She Who Condones Killing Children™'s fake concern for child happiness is twenty tons of bullshit in a two pound sock.
According to her, all babies require two parents only of the male and female variety and women (and lesbians/gays) who dare to have children when unmarried should be burned at the stake.
She insists this is the only moral course of action and that the happiness of the child is more important than anything else.
Of course it goes without saying that if the babies are Palestinian, she thinks their parents should be summarily executed along with the children. So much for child happiness.
So all you lesbians, gays, and single parents out there standby. How dare you procreate outside the traditional model of marriage.
She Who Condones Killing Children™ has left over white phos from Gaza and she isn't afraid to use it:
"Actually I believe that women should be stigmatized if they want to have children without marriage, because it is a self indulgent, selfish choice."
Yes, that really is what that hating creature wrote.
She sucks so much it is hard to imagine her sucking more.
For more rational takes on the subject check out:
Rolling
Fathers May not be Optional - BUT
and
Trudge164
Thanks Dr. Amy. Thanks 4 Nothing!
and
hollycomesalive
I Like My Parents Apart (Divorced) Rather Than Together.
The Gratuitous Nudity:
Comments
Being "stigmatized" sounds so pointy, but you know, if it meant she would avoid me, what could be bad about that? ;)
Wow. That last nude, very naughty.
Wow. That last nude, very naughty.
You are a great example of selfishness. No daddy in your house. You are ruining the world. Prepare to be vaporized.
That last photo is nicely transgressive. Feel free to write a story about it. Nothing like naughty nun fiction to brighten the day.
That last photo is nicely transgressive. Feel free to write a story about it. Nothing like naughty nun fiction to brighten the day.
Collective punishment and collective stigmatism. Does that mean that women will be required to wear glasses or will we stone them for having children alone or getting divorced?
I don't think the right wing is even advocating such actions.
Great post, thumbed cause such comments should be stigmatized.
I don't think the right wing is even advocating such actions.
Great post, thumbed cause such comments should be stigmatized.
I'm putting my money on the white phosphorus. Half of OS will go up in flames. You sinners. Remember that She Who Condones Killing Children™ considers this a moral issue. Prepare for the crusade.
mmm.....I love it so much when people think it should go back to the way it never was.
Trying to tell other people how to live their lives is the selfish act, really.
rated
Trying to tell other people how to live their lives is the selfish act, really.
rated
But she's a doctor. Anything she says isn't just an opinion, it's either a diagnosis or a prescription. We should be grateful she isn't charging our insurance companies for these consultations.
And damn I like the last tableau.
And damn I like the last tableau.
You are a bad person.
Rated.
Rated.
Embrace the Evil.
Heh, if this is the bad person and the good people are prescribing stigmatizing women, I choose the bad.
Don't worry Stella, I like being bad and Padraig was complimenting me.
Dr. Amy frightens me so I appreciate your "Dr. Amy Watches" greatly. As I'll never have the nerve to write a comment on her posts, I must live vicariously through your vigilance. Thank you, and thank you for the photos and the brilliant tag!
Rated for the nun's leg. I too am bad!
I LOVE that last tableau. But I don't want to discuss why.
Great post. She Who Must Be Ignored obviously hasn't seen it or she'd be spewing vitriol all over it. A pox on her ilk -- those who presume to dictate morality.
Great post. She Who Must Be Ignored obviously hasn't seen it or she'd be spewing vitriol all over it. A pox on her ilk -- those who presume to dictate morality.
Good that you avoid her posts. As I swore off giving that attention whore any more clicks weeks ago, I hadn't read her latest post either. But after receiving several outraged emails about it which included quotes, I held my nose long enough to confirm. She does indeed think having children outside the holy bonds of matrimony is amoral. Talk about living in a dream world.
She Who Condones Killing Children™ doesn't visit much.
She Who Condones Killing Children™ doesn't visit much.
Good points BBE. If you leave attention seekers alon long enough and they don't dive into their cesspool, they will go away. Unlike most problems. Thanks for the plug. By-the-way, does the girl in the black corset and fishnets like 'vettes? just asking ; )
That's a handsome red-headed male streaker there!
I had been boycotting Amy because of her nastiness towards religious people, but then I came back because she made a post about obesity which made sense. Now I'm realizing I shouldn't have come back. It's like driving by an accident, you know that slowing down and rubbernecking just contributes to the traffic jam yet you can't help doing it anyway.
I have difficultly believing that she herself believes the things she says. She usually starts off with a point that has some validity to it, but then she just keeps going... logically if that's true, then this is true, and this is true, and this must be true... until she's so far out in loony land that even her original point looks crazy by association. I don't think she honestly believes, for example, that no parent has the right to break a child's heart yet a parent has the right to knowingly conceive a child with a deadly disease. She's just painted herself into a corner, and her illness is that she can't ever admit she was wrong, so she finds herself having to defend the indefensible.
Thanks for the links, I wouldn't have seen those articles without them. And thanks for the streaker, I love red heads!
I had been boycotting Amy because of her nastiness towards religious people, but then I came back because she made a post about obesity which made sense. Now I'm realizing I shouldn't have come back. It's like driving by an accident, you know that slowing down and rubbernecking just contributes to the traffic jam yet you can't help doing it anyway.
I have difficultly believing that she herself believes the things she says. She usually starts off with a point that has some validity to it, but then she just keeps going... logically if that's true, then this is true, and this is true, and this must be true... until she's so far out in loony land that even her original point looks crazy by association. I don't think she honestly believes, for example, that no parent has the right to break a child's heart yet a parent has the right to knowingly conceive a child with a deadly disease. She's just painted herself into a corner, and her illness is that she can't ever admit she was wrong, so she finds herself having to defend the indefensible.
Thanks for the links, I wouldn't have seen those articles without them. And thanks for the streaker, I love red heads!
It was a compliment.
She's pathetic.
I am pleased to pimp you which is OS speak for plugging. I have yet to meet a hottie who didn't like vettes and hogs.
BBE and Padraig, I knew it was a compliment that is why I was muscling in on the compliment.
In truth, I think that statement has truly exposed her right wing credentials. Proposing that women should be stigmatized? I still am obsessing over that statement cause paying attention to the economy and the Wall Street morons right now would make me slash my wrists.
That IS a rather handsome redhead.
It all goes back to the insane need to control others. There must be rules and stigma to enforce them.
"Red hair was thought to be a mark of a beastly sexual desire and moral degeneration." - Wiki
"Red hair was thought to be a mark of a beastly sexual desire and moral degeneration." - Wiki
Hilarious. Excellent nudes. That security guy is really huffing and puffing.
hot (not just the photos) ;)
oh? a beastly sexual desire is it?
I have red hair...
I have red hair...
what odette said. and a mmmm added.
i dont even bother to comment on her anymore. she is heinous.
i dont even bother to comment on her anymore. she is heinous.
hey you want a really really bad nun joke???
What is it with the docs on this site? Give them an inch of blog space and they prove that advanced education does not necessarily impart wisdom. If it weren't for teendoc, I would believe that they teach intolerance in med school.
And Thanks so much for equal opportunity nudes!!! That last photo, mmmm, yummy buns!!!
And Thanks so much for equal opportunity nudes!!! That last photo, mmmm, yummy buns!!!
What is wrong with her? I am a single mom raising two sons under very difficult circumstances, and they are both amazing kids. I never understand how people can write about things they have not experienced. It is arrogance in the extreme.
I'm telling you guys, I don't know what planet some of the docs from this site come from. Honestly. I don't know people like that. Even my best friend the surgeon isn't like that...and she's a SURGEON!!
rated!
rated!
I once had a friend who was a sturgeon. She lived in the a river. :D
I am kidding. I'm a lurkur and reading here for a while and decided to say something finally. That Dr. Amy is repulsive. I can't believe they let her post her so much. Terrible. But I like this blog and your funny BBE.
I am kidding. I'm a lurkur and reading here for a while and decided to say something finally. That Dr. Amy is repulsive. I can't believe they let her post her so much. Terrible. But I like this blog and your funny BBE.
Rated for naughty nuns and nudies...
