tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post2132938484022981014..comments2023-10-07T11:03:10.202-05:00Comments on Autist's Corner: A Bit More on Reproductive ChoiceLindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10860246538349067232noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-85573576082713817962012-12-09T15:05:02.794-06:002012-12-09T15:05:02.794-06:00"'I think the first step against overpopu..."'I think the first step against overpopulation is getting rid of the idea that women are merely broodmares. Over half the world's population are women, and most of us are taught, from an early age, that our ultimate goal is motherhood. And that the more, the merrier. And don't you dare complain. <br /><br />"'How do you reject that system? I was born into a very paternalistic society, and I think that good education (the thing that GC wants desperately to become even MORE underfunded) is always key. This is purely subjective, but being exposed to new ideas and getting challenged and having teachers that allowed me to debate them *completely* changed me. I went from a strict, disciplinarian form of schooling in the former USSR to something completely different. But I was lucky - a good school is still hard to find.'<br /><br />"I agree with this absolutely. As someone who does not intend to have children, I can nevertheless think of no better use of my (hypothetical at this stage) tax dollars than good, accessible public education (and healthcare)."<br /><br />GREAT POINTS BOTH OF YOU! :D :D :DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-29477827032743545162012-12-09T15:01:12.694-06:002012-12-09T15:01:12.694-06:00Then there are the especially ironic cases, such a...Then there are the especially ironic cases, such as when someone's right to reproduce and the same person's right to behave differently from the mainstream are mutually exclusive.<br /><br />For example, there was a case (see http://www.ourstory.com/thread.html?t=250376 and http://autism.livejournal.com/377029.html?thread=3479237#t3479237 ) in which two parents reproduced and the baby's body continued to lose weight instead of grow long after the typical newborn weight loss happened.<br /><br />According to the court transcript (uploaded to the ourstory.com link by the mother herself!), "She [the mother] strictly adhered to the amounts of formula prescribed while most mothers would have given more formula because of the issue of weight gain."<br /><br />Unfortunately, the baby's digestive system did not have the same Special Interest in those exact numbers prescribed.<br /><br />Feeding the baby more than was recommended on the formula label, breastfeeding the baby, and accepting the offer of nanny services paid for by the state all would have increased the odds of the baby living long enough to have children and pass on her parents' genes to future generations...<br /><br />...but would also have been behaving more like the mainstream. That would have interfered with the parents' exercising their right to behave differently from the mainstream.<br /><br />Feeding the baby *exactly* the amount of formula recommended on the label, refusing to breastfeed her, and rejecting the offer of nanny services paid for by the state all would have fulfilled the parents' right to behave differently from the mainstream...<br /><br />...but would also have decreased the odds of the baby living long enough to have children and pass on her parents' genes to future generations. That would have interfered with the parents' right to reproduce and pass on their genes to future generations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-35594241500425393752012-12-09T14:41:36.805-06:002012-12-09T14:41:36.805-06:00"...1) The concept of a "right to reprod..."...1) The concept of a "right to reproduce" is problematic given the reality of overpopulation, pollution, mass extinction, overfishing, soil erosion from irresponsible high-impact agriculture, resource depletion etc..."<br /><br />More immediately, the concept of a "right to reproduce" is problematic given that reproduction requires *at least two people's bodies*.<br /><br />What if a man, or a woman who cannot carry a fetus to term herself, wants to exercise his right to reproduce while no one consents to carry a fetus to term for him or her? Should his or her right to reproduce include the right to force a woman or adolescent girl to carry a fetus against her will?<br /><br />What if a woman wants to exercise her right to reproduce while no one consents to have sex with her or otherwise give her his sperm? Should her right to reproduce include the right to force a man or adolescent boy to donate sperm to her against his will?