Gut Rumbles
 

June 22, 2003

interview

I'm not sure what to make of this. Read it and let me know what you think.

I have made peace with dawn Olsen and I want to continue the cease-fire. For a while, I picked on her mercilessly and she took it like a woman, whining and crying about it. We are past that now.

I like Dawn. Eric is okay, too, for a guy in the throes of severe Male Pattern Baldness. He stands up for his wife. He also sits down when she tells him to. She has him well-trained.

The LAST THING I want to do now is pick another fight with Dawn. So, I won't dissect her vacuous and inane answers to the guy asking the questions in that interview. I'll just let you judge for yourself.

Love ya, Dawn!

Comments

Boy oh Boy Acidman. Dawn sure got my blood boiling early on a Sunday morning. I'm posting here what I posted over at John's site:

Dawn stated in the interview: "Until men can bear children, they understand nothing of the complexities of the phases of pregnancy or the emotions of it."

My comments: Are you assuming, Dawn, that only men are against abortion. If so, you are sorely wrong. This has nothing to do with "understanding" the "complexities" of the "phases" of pregnancy. The phases you speak of are arbitrary points set by scientists or medical doctors. The truth of the matter is that from the moment of conception there is the potential for the baby to be born outside of the womb, barring natural causes or an abortion (unnatural causes).

I have to wonder if you are suggesting as well that "law" trumps everything else. Law certainly does not dictate morality. At one time, the law supported slavery. According to part of your argument then, was slavery something that should have been allowed to continue?

Posted by: Maripat on June 22, 2003 08:32 AM

No, I was making no such assertation. I was merely discussing this with a man and doing so from my point of view.

As far as I know, men don't get pregnant and they don't give birth. I have done all three as I have stated on my blog. Had a very traumatic termination when I was young, been pregnant and given birth to my daughter and I am pregnant now.

I really don't think I could have or would have done things differently, except of course to not have gotten pregnant the first time. That was a sad circumstance for which I will ask for constant forgiveness from God, the only judge who matters.

As I look at my daughter and again experience the miracle of creation, I certainly understand why people are so emotional, but it is only one person who can make the choice to become a mother. And not all mothers should do so.

It's just my opinion, I am hardly expecting anyone else to have it.

Deep breath and let that blood chill, cause I am not about to get in a fight WITH ANYONE.

Time has come I be calm and serene.

Love you too A-man. I just ignore your insults, isn't that what you taught me to do?

Posted by: Dawn on June 22, 2003 08:48 AM

Acidman, it seems to m e as though the lady in question is merely dancing around each of the quesitons asked. No serious answers are given by her, only the current smoke and mirrors used by those who have absolutely NO real answers. Dawn sounds like a very nice woman......albeit, somewhat confused about life, in all it's aspects. Keep up the good work Acidman.

Posted by: Analog Man on June 22, 2003 11:07 AM

Slavery is also immoral and illegal.

Any woman prevented from aborting in the first 3-4 months is being bound over in bondage, held hostage, and compelled to be captive without benefit of relief by a government entity which otherwise in all instances must prosecute acts of slavery.

Any government action which thus demotes a woman to nothing but breeding stock, denying her personhood, is wrong.

Posted by: MommaBear on June 22, 2003 11:24 AM

dawn's answers on this subject are right out of the "i can do anything i want and nobody can tell me different" playbook which is a sequel to the "it's all about what i want" best selling novel.

the best part of her "argument" is how men cant be a part of the "decision" because they dont get pregnant and dont "understand" as if men arent part of the process and arent emotionally involved. its amazing she (and others) go to such silly lengths to justify something that everyone admits results in the death of a living being...oopss....sorry...."parasite".

her use of the word "parasite" to refer to a fetus makes me want to throw up.

this is so sad and pathetic. fortunately for dawn and other women like her (and unfortunately for their unborn children), it's legal.

Posted by: mr. helpful on June 22, 2003 11:24 AM

Mommabear said:
"Any woman prevented from aborting in the first 3-4 months is being bound over in bondage, held hostage, and compelled to be captive without benefit of relief by a government entity which otherwise in all instances must prosecute acts of slavery."

I scratch my head and wonder:
So, Mommabear, you are saying in essence that if a woman becomes pregnant, feels that she is not financially or emotionally able to have this child she should be able to make the choice of not having it via abortion? In other words, not be forced into a lifetime of slavery that parenting an unwanted child entails.

I tend to agree with you. However in the spirit of avoiding obscene hypocrisy I would also suggest that men have the same choice. How many men are forced by the government to spend a substantial part of their lives in servitude of a child they did not want? You demand that you have the right to not be a mother if you so choose after you become pregnant, why can’t the man who impregnated you have the same right? As it stands now women have the right to abort the pregnancy, give up the child for adoption, or keep it. The only rights a man has is to deal with whatever choice the woman makes and pay financially for it. You complain about the prospect of being relegated to “breeding stock”, try being relegated to nothing more than a sperm/money donor.