Yes Jane - nun jokes pleeeeeez!
Yes Jane - nun jokes pleeeeeez!
Red hair is a GOOD thing. Very good. It's international Love a Ginger day every day in this household.
And I second the call for the nun jokes.
And I second the call for the nun jokes.
More racism and an ass as well! Somehow I'm not surprised.
Why are you hiding behind a mask?
Why are you hiding behind a mask?
They do teach intolerance in medical school. It's the same class where they learn they're god and patients are stupid. Teendoc resisted and deprogrammed herself.
In addition to that great quote about "beastly sexual desire and moral degeneration," Wiki also educated me about gingerism today.
Nun jokes are always encouraged.
Idiots like Carmella who ironically hides behind her dog as she lobs her irrational comments are not. According to Carmella and her favorite blogger, She Who Condones Killing Children™, support of any kind for Palestinians is racist. Carmella would love to see all Palestinian babies (and people) happy in the arms of Allah just like She Who Condones Killing Children™.
In addition to that great quote about "beastly sexual desire and moral degeneration," Wiki also educated me about gingerism today.
Nun jokes are always encouraged.
Idiots like Carmella who ironically hides behind her dog as she lobs her irrational comments are not. According to Carmella and her favorite blogger, She Who Condones Killing Children™, support of any kind for Palestinians is racist. Carmella would love to see all Palestinian babies (and people) happy in the arms of Allah just like She Who Condones Killing Children™.
ok, these four nuns go to heaven. they are in line at the pearly gates and the first nun gets to the front of the line.
"sister, have you ever seen a penis?"
"yes, saint peter, i have."
"then go rinse your eyes with the holy water, and you may come in."
so she does, and the second nun gets to the front of the line.
"sister, have you ever touched a penis?"
"yes, saint peter, i have."
"then go rinse your hands with the holy water, and you may come in."
next thing you know, the fourth nun has pushed the third nun out of the way, and cut to the front of the line.
"sister, sister, what manner of behavior is this??" saint peter asked.
"well, saint peter," the nun said....
"sister, have you ever seen a penis?"
"yes, saint peter, i have."
"then go rinse your eyes with the holy water, and you may come in."
so she does, and the second nun gets to the front of the line.
"sister, have you ever touched a penis?"
"yes, saint peter, i have."
"then go rinse your hands with the holy water, and you may come in."
next thing you know, the fourth nun has pushed the third nun out of the way, and cut to the front of the line.
"sister, sister, what manner of behavior is this??" saint peter asked.
"well, saint peter," the nun said....
..."if you think i am rinsing my mouth with the holy water after she has had her fat ass in it, you got another think coming!"
bowing, bowing.
i love that terrible joke.
bowing, bowing.
i love that terrible joke.
It's an awesome joke.
As I mentioned on Trudge164's post, I think that Dr. Amy is blogging on OS as a springboard to a TV career. I think she's hoping to be the next Dr. Ruth or Dr. Phil or whatever. Trouble is, on OS we get to give her the feedback she deserves with some assurance that she reads it, rather than just yelling at the TV.
A drunk helps a nun across the street. The nun graciously thanks him. He says: "Think nothing of it. Any friend of Batman is a friend of mine!"
A drunk helps a nun across the street. The nun graciously thanks him. He says: "Think nothing of it. Any friend of Batman is a friend of mine!"
Da-dum-bum! Thank you folks, I'll be here all week!
A nun walks into a bus and sits behind the driver and says, "I have just one regret before I die."
The bus driver asks, "What might that be?"
She says, "I have never had sex, but I can't have sex with a married man or that would be a sin."
The bus driver says, "I'm not married"
The nun says, "I have to die a virgin, so I will have to take it in the ass".
Being the only two in the bus they went to the back and took care of business.
When they were done the bus driver says to the nun, "I have a confession to make, I am married."
The nun says, "I also have a confession to make, my name is Tom and I'm going to a costume party!"
The bus driver asks, "What might that be?"
She says, "I have never had sex, but I can't have sex with a married man or that would be a sin."
The bus driver says, "I'm not married"
The nun says, "I have to die a virgin, so I will have to take it in the ass".
Being the only two in the bus they went to the back and took care of business.
When they were done the bus driver says to the nun, "I have a confession to make, I am married."
The nun says, "I also have a confession to make, my name is Tom and I'm going to a costume party!"
I watched a 60 minute special years ago. They were featuring a guy couple who had two daughters. No disrespect intended for my parents, but I would have given my right arm to have these men as my parents. Those girls were so well loved, seen, nurtured and provided for. I loved the picture of the nuns with the nude model. Great post.
I just could not get over when she said that women should tolerate an adulterous man for the sake of the children. I mean, really? Really?!?! How's that for misogyny?
Next she'll be telling you to take the beatings and like it.
BBE, it's interesting that you couldn't be bothered to join the original discussion, but you have the time and effort to create an entire post dissing the person who started the discussion of which you were not a part.
This reminds of a definition of the word "critic" that I once read: A critic is someone who doesn't actually fight in the battle, but comes out afterward and bayonets the wounded.
In that sense you are indeed a critic. I believe this is the fourth "I don't like Dr. Amy" post you have published, if we count them as they pass by. But as you once again plunge the bayonet in Dr. Amy, I have to say that for all of her faults she promotes better discussions here than you have done or probably ever will do, however many thumbs and comments you end up with.
This reminds of a definition of the word "critic" that I once read: A critic is someone who doesn't actually fight in the battle, but comes out afterward and bayonets the wounded.
In that sense you are indeed a critic. I believe this is the fourth "I don't like Dr. Amy" post you have published, if we count them as they pass by. But as you once again plunge the bayonet in Dr. Amy, I have to say that for all of her faults she promotes better discussions here than you have done or probably ever will do, however many thumbs and comments you end up with.
Doing battle as you put it with She Who Condones Killing Children™ only accomplishes her goal which is to dominate the front page of OS. Why should I help that waste of flesh?
But how typically Community Scold of you to come over here (like you do every time) and give me what for.
Yawn.
But how typically Community Scold of you to come over here (like you do every time) and give me what for.
Yawn.
BBE wrties: "Doing battle as you put it with She Who Condones Killing Children™ only accomplishes her goal which is to dominate the front page of OS. Why should I help that waste of flesh?"
The post in question was neither a cover piece nor an Editor's Pick nor top rated. It was only frequently read, but just one of many. You say that you don't want to help her, but this post in itself will probably bring more attention to her than what her original post did. If your intention is to get people to ignore her, all I can say is "mission not accomplished."
BBE: "But how typically Community Scold of you to come over here (like you do every time) and give me what for."
You call me the "community scold," but I rarely scold anyone but you and even that only in comments. You, on the other hand, have practically made a career here scolding other OS members, as demonstrated once again in this post. As a community scold, I'm a failure. You are the master, and I a mere shadow.
The post in question was neither a cover piece nor an Editor's Pick nor top rated. It was only frequently read, but just one of many. You say that you don't want to help her, but this post in itself will probably bring more attention to her than what her original post did. If your intention is to get people to ignore her, all I can say is "mission not accomplished."
BBE: "But how typically Community Scold of you to come over here (like you do every time) and give me what for."
You call me the "community scold," but I rarely scold anyone but you and even that only in comments. You, on the other hand, have practically made a career here scolding other OS members, as demonstrated once again in this post. As a community scold, I'm a failure. You are the master, and I a mere shadow.
Mr. Mishima666:
I cannot speak for BBE, but I must say Dr.A's blog on this issue is NOT a discussion. She started by asserting statement such as single women are selfish if they get pregnant without basis. Further, based on a singular number 38.5%, she immediately concluded that women are the ones misbehaving. Where are the extrapolated data? She is a doctor; you are a healthcare data analysist, you know what I am talking about. Later, she mentioned the octuplets mother. Once you bring Nadya Suleman in, there is no genuine argument or discussion; it is just pure propaganda. I will not comment on propaganda; it just fuels prejudice - judgmental is the euphemism for it.