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-85833241041955644382009-03-30T13:32:00.000-05:002009-03-30T13:32:00.000-05:00I read from http://www.tubal-reversal.net/blog tha...I read from http://www.tubal-reversal.net/blog that<BR/>Gary S. Berger, M.D.is one of the great reliable ones who could tubal reversal almost flawlessly. I read testimonials on this and I really hope I could find more from this blog that would confirm what they say. Thanks for this entry, btwAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-37272071221575092392009-01-03T13:39:00.000-06:002009-01-03T13:39:00.000-06:00To get back on topic, finally: yes, it's one of m...To get back on topic, finally: yes, it's one of many reasons why Bush's going-away present is so fucking horrific in its implications.belledame222https://www.blogger.com/profile/13947289856453172848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-35798026090014241762009-01-03T10:07:00.000-06:002009-01-03T10:07:00.000-06:00Can't wait for the "breakthrough" though, really.Can't wait for the "breakthrough" though, really.belledame222https://www.blogger.com/profile/13947289856453172848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-68919454452862051052009-01-03T04:16:00.000-06:002009-01-03T04:16:00.000-06:00"But for Natalia she knows what I am saying is tru..."But for Natalia she knows what I am saying is true."<BR/><BR/>I know you amuse me, Sigmund. Even more amusing is that if I do have kids, there's a good chance that I'll be raising them with a scary A-rab man. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-4801616884707461012009-01-02T21:06:00.000-06:002009-01-02T21:06:00.000-06:00I was calling killjoy who is a pro lifer Wrong.<I>I was calling killjoy who is a pro lifer </I><BR/><BR/>Wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-22214912849863850002009-01-02T21:04:00.000-06:002009-01-02T21:04:00.000-06:00Um, killjoy is in no sense a "pro lifer," if by th...Um, killjoy is in no sense a "pro lifer," if by that one means "anti-abortion." For the record. <BR/><BR/>Well, that was...interesting, wasn't it...belledame222https://www.blogger.com/profile/13947289856453172848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-34265990743340305882009-01-02T17:27:00.000-06:002009-01-02T17:27:00.000-06:00I was calling killjoy who is a pro lifer a fool no...I was calling killjoy who is a pro lifer a fool not all the others (and a piece of crap which is aggressive and over the top I agree). But for Natalia she knows what I am saying is true. <BR/><BR/>Now I truly Will leave and I hope you all keep talking about this because I think you are getting to a breakthrough.Greenconsciousnesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12972464004044369714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-89951628204004022762009-01-02T17:10:00.000-06:002009-01-02T17:10:00.000-06:00Another Question (Sorry, Lindsay, if you feel that...Another Question (Sorry, Lindsay, if you feel that this is inappropriate):<BR/><BR/>Death is the end result of life, so if you're really going to be technical about it, your parents are responsible for your death, since their actions are what gave you life in the first place. If your parents are responsible for everything that happens to you due to their conceiving you and your mother giving birth to you, wouldn't that make them responsible for your death? I see no reason why GC's reasoning should not be taken to this natural conclusion, since we are already blaming parents for the disabilities of their children in all cases. Why not blame them for their child's eventual death as well? It was imminently conceivable that their child would one day die, which would never had occurred if the child had not been born.J. Goffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01272563252478656023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-19398763655629368892009-01-02T17:02:00.000-06:002009-01-02T17:02:00.000-06:00As I have said elsewhere on the web, I have worked...<I>As I have said elsewhere on the web, I have worked with abused children who routinely pass on their miserable childhood and compulsive lives to their own children. <B>All social dysfunction stems from this.</B></I><BR/><BR/>I am not sure whether your supposedly large experience dealing with abuse survivors is enough to make so grandiose a statement as that. And you are aware of abuse survivors who do offer a good home to children, yes? I think you need to make a larger sampling of abuse survivors and their offspring before you go making up universals about such people.<BR/><BR/>Also, GC, what do you qualify as a "disability" that someone would have that would give you the right to take away their reproductive rights? Is there anything in the DSM or in current diagnostic medicine that you wouldn't use to disqualify someone from being able to have children?<BR/><BR/><I>There is a part of me that feels that "the right to reproduce" is, as a concept, itself problematic (for non-disabled just as much as disabled people) - with the environmental concerns, as well as the number of abused and/or unwanted kids already in existence (a vastly higher than statistical percentage of whom are disabled, of course... arguably all if PTSD is counted as disability)</I><BR/><BR/>I can understand the so-called "right to reproduce" being problematic in light of environmental concerns for some people, but taken as a matter of course in a just society, which must take into account freedom and liberty, it must be given that the freedom to reproduce exists, yes? Unless we wish to subject people to unwanted bodily harm, there is a natural freedom to do what one wants with one's own body. There is the question of "who is harmed by i?" but since DNA is not destiny, there is no real link that a person is harmed by their parents merely by being born. It then comes down to a metaphysical question each individual person must answer, and despite GC's being quick to answer it for them, in the end, the question whether or not one wishes to be given existence is one that the individual answers. If they were never given existence, then the question is moot and vapid, and GC's answering for them becomes useless, since there is no "them" for whom GC to answer.J. Goffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01272563252478656023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-53794255427155889882009-01-02T17:00:00.000-06:002009-01-02T17:00:00.000-06:00I *know* I'm unfit? So not only are you the saviou...I *know* I'm unfit? So not only are you the saviour of all women everywhere (well, except for the idiots who don't do as they're told and must endure forced abortions so that people like you can grab more resources), you can read minds too? That's brilliant.