Doug Stanhope on Abortion

[Havet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miQ1vnLInZg&feature=PlayList&p=EDA77D0B4DCC91DA&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=25

Interesting, what are your thoughts on his criticisms of pro-lifers, and what are your personal views on abortion?

PS: sorry for crappy sound quality

[Bud Struggle]

Not funny.

Propaganda, nothing wrong with that--but don't pretend it's funny. I'll say if I could claim the moral high ground--you could make the same claims about dumb assed "niggers" being screw ups in society or gays getting AIDS by not using protection. So what? Good humor relies on actual insight after one has found a real empathy for one's target --it's not just making fun people that don't agree with you.

Brother Robert is funny here on Revleft, read his posts!--this guy hasn't a clue.

[Havet]

Not funny.

why?

are YOU in favour of fetus pornography :blink:? lol

[cappiej]

miQ1vnLInZg

Interesting, what are your thoughts on his criticisms of pro-lifers, and what are your personal views on abortion?

PS: sorry for crappy sound quality

I don't think its fair to take a baby's life because their parents are irresponsible.

Its interesting, everyone who opposes abortion has already been born.

I'm suprised Marxists aren't running around screaming about this, a defenceless and voiceless, disenfranchised population like aborted foetuses surely they need some good Marxists to represent them?

[Bud Struggle]

why?

are YOU in favour of fetus pornography :blink:? lol

I added, I added, oi!

How about Nazi pornography: is showing this wrong?

http://www.jpfo.org/images02/9.jpg

[Havet]

I don't think its fair to take a baby's life because their parents are irresponsible. Suppose the mother was raped. Also, its the woman's body, its her decision whether she wants to bring it to life or not.


Its interesting, everyone who opposes abortion has already been born. What does it have to do one thing to the other? Interesting that those who believe in heaven aren't dead yet. See, i can do that too. It doesnt reeally add anytihng to the conversation.


I'm suprised Marxists aren't running around screaming about this, a defenceless and voiceless, disenfranchised population like aborted foetuses surely they need some good Marxists to represent them?

they sure need some good conservatives to represent them.

[cappiej]

Suppose the mother was raped. Also, its the woman's body, its her decision whether she wants to bring it to life or not.

What does it have to do one thing to the other? Interesting that those who believe in heaven aren't dead yet. See, i can do that too. It doesnt reeally add anytihng to the conversation.



they sure need some good conservatives to represent them.

Yeah, maybe they do need some good conservatives to represent them.

The difference between someone like me, who does think abortion is wrong, and a Marxist is I don't interfere in other people's business. I represent me and no-one else.

Well, I don't think most women who abort their children were raped, if they were then I don't know what I support, but you're kind of distracting me here.

Let's assume the woman was not raped, why do you support abortion in that instance?

P.S. The remark about all who support abortion being dead was more of a jibe about how some Marxists seem to jump on the bandwagon of involving themselves in everyone else's businesses under the guise of "representation" than a serious statement.

[Havet]

Let's assume the woman was not raped, why do you support abortion in that instance?A person isn't defined by a beating heart.
A 8 month old fetus and a baby are different in some very important ways. For examples, the baby can develop memories, opinions, relationships, thoughts and feelings etc.; the baby can interact in human society as a person, and most importantly, the baby is no longer using the woman's body to survive.
Even if the fetus was a 'person' it wouldn't have the right to use the woman's body against her will.

The fetus is in a lightness cavity in the body of a human being. It has no thoughts or opinions or relationships or aspirations or interests, or any appreciation for life whatsoever. So why does it have any kind of a 'right' to it? The only argument for brain power is it's supposed potential for it. The protection of it's life (and the assertion of it's 'sapience') is meaningful only for the people doing the protecting, not the fetus.

But let's just say all of that's irrelevant. Does the fetus, assuming for a moment it's a 'person' who can appreciate any kind of 'social rights', even if their life depends on it, have any right to use the woman's body? No, of course it doesn't.

To use a comparison from an earlier thread, does somebody with kidney disease have the right to force somebody to have his/her kidney taken out for them to use? Of course not. Aren't we entitled to deny somebody the use of our bodies for their own benefit? Of course we are.
The issue of abortion should not be focused upon the fetus. For those who consider the fetus to be deserving of so-called 'human rights', it should be equally focused upon the woman having the abortion.