However, Mr. Mishima666, I see your point of view, and I agree that a society is built on a stable family structure. But, is 100% compliance necessary and is that a realistic expectation? Further, as other readers have pointed out, she is strictly black and white. There is no room for an alternative view or in-depth analysis as you have beautifully articulated on her blog several times.
Let me ask you a simple question, if you were her writing on this subject matter, how will you write it? Will you make the EXACT SAME bold accusation with such breadth and depth?
Mr. Mishima666, thanks for reading! :)
I cannot speak for BBE, but I must say Dr.A's blog on this issue is NOT a discussion. She started by asserting statement such as single women are selfish if they get pregnant without basis. Further, based on a singular number 38.5%, she immediately concluded that women are the ones misbehaving. Where are the extrapolated data? She is a doctor; you are a healthcare data analysist, you know what I am talking about. Later, she mentioned the octuplets mother. Once you bring Nadya Suleman in, there is no genuine argument or discussion; it is just pure propaganda. I will not comment on propaganda; it just fuels prejudice - judgmental is the euphemism for it.
However, Mr. Mishima666, I see your point of view, and I agree that a society is built on a stable family structure. But, is 100% compliance necessary and is that a realistic expectation? Further, as other readers have pointed out, she is strictly black and white. There is no room for an alternative view or in-depth analysis as you have beautifully articulated on her blog several times.
Let me ask you a simple question, if you were her writing on this subject matter, how will you write it? Will you make the EXACT SAME bold accusation with such breadth and depth?
Mr. Mishima666, thanks for reading! :)
sorry, grammatical errors. should be "would" not "will".
I don't know, Mishima. Entering into any attempt at discourse with that woman is as useless as trying to get your pet pig to speak Greek. You and I had a decent back and forth and such discussion is what I look forward to. We don't have to agree, but we can share our opinions with respect.
Yet sista-girl just doesn't know how to have a simple discussion. But I did have fun pointing out the holes in her position, if we can call it that.
But please, please keep me from going back there and correcting her grammar in her last reply to me! I know it would be petty, but I hate when people don't realize that "everyone" takes a singular reflexive pronoun and not a plural one.
Yet sista-girl just doesn't know how to have a simple discussion. But I did have fun pointing out the holes in her position, if we can call it that.
But please, please keep me from going back there and correcting her grammar in her last reply to me! I know it would be petty, but I hate when people don't realize that "everyone" takes a singular reflexive pronoun and not a plural one.
teendoc writes: "I don't know, Mishima. Entering into any attempt at discourse with that woman is as useless as trying to get your pet pig to speak Greek."
My pet pig does speak Greek, but to your point --
Unfortunately Dr. Amy often proves to be her own worst enemy. She has a confrontational discussion style that just isn't very helpful. But there's a lot of that going around these days, as evidenced by this post.
What I try to do in that kind of situation is to ignore the person's attitude, focus on the core of the person's argument, and direct my comments to that. In BBE's case that's hard for me to do since many of his posts are just personal attacks with not much argument outside of that. I think BBE has a lot more to offer, but that's up to him.
Let's face it, a lot of people have ideas worth discussing, even if they don't express their own ideas very well. So what to do? Focus on the ideas. As they say in soccer, play the ball and not the man.
teendoc: "You and I had a decent back and forth and such discussion is what I look forward to."
And why did we have that? Because Amy, with all her faults, hosted a discussion in which you and I (and many others) could interact. So let's give her credit where credit is due. Frankly, I was very impressed with the discussion, and that includes people with whom I disagreed.
teendoc: "Yet sista-girl just doesn't know how to have a simple discussion."
Many people don't know how to have a discussion, especially on the Internet. I have actually considered writing a post with advice on how to have a fruitful discussion in an Internet venue. It's not always easy or obvious how to do that. But a great Internet discussion is a real pleasure, even when people disagree with each other.
My pet pig does speak Greek, but to your point --
Unfortunately Dr. Amy often proves to be her own worst enemy. She has a confrontational discussion style that just isn't very helpful. But there's a lot of that going around these days, as evidenced by this post.
What I try to do in that kind of situation is to ignore the person's attitude, focus on the core of the person's argument, and direct my comments to that. In BBE's case that's hard for me to do since many of his posts are just personal attacks with not much argument outside of that. I think BBE has a lot more to offer, but that's up to him.
Let's face it, a lot of people have ideas worth discussing, even if they don't express their own ideas very well. So what to do? Focus on the ideas. As they say in soccer, play the ball and not the man.
teendoc: "You and I had a decent back and forth and such discussion is what I look forward to."
And why did we have that? Because Amy, with all her faults, hosted a discussion in which you and I (and many others) could interact. So let's give her credit where credit is due. Frankly, I was very impressed with the discussion, and that includes people with whom I disagreed.
teendoc: "Yet sista-girl just doesn't know how to have a simple discussion."
Many people don't know how to have a discussion, especially on the Internet. I have actually considered writing a post with advice on how to have a fruitful discussion in an Internet venue. It's not always easy or obvious how to do that. But a great Internet discussion is a real pleasure, even when people disagree with each other.
Does the banner heading "Pearls Before Swine" have any relevance to pigs speaking Greek? or, for that matter, the streaker?
(I am just trying to be funny.)
(I am just trying to be funny.)
Thanks for including some male nudity this time. I can't criticize Dr. Amy's post, because I didn't read it, but it is interesting if she is concerned for children now, when before the attacks on Palestinans (children among them) never seemed to faze her.
Bingo!
And if I had made that point on her blog, I would have been dismissed as a racist.
aim needs to drop a quality nun joke on us.
And if I had made that point on her blog, I would have been dismissed as a racist.
aim needs to drop a quality nun joke on us.
What's black and white and red all over?
A newpaper.
A nun in a tornado.
A newpaper.
A nun in a tornado.
I agree with BBE, no way to have a discussion with her blog and she only cares about being the most read, she said so. She picks the topics based on who will read her most and creates controversy for that reason. If that is her goal, good for her. But I will not partake in her endeavor. Also, I get tired of her constant bashing of the Left and PC people. So, I don't discuss with her cause I don't want her to have the ratings. Funny, cause I will comment and have discussion with our local conservatives/other side of the aisle guys: McGarrett and OGordon. But, not my cup of tea.
I would like to see her post her "public stigmatizing of women who choose to be single mothers". I want to know what the stigmatizing will include: Lashings? Stoning? throwing women out of the city walls? Shaving their hair? Tattooing women? Taking their Social Security away? Or maybe web sites with the names and addresses so that "the loving good solid families' do not have to live next to women alone with children?
Cripes....I still cannot get over it.
I would like to see her post her "public stigmatizing of women who choose to be single mothers". I want to know what the stigmatizing will include: Lashings? Stoning? throwing women out of the city walls? Shaving their hair? Tattooing women? Taking their Social Security away? Or maybe web sites with the names and addresses so that "the loving good solid families' do not have to live next to women alone with children?
Cripes....I still cannot get over it.
recall of post.
newspaper is read all over.
Nun is red all over.
I have been enjoying some wine this evening.
newspaper is read all over.
Nun is red all over.
I have been enjoying some wine this evening.
And here I thought it was a nun in a blender...
More possible stigma's - no welfare, no food stamps, higher tax rate, no child deductions or credits, no "free" public education for the S kids, perhaps a big red S tattoo'd on the mother's and the S kid's foreheads to go along with the blue hats. S kid for Single mother, selfish mother, stigmata.
More possible stigma's - no welfare, no food stamps, higher tax rate, no child deductions or credits, no "free" public education for the S kids, perhaps a big red S tattoo'd on the mother's and the S kid's foreheads to go along with the blue hats. S kid for Single mother, selfish mother, stigmata.
How bout just your basic scarlet A?
Another bingo.
Now I wait for someone to chime in about the cultural learnings of America.
Now I wait for someone to chime in about the cultural learnings of America.
I doubt she-who-etc has heard of Hawthorne.
The trials of Hester Prynne were mandatory in high school back in my coon's age and I don't doubt She Who Condones Killing Children™ sat through english class on her way to Harvard. She just failed to absorb the lessons of that particular morality tale.
Being a cultural philistine, I like Borat better.
