Gamergirl-
Maybe we are having a lively debate. Why is that bad? I don't do Hallmark and such all that well, you know....
It seems like the only things important in life are those people say one should not talk about--religion, politics, sex, love, etc...
Sandra--
: OR just move to Canada. I think that's where they escaped to in the Handmaid's Tale.
You appear not to have understood that word was not meant necessarily as an attack, so I thought I'd give you a refresher lesson in poetry and double entendre.
In working with the counselors at a local post abortion ministry, one of the frightening and sad facts is that a large number of the ladies who were in the post-abortion healing program had abortions because they were preacher's daughters and deacon's daughters.
Their mothers/grandmothers/aunts had taken them to get abortions to prevent them from being shamed in front of the church.
Recently, the the teenage daughter of an elder in our church became pregnant. The pastor called the young woman up and congratulated her on the new life, and told the church in no uncertain terms that there would be no whispering, no gossip and no slander. The "sin" part he said would be dealt with in private on an individual basis.
That baby is now an integral part of the community, and the young lady is appreciated for who she is.
I've seen it done 'wrong' and I've seen it done 'right'. I know the 'right' way works.
Before the church deals with this issue on a legal level, they should deal with the cause at the personal level. Treating a new life as a thing to celebrate, not as something to be ashamed of, within the church would go further toward preventing abortion than legislation.
If the goal is to save life, dealing with it on the legislative level is not effective.
Nick-
I believe the forum is more geared towards free conversation and discussion in general, therefore I am using it in the way I believe it is intended. I think I indicated this? And I noticed that you seem to gear your speeches towards those you actually may find yourself more comfortable with. Ahem...some people hire lawyers for a reason, I assume? And I think I said I have, like, a job and stuff? I don't even write press releases for work in one or two days unless forced to.
FYI, I do not see things from a very narrow perspective--and when I do finish the hub on abortion rights and the freedom of choice, I, like most people serious about the issue will include a variety of perspectives. I recognize your constitutional perspective as a conservative activist action, albeit legally inclined.
I believe your knowledge on the entire issue is limited, because you don't give very much at all--just a narrow and limited conservative view, which you pass off as absolutely true, a priori knowledge and the rest of us having a lack there of (what, I suppose a lawyer such as Barack Obama would agree with your constitutional take? Come on, this is arrogance indeed.)
I do feel this issue is very personal. I think it is informed by the personal. If you don't know statements such as, "If you can't understand the concept of separation of powers, perhaps you should stick to reading your feminists propaganda," isn't personal and attacking in nature, maybe the best of what education is supposed to do was lost on you. You are also assuming things about me that are extremely canned and 'idea' oriented or symbolic in nature--as in I am the Big Bad Feminist--some arch type female I guess you are familiar with in your neck of the woods. Uh, yeah.....
As for your invitation to pinpoint anything-- You haven't said ANYTHING, except to reiterate what I know is a legalistic TACTIC, not opinion, not argument, not strategy. And I believe saying that those of liberal mind don't share the 'assumptions' of right and wrong, spirit and soul, etc., etc. is a pretty strong moral challenge, don't you? And as you display your very dualistic morality for everyone to see, and make these assumptions as to the moral character of other writers, I thought I would be fair game to submit these as points of interest.
And, yep, I do find you interesting. You are not stupid, or I wouldn't be wasting so much typing... Yet your ideas and notions as displayed by your hubs and elsewhere are so....discordant and strident in a such a simplistic way. So weird! A very interesting character study. I'm wondering now if you believe you are some kind of A Prince, as in Machiavelli--but man, to be so blatant about it seems so out of date, even given where you are--maybe in the 80's it was doable.
And..see.. I was going to type in a bunch of questions, but launching that here will just get too long... I will deal with (a lot of which I see as your conservative propaganda) constitutional arguments and other perspectives in the hub.
And please do not respond to every little picky detail in what I write in bold with cute attacks. I hate that. Choose your own words.
What law Nick?
What law pertains to the right for anyone to have a say in what a woman can or cannot do with her own body?
You very much are interested in your religous beliefs being part of the law.
You keep saying you are only interested in the law but you haven't made any good arguements about how or why the law, religious or supreme law of the land our constitution, has any say in a persons right to chose.
