You're all invited to a fundraiser I'm having to raise awareness for people who can't attain orgasm.

Let me know if you can't come.

Uh-huh. Sure.

When The Rest of Us expressed alarm about the almost inevitable abuses of euthanasia in countries with single-payer health care, the Goddess and other bien pensants sneeringly assured us not to worry: nobody would be coerced, the elderly would not be targeted, doctors would not unilaterally terminate patients, the system would not withdraw more costly treatments.

And all these have not just come to pass, but are now SOP in Europe.

This sudden outburst of panglossian thinking about human nature and the glories of Big Government - more appropriate to utopian marxists - is astounding coming from the Goddess and other cynical don't-tread-on-me Ayn Rand libertarians.

Blind spot much?

I gotcher automation right here.

Air Force defeated by the Missouri River.

https://www.omaha.com/news/military/air-force-gives-up-fight-to-stop-water-at-offutt/article_631f9b34-5271-50e8-b5eb-19f488daaf32.html

Th' man has a point.





Also, Holy Jeebus Showbiz Fuckballs!… I never imagined being old enough that this particular actor would look young and glandular.

Nota bene: The photograph is in color.

This is double-plus ungood.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/complete_failure_at_oroville_dam.html

Nooo-hoe, uh-huh, Mister Weeping Eyelashes.

I'M not the sentimental pussy here.

YOU'RE the sentimental pussy here!!

Huh?

Me?

Allergies. Lotusland finally caught some sunshine, and the Night Blooming Jasmine squirted it's springtime load over the weekend.

Everyone's sneezing and weeping and so forth. But not because we experience girly emotions, believe-you-me!

Linked article doesn't address the essence of the current controversy as it relates to abortion. It's so incredibly frustrating, both because careful discussion of late-term abortion is rare, AND verified statistics and medical facts are hard to come by. First: It would be wrong to suggest that doctors are murderers in the scenarios the linked article discusses. Is this "murder" accusation actually happening to any degree? I've been following the recent controversy very closely and haven't seen it--not in the scenario the article discusses. The article seems to discuss only the (not uncommon) scenario where children born alive, prematurely or not, elective abortion or not, with severe defects. Parents and doctors have to make harsh decisions about initiating interventions to prolong life. Of course it's not murder to let nature take its course, with palliative care, when a baby is born with such conditions. I'm going to continue discussion now, as relates to elective abortion of healthy later term fetuses, in another window.

The New York law allows abortion up to birth -ie third trimester. This has not yet been in force long enough (or at all yet?) to see how it plays out BUT the implication is that you could abort a fetus at 8.5 months who is viable, and then not sustain it because it is an abortion. That would be murder. Or they could use partial-birth abortion where they go in and crush the baby's head and drag them out...on a baby that could live if delivered.

The current controversy has been spurred by several states passing laws allowing for abortion of even healthy fetuses up to 40 weeks with basically no restrictions. Right off the bat, the linked article is incorrect when it asserts that states don't allow such abortions. Some states most definitely do, and it appears that more laws such as New York's will follow. The crucial point comes down to a stark question: is a woman entitled to have her pregnancy ended by removing embryo/fetus from her body, or, is she entitled to a dead baby? As near as I can tell from the less-than-ideal amount of medical information available, there IS NO medical reason why a later-term fetus must be killed in utero in order to preserve the health of the mother. There are often reasons why it's necessary or advisable for the mother's health to DELIVER the fetus before term---but actual delivery is physically required by the time a pregnancy gets that far along. The question is, does the mother have the right to have the fetus killed by lethal injection etc. before that delivery takes place? Another scenario, which does happen, is that a later term abortion is initiated, but for various reasons it happens that the fetus is born alive and otherwise healthy. That's the "Born Alive" scenario and it brings us right back to the stark issue: is the mother entitled to a dead child? If no care is given to a premature child who is otherwise likely to live, then that child will die. So, the "decision" would have to be made as to how to proceed. I personally believe that a woman should be legally entitled to have her pregnancy terminated, due to concerns of her personal bodily autonomy. But affirmatively killing a healthy, viable fetus either in utero or ex-utero seems very wrong. It's a complex subject and our society isn't doing a good job of discussing or evaluating.

Who wants a Crow-ssant?

https://twitter.com/fuguhitman/status/1107454515219849216

A wallpaper for your smartphone:

https://twitter.com/Yukinojo63/status/1107255945594314753

This is the cutest example of ADHD

https://twitter.com/neontaster/status/1107637643096002566

Read Dr. Jen Gunter (Goop's nemesis) about this issue.

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/tag/abortion/

Thanks for that, mmmwright. There, I found something I hadn't known about:

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2018/05/24/if-trump-is-the-most-pro-life-president-he-should-ban-breastfeeding/

I knew that breastfeeding, for centuries, has been used as a contraceptive. What I didn't know is that:

"It inhibits ovulation, however, it is not possible to say that it doesn’t impact implantation...

"...So people, meaning reporters, need to ask Trump, Pence, and basically everyone in the White House as well as all the forced birth groups listed above about their neglecting breastfeeding as an abortifacient, because you can’t have it both ways. As breastfeeding is a potential abortifacient can groups that receive Title X funds discuss it with women? I would especially enjoy seeing someone ask the Press Secretary about this right after she touts Trumps commitment to 'life.'”
______________________________

But, as I've said before, I suspect that at least half of all anti-choicers would be only too glad to ignore any abortions that take place in the first 30 days - IF they didn't call for a doctor's help in any way.

Differential reproductive success... The survival of the fittest, etc.

Also, Tiger Woods.

Kermit Gosnell. Snipping babies necks with scissors. So, it "does" happen.

Evil, nasty, biggited parents! /sarc

California Parents Outraged After Children in Middle School Attend LGBT Fair

Billboard company engages in dhimmi censorship:

Pamela Geller: Dallas Billboard Company Refuses My Ad Offering Help to At-Risk Muslim Girls

Joan Benoit Samuelson to Run Boston Marathon 40 Years After Historic Victory

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a26840112/joan-benoit-samuelson-boston-marathon-40-years-later/

Spinning

Amy, Although I don't follow your blog as often as I once did, I am nonetheless taken aback by the truly bizarre nature of the comments on this particular post. I think this says something about the abortion issue.

Dennis,

The newborns thing was merely an appetite-whetter. Note the "Linksmyth" pun— This is her daily playpen post, where people can yammer about whatever they want with minimal editorial discretion.