"Kazakhstan is more civilized now. Women can now travel on inside of bus, and homosexuals no longer have to wear blue hat."
Being a cultural philistine, I like Borat better.
"Kazakhstan is more civilized now. Women can now travel on inside of bus, and homosexuals no longer have to wear blue hat."
"...She Who Condones Killing Children™ sat through english class on her way to Harvard. She just failed to absorb the lessons of that particular morality tale."
It's a nice example of the problem of conditioning.
It's a nice example of the problem of conditioning.
Re: mishima
Here's the thing: I don't have a problem with the CORE of her argument. I do think that women who choose insemination with the intention of raising a child solo are putting their own desires over the needs of a child in a way that doesn't speak to their ability to become good mothers. But she didn't stop with the core of her argument. She went on to say that two biological parents trump any other combination of people in a child's life, in all situations, and she added that anyone who adopts a child is just doing it out of selfishness, and that parents who divorce, even for adultery, are just being selfish because the need of a child to have two resident parents is greater than the need of the parent not to live with a cheating sack of shit.
She kept on cruising, stating that children have an inborn right to two resident parents, and that that right is inalienable - no one has the right to prevent either parent from residing with the child.
(I'm trying to think of a classy way to put this, but I can't think of an alternative with the same impact.)
That's just fucked up!
It's so fucked up that it makes me (and evidently most people who have read her comments thread) wonder what the hell is wrong with her and what her own upbringing was like. It's so fucked up that it makes me pity the poor human women who are her patients and wonder if she treats them with the same contempt she expresses towards the MAJORITY OF WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN who don't have the family setup she considers ideal. It makes me have to make a sincere effort to pray for her instead of wanting to spit in her eye. Reading her column is quite literally bad for me, in that it makes me think worse not just of her in particular but of people in general. And, from what I've observed, I don't think I'm alone in that.
I tried before to boycott Amy and didn't stick with it, mostly because I'm sort of a schmuck and she wrote about one of my pet topics. I'd like to see some sort of organized boycott of this blight on OS.
Here's the thing: I don't have a problem with the CORE of her argument. I do think that women who choose insemination with the intention of raising a child solo are putting their own desires over the needs of a child in a way that doesn't speak to their ability to become good mothers. But she didn't stop with the core of her argument. She went on to say that two biological parents trump any other combination of people in a child's life, in all situations, and she added that anyone who adopts a child is just doing it out of selfishness, and that parents who divorce, even for adultery, are just being selfish because the need of a child to have two resident parents is greater than the need of the parent not to live with a cheating sack of shit.
She kept on cruising, stating that children have an inborn right to two resident parents, and that that right is inalienable - no one has the right to prevent either parent from residing with the child.
(I'm trying to think of a classy way to put this, but I can't think of an alternative with the same impact.)
That's just fucked up!
It's so fucked up that it makes me (and evidently most people who have read her comments thread) wonder what the hell is wrong with her and what her own upbringing was like. It's so fucked up that it makes me pity the poor human women who are her patients and wonder if she treats them with the same contempt she expresses towards the MAJORITY OF WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN who don't have the family setup she considers ideal. It makes me have to make a sincere effort to pray for her instead of wanting to spit in her eye. Reading her column is quite literally bad for me, in that it makes me think worse not just of her in particular but of people in general. And, from what I've observed, I don't think I'm alone in that.
I tried before to boycott Amy and didn't stick with it, mostly because I'm sort of a schmuck and she wrote about one of my pet topics. I'd like to see some sort of organized boycott of this blight on OS.
Yet another bingo.
Boycotts! Banning! Shunning! It's time for everyone here to put on their big-boy/girl britches and deal. What part of 'Open' in open.salon.com doesn't anyone get? I'm no Dr. Amy fan, but I would never have her banned for her opinions. Even unpopular opinions have a right to be aired.
It is not the end of OS because someone you disagree with is on the front page. Part of 'free speech' is dealing with unsavory opinions.
It is not the end of OS because someone you disagree with is on the front page. Part of 'free speech' is dealing with unsavory opinions.
Anthony, no one is banning her and no one is saying she cannot speak. She can speak and so can we. We can comment on her ideas, particular the lovely notion of : Organized Stigmatizing Of Single Mothers. OSSM.
No one?
I tried before to boycott Amy and didn't stick with it, mostly because I'm sort of a schmuck and she wrote about one of my pet topics. I'd like to see some sort of organized boycott of this blight on OS.
I tried before to boycott Amy and didn't stick with it, mostly because I'm sort of a schmuck and she wrote about one of my pet topics. I'd like to see some sort of organized boycott of this blight on OS.
I'm not for banning anyone here even wastes of flesh like She Who Condones Killing Children™.
I reread what people wrote in the comments and the only one saying anything about banning is you. So get a grip.
If you want to "do battle" a la the Community Scold with those who want to delete other users, I can point you in their direction but be careful. They will accuse you of being Peter L.
As far as shunning/boycotting goes. Good luck with forcing people to read anything on the net. It is just as impractical as making people not read or herding cats. Doesn't really work. One commenter is hardly a quorum.
I reread what people wrote in the comments and the only one saying anything about banning is you. So get a grip.
If you want to "do battle" a la the Community Scold with those who want to delete other users, I can point you in their direction but be careful. They will accuse you of being Peter L.
As far as shunning/boycotting goes. Good luck with forcing people to read anything on the net. It is just as impractical as making people not read or herding cats. Doesn't really work. One commenter is hardly a quorum.
In what way does a boycott equal a ban?
I am absolutely entitled to exercise my right not to view her, and to get as many people to join me as want to join me. The fact is, she gets page views by deliberately being hateful. People read her posts because they hate her, and it's counter-productive. To make her posts cease being "most read" people are going to have to stop taking her troll bait.
I am absolutely entitled to exercise my right not to view her, and to get as many people to join me as want to join me. The fact is, she gets page views by deliberately being hateful. People read her posts because they hate her, and it's counter-productive. To make her posts cease being "most read" people are going to have to stop taking her troll bait.
One of these days I'd like to see CCC do a regression analysis (or something results in a chart) on anti-Amy flareups around here, and whether it's her particularly inane views or intentionally inflammatory (yet still inane) that fry others' goats around here.
I'm so tired of the recent charge that some OS members want doctor she-who banned. 'Taint so (has doc-shewho written anything about the 'taint yet?) Based on what I've read, what bothers most of us is the undeserved special treatment she gets from the editors here. Without those props, she'd have to work a lot harder at her other offsite drive-by for traffic and eventually drop out of sight here.
"Open" also means having the right to express disgust and loathing for a writer who works so hard to generate such feelings in otherwise reasonable people. I'm just glad she doesn't actually "practice" medicine on patients.
Thanks, BBE. Rated.
"Open" also means having the right to express disgust and loathing for a writer who works so hard to generate such feelings in otherwise reasonable people. I'm just glad she doesn't actually "practice" medicine on patients.
Thanks, BBE. Rated.
Stellaa writes: "I would like to see her post her "public stigmatizing of women who choose to be single mothers". I want to know what the stigmatizing will include . . . "
I looked at the actual post and couldn't find any reference to "public stigmatizing."
Stellaa: "Collective punishment and collective stigmatism."
Could you point me to the exact wording where she recommends that? I couldn't find it.
Stellaa: "We can comment on her ideas, particular the lovely notion of : Organized Stigmatizing Of Single Mothers. OSSM."
I didn't see that either.
Stellaa: "Proposing that women should be stigmatized?"
Here is what she actually said, if anyone is interested: "Actually I believe that women should we stigmatized if they want to have children without marriage, because it is a self indulgent, selfish choice."
By my count Amy used the word "stigma" in only three comments in the entire post, the first to make her point and the other two in discussions with other people.
That wasn't the point of the post, but it is what most people fastened on. By "stigma" I think she simply meant that there should be some kind of social pressure in the form of people looking down on that sort of thing. I don't think she was talking about adoption or about some woman who ends up being a single mother for some other compelling reason.
Why that proved to be so controversial is beyond me. The other options are either approval, or indifference.
