal development is one continuous process.

           “no religious tenet needed”
           -You don’t need to agree on religious tenets in order to define and defend the right to life.

           “Some idiots actually think women should be punished for a miscarriage.”
           -Rubbish. Source?

         • 

           Heather Hastie on 30th December 2017 at 7:47 am

           It’s about where the right to life begins. My opinion is that the right begins at birth. You think it begins at conception because you think a zygote has a soul, which is something completely made up by religion.

           How do you explain all those miscarriages that happened before women even knew they were pregnant, and women don’t even know are miscarriages? God changing his mind? And you are prepared to make an exception for rape and incest – are you happy to override God’s bad decision in those circumstances?

           The faster you realize this is all about controlling women, the better.

           And I find the GOP platform on this subject disgusting. It is anti-choice in ALL circumstances, including rape and incest. However, once a baby is born, most of the current crop support nothing that will help the baby live. That complete a$$hole Orin Hatch evrn made a speech a few days ago saying letting the CHP funding expire was the right thing to do because why should they help people who won’t help themselves. FFS! How callous can you get? This attitude that people are poor because they deserve to be comes straight from religion and is possibly the #1 thing wrong with your country.

         • 

           j.a.m. on 30th December 2017 at 11:36 am

           I beg you, I beseech you, I implore you: Please get the facts straight and resist the temptation to pass along hateful disinformation from fake media.

           Sen. Hatch is an original author of the CHIP program. Here’s what he actually said:

           “Nobody believes in the CHIP program more than I. I invented it….I happen to think CHIP has done a terrific job for for people who really needed the help. I have taken the position around here my whole Senate service. I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves but would if they could….We’re going to get CHIP through. There is no question about that. I’m going to see that it gets through.”

           http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/05/context-orrin-hatchs-comments-about-chip-people-wh/

         • 

           Heather Hastie on 30th December 2017 at 11:50 am

           Sorry I got the quote wrong.

         • 

           Heather Hastie on 30th December 2017 at 11:52 am

           Having said that, there is still an attitude that poor people deserve it amongst many. I’ve heard some pretty hateful attitudes expressed, especially from conservative Libertarians.

         • 

           j.a.m. on 30th December 2017 at 12:04 pm

           “You think [the right to life] begins at conception because you think a zygote has a soul…”

           No, you don’t have to believe in a soul. The development of every unique individual living person begins at the beginning, at conception, so that’s as logical a starting point as any. If one is going to propose that the right to life should begin at a later stage of development, it’s reasonable to ask on what basis.

           “How do you explain all those miscarriages…”

           Natural death occurs at all stages of life. We’re not talking about natural death, but rather a direct, intentional, and avoidable taking of life.

           “And you are prepared to make an exception for rape and incest…”

           If a hundred people are trapped in a burning building, and only 99 can be rescued, it is better to rescue the 99 than let everyone perish.

           “The faster you realize this is all about controlling women, the better.”

           Or the sooner we can have honest dialog, the better.

         • 

           Heather Hastie on 30th December 2017 at 12:25 pm

           You’re the one who thinks a zygote is a person.

           Why do women have to suffer for your beliefs about a zygote? We can talk when no man ever forces himself on a woman and when every man who doesn’t wish to father a child either uses contraception or has a vasectomy. Or, medical science can arrange for the man to carry the child for nine months, give birth to it through his penis, suckle it for months or years, and generally be responsible for it for at least 18 years.

           Everyone thinks a woman who abandons her child is a monster. Thousands of men abandon their children every day, then complain about paying to look after them because the mother is getting the money. As with so much, there’s a double standard.

           Abortion is legal, not compulsory. No one has to have an abortion. Not everyone believes as you do. If you and your wife/partner choose not to have an abortion whatever the circumstances, that’s fine. It’s not up to you to make that decision for others. You act like every woman who has an abortion does it easily. They do not. It is an extremely difficult decision.

           Further, using contraception does not mean that you won’t get pregnant. Sometimes it doesn’t work even though the couple concerned is being responsible. They should have the option to have an abortion if they choose.

         • 

           j.a.m. on 30th December 2017 at 5:36 pm

           If one believes that society should look the other way and permit an unborn baby to be deliberately killed for the sole reason that she has a disability (or for the sole reason that she is female), so be it. But that person should know that their stance tends to diminish anything else they may want to say about human rights or protecting the vulnerable.

     • 

       j.a.m. on 28th December 2017 at 8:11 pm

       @LC: “You want control over other people.”

       Where did I say that?

       “Add to that the pleasure you get from watching people suffer (I believe the word you used in a previous thread was ‘beautiful’)”

       Where in the hell did get that?

       “plus the smug satisfaction of alleging your moral superiority”

       Where did I ever make such a claim?

       Reply
       • 

         Linda Calhoun on 29th December 2017 at 1:53 am

         “…whenever possible a state that has any claim to legitimacy should prevent the direct, intentional, and avoidable killing of an innocent person…”

         You obviously don’t think that women are “innocent”.