You pawned my question off as just an opinion. You act like no one is allowed to have an opinion because you believe the law says so or something.
I don't think you are interested in the law, but interested in what you believe the law should be.
You said Lita has a narrow perspective for believing in the law that allows for everyone to have an opinion and a choice when yours wants to deny rights to people as inferior beings who don't know what is right for them.
What if woman wanted to make it a law that all men are not allowed to have sex unless legally able to suport a child?
I personally think this would be a fantastic law but man would complain about his rights to have sex, his rights to do what he pleases with his little unborn sperm or is it babies.
Nick-
Your style reminds me of a certain lazy-smart person I knew who could not write. Just a fact. But OK! For 'ol diversity's sake! Continue! Write stupidly and hurt my eyes! Besides, that request was a little too demanding, I suppose, yes? LOL And you are better at attacking and coming from behind, yeah?
I did not say you were provincial (though I know you are, to some extent, so give up even trying to appear otherwise, maybe?) Who the hell is Mary Daly?, BTW? LOL (Um, please get it? Joke.. I don't know something...therefore, I'm slightly provincial... Oh, never mind. You'd die in sales or marketing, wouldn't you?)
I think even lawyers use broad opinion and opening and closing statements which are not so tactical and annoying.... And I'm not going to mark your canned opinions with a red teacher's pen--I think you will just have to bring your verbal analytical skills up a little higher. I have no problem sorting through your eliptical mess:
1. You believe I am a Big Bad Feminist,arch type ie, because, ie, you (a lil guess) just assume I know Mary Daly, out of left field (or was I supposed to be impressed because you know her?), and that I on a regular basis read 'feminist propaganda.' A CANNED ASSUMPTION
2. Even though you are working from a constitutional perspective in your TACTIC, I presume you are working from an a priori standpoint with your actual belief.
3. It is impressive you were a Latin major. Truly. Super great. Now maybe you can stop dropping words every other sentence or so.... Unless you want me to start severely using poetic phraseology or maybe paint you some pictures expressing 'arrogance'--I think in purple and red, given the historical and sensate meanings behind the colors.
4. I see your types as being what you accuse Barack of being. I've an excellent insight into character and studied his record very thoroughly. I suppose you did vote for McCain. What, you don't read? Maybe you should check out Andrew Sullivan's blog. See what conscientious conservative thought is made of.
5. Ie, in some senses of the word, I believe "disenfranchised recluse" applies perhaps to yourself... And also, you're just scar't to say how you feel (written alllll over) You hide behind your law in more ways than one.
6. Whenever you are fairly decently published in the journalistic, trade, literary, and academic arenas, maybe I will give your opinion as to what canned prose reallllly is more weight. As it is, I think that is just posturing.
7. Trust me, Nick, you are not as so complicated as you would like to believe, and many things here are slightly transparent. That OK... You are at least right about the law being important to this issue. As you were the one who wanted this hub war, I hope The Prince does take the time to respond.
Sandra- Go for it! Good Law!
"I'm not interested in what "scholars", religious or otherwise, have to say. I'm interested in the constitution and the law--not opinions and literary criticism, however learned it may appear to be. "
And that is why you seem so parochial. Abortion is a serious ethical, moral, spiritual, philosophical and religious issue. Your insistance that your only interest is in which layer of government makes the decision in one country is just a bit dull.
Frankly, I couldn't care less what a group of slave owners thought several centuries ago. Actually, that's not true, I care to some extent. But the debate is so much wider than that!
(aimed at nobody in particular, indirectly)
I have several real -life friends--self labeled as conservatives, of course (of course)--with whom I get together and brawl verbally... After it is over, we clean up the blood and go home. All in good sport. We just like a good fight!
I can see that Lita - as a liberal you are probably one of the most formidable opponent I've seen, you build arguments well ... I admire someone who can "play with the big boys" and not become totally cynical. I have also "played with the big boys" and have found so much corruption on BOTH sides of the aisle that I have no faith in the real ability of any large govenmental or large denominaitonal organization to do anything good.
Even if it starts out good, it's screwd up by the time it's implemented. There have been so many fingers in the pie that it's totaly messed up, and it's not done anywhere close to the original intent.
