RH Reality Check's Recent Comments - Talk Back!

  • Dec 2, 2009 - 11:36pm

    Riiight--Rick Warren NOT political?! *ROTFLMAO* And he thinks people will BUY that shit? *snorts* Please...

  • Dec 2, 2009 - 11:21pm

    You've got that right! *chuckles* I like the '1984' reference as well. Do you think we'll need to get a couple sashes to pass out?

  • Dec 2, 2009 - 11:16pm

    Why *should* we be civil to Progo? She is seldom civil, and is very often demeaning, rude, insensitive, abusive and abrasive. She gets what she gives. Slap HER down first, and we will chill out.

  • Dec 2, 2009 - 11:07pm

    Progo, I'm not happy with some of the stereotyping going on here, either, and I'm pro-choice.

     

    Based on what I can tell from some Googling and reading some articles found through my uni's database, rates of violence by people with psychotic illnesses seems to be marginally higher than the general population, although substance abuse, being male, and having a history of violence seem to be more reliable predictors (apologies for sexism...). Apparently people with severe mental illnesses are 2.5 times more likely to be victims of violence than members of the general population. Stigmatisation doesn't help, and it's so pervasive, and it affects people with milder mental illnesses as well.

     

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that people in the midst of psychotic episodes or those with a history of violent psychosis should be candidates for adoptive parenting.

     

    I don't know. I don't have an especially strong stance on this, so I think I'll back out of this thread. :)

  • Dec 2, 2009 - 10:10pm

    Well done.

    One of my favorite all-time political slogans is "Post Menopausal Women Nostalgic For Choice."

  • Dec 2, 2009 - 10:06pm

    In the first place, there's a debate about whether or not Yates was mentally ill

    Oh, do tell. And where is this debate taking place? Shall I dig up what the Texas courts had to say on the subject of Andrea Yate's mental health? The mental health professionals who warned her husband that she should not have another child?She was diagnosed with post partum psychosis. She had a history of serious mental illness. 

     

    How do you not notice that it's prejudicial to all the mentally ill
    people in this society to equate her actions with mental illness?

     Tell the Texas criminal justice system, Paul. Texas decided she was SO mentally ill that she could not be held legally responsible for her actions. She's in a  psychiatric hospital for life.

    People actually go through bouts of major depression, or psychosis, or mania and then go on to live exemplary lives.

     

    I've spent a fair amount of time around psychotic people. (indeed this is one of the reasons I'm interested in the religious right) I've certainly spend enough time around people with psychoses to know that  sometimes they do NOT go on to live exemplary lives  and that we can neither predict what will happen or cure schizophrenia.

     I fully understand that there are major civil rights issues involved. I have a bit of trouble with the notion that someone prone to even occasionally slip into a state where they sit in a corner saying 'don't squeeze me, I'm an orange" is a good pick as an adoptive parent.

     

    Do you somehow think that by scapegoating folks with a diagnosis we're going to prevent the next Andrea Yates catastrophe? 

     

    Do you think we  could prevent the next Andrea Yates catastrophe   we all closed our eyes, clicked our ruby slippers and really, really believed that post-partum psychosis isn't mental illness?

    BTW,  I don't hold Andrea Yates responsible for those deaths, I blame the  moron she married.

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • Dec 2, 2009 - 9:42pm

    It's been a long, long time since I felt any man was qualified to explain to me what I think or should think about pregnancy and children.

     

    crowepps,

     

    Just today I was thinking about a conversation I had with a woman at work.  She asked me, "Are you Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?" and I told her -- but I realized afterward that it didn't matter to her which I was because she is of the opinion, as you are, that a man's view on the abortion question is irrelevant.

     

    Only women can become pregnant.  That fact, apparently, indicates to a lot of women that abortion is women's business alone.  But there's a flaw in that thinking and the flaw is that there are two people involved in any pregnancy.

     

    I never have and never can become pregnant -- but I've been a fetus, so I've been intimately involved in a pregnancy.  That's why I think my opinion on this issue matters as much as yours does.

     

    Of course, as long as you discount everything I say, you're going to remain of the view that abortion is women's business.

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • Dec 2, 2009 - 9:14pm

    Heh. Sometimes these stories just write themselves. ;)

  • Dec 2, 2009 - 9:11pm

    I don't understand why 'I' or my tax dollars should go to another woman's choices. If its a choice, then, why shouldn't she be taxed? Its an elective procedure, just like plastic surgery, therefore, there should rightfully be a tax.

    I just think its unfair to other people. Abortions are not expensive, pay for your own abortion. Please.

  • Dec 2, 2009 - 8:57pm

    Since I'm not 'ageist' I don't think I need to worry about it.  It's been a long, long time since I felt any man was qualified to explain to me what I think or should think about pregnancy and children.