Couple this with the fact that many men are now being forced to support children that have been genetically proven to not be theirs and I want to puke every time I hear such rhetoric as that which spewed from you.


Posted by: Lobowalk on June 22, 2003 12:39 PM

I agree with Analogman. She didn't answer the questions. By any chance, is she a Yankee politician? I only ask this because she answered questions with a question and shucked and jived around the issues without making herself clear.
For most people, abortion is a yes or no thing. She seems to be saying "yes" to a point, then "no". What's THAT about? I thought we weren't allowed to have it both ways...on anything.
Morals are in the agonal stages of DEATH in this country, everywhere you look. There used to be a difference between right and wrong. Now there is only a huge gray void.

Posted by: stevie on June 22, 2003 12:54 PM

BRAVO Lobowalk!!!!! I can't believe that that didn't cross my mind, as well.
Excellent point. Intelligently stated. Now, can it be intelligently answered?

Posted by: stevie on June 22, 2003 12:58 PM

What are you questions? I will do my best to answer them.

Posted by: Dawn on June 22, 2003 01:26 PM

They're Lobo's questions. Read his post. And, relax. I don't expect anybody to have any real answers....

Posted by: stevie on June 22, 2003 01:47 PM

"As far as I know, men don't get pregnant and they don't give birth."

Oh, I dunno. Six burritos and 30 odd ounces of tequila can replicate the process pretty closely, for a few days anyway. ;)

Posted by: Mr. Lion on June 22, 2003 02:09 PM

I agree with Lobowalk.

Posted by: Acidman on June 22, 2003 02:26 PM

Mr. Lion- Try Tequila ROSE, instead. Stuff's great. And, it might be easier on your stomach. (Also, I admire how you coordinate food and drink to be from the same place.)
Speaking of Tequila Rose, I hear mine calling my from the depths of the fridge right now. Gotta go...

Posted by: stevie on June 22, 2003 02:34 PM

When asked to address the question about men and their responsibility in regard to children of their begetting, MB responds with equal fervor that the courts currently have some extremely bad methodology, partly based on crap laws and partly based on crap decisions.

That is indeed a corollary problem, but, the physical bondage of pregnancy is ALWAYS a question belonging solely to a women. If she chooses to stay pregnant for term, then she has accepted that state of being by conscious decision, not compulsory dictum.

Posted by: MommaBear on June 22, 2003 03:12 PM

It seems to me that with every right one chooses to exercise there comes a responsibility, or there should be a responsibility. I fully understand your premise of “the physical bondage of pregnancy” and your right, as a woman, to “make a conscious decision” to not partake. However, as mandated by the courts, your “conscious decision” is a man’s compulsory dictum. That is what I’m talking about. Who are you, or any person, to make a life decision for me or anyone else that they are compelled by law to live by? If I have to live by your decision and forgo my right to live my life as I see fit than, yeah, I have moral right to be concerned in what you do, even if it is your body.

If women truly wanted to be the masters of their bodies and have full equality, as seems to be the marching words of this argument, then they would lobby the courts, government et el to let men have the same right to choose and for either/or to take full responsibility for their choices. Will NOW, or any other women’s rights organization, do this? I rather doubt it.

The upshot being that a woman’s right to choose and men being forced to share the responsibility of said choice, while not having a choice themselves, inexorably links your body to whomever impregnated you.

If women, or anyone else for that matter, really want true independence, and this understanding of freedom, than take full responsibility for your choices.

Posted by: Lobowalk on June 22, 2003 04:34 PM

    If women truly wanted to be the masters of their bodies and have full equality, as seems to be the marching words of this argument, then they would lobby the courts, government et el to let men have the same right to choose and for either/or to take full responsibility for their choices. Will NOW, or any other women’s rights organization, do this? I rather doubt it.

I can't argue you with you there. I think that if a man is willing to take the time, money and effort it would take to get a court to appeal a woman carrying his child's decision to have an abortion, then by all means he should be given equal billing.

That doesn't happen very often unfortunately. It should certainly, but it doesn't.

A lot of what MB is saying is logistically logical, a woman bears the SOLE responsibility to carry said unborn child (I do not think of fetus' as parasites - I was making an analogy for the sake of argument - what I think is wholly and different altogether) and it's not enough just to exist.

If a woman decides to take a child to full term there are number of responsibilities that fall into her lap - especially if she is in a situation that forces her to go it alone - which is often the case for unplanned pregnancies.

She must be physically prepared to take care of herself through nutrition, excercise and mental preparation.

She must be able to afford health care above and beyond her normal means.

She must be willing to lose a certain number of days of paid leave. This is without a doubt a debilitating set of events and time to recover is needed - to be specific I continued to bleed for a normal (non-surgical birth) for six weeks after delivery and I was very weak and lost vast amounts of sleep caring for my baby.

She must be prepared for the emotional bond that will take place DESPITE her intentions with the child - either to keep or give up for adoption.