So, I gave up playing with the "big boys" and decided I could do better working with one individual at a time. It still gets screwed up and the emotional commitment is bigger, so in some ways it hurts more. But when it works, it actually works, so much govermental stuff is so futile. Hang in there, you've obviously got a thick skin.
When I let my skin get thick, my give a damn quits working.
BDaz,
I can really connect with your insight here. Even though I tend to want to make myself learn to do the bigger crowd thing as well...maybe that is my mistake...to force myself to deal with people at that level !? gives me something to ponder, thx
A good bloody verbal brawl is very male-ish, wouldn't you say? It gives Nick a perfect open, from his world view, to call you an excessive feminist.
Are you two, have you two, mutually agreed to "battle" it out on every front?
No condemnation at either you or Nick...just my much slower mental processing ! and i only need to express this because it is unsettling for me to witness it...because I have something similar going on within my being I am trying to sort out
Why, Jewel, do you think I am being mean to him? Seriously (?)
(Although I think I'm losing points on my hub score, ....so that may be a reason for both of us to cut it out.)
It's actually a compliment to him, at least on my part. I think he's the one most analagous to me (only a conservative, obviously, lol) in certain respects... And I've picked up a few things from these 'battles' I might not have known/encountered otherwise.... I frankly think he likes to argure, etc.... As he is known to do a little troll act here and there.
You are also too nice to him, I think! And I didn't see the verbal brawl thing as being too male-ish.... Just the truth in my worldview. I've never got into physical fights, so, lol...
As i stated within the same post...I believe each individual is both male and female...the mind is male, the soul is female, with integration thereof. I consider those that are more intellectually minded and assertive in their interactions to be more male-ish, because to me, the soul's basic nature is nurturing, feeling and pro-creative. the ideal is a balance between the two
Thanks, Bdazzler...
I think it is an illusion that any one person or any of our institutions has as much power as we would give them. I think the nature of existence is highly personal. I distrust anything organizational, frankly and always have.
...And that comment to Nick was something like satire... (big boys, etc.)
I think you may change your view if you had just been invaded by US Army Inc.
And this is one instance where the ones with the influence would be happy to let you imagine that there is no influence being used.
See Citibank -
Once they become "too big to let fold," they have enormous influence. Your government has already committed trillions of dollars of US taxpayer money to support the banking Institution.
I agree with BD though - you put a mean argument together and I am eagerly awaiting nick's cut and pasted come back.
LOL, MK--
I said I don't trust anything organized... And on a personal existentialist level as one of artistic persuasions, my influence isn't in organizational... ie, keep 'poor,' (should I say as far as anyone can see) keep humble, keep your mind sharp, and be as free as possible...
Tho I recognize the need to march on tyranny, absolutely, when it confronts us so blatantly.
And thanks!
Wow !
nick - That is possibly the weakest argument I have seen you make and you have made some very weak arguments. You are deliberately missing the point to ram your personal opinion home I assume. Hard to tell really, because that was more of a rant than a logical argument of any kind.
You have also made some rather massive leaps of faith to back up your opinion.
You are assuming that there needs to be legislation on whether a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, and it is merely a case of deciding that the STATE, based on a popular vote should make this decision rather than FEDERAL JUDGES. Strangely this is at odds with your preference for small government.
You are also assuming that as far as you are concerned, the STATE has responsibility for the moral behavior of it's residents based on popular vote.
But, realistically, the need for an abortion comes from a previous act - i.e. sexual intercourse. And the logical next step is to make it the STATE'S responsibility to determine whether or not your sexual act is moral and permissible.
See where this is going?
Without the act of sex in the first place there is no need for an abortion or not so it makes far more sense for the STATE to decide who can or cannot have sex, when, and with whom.
Or better still, which males are morally capable of having sex in a permissible fashion and therefore allowed to avoid the mandatory STATE chemical castration at age 16. And you a fan of small government.
Ever read 1984?
And I didn't need to google any of that
You sure you read it? Not the cliff notes, the actual book....
Yes you are. Without this assumption, there is no need to argue over which government needs to legislate.
My entire argument - which you seem to have missed - is that there is no need, or right of any government body to legislate, be it state, federal or whatever.