But people get so caught up with the "personhood" of the fetus that the woman is entirely forgotten (that is assuming that the woman was ever of concern to the pro-life argument) - what isn't up for debate is that the woman is a person, and she is the one for whom the decision of abortion is genuinely meaningful and relevant. There is not a 'middle ground', here. You either agree that a woman deserves control over what happens to her own body, especially when it comes to something as big a deal as a pregnancy (please don't be under the illusion it's just a harmless little bulge that suddenly appears and then one day a baby pops out), or you don't.

Also, i'd like to thank Desrumeaux for using his arguments on this older thread. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/abortion-t112017/index2.html?highlight=woman+owns+body)

[Havet]

I added, I added, oi!

How about Nazi pornography: is showing this wrong?

http://www.jpfo.org/images02/9.jpg

I never said showing anything was wrong.

[Bud Struggle]

I never said showing anything was wrong.

It's all pornography, though.

[Havet]

It's all pornography, though.

and i have nothing against pornography. But from a radical conservative angle, one could argue showing dead fetuses pictures is encouraging the worst kind of child molesters to appear.

[Bud Struggle]

and i have nothing against pornography. But from a radical conservative angle, one could argue showing dead fetuses pictures is encouraging the worst kind of child molesters to appear.

Just like dead bodies of Jews in mass graves encourage Nazis to appear?

[Havet]

Just like dead bodies of Jews in mass graves encourage Nazis to appear?

no, but they might encourage cannibalists to appear.

[Bud Struggle]

no, but they might encourage cannibalists to appear.

Ouch--that's being a troll. You have said your piece maybe it's time to go?

[Havet]

Ouch--that's being a troll. You have said your piece maybe it's time to go?

maybe. perhaps you could be a little more specific? i have already lost myself in understanding where you're trying to get at...

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Not funny.

Propaganda, nothing wrong with that--but don't pretend it's funny. I'll say if I could claim the moral high ground--you could make the same claims about dumb assed "niggers" being screw ups in society or gays getting AIDS by not using protection. So what? Good humor relies on actual insight after one has found a real empathy for one's target --it's not just making fun people that don't agree with you.

Brother Robert is funny here on Revleft, read his posts!--this guy hasn't a clue.


The thing is, pro-lifers are wrong. Proponents of racial and sexual equality aren't.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I've responded to the other thread, but I wanted to reply to this as well.

The difference between someone like me, who does think abortion is wrong, and a Marxist is I don't interfere in other people's business. I represent me and no-one else.

So you represent you and no-one else, but you're also trying to represent a foetus whilst interfering with the mother's business. Isn't that a bit contradictory?

''Well, I don't think most women who abort their children were raped, if they were then I don't know what I support, but you're kind of distracting me here.''

Well some of them were and you probably should know whether or not you'd support abortion in those cases because it is a serious issue. Hardly a distraction.

[cappiej]

I've responded to the other thread, but I wanted to reply to this as well.

The difference between someone like me, who does think abortion is wrong, and a Marxist is I don't interfere in other people's business. I represent me and no-one else.

So you represent you and no-one else, but you're also trying to represent a foetus whilst interfering with the mother's business. Isn't that a bit contradictory?

''Well, I don't think most women who abort their children were raped, if they were then I don't know what I support, but you're kind of distracting me here.''

Well some of them were and you probably should know whether or not you'd support abortion in those cases because it is a serious issue. Hardly a distraction.

Well pal, I don't make the rules so its pretty immaterial what I think, just like what everyone else here thinks (I don't know that there are any MPs or Congressmen here).

I've not figured out my beliefs on everything yet, I have general opinions on most things, I'll probably bury my head in a few books about this and come out with a more informed opinion.

I've done what I wanted to do (kinda anyway), I've gauged opinion on this issue and its more or less what I expected.

[Bud Struggle]

The thing is, pro-lifers are wrong. Proponents of racial and sexual equality aren't.



What is the good, Gene What is the true? Is ther any webesite on Gore's green Internet that can tell us the truth on such matters?