There are much more, but my daughter is calling me so I have to go. The point is this, a woman is automatically invested the moment she becomes pregnant - she must ultimately do what is right for child and mother. Not all women should become mothers - just look around.

I am not telling ANYONE to use abortion as a method of birth control. To do so is barbaric and certainly immoral.

All I feel through my own experiences in parenting and otherwise is that if you are going to do something as important as become a mother, do it right. To not do so is worse than the ultimate knowledge that you may possibly be damning someone to a life of hell away from you or with you. To be or not to be - I ask myself that all the time with a relatively normal childhood and upbrining.

It's just my opinion. Really, not worth getting worked up over.

Posted by: Dawn on June 22, 2003 06:28 PM

Any male who wants to share the actual pregnancy is welcome to try it; until that happens, there is a DISTINCT difference between paying for support once the child is born, and pregnancy. The attempt at an analogy went beyond the scope of MB's statement, outside the argument, as it were.

Pregnancy, per se, is bondage, holding the female hostage. That is a simple statement with boundaries. If she opts to accept it, fine; if she chooses to opt out, that is the question being posed, not other corollary or subsequent activities.

Posted by: MommaBear on June 22, 2003 08:18 PM

MOMMA BEAR, you are awesome!

Posted by: Jim Thomas on June 22, 2003 08:30 PM

John Hawkins got exactly what he wanted.

Posted by: Jane on June 22, 2003 08:41 PM

you know what MB? your assumption that "pregnancy, per se, is bondage, holding the female hostage" is a deliberate distortion of the natural order of things. if a woman is being held "hostage" during her pregnancy then someone is the hostage taker. who, pray tell, might that be?

just because there is no other alternative to the means by which we propagate doesnt mean women can morally do anything they want to rid themselves of their "bondage".

Posted by: mr. helpful on June 22, 2003 08:59 PM

To say that by being pregnant a woman is being held hostage to a state of bondage is ridiculous to, oh, the tenth power. Pregnancy is nothing more than one piece of the puzzle that evolution has come up with as a means to propagate the species that is Homo sapiens, along with other mammals. It is a necessity for the continuation of our species at this juncture in our evolution.

To say that pregnant women are held hostage to a state of bondage is to say that they are held in bondage by evolution itself, our very humanity. I may give you that argument, but if that is the case than one could argue that because of the necessity of sperm, so men too are held in bondage.

Of course, I suppose it all depends on what the chick looks like.

Posted by: Lobowalk on June 23, 2003 03:43 AM

Those who fall back on the preaching they heard as a child have not learned to separate faith from fact in the discussion. The faint 'odeur' of MCP-talk also lingers in several comments. Faith only enters into the discussion in the matter of decision-making, not the statement of actual conditions. MB would never ask that anyone forget faith as a portion of any woman's thinking in regard to consideration for or against an abortion in an individual woman's situation.

The single point MB makes is that pregnancy creates a state of bondage for a woman. If continuation of that bondage is mandated by a governmental entity, that, in essence, creates enslavement.

Posted by: MommaBear on June 23, 2003 06:33 AM

Absolutely. Very well said.

It doesn't seem as though this is an issue that can be reduced to "man versus woman" or "injustice versus injustice." To compare a woman's unwanted pregnancy with a man's frustrating lack of control over the "pregnancy situation", as it were, is pointless-- not because one is more problematic than the other, but because they're such vastly different problems. And as we women continue to assert that "men don't understand", I dare say that there is much that we don't understand as well. It seems somewhat hypocritical to tell a man that his concern is either invalid or superfluous while volleying for total empathy ourselves.

Am I for abortion? Yes, of course I am. Do I think that men who get tricked into a) becoming fathers, b) paying for children they never wanted, or c) paying for children who AREN'T THEIRS are being grossly victimized? Yes! Of course! But would I argue that one is somehow more or less valid than the other? No. That kind of one-sided prioritizing undermines any argument that I may have proffered; I can't demand unquestioned empathy from the male faction and then refuse to give it in return.

(Man, I love Acidman.)

Posted by: estella on June 23, 2003 11:14 AM

I don't like abortion, but I am not about to suport doing away with it in the first trimester and am uncertain about the second. As to the third, I would - but with wide health-related loopholes. I don't believe I can agree that a fetus is human until it can think - and I dont know when that is.

Being "human life" at conception is not nearly convincing to me. So are my kidneys "human life", but if I want to have one cut out I will. I'd need a good reason, like a cancer in me or making a donation to someone else, yes, but I don't think such a reason is actually a pre-requisite, it is just the way I feel. And be careful of attacking my kidneys because they can't (at this stage of medical science) grow up to be people {neither can a blastomere} or think (same) or feel (same). Maybe a chicken is a chicken before it is "born" because it grows outside its progenitor - or maybe an egg is something for breakfast that has never scratched around for worms, corn. and other food.

Posted by: John Anderson on June 23, 2003 09:15 PM
Post a comment