Of course, Amy always ends up over-arguing her case, and she's not very good at arguing philosophical issues, but that's hardly news.
As I mentioned in the original post, the original "sperm bank" babies are now turning into adults, and many of them are not pleased about being denied the opportunity to have a father. Their rights and interests -- what they might have wanted as adults -- was never considered.
The amount of Open Salon outrage over that was virtually nil. I guess the idea is that a child being intentionally denied a father -- intentionally denied even the knowledge of who that father was -- simply doesn't matter.
Feeling no outrage over that, people had plenty of outrage in reserve for Dr. Amy. Dr. Amy's big crime in this case is being politically incorrect. She has committed the unpardonable sin of expressing an opinion that contradicts the accepted groupthink. And people are so utterly devastated by that, that they have to come over here and "debrief," even people who didn't participate in the original discussion. BBE, with his vast, inexhaustible stores of outrage always at the ready, felt the need to write the fourth post -- yes, the fourth -- in his long-running series "Why I Hate Amy." A few more posts and he'll be able to publish an entire book.
It's always interesting to me what gets people outraged around here. Over on the original discussion I mentioned one OS post in which the writer talked about how marvelous it was that her teenage babysitter lost her religious faith and started having sex with her boyfriend. The exact words were
This is a young woman who no longer holds out. This woman is not put off by putting out. This is a woman who makes things happen—now here’s a couple with transcendence in their very near future. Well well well, thought I. Can I get a Hallelujah? Can I get an Amen?
And boy did she get amens! The comments were universally positive.
And what's not to like about teenage sex? Among young people ages 10 to 24 in 2007 over 800,000 cases of chlamydia, over 200,000 cases of gonorrhea, and over 1,000 cases of syphilis, and almost 7,000 cases of AIDS/HIV, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of abortions.
But on OS you can write about how great it is that a teenage girl started "putting out" and you won't get a drop of outrage. But suggest that there should be some kind of stigma against teenage sex and you'll be the topic of BBE's next "Why I Hate [fill in the blank]" post.
Allie writes: " . . . and she added that anyone who adopts a child is just doing it out of selfishness . . . "
Let's just take this sentence and compare it to what she actually said:
"I said nothing about adoption. I am talking about deliberately conceiving children who will not have a mother AND a father."
"Adoption is entirely different because in the case of adoption, the child has no parents, and it is better to have one than none."
"I'm [only] talking about the morality of deliberately conceiving a child knowing in advance that the child will not have a resident father."
"In the case of adoption, the biological parents have BOTH chosen to deprive the child of a mother AND a father. In that case, it is beneficial for others to parent the child."
This is what she actually said about adoption. I know that everyone is pissed about Amy, but please let's not attribute opinions to her that she doesn't hold.
I looked at the actual post and couldn't find any reference to "public stigmatizing."
Stellaa: "Collective punishment and collective stigmatism."
Could you point me to the exact wording where she recommends that? I couldn't find it.
Stellaa: "We can comment on her ideas, particular the lovely notion of : Organized Stigmatizing Of Single Mothers. OSSM."
I didn't see that either.
Stellaa: "Proposing that women should be stigmatized?"
Here is what she actually said, if anyone is interested: "Actually I believe that women should we stigmatized if they want to have children without marriage, because it is a self indulgent, selfish choice."
By my count Amy used the word "stigma" in only three comments in the entire post, the first to make her point and the other two in discussions with other people.
That wasn't the point of the post, but it is what most people fastened on. By "stigma" I think she simply meant that there should be some kind of social pressure in the form of people looking down on that sort of thing. I don't think she was talking about adoption or about some woman who ends up being a single mother for some other compelling reason.
Why that proved to be so controversial is beyond me. The other options are either approval, or indifference.
Of course, Amy always ends up over-arguing her case, and she's not very good at arguing philosophical issues, but that's hardly news.
As I mentioned in the original post, the original "sperm bank" babies are now turning into adults, and many of them are not pleased about being denied the opportunity to have a father. Their rights and interests -- what they might have wanted as adults -- was never considered.
The amount of Open Salon outrage over that was virtually nil. I guess the idea is that a child being intentionally denied a father -- intentionally denied even the knowledge of who that father was -- simply doesn't matter.
Feeling no outrage over that, people had plenty of outrage in reserve for Dr. Amy. Dr. Amy's big crime in this case is being politically incorrect. She has committed the unpardonable sin of expressing an opinion that contradicts the accepted groupthink. And people are so utterly devastated by that, that they have to come over here and "debrief," even people who didn't participate in the original discussion. BBE, with his vast, inexhaustible stores of outrage always at the ready, felt the need to write the fourth post -- yes, the fourth -- in his long-running series "Why I Hate Amy." A few more posts and he'll be able to publish an entire book.
It's always interesting to me what gets people outraged around here. Over on the original discussion I mentioned one OS post in which the writer talked about how marvelous it was that her teenage babysitter lost her religious faith and started having sex with her boyfriend. The exact words were
This is a young woman who no longer holds out. This woman is not put off by putting out. This is a woman who makes things happen—now here’s a couple with transcendence in their very near future. Well well well, thought I. Can I get a Hallelujah? Can I get an Amen?
And boy did she get amens! The comments were universally positive.
And what's not to like about teenage sex? Among young people ages 10 to 24 in 2007 over 800,000 cases of chlamydia, over 200,000 cases of gonorrhea, and over 1,000 cases of syphilis, and almost 7,000 cases of AIDS/HIV, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of abortions.
But on OS you can write about how great it is that a teenage girl started "putting out" and you won't get a drop of outrage. But suggest that there should be some kind of stigma against teenage sex and you'll be the topic of BBE's next "Why I Hate [fill in the blank]" post.
Allie writes: " . . . and she added that anyone who adopts a child is just doing it out of selfishness . . . "
Let's just take this sentence and compare it to what she actually said:
"I said nothing about adoption. I am talking about deliberately conceiving children who will not have a mother AND a father."
"Adoption is entirely different because in the case of adoption, the child has no parents, and it is better to have one than none."
"I'm [only] talking about the morality of deliberately conceiving a child knowing in advance that the child will not have a resident father."
"In the case of adoption, the biological parents have BOTH chosen to deprive the child of a mother AND a father. In that case, it is beneficial for others to parent the child."
This is what she actually said about adoption. I know that everyone is pissed about Amy, but please let's not attribute opinions to her that she doesn't hold.
Mishima666,
I'm not a Dr. Amy hater and I read and respond to her posts often, sometimes pro, sometimes con.
If you read the last 4 or 5 comments in her thread about optional fathers I think that, due to her unwillingness to ever admit that she may be wrong, paints herself into a corner.
She's a Harcard educated OBGYN and I don't really think that she believes that victims of abuse leave because they just don't like him anymore.
But, and this is a big but, this is what she SAYS that she believes. Words obviously matter and I only judge her by what she types, not others interpretations of what she "really meant."
I'm not a Dr. Amy hater and I read and respond to her posts often, sometimes pro, sometimes con.
If you read the last 4 or 5 comments in her thread about optional fathers I think that, due to her unwillingness to ever admit that she may be wrong, paints herself into a corner.
She's a Harcard educated OBGYN and I don't really think that she believes that victims of abuse leave because they just don't like him anymore.
But, and this is a big but, this is what she SAYS that she believes. Words obviously matter and I only judge her by what she types, not others interpretations of what she "really meant."
Suggesting women should only have children in everlasting heterosexual wedlock is anti-choice (and antiquated moral thinking) and that is why people are pissed in this particular instance.
See how I did that in one sentence?
The Community Scold with his tangents seems to be part of the antiquated faction.
See how I did that in one sentence?
The Community Scold with his tangents seems to be part of the antiquated faction.
Mishima, the thing that pissed me off about her post is her tone most of all and then it's the fact that she equates being homosexual with being selfish. Now because didn't say those exact words doesn't mean that's not what she meant. She says in response to the member Bursa Vortex
'Bursa Vortex:
"You're saying that gay men who conceive children through surrogacy and raise them without mothers are bad parents? You're saying lesbians who raise children conceived via sperm donors are bad parents?"