<BR/><BR/>Interesting how it's always the MRA-leaning, can-dish-it-out-but-not-take-it individuals that want society to get "tougher" and practice all sorts of social Darwinism. Seems to be an actual trend. <BR/><BR/>Lindsay, I know this is your space and you aren't cool with personal attacks - but I think this goes well beyond telling someone "well, fuck you too" on the internet. This is classic eugenics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-84605914717600889242009-01-02T16:51:00.000-06:002009-01-02T16:51:00.000-06:00My overall thoughts? A society that pools together...<I>My overall thoughts? A society that pools together in aiding the next generation in productive ways is going to be more successful than GC's ultimately dystopian vision. <BR/><BR/>I think the first step against overpopulation is getting rid of the idea that women are merely broodmares. Over half the world's population are women, and most of us are taught, from an early age, that our ultimate goal is motherhood. And that the more, the merrier. And don't you dare complain. <BR/><BR/>How do you reject that system? I was born into a very paternalistic society, and I think that good education (the thing that GC wants desperately to become even MORE underfunded) is always key. This is purely subjective, but being exposed to new ideas and getting challenged and having teachers that allowed me to debate them *completely* changed me. I went from a strict, disciplinarian form of schooling in the former USSR to something completely different. But I was lucky - a good school is still hard to find.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with this absolutely. As someone who does not intend to have children, I can nevertheless think of no better use of my (hypothetical at this stage) tax dollars than good, accessible public education (and healthcare).Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10860246538349067232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-54023854844901660002009-01-02T16:46:00.001-06:002009-01-02T16:46:00.001-06:00Hey, Greenconsciousness, could you please tone dow...Hey, Greenconsciousness, could you please tone down the abusive content in your posts?<BR/><BR/>It's the last two in particular, calling Natalia Antonova "unfit" for parenthood (though she has said she might want to have children someday) and calling all the other commenters "fools" that stick out to me as Unnecessary Roughness.<BR/><BR/>It also might be good to give the other commenters the same respect for their backgrounds (Natalia mentioned surviving abuse, Bint Alshamsa is a disabled woman with a disabled daughter who is an accomplished artist) as you would have them give to yours. <BR/><BR/>Also, in fairness: other commenters, I know you are angry, but please refrain from directing personal attacks at Greenconsciousness. For the most part you are doing this, but I figured I might as well say that, too.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10860246538349067232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-5534695160277729482009-01-02T16:46:00.000-06:002009-01-02T16:46:00.000-06:00"Harder for abused children? you POC. You POC. Quo..."Harder for abused children? you POC. You POC. Quote me you filth."<BR/><BR/>...I'm actually white, but interesting you use POC as an insult.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-79679798240654094162009-01-02T16:24:00.000-06:002009-01-02T16:24:00.000-06:00Natalia(sic)You know you are unfit and there is no...Natalia(sic)<BR/><BR/>You know you are unfit and there is no shame in that knowing. The shame is in denial.Greenconsciousnesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12972464004044369714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-66020589259531899922009-01-02T16:21:00.000-06:002009-01-02T16:21:00.000-06:00Harder for abused children? you POC. You POC. Qu...Harder for abused children? you POC. You POC. Quote me you filth.<BR/>and name one thing that can be checked that you ever did to help an abused child.<BR/><BR/>People like you -fools like you are the source of all misery for abused children. May what you do go back to you 3 fold.Greenconsciousnesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12972464004044369714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-46638460404239167092009-01-02T16:17:00.000-06:002009-01-02T16:17:00.000-06:00Aw, look. No forced abortion for genteel American ...Aw, look. No forced abortion for genteel American ladies (yet), but those Chinese women who just don't know what's good for them? Force open their legs!