[Havet]

What is the good, Gene What is the true? Is ther any webesite on Gore's green Internet that can tell us the truth on such matters?

pro-lifers are wrong in opposing abortion for the reasons stated above. No one has been able to offer a rebutal to them yet.

as for the other themes, do you want to discuss them? i'm pretty sure you won't be able to argue against racial and sexual equality.

[Nwoye]

I don't think its fair to take a baby's life because their parents are irresponsible.

Its interesting, everyone who opposes abortion has already been born.
suppose a woman's (adult) son develops a serious and rare form of cancer, one which requires an immediate heart/liver/spleen whatever transplant. the problem is, only a direct relative can provide the new organ, and his mother is the only direct relative he has (for whatever reason). Is that mother morally obligated to give up a part of her body for the transplant? And furthermore, can the state force her to do so?

[Bud Struggle]

pro-lifers are wrong in opposing abortion for the reasons stated above. No one has been able to offer a rebutal to them yet.

as for the other themes, do you want to discuss them? i'm pretty sure you won't be able to argue against racial and sexual equality.

I could--it just wouldn't be polite or politically correct. We are living in a particular mindset of what is "right" and what is "wrong." It's particular to our specific time and place. Similar dognmatisms have been done a thousand times throughout history. What makes you think that THIS particular mindset is correct when it comes to values or morals?

Just more of the same. It comes down to this--either we kill nothing human or we choose what we kill. When we choose we loose our perspectives.

The only real solution to all of this is KILL NOTHING HUMAN.

[cappiej]

suppose a woman's (adult) son develops a serious and rare form of cancer, one which requires an immediate heart/liver/spleen whatever transplant. the problem is, only a direct relative can provide the new organ, and his mother is the only direct relative he has (for whatever reason). Is that mother morally obligated to give up a part of her body for the transplant? And furthermore, can the state force her to do so?

No she's not.

[Nwoye]

No she's not.
i agree. because you can't force someone to give up a part of their body like that right?

[cappiej]

i agree. because you can't force someone to give up a part of their body like that right?

Yeah, a part of their body such as that one it would be utterly unfair.

[Nwoye]

Yeah, a part of their body such as that one it would be utterly unfair.
so how can you force a woman to give up a part of her body and support a fetus?

[brigadista]

its a womans right simple as

[Bud Struggle]

so how can you force a woman to give up a part of her body and support a fetus?

Because she agreed to it when she had sex. (Obviously not the case if she was raped.)

One may enjoy sex--one may do it here and there--but the biological momentum for sex is creating babies. That's what the fun is all about. That's why it's fun.

Dictated by biology.

Sex like life has its responsibilities. Grow up and accept them and you will do all alright.

[Nwoye]

Because she agreed to it when she had sex. (Obviously not the case if she was raped.)

One may enjoy sex--one may do it here and there--but the biological momentum for sex is creating babies. That's what the fun is all about. That's why it's fun.

Dictated by biology.
well the kid in my example was just as much a result of the woman having sex. so is it her responsibility to give up a part of her body to her son for the transplant?

[Bud Struggle]

well the kid in my example was just as much a result of the woman having sex. so is it her responsibility to give up a part of her body to her son for the transplant?


I would say morally--yes.

Legally--no. There's a point where law and society need to end their domaine and private and personal decisions need to prevail.

[Nwoye]

I would say morally--yes.

Legally--no. There's a point where law and society need to end their domaine and private and personal decisions need to prevail.
so you are pro-choice?

[Bud Struggle]

so you are pro-choice?


But a spleen or a pancreas isn't a "life." Take the issue of a child is living in your house--do you have the right of life or death over him/her? In ancient Rome you being a Paterfamilias--you would have the absolute right of life and death over your wife and your children.

How's that option?

[Nwoye]

But a spleen or a pancreas isn't a "life." Take the issue of a child is living in your house--do you have the right of life or death over him/her? In ancient Rome you being a Paterfamilias--you would have the absolute right of life and death over your wife and your children.

How's that option?
i genuinely don't understand the question, and you didn't answer mine.

[RGacky3]

Doug Standhope is hillareous, one of the better comedians out there, love his stuff, this is funny too.

But, its comedy ... I really don't care about the message, also Doug Standhope is a libertarian, just to show that humor does'nt need to be only funny if you agree with it.

[Bud Struggle]

Doug Standhope is hillareous, one of the better comedians out there, love his stuff, this is funny too.