I'm afraid so. There's a difference between what adults want and what children need, and children's needs trump adults' wants.'
That's bullshit opinion based on nothing more than the made-up notion of a birthright of some kind. And then she goes on claim that this position has moral high ground, but never explains how. I gave you the moral argument in this situation many times and, in principle, you agreed with me. There were reservations you and I both had, but she is unwilling to even entertain that she doesn't have moral authority in this situation, along with most others.
Moreover, the idea behind her post is coming to bite her in the ass. She believes that we should pass judgment people she believes are selfish and denying rights of children that she basically made. Now what is happening is that she is finding others believe that someone's right to a choice is their believe and they are stigmatizing her for her beliefs. It's shitty, but she asked for it by being a judgmental and totally stubborn bitch, in my humble opinion. But this is to be expected from a women who tried to tell me, a physicist, what physicists really mean when they say certain things, so go figure.
All in all, if you want to defend Amy's decision that's fine, but you know what the score is and if she is going to set the gauntlet with public judgment and stigmatism, then she better be ready for the backlash, because those flood gates go both ways, as you have found out.
I have enjoyed discussing this issue with and I think there are things that you and I can agree on, but I will not try to justify what someone who is not interested in discussion says or implies. To me she is the antithesis of everything this forum stands for and I don't know why I continue to participate in her discussions.
BBE, thanks for the forum.
'Bursa Vortex:
"You're saying that gay men who conceive children through surrogacy and raise them without mothers are bad parents? You're saying lesbians who raise children conceived via sperm donors are bad parents?"
I'm afraid so. There's a difference between what adults want and what children need, and children's needs trump adults' wants.'
That's bullshit opinion based on nothing more than the made-up notion of a birthright of some kind. And then she goes on claim that this position has moral high ground, but never explains how. I gave you the moral argument in this situation many times and, in principle, you agreed with me. There were reservations you and I both had, but she is unwilling to even entertain that she doesn't have moral authority in this situation, along with most others.
Moreover, the idea behind her post is coming to bite her in the ass. She believes that we should pass judgment people she believes are selfish and denying rights of children that she basically made. Now what is happening is that she is finding others believe that someone's right to a choice is their believe and they are stigmatizing her for her beliefs. It's shitty, but she asked for it by being a judgmental and totally stubborn bitch, in my humble opinion. But this is to be expected from a women who tried to tell me, a physicist, what physicists really mean when they say certain things, so go figure.
All in all, if you want to defend Amy's decision that's fine, but you know what the score is and if she is going to set the gauntlet with public judgment and stigmatism, then she better be ready for the backlash, because those flood gates go both ways, as you have found out.
I have enjoyed discussing this issue with and I think there are things that you and I can agree on, but I will not try to justify what someone who is not interested in discussion says or implies. To me she is the antithesis of everything this forum stands for and I don't know why I continue to participate in her discussions.
BBE, thanks for the forum.
Mishima: I'm going to disagree with you again. I think you give Amy way too much credit. WAY TOO MUCH!
First: She holds women responsible for single parenthood. Exclusively. I'm sorry, but except in the case of sperm donors, the teen/woman did not get pregnant on her own. And if the man is not interested in marriage, how does that get to be the woman's fault? But with Amy, everything is the woman's fault.
Second: She doesn't even recognize that abuse is a valid reason to leave a marriage. My trainer has been getting beaten by her husband for the past year. She only told me about it recently. Both my husband and I said that no man should ever lay his hands on either you or your children in rage. This is not acceptable. Yet Amy believes that she should suck up the beatings for the sake of the children. So that they can learn its OK for daddy to beat mommy to shit. And for mommy to end up in the hospital or dead. Otherwise she's just a willful, selfish bitch. I mean, what is she thinking? Worrying about getting beaten? What does that compare to depriving children of a father?
Third: Adoption. I am livid that she attempts character assassination of my daughter's firstparents. My little girl has parents and firstparents in her life. She will know her adoption story and will have connections to her family of origin. And all this came to pass because her firstmother chose open adoption and picked us as parents for her child. And I'm supposed to shame her for ultimately realizing during her pregnancy that she and her boyfriend were ill-equipped to parent this child and making an adoption plan (the correct terminology)? I don't think so. What she did took more guts and strength than I could ever have mustered. This wasn't abandonment. This wasn't "oh fooey, I don't want to be bothered." This was about love and facing the reality of what you have and what you're able to give and then deciding what you think is best for your child. And no termination of parental rights will take away the fact that my kid has firstparents who love her.
Fourth: Sperm banks & Donor gametes. Having been through IVF-land before we became parents through adoption, the issues related to sperm banks and the children wanting to know their "fathers" is not new. I do not deny the emotional difficulty of being fatherless in this society. But when we examine the other donor gamete controversies, one wonders whether it is having a father as in male nurturing role or father as in male biological connection. What I'm asking is whether those kids who were conceived using a sperm donor within a marriage where the man had azopermia still felt the same longing since they had a father in the house?
There is a strong group in the adoption community that believes that biology is everything. So children who are adopted must have access to information about their biological parents. While I do agree with this concept (but hate the anti-intellectualism of absolutism) there is a concern when they then want to extend this access to donor gametes. I used an egg donor from South Africa. Had I not miscarried, I would have been the baby's biological mother (since she came out of my uterus) and my husband the father. Yet genetically the egg donor would be the genetic mother. My plan was always to explain about egg donation, but should egg donors be available for later contact by the child(ren) conceived by their eggs in case they feel the need for the biological connection? This becomes especially difficult as many egg donations are anonymous. The donors are also not looking to become de facto parents as the parents who give birth are the parents. But to the biology is the most important thing people, one must always have contact with one's genetic relations.
This is especially humorous when one realizes that about 12% of all children born in the US are not genetically related to the father listed on the birth certificate! So perhaps paternity testing should be mandatory for every birth...
So (deep breath), the issues with ART are myriad. And who is to say that the people who chose sperm donation didn't consider the impact of not having a father? Say they considered it and felt that it would be a loss, but not an insurmountable loss? However, for the child, the feelings were different. We can never know how our children are going to feel.
I'm more wigged out about the donor egg and donor embryo children whose parents are in the "no tell" camp (out of shame) and never plan to tell their kids at all.
Fifth: The teen babysitter issue may have been more of an anti-religious sentiment than a pro-teen sex sentiment. I don't believe that many people here are supportive of adolescent sexual activity.
Sixth: Amy and discussion hosting. I'm not so sure I would call what Amy does hosting a discussion. It's more like a descent into illogic and madness. I don't care that she is politically incorrect. I'm an online vet: been there, done that, got the t-shirt, refrigerator magnet, and the freaking snow globe. What is ridiculous is that she a) has no skill in responding in debate in a point by point fashion; b) fabricates conclusions, affronts, and insults that she attributes to the person challenging her, when, in fact, she's just projecting her own behavior onto the other person; c) cannot concede any point, admit that she might be a teensy bit wrong, or in any way appear to be human; and d) creates such a tiresome antagonistic atmosphere that only gluttons for punishment (or people like me who enjoy poking sticks at narcissists) can put up with trying to have any discussion there.
The topic could have been a good one if it had been discussed without her brand of anti-woman lunacy. But when she starts saying that women should stay with men who beat them or their kids, her sanity has clearly left the building.
Way to hijack a comment section, huh?
First: She holds women responsible for single parenthood. Exclusively. I'm sorry, but except in the case of sperm donors, the teen/woman did not get pregnant on her own. And if the man is not interested in marriage, how does that get to be the woman's fault? But with Amy, everything is the woman's fault.
Second: She doesn't even recognize that abuse is a valid reason to leave a marriage. My trainer has been getting beaten by her husband for the past year. She only told me about it recently. Both my husband and I said that no man should ever lay his hands on either you or your children in rage. This is not acceptable. Yet Amy believes that she should suck up the beatings for the sake of the children. So that they can learn its OK for daddy to beat mommy to shit. And for mommy to end up in the hospital or dead. Otherwise she's just a willful, selfish bitch. I mean, what is she thinking? Worrying about getting beaten? What does that compare to depriving children of a father?