<BR/><BR/>That's so hip and radical and progressive and all. <BR/><BR/>The jokes write themselves. <BR/><BR/>As an abuse survivor, I found the whole "abused people shouldn't breed" thing charming as well. Especially since one has to wonder just *who* gets to determine whether or not people like me are "fit" to have children (or to adopt them, for that matter) - luminaries like GC? As we used to say in the USSR, the "bright future" must be right around the corner now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-29385763745090636242009-01-02T16:10:00.000-06:002009-01-02T16:10:00.000-06:00Oh, I don't think anyone here intended to deny tha...Oh, I don't think anyone here intended to deny that some people are just horrific parents, or that many people make ill-advised decisions about when and how to procreate, or even that motherhood is fetishized (more or less depending on your segment of society) or that this fetishization has a lot to do with punishing women for sexuality and/or pushing us into traditional, dependent roles. <BR/><BR/>But again, big mixed-up stew. The same people who lionize Michelle Duggar or Sarah Palin for having a whole bunch of babies are the people who float schemes like paying poor women of colour to get sterilized. They'd agree with GC about those defective overproducers having more children than they can afford. And they'd agree with GC that the correct thing to do is make life harder for PWD, harder for abused children, harder for people who hit a streak of bad luck.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-21131023629866136452009-01-02T14:53:00.000-06:002009-01-02T14:53:00.000-06:00Yeah, I think so too. I'm at a weird mental crossr...<I>Yeah, I think so too. I'm at a weird mental crossroads about this, because while "right to procreate" implies an unsettling, ultimately destructive disregard for the consequences of human overpopulation, to think of human reproduction as anything but an inalienable right opens up doors to places I really don't want to go --- places where other people determine who can or can't procreate, or how many children they should be allotted. <BR/><BR/>The absolute most that I'd want to see government or society doing is ceasing to reward marriage/procreation and penalizing their opposites: as it is, a person without biological descendents can look forward to a bright future as a homeless person, an impoverished shut-in or a nursing-home resident. </I><BR/><BR/>Agreed. Which necessitates the building of alternate "family" and/or community structures. Which mostly requires, I think, at this point at least, government getting out of the way of the structures people are already trying to create on their own.<BR/><BR/>I do see the endless thrashing against gay marriage and trans rights and polygamy and any sort of alternate structure to the traditional het nuclear family as part of this, even though obviously "right to procreate" is part of (for instance) some lesbian couples' concerns as well. Then again, you figure that the people screaming about same sex marriage are the same ones blocking not only medical-finanical support for alternate means of reproduction for women (single and coupled) as well as same sex couples adopting, and so on, and so on, and so on...<BR/><BR/>And of course, it's -usually- the same ones livid about the idea of "it takes a village to raise a child" as those who are screaming about traditional parental rights, and the preservation of the nukular family. So, y'know, the combination of GC's apparent disbelief in any sort of larger social contract (yes, obviously there are problems with given particular forms of governmental institutions) with a supposed "no breeding for the good of society and the planet" is...well...interesting, to say the least.belledame222https://www.blogger.com/profile/13947289856453172848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-15624092513371877462009-01-02T14:32:00.000-06:002009-01-02T14:32:00.000-06:00-snort- Ew.-snort- Ew.belledame222https://www.blogger.com/profile/13947289856453172848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-83669976373110618222009-01-02T13:38:00.000-06:002009-01-02T13:38:00.000-06:00You are no longer anonymous to meYou are no longer anonymous to meGreenconsciousnesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12972464004044369714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-25885285497564678782009-01-02T13:24:00.000-06:002009-01-02T13:24:00.000-06:00Oh, and GC: per "respect," -I- am Marie of Romani...Oh, and GC: per "respect," -I- am Marie of Romania. What, don't you believe me? But I'm telling you as an anonymous stranger on the Internets! RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH DAMMITbelledame222https://www.blogger.com/profile/13947289856453172848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-83475557587971930202009-01-02T13:21:00.000-06:002009-01-02T13:21:00.000-06:00Oh yeah, and besides all the other hilarity, this?...Oh yeah, and besides all the other hilarity, this?<BR/><BR/><I>I am asking for men to have veto power in reproduction since their economic life will be affected.</I><BR/><BR/>Is an MRA stance, and about as far from any "radical feminism" as anything I've -ever- heard.belledame222https://www.blogger.com/profile/13947289856453172848noreply@blogger.com