I gotta say I don't see that as funny--insightful maybe. Something that I might want to get up and rebut--definitely. But not funny.

Laughing for me comes from my funny bone--not my PC organ.

[Havet]

Doug Standhope is hillareous, one of the better comedians out there, love his stuff, this is funny too.

But, its comedy ... I really don't care about the message, also Doug Standhope is a libertarian, just to show that humor does'nt need to be only funny if you agree with it.

I agree as well. I also like george carlin's comedy, and he was sort of a socialist, wasn't he? Anyways, it's important to judge comedy by itself instead of by the people who make it. Doug stanhope calls himself a libertarian, but very little of his jokes actually have anything to do with libertarianism.

[Bud Struggle]

I agree as well. I also like george carlin's comedy, and he was sort of a socialist, wasn't he? Anyways, it's important to judge comedy by itself instead of by the people who make it. Doug stanhope calls himself a libertarian, but very little of his jokes actually have anything to do with libertarianism.

Look at the first EVER SNL video. George Carlin was the host--NOBODY laughed at his jokes--he even commented on it during the show. Nobody laughed--he wasn't funny even then.

Political humor is delecate and was not often funny even in the day when such thing were interesting. Even less so today.

Stanhope's a dud.

[Havet]

Look at the first EVER SNL video. George Carlin was the host--NOBODY laughed. Nobody--he wasn't funny even then.

Political humor is delecate and not often funny.

so whats your point? he was still a novice, he learned and improved from then on.

[Bud Struggle]

so whats your point? he was still a novice, he learned and improved from then on.

Carlin died unfunny.

He "proved" people's points. But in the end Seinfeld--with a show about nothing--was funny.

Friends--is funny in ways Mort Saul could never imagine.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

It's true that lots of comedians who focus on political and social issues are less funny and entertaining than comedians who talk about their four year old child or what they had to eat the other day. The former are often very astute and they make great points, but the latter usually win in terms of how many laughs they get.

[Bud Struggle]

It's true that lots of comedians who focus on political and social issues are less funny and entertaining than comedians who talk about their four year old child or what they had to eat the other day. The former are often very astute and they make great points, but the latter usually win in terms of how many laughs they get.

Exactly. Revolutions aren't won on laughs or cynicism or knowing glances. They actually detact from the point. Even further--no REAL member of the proletariat even cares about such jokes--even further such jokes are made by and for the political elite.

Political comedians aren't proletarians by definition--they and those that find them funny are Bourgeoise.

[Havet]

Carlin died unfunny.

He "proved" people's points. But in the end Seinfeld--with a show about nothing--was funny.

Friends--is funny in ways Mort Saul could never imagine.

comedy is subjective, so you cant go around saying this guy or that guy is objectively funny or funny by any standard because its not true.

[Bud Struggle]

comedy is subjective, so you cant go around saying this guy or that guy is objectively funny or funny by any standard because its not true.

Comedy isn't subjective at all. Huge corporations revolve around what people thing is funny. In the Capitalistic world "funny" is as tanible as oil or gold. In a Capitalist economy people vote on funny with their dollars. Seinfeld was "funny" Carlin was a money loser. He wasn't funny.

That's business.

[Havet]

Comedy isn't subjective at all. Huge corporations revolve around what people thing is funny. In the Capitalistic world "funny" is as tanible as oil or gold. In a Capitalist economy people vote on funny with their dollars. Seinfeld was "funny" Carlin was a money loser. He wasn't funny.

That's business.

if it isnt subjective, then give me example of an objective joke to see if everyone here finds it funny and hilarious.

[Bud Struggle]

if it isnt subjective, then give me example of an objective joke to see if everyone here finds it funny and hilarious.

Well it's never one joke--but TV situation comedies trade in "funny." Sponsors put up real money for ads in shows that people tune in regularly to see. It's banked on. It's highly measured how many people will find a particular show (which is all-in-all just a series of jokes) funny. Certain comedies get "X" per minuet something a bit "funnier" gets "Y", some get canceled. There will always be some people that don't like something--but jokes can be bundled together in shows that produce standardized results.

In a way jokes are kind of like mortgages--when they are bundled together you can rate their performance or non performance with pretty decent accuracy.