Third: Adoption. I am livid that she attempts character assassination of my daughter's firstparents. My little girl has parents and firstparents in her life. She will know her adoption story and will have connections to her family of origin. And all this came to pass because her firstmother chose open adoption and picked us as parents for her child. And I'm supposed to shame her for ultimately realizing during her pregnancy that she and her boyfriend were ill-equipped to parent this child and making an adoption plan (the correct terminology)? I don't think so. What she did took more guts and strength than I could ever have mustered. This wasn't abandonment. This wasn't "oh fooey, I don't want to be bothered." This was about love and facing the reality of what you have and what you're able to give and then deciding what you think is best for your child. And no termination of parental rights will take away the fact that my kid has firstparents who love her.
Fourth: Sperm banks & Donor gametes. Having been through IVF-land before we became parents through adoption, the issues related to sperm banks and the children wanting to know their "fathers" is not new. I do not deny the emotional difficulty of being fatherless in this society. But when we examine the other donor gamete controversies, one wonders whether it is having a father as in male nurturing role or father as in male biological connection. What I'm asking is whether those kids who were conceived using a sperm donor within a marriage where the man had azopermia still felt the same longing since they had a father in the house?
There is a strong group in the adoption community that believes that biology is everything. So children who are adopted must have access to information about their biological parents. While I do agree with this concept (but hate the anti-intellectualism of absolutism) there is a concern when they then want to extend this access to donor gametes. I used an egg donor from South Africa. Had I not miscarried, I would have been the baby's biological mother (since she came out of my uterus) and my husband the father. Yet genetically the egg donor would be the genetic mother. My plan was always to explain about egg donation, but should egg donors be available for later contact by the child(ren) conceived by their eggs in case they feel the need for the biological connection? This becomes especially difficult as many egg donations are anonymous. The donors are also not looking to become de facto parents as the parents who give birth are the parents. But to the biology is the most important thing people, one must always have contact with one's genetic relations.
This is especially humorous when one realizes that about 12% of all children born in the US are not genetically related to the father listed on the birth certificate! So perhaps paternity testing should be mandatory for every birth...
So (deep breath), the issues with ART are myriad. And who is to say that the people who chose sperm donation didn't consider the impact of not having a father? Say they considered it and felt that it would be a loss, but not an insurmountable loss? However, for the child, the feelings were different. We can never know how our children are going to feel.
I'm more wigged out about the donor egg and donor embryo children whose parents are in the "no tell" camp (out of shame) and never plan to tell their kids at all.
Fifth: The teen babysitter issue may have been more of an anti-religious sentiment than a pro-teen sex sentiment. I don't believe that many people here are supportive of adolescent sexual activity.
Sixth: Amy and discussion hosting. I'm not so sure I would call what Amy does hosting a discussion. It's more like a descent into illogic and madness. I don't care that she is politically incorrect. I'm an online vet: been there, done that, got the t-shirt, refrigerator magnet, and the freaking snow globe. What is ridiculous is that she a) has no skill in responding in debate in a point by point fashion; b) fabricates conclusions, affronts, and insults that she attributes to the person challenging her, when, in fact, she's just projecting her own behavior onto the other person; c) cannot concede any point, admit that she might be a teensy bit wrong, or in any way appear to be human; and d) creates such a tiresome antagonistic atmosphere that only gluttons for punishment (or people like me who enjoy poking sticks at narcissists) can put up with trying to have any discussion there.
The topic could have been a good one if it had been discussed without her brand of anti-woman lunacy. But when she starts saying that women should stay with men who beat them or their kids, her sanity has clearly left the building.
Way to hijack a comment section, huh?
Hijack away. Just drop a nun joke or two into the mix.
BBE writes: "Suggesting women should only have children in everlasting heterosexual wedlock is anti-choice (and antiquated moral thinking) and that is why people are pissed in this particular instance."
What about the rights of the children? What about their choice? Why is it that only the choices of adults are considered? As I mentioned in the original post many sperm bank babies are now coming of age, and they often feel the absence of a father very deeply, and especially when they don't even know who their fathers are.
BBE: "The Community Scold with his tangents seems to be part of the antiquated faction."
Why is it antiquated to advocate for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves? How is it "modern" to deny them those rights?
People are not made out of plastic. They cannot be molded into whatever shape we would like them to be. There are certain realities that do not go away however much we want them to. One of those realities is that all people result from the union of a man and woman. Their genetic makeup -- the very structure of their bodies -- is the result of the union of male and female. And because of that people want to know where they came from.
Men and woman also bring different things into a family, a difference of perspective, attitude, interest, and ability that same-sex couples can't provide. That doesn't mean that same-sex couples can't be good parents; it's does mean that there is an aspect to life that the children in those families will be unable to experience.
That doesn't mean the end of the world as we know it. But if we're talking about the ideal, about the family situation that gives children the broadest range of experience, then I think the two-parent heterosexual family is what does that. Are there other family arrangements that can be successful? Of course. But I think we always have to keep in mind the ideal, and not pretend that we can vary significantly from that and not lose something in the process. Men and women are not interchangeable "parts" that can be swapped in and out of or removed from a family without some loss.
In defending the ideal I'm not automatically presuming that all hetero parents always provide the best family situation. But all things being equal, I think they do. In other words, given a good and wise single mother, a good and wise same-sex couple, and a good and wise hetero couple, my preference would be for the hetero couple.
Aaron, quoting the discussion: ""You're saying that gay men who conceive children through surrogacy and raise them without mothers are bad parents? You're saying lesbians who raise children conceived via sperm donors are bad parents?"
Amy replies: "I'm afraid so. There's a difference between what adults want and what children need, and children's needs trump adults' wants.'"
This is where I would have to depart from her. To say that a family arrangement is not optimal does not entail that the adults are bad parents. But I would say that at the very least, if a same-sex couple decides to have a child, they would have a moral obligation to ensure that the child had a very strong relationship with someone of whatever gender was not part of the relationship, and that the child should be able to consider this other person as part of his or her family. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be an improvement.
What about the rights of the children? What about their choice? Why is it that only the choices of adults are considered? As I mentioned in the original post many sperm bank babies are now coming of age, and they often feel the absence of a father very deeply, and especially when they don't even know who their fathers are.
BBE: "The Community Scold with his tangents seems to be part of the antiquated faction."
Why is it antiquated to advocate for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves? How is it "modern" to deny them those rights?
People are not made out of plastic. They cannot be molded into whatever shape we would like them to be. There are certain realities that do not go away however much we want them to. One of those realities is that all people result from the union of a man and woman. Their genetic makeup -- the very structure of their bodies -- is the result of the union of male and female. And because of that people want to know where they came from.
Men and woman also bring different things into a family, a difference of perspective, attitude, interest, and ability that same-sex couples can't provide. That doesn't mean that same-sex couples can't be good parents; it's does mean that there is an aspect to life that the children in those families will be unable to experience.
That doesn't mean the end of the world as we know it. But if we're talking about the ideal, about the family situation that gives children the broadest range of experience, then I think the two-parent heterosexual family is what does that. Are there other family arrangements that can be successful? Of course. But I think we always have to keep in mind the ideal, and not pretend that we can vary significantly from that and not lose something in the process. Men and women are not interchangeable "parts" that can be swapped in and out of or removed from a family without some loss.
In defending the ideal I'm not automatically presuming that all hetero parents always provide the best family situation. But all things being equal, I think they do. In other words, given a good and wise single mother, a good and wise same-sex couple, and a good and wise hetero couple, my preference would be for the hetero couple.
Aaron, quoting the discussion: ""You're saying that gay men who conceive children through surrogacy and raise them without mothers are bad parents? You're saying lesbians who raise children conceived via sperm donors are bad parents?"
Amy replies: "I'm afraid so. There's a difference between what adults want and what children need, and children's needs trump adults' wants.'"
This is where I would have to depart from her. To say that a family arrangement is not optimal does not entail that the adults are bad parents. But I would say that at the very least, if a same-sex couple decides to have a child, they would have a moral obligation to ensure that the child had a very strong relationship with someone of whatever gender was not part of the relationship, and that the child should be able to consider this other person as part of his or her family. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be an improvement.