         When a pregnant woman comes into the ER presenting with a life-threatening pregnancy, the staff is supposed to stand there and let her die, rather than aborting the pregnancy. I can give you many examples, but I’ll put in just a couple to illustrate.

         In AZ, a woman came into a Catholic hospital ER, presenting with malignant hypertension. She was already unconscious. The nurse/nun who authorized the abortion was excommunicated by a bishop with no medical background. She was later reinstated. Question arises, why would anyone want anything further to do with an organization that treated her like that.

         In Brazil, a NINE-YEAR-OLD incest victim pregnant with twins was diagnosed by THREE physicians as not physically capable of carrying the pregnancy to term. Two of the physicians performed the abortion. They were both excommunicated.

         In Ireland, a woman presenting with a life-threatening uterine infection was denied an abortion. She died a horrible, painful death, with her family looking on and pleading for help from the hospital staff, who were presumably enjoying the hell out of the whole thing. She wasn’t even Catholic.

         I could go on and on. I collect this stuff.

         Also, and I am repeating myself here, the maternal mortality rate is skyrocketing in the US. Guess what? When the pregnant mother dies, HER FETUS DIES TOO. Are you and yours doing anything about that? Hell no, we can’t afford it. We have to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

         You don’t have to SAY that you want control over other people. Your policies demonstrate that. Women with life-threatening pregnancies have the right to choose life, too. Just not according to you.

         And, the woman in AZ already had three kids. If the bishop had had his way, she’d be dead. Boy, would I like to be a fly on the wall when he explained to her three kids why he would choose to let her die rather than save her life. He would have gladly washed his hands of the whole thing, leaving her family up shit creek, the kids motherless and the husband living his life without her.

         When you referred to people’s suffering as “beautiful”, it was in reference to liberals’ reactions to Trump. I responded to you then, as did one other person. You ignored us both.

         Smug satisfaction of alleging your moral superiority? Before you descend into “whataboutism”, let me point out that the examples I cited above are all a DIRECT outgrowth of your religious philosophy. Sure, you can cite examples of people you disagree with behaving badly. But, we’re not claiming our beliefs as representative of that absolute pinnacle of moral truth. We recognize that there are gray areas that require us to make unpleasant choices that are not completely satisfactory either way.

         One of the reasons I’m not, and never will be, a christian (aside from the bullshit factor) is that I don’t believe that standing there and letting something bad happen that I could act to prevent is a moral choice. The christian position is that as long as I didn’t do it myself, I’m cool. I cannot imagine being an ER doc and being required to stand there and let a woman die (screaming, in some cases) when I could save her.

         Jebus love? Keep it. Stuff it where the sun doesn’t shine.

         L

         Reply
         • 

           j.a.m. on 29th December 2017 at 12:05 pm

           Linda, I read your reply a couple of times and I don’t find an actual rebuttal of the proposition that if “we as a society [should] not abandon people in need”, then we as a society should prevent direct, intentional, and avoidable killing, even of the disabled.

       • 

         Mark R. on 29th December 2017 at 8:38 am

         Where did you say “you want control over other people”? It’s an implicit statement, not an explicit one. Since you don’t want to allow women to have a legal abortion, in effect, you want to control that person’s life. Is that such a difficult chain of reasoning to follow and fathom?

         Reply
3. 

   Jenny Haniver on 27th December 2017 at 4:07 pm

   The baby reindeer and the ice bubble are spectral. So are the Klansmen, but in an entirely different way.

   Reply
4. 

   nicky on 28th December 2017 at 8:33 am

   Well, we know now that Mr Trump has no taste either, his presidential coin is ugly, if anything. And highly immodest. What are are these things in front of the white house anyway? Giant chickens? Would be kinda fitting.

   Rats die from the pest too, in fact it is when the rats die that the fleas may jump species, eg. onto humans. So although they won’t be dancing with joy, it is a lovely painting detail. I’m also impressed they already knew the link between rat and the Plague in the 17th Century.
   (I’m sure if the unknown painter could paint rats like that, he would also be able to paint cats)

   Those Christmas/Holidays tweets from Mr Trump (2010) and Barack Obama (2013) are absolutely priceless!

   I noted that the chocolate coated chips are ‘limited edition’, thank Dog for small mercies. 🙂

   Reply
   • 

     Heather Hastie on 28th December 2017 at 10:11 am

     Hence my comment about Y. pestis being the ones that should be jumping for joy.

     I often find things like choc-covered chips are limited editions until they find out how well they sell. If they’re popular, you can bet we’ll see more of them!

     Reply
     • 

       nicky on 29th December 2017 at 3:25 am

       Yes, I guess the Yersinias are the ones having a great time in times of plague. Can’t see your comment though,

       Reply
       • 

         Heather Hastie on 29th December 2017 at 9:37 am

         I’m talking about my comment above the tweet in the post itself. 🙂

         Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.