I am familiar with your constitutional system. I just think the conservatives have bastardized it to include as much legislation as possible.
Your only argument so far has been that the state should have control of all this wonderful un-necessary legislation.
I am rather surprised to see this argument from you - I would have thought you would be in favor of less government, not arguing which branch should be responsible for illegal, un-constitutional, un-necessary laws that interfere with a person's right to behave as they wish with their own body.
Odd.....
For goodness' sake work out how to use the bbcode and quote facility. It is here:
http://hubpages.com/forum/help/#bbcode
Political accountability? Just what exactly does that have to do with morals? Which is another basis for your argument.
I see no correlation between morals and political accountability.
Thanks I already am. As I understand it, the supreme law of the land is "freedom of the individual" and you are now suggesting that on this particular issue, there should not be freedom.
Odd....
Personal insults aside, I prefer to get to the nub of the matter. You can attempt to make things as complicated as you wish. I am sure it helps in certain situations, but I like to be as clear as possible in my communication and this seems to be the basis of your argument once you have made the assumption that you favor government interference on this particular issue.
Once again, you are making the assumption that there NEEDS to be a substantive law on this particular issue.
No other issues, just this one.
Conversely, you favor no government interference on the right to bear arms and kill any trespasser on your property. No government interference in your right to worship whichever god you choose to worship. No government programs to support those un-aborted children - they must fend for themselves. No "socialist" government programs to support the needy and hungry and un-wanted.
Yet you want the government to decide that a woman does not have the right to have an abortion. All you are really worried about is which government.
Odd....
I am. My wife is asleep (got a cold) and I had a really boring day writing up the latest socialist US government bailouts of the banking system.
Plus I am waiting to get my computer back and am using a backup which does not have all my logins and bookmarks on. I do like a good argument, but......
And that should be must rather than should.
Thanks for the lesson, I'll try not to forget it
Or must it be forget it not?
Well, you should not forget it, but you must not forget it if you don't want to repeat the same mistake. In other words, you may forget it, but you shouldn't
Nick,
You make me think of the movie The Devil's Advocate.
Nick - let me know when you can be bothered to have a little consideration by using the bbcode properly. Your response is all but unreadable.
As I said - you make it as complicated as you feel you need to. Bring in workers comp to demonstrate your humanity all you wish.
It ain't that complicated.
There is no need for a law on this subject.
All your arguments are worthless and based on your faulty assumption that there needs to be a law on this subject, which I, and the supreme court agree on. The government should not dictate what a person does with their own body.
You obviously don't know the supreme court's stance on this issue. The Supreme Court DOES permit state legislatures to regulate abortion to a certain extent. Please refer to Roe v. Wade and its successor Casey v. Planned Parenthood. The former uses a trimester framework; the later case, which is now controlling, uses an "undue burden" standard. My position is that the Supreme Court has no authority to speak on the issue AT ALL.
I regret you can't distinguish between bold and ordinary type face, but that will just have to suffice for now.
Better, but still.....
No court has the authority to speak on the issue AT ALL, because it is un-necessary and un-constitutional for ANY court to decide what a person should do with their body, is my position.
Sorry you were unable to understand that basic premise. Perhaps I didn't explain it in simple enough terms. I will try again tomorrow.
I acknowledge that you have an opinion on this matter. I disagree with it, and the political system that I happen to be a part of disagrees with it, albeit in a different manner and for different reasons. My justifications are grounded in the Constitution of my country. You do not attempt to ground your opinion in any justification--you just make an assertion. Thus, if your alter-ego, Kark Mnowles, from an alternate dimension arrived and asserted the exact opposite proposition that you stated above, he'd be no more justified or convincing than you.
"I assert X, Y, Z!" Why? Why does the gov't have no right AT ALL to tell you what you can do with your body? Where does your absolute right to privacy come from? Suppose you happen to live in a community where Mark Knowles, Kark Mnowles and every in between disagrees on this point. How do you propose we adjudicate the matter?
As I explained, I favor the democractic process that regulates (or doesn't regulate) in such a manner most consistent with the norms of the people at the state level, not decrees from on High, be it pro life, pro choice or some compromise in between. Then everyone can be happy and do what they want. And if everyone is STILL not happy, then conversation can continue through the mechanisms of the democratic process until they are. Nine appointed inidividuals in Washingto D.C. should not have the last word on this matter.