A priest was confronted by a prostitute. "Do you want a quickie for fifty bucks?"
Not knowing what it was, he said no.
A few minutes another prostitute also offered him a quickie for fifty bucks. Again he said no.
When he got back to the monastery, his curiosity got the better of him, and he went to a nun. "What," he asked, "is a quickie?" "Fifty bucks, same as in town," the nun answered.
Considering the abject misery the majority of the world's children experience (hunger, disease, sexual and physical abuse, war, early death), I'm not about to get outraged that a child doesn't grow up in the idealized 1950s Leave it to Beaver environment. Having an adult of any gender willing to feed you, cloth you, and ensure you get an education is more than most get.
The constitution says the pursuit of happiness, not happiness.
I value the happiness of the woman more than the child and so does society. Hence the right to abortion on demand.
Not knowing what it was, he said no.
A few minutes another prostitute also offered him a quickie for fifty bucks. Again he said no.
When he got back to the monastery, his curiosity got the better of him, and he went to a nun. "What," he asked, "is a quickie?" "Fifty bucks, same as in town," the nun answered.
Considering the abject misery the majority of the world's children experience (hunger, disease, sexual and physical abuse, war, early death), I'm not about to get outraged that a child doesn't grow up in the idealized 1950s Leave it to Beaver environment. Having an adult of any gender willing to feed you, cloth you, and ensure you get an education is more than most get.
The constitution says the pursuit of happiness, not happiness.
I value the happiness of the woman more than the child and so does society. Hence the right to abortion on demand.
I'm happy you had a nun joke because I couldn't think of any.
I need some nun jokes to contribute, clearly!
Just keeping it light.
Q: How do you get a nun pregnant?
A: Dress her up as an altar boy.
Q: How do you get a nun pregnant?
A: Dress her up as an altar boy.
Think on this:
Poor parents cannot provide children with what they need like rich families can. Poor children can't possibly be happy. Growing up without money makes their little hearts break. Poor parents should be stigmatized if they want to have children, because it is a self indulgent, selfish choice. Remember the happiness of the child is the most important thing in the world. Screw the parents happiness.
Poor parents cannot provide children with what they need like rich families can. Poor children can't possibly be happy. Growing up without money makes their little hearts break. Poor parents should be stigmatized if they want to have children, because it is a self indulgent, selfish choice. Remember the happiness of the child is the most important thing in the world. Screw the parents happiness.
Dr. Amy, thinks that birth control pills are for women to press real hard between there knees.
BBE writes: "Considering the abject misery the majority of the world's children experience (hunger, disease, sexual and physical abuse, war, early death), I'm not about to get outraged that a child doesn't grow up in the idealized 1950s Leave it to Beaver environment."
We're talking about the expectations in this culture, not in other cultures. I mean, the vast, overwhelming number of adults in the world cannot afford the services of an infertility clinic sperm bank. That is a situation mostly found in the West. In other countries we don't have to consider the morality of anonymous sperm donors because they don't exist.
BBE: "I value the happiness of the woman more than the child and so does society. Hence the right to abortion on demand."
But children grow up to be men and women, and it is those men and women, who were reared without a father and often without even the knowledge of who the father was, who are unhappy about that. In fact it's sometimes not until adulthood that they begin to understand that something important was missing.
So it's rather odd to say that we value the happiness of the person who was the customer of the sperm bank, but not the happiness of the person who was the "product" of that transaction.
teendoc writes: "I'm going to disagree with you again. I think you give Amy way too much credit. WAY TOO MUCH!" -- [followed by list of grievances.]
What I try to do in internet venues is to "eat the fish and spit out the bones," so to speak. As much as possible I try to deal with the substantive issues more than the personal issues. It's not always possible, but I try. E.g., when BBE focuses on personal issues I chew on him for that. When he focuses on substantive issues, I deal with the issues that he raises.
Amy is an interesting person. She raises some great questions, but often deals with those issues in an overly-authoritarian way. In one of her recent posts about Israel I just about rent my garments and set myself on fire in frustration. I try to deal with the best of what she says and forget the rest.
We're talking about the expectations in this culture, not in other cultures. I mean, the vast, overwhelming number of adults in the world cannot afford the services of an infertility clinic sperm bank. That is a situation mostly found in the West. In other countries we don't have to consider the morality of anonymous sperm donors because they don't exist.
BBE: "I value the happiness of the woman more than the child and so does society. Hence the right to abortion on demand."
But children grow up to be men and women, and it is those men and women, who were reared without a father and often without even the knowledge of who the father was, who are unhappy about that. In fact it's sometimes not until adulthood that they begin to understand that something important was missing.
So it's rather odd to say that we value the happiness of the person who was the customer of the sperm bank, but not the happiness of the person who was the "product" of that transaction.
teendoc writes: "I'm going to disagree with you again. I think you give Amy way too much credit. WAY TOO MUCH!" -- [followed by list of grievances.]
What I try to do in internet venues is to "eat the fish and spit out the bones," so to speak. As much as possible I try to deal with the substantive issues more than the personal issues. It's not always possible, but I try. E.g., when BBE focuses on personal issues I chew on him for that. When he focuses on substantive issues, I deal with the issues that he raises.
Amy is an interesting person. She raises some great questions, but often deals with those issues in an overly-authoritarian way. In one of her recent posts about Israel I just about rent my garments and set myself on fire in frustration. I try to deal with the best of what she says and forget the rest.
The Community Scold is decidedly lacking in nun humor.
To make up for his shortcomings:
Q: What kind of fun does a priest have?
A: Nun.
You might think we're only talking about spoiled American kids, but if you would read this blog's tag you would see that is not the case.
The point is that She Who Condones Killing Children™'s concern is bullshit, fake, twenty tons of bullshit in a two pound sock. According to the UN, over a third of the Gaza casualties were children. Kind of hard to be happy when you're dead or maimed. She Who Condones Killing Children™ would kill them all if she could.
Besides no person (mothers in this case) should have to suffer involuntarily for the happiness of others (in this case their kids). Only someone who thought women didn't deserve happiness would suggest it. Too many women suck up crap situations as it is without society erecting more stigma to keep them in bad relationships. Not so long ago a man could not be charged for raping his wife.
And how about them poor? They really shouldn't have children because after all the poor can't be happy like the rich.
To make up for his shortcomings:
Q: What kind of fun does a priest have?
A: Nun.
You might think we're only talking about spoiled American kids, but if you would read this blog's tag you would see that is not the case.
The point is that She Who Condones Killing Children™'s concern is bullshit, fake, twenty tons of bullshit in a two pound sock. According to the UN, over a third of the Gaza casualties were children. Kind of hard to be happy when you're dead or maimed. She Who Condones Killing Children™ would kill them all if she could.
Besides no person (mothers in this case) should have to suffer involuntarily for the happiness of others (in this case their kids). Only someone who thought women didn't deserve happiness would suggest it. Too many women suck up crap situations as it is without society erecting more stigma to keep them in bad relationships. Not so long ago a man could not be charged for raping his wife.
And how about them poor? They really shouldn't have children because after all the poor can't be happy like the rich.
About what Allie said: I have not read Amy in a while, though I clicked on someone else's comment from their blog and it led to hers. I clicked out right away. I don't want to go down in the statistics that shove her blog up the feed. I know it is a person's right to read her, but I strongly suspect that if you took away all the rubberneckers, she would be seldom read. Most people go there to argue, and she knows they will, hence her titles. She knows people will be attracted by sex or will want to argue when she writes something that seems conservative.
***I had an idea of something on the order of a boycott....I might just PM a few of you....
***I had an idea of something on the order of a boycott....I might just PM a few of you....
hmm, i keep checking in on the good dr. to see what all the fuss is. whenever i do, i just finds some boring ass lame post that puts me to sleep. how come i keep missing the good stuff?
Guess you're just a lucky parrothead.
Great post! A#1! I especially like the derriere.
No comments:
Post a Comment