I have made an assertion and given my justification. Whether or not you are willing to take the time to understand my argument and agree/disagree on the merits is, admittedly, another matter.
No - you do not favor the democratic process. You have made that plain.
You favor a the democratic process on this particular issue only.
You entire argument rests on the fact that you have interpreted another archaic piece of paper to mean that the state government should be making a decision as to whether a woman is allowed to do with her body what she wishes.
And you have attempted to use some pretty faulty reasoning to get to this point. I am not really sure why you have an opinion on this - or why. I suspect it is because whomever explained to you the meaning of 1984 told you to think this. That is the best I can come up with - I am not as good as Lita at analyzing people.
You are also neglecting to acknowledge the fact that the reasoning you have used could equally be applied to any number of other issues upon which you feel the democratic process should not be exercised.
Odd......
Re 1984. I am also fairly certain that whoever explained to you the meaning of this book deliberately mis-lead you. George Orwell himself was adamant that it was not an attack on socialism. I suggest you re-read it and mentally substitute Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia with Mississippi, California and New York. You will get the idea.
I see no point in continuing this discussion until you have a more fundamental understanding of the terms "demonize," "ridicule," and "marxism." There are plenty of online dictionaries and resources around.
Everything you always wanted to know but were too stupid to ask
Did the same person teach you that the opposite of the moral authority of the bible is the communist manifesto? Good grief! - I wouldn't want to be in your head. You must be ready to explode all the time if you think this way for real. Especially given the quality of your morals.......
Once you have educated yourself, we may be able to have a more reasonable discussion.
I'm a newbie so I might not be doing this right.
I always wonder why people don't worry about the baby? Doesn't your rights end when someone else's begins? That is what I was taught. It doesn't matter what the law says to me. There is something called natural law. I think protecting your unborn child would kind of be a natural thing to most women. Most women and men. I can't think of anything more unnatural than the dismemberment and poisening (saline abortion) of your own flesh and blood. I wouldn't think we would need laws saying this is a really bad thing to do!
Hi newbie. You can expect that if you continue developing this line of thought you will be demonized and ridiculed. No independent thinkers are permitted here. I agree with you on this point with regard to natural law. The reason the human law matters, in my opinion, is because everyone, as you will soon see, has views about this matter. Some believe in natural law, some don't; some derive moral authority from the Bible, others from the Communist Manifesto. Given the fact that we live in a pluralistic society with a diversity of ideas, we need some way to resolve (without getting shrill) our differences in a way that is mutually acceptable. I attempted to articulate one of many ways to resolve the issue and grounded it in constitutional analysis and argued that everyone should be permitted to a hearing on the matter through the democratic process, rather than passively submitting to the decrees of 9 appointed individuals with no political accountability.
Welcome.
MK-
In a broad and reasonably stated prose and simple-truth sense (something not all display) AMEN.
Nick--all your previous long and bolded stuff concerning the constitution--yeah, I get it all ready. You admittedly, due to years spent studying it now, have the details down pat, but please don't make the assumption that 'a liberal' or a silly annoying feminist just DON'T get it.... Don't say, "Let me educate you," unless you want to piss people off. Yeah, these are basics? You aren't dealing with high school kids anymore, K? AND anyway, I know you don't read THAT much, or you would never even have considered voting McCain (you really would have wanted the US destroyed?)
Big purple and red painting with aggressive brush strokes, but underlying anxiety, slightly infra, with like this dark, but calm door floating above...
Also, don't be TOO flattered I analyze you verbally. I analyze everything--a blessing/curse--simply the way I think. I've analyzed MK here, too. (Want the take? lol...No, probably not.)
And I am not, and have not been scar't to present a hub argument to you--you should not read it as such. I'm very confident of myself as a writer.... Oh, I dunno, must be all those publications. And no, I don't mean NYTimes. But maybe one of your Alma Mater's did publish me... And in NYC, o my god, maybe the Marxist VVoice may have (albeit just visually) By the way assuming I'm a MARXIST Is another CANNED ASSUMPTION. (BIG RED PEN MARK)
Don't you know I've been toying with you like a cat does with something just for fun? Blow of some steam after real life and work, maybe. Heck, maybe I miss NYC. Maybe I miss graduate school.
I dunno? Why do you fight with every liberal in your wake on hubpages??
Augugughhhhh! Nick-- It is just stupid. I'm sorry....
For the record, please state your 'moderate' views of abortion.
Tit for Tat-- My views are that abortion should be widely available and legal. My arguments are grounded in common law covering many many western and other cultures and a long history that abortion has always been with us, will always be with us, legally or illegally. Medical history, theological history, philosophical history all support this. Early Catholic thinkers even accepted it with no qualms until 'quickening' and it was not considered a sin.
My personal belief is that it is ethical until the third trimester or viability of the fetus. And it must necessarily remain so. Philosophically, It certainly is not an ideal 'good,' but a better good than many alternatives. I am with Jewish thought (see Naomi Wolf) in that regard.
How in God's name can you justify your complete disregard for, yes, the humanity of women in how you objectify? Don't you even know you are a complete walking contradiction, and worse yet (probably to you) it is going to get you in trouble one day? You are like this walking newbie innocent Machiavellian idiot. And that is not an attack! It's just, nothing you say is grounded in reality...I almost feel sorry for you.
Yeah, I can see you with McCain's crowd (as yes, indeed, my boyfriend did business with them--call that inadequate substance or WTF). One guy was just spouting how he was doing a hot stripper, but 'she got him' by getting herself pregnant, ie....I know the depth of the parties that engage in these relationships... I believe they think they are the masters of the universe, yes, when in fact they haven't even really experienced life.
And do you plan to court every unsophisticate similar to how McCain courted the Sarah Palin crowd to support your Al Pacino Devil's Advocate act? Did it work for McCain using the proletariate in such a way?...oh, a true democratic voice. I'm am absolutely disgusted. Propaganda.
And I am not a 'Marxist'. That is SO STUPID and yesterday--even the word says 1950's.... For the record, I'm a libertarian socialist, and I don't necessarily agree with this current take on 'democracy' we've got going right now, period.
OK, Lita, you got my curiosity up .... what's a "Libertarian Socialist?"
Those terms, as I understand them, seem be at odds with each other. A libertarian is someone who wants to virtually eliminate all forms of governmental interference and a socialist is someone who wants the government to manage everything.
(These are admittedly over-simplified definitions ... still the two terms seem mutually exclusive.)
In my understanding, it is someone who distrusts all authority and sees most all forms as illegitimate-- as true free human being should, with an eye out for respect of all human rights through the idea-based concept of socialism (not the politicized bastardization it has become), and which is very akin to the tenets of true Christianity.
“the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”
It has been called a better form or a natural evolution of democracy. It is a real philosophy put forth by one of our most prominent political philosophers living--Noam Chomsky.
OK, thanks ... sounds a bit more Libertarian than Socialist to me, but I do understand that your definition of socialism is different than the common understanding.
I am probably the same - socialist politically, but libertarian in life, in that I believe in equality and a degree of personal freedom. Most Europeans have a similar outlook. The US seems to imbue slightly different definitions to these terms, which causes confusion both ways.
Thanks for taking on the "constitutional" argument in more depth, Mark.
I'm afraid my eyes were hurting after all that bold face type. Also, I can't really believe and am disgusted someone would be so brazen as to think he could bluff his way through by basically saying the whole issue rests on what these old guys several hundred years ago said and did. With highly 'selected' quotes, lol.
And as if the 'founding fathers' didn't have foresight that society would change in the future, and as if there were not varying opinions on this--and as if there isn't political affiliation with any of these thoughts.
....AND as if Nick actually cared anyway (as made evident here in the forum by his courting of pro-life posters).
Nick-
Yeah, read that, sort of--though my eyes do hurt, really, with that bold type. Look, it is even hurting a proper hearing of your argument....
You are doing here exactly what you did in another post with Scott Mandrake. Imagine it is good practice for you with your law career, but you know, there are certain 'norms' of social and written language and approach you are not taking into consideration at all. I don't believe in red teacher pens (though I could do that)--don't even use them in copy galleys--because they offend people.
I am a feminist, of course--not usually considered shrill--but if anything threatens my freedoms or the right to be who I actually am and to do what I can actually do, I respond to it. Prefer to think of it as much more 'humanist' than anything else.
And I, a published author (once you go on a little more after obtaining your 'big goal' you will see you are always only as good as what you are producing or doing at the moment---YOU, who you are underneath that, does not change) am still offended by obfuscation, passing the buck, unneeded eliptical argument and coyness in prose.
I don't need to have somebody who taught high school tell me to further elaborate on Naomi Wolf, as I know what my intentions in writing that line were. Look her up yourself--do not be lazy--in engaging others or in presenting straightforward arguments. Your future clients will appreciate you, as will most others who you meet.
That IS my challenge to you. I was always more geared to teach at the college level, ahem..
I don't have the strength to go into this all further today... Biking 30 miles or whatever it was this week wore me out & must catch up on my hubs. Fight with Mark for fun!
Thankfully, and unlike you, my sense of self-worth is not so grossly dependent on the chance judgments of other individuals or the chance contingencies of what I happen to be doing or producing at any particular moment--even if, at times, it happens to detrimentally affect my career. Thankfully, I have the luxury of setting my own standards. If your "producing and doing" is informed by the need to please or by financial expedience, I'm sincerely sorry for you.
OH, BS...
You have anxiety written alllll over you, Nick, or you wouldn't even have responded to that. And I get that 'create your own reality' rhetoric. Truly 3rd rate stuff. Try Buddhism, maybe, they were the original and better at it...
My self worth, as an artist, as a writer is ALWAYS contingent on what I CAN produce, and feel the drive and, yes, anxiety from within to produce. There are those who naturally have this drive--be they male or female. We are who we are. We don't need to have to convince ourselves.
All petite bourgeoisie concerns in the advancement of careers aside.
for the record, if anyone cares: according to my years of spiritual and religious studies and practice, I believe the the soul is there even before the conception, and can be willing to embody even a conception instance of rape because the chance to live is paramount.
And once the conception takes place, the soul begins to integrate with the growth of the physical body. Once the heart begins to beat, is to me, when the individual is a human being.
Now, as I stated before, to me, the process of life being created is sacred, that includes the sperm and the egg even before the act of intercourse, as well as the act of intercourse. But because of the millions of chances being lost due to abortions world wide, a soul will embody wherever it can. the soul needs the life to fulfill its purpose.
Yes, I believe the soul is conscious (being the accumulated consciousness of all its previous lives) and makes these decisions (of when to embody) with other advanced souls of God's hierarchy
SJ: what's your position on where a person properly derives his or her self-worth?
Frankly, Nick ...let me see.........well, to me, my sense of self worth comes from my self/soul as I know myself (or not) at all levels of consciousness (which includes: superconsciously[spiritual/God]; consciously[mental]; subconsciously[emotional]; and unconsciously[physical] and my body elemental that is connected with the environment.
How's that for clarity
not sure what you mean by "properly"
So if I understand you correctly, you have an internal standard whence you derive your self-worth?
I suppose you support standardized tests, sticks and carrot motivation in teaching, too...
Even though I suppose we are going to hear something about your quality of motivation...
Part of the reason I abhor public schools is because of their inevitable use of such methods. I think home-schooling more adequately develops the sense of self I endorse.
OK, then it is that you just like fighting with 'the big bad feminists.' lol... A lot of your instincts, I actually believe are right (Oh, God, did I hear myself say that?). Delivery in how to actually do things--the logistics--not grounded in feasible reality.
I.E., not all can or want to home school... Even though Gato somewhat supports this & has an interesting perspective. We need to figure something else out.
well, yes, but there is also how others treat me that can make a difference too, of course. Especially in the formative years, a soul/person needs outer support, love and guidance and the needs of the developmental stages to be met.
This sums up why this debate can never really go anywhere - everybody is looking at the situation from a different angle, all of which are correct.
Nick is looking from a legal angle, but has also touched upon the scientific side of the debate. Lita is using a feminist and 'right to choose' argument. SJ is using the spiritual argument. These are all valid viewpoints, delivered from a point of familiarity, but the problem is that ethics are at the crux of the matter. By its nature, ethics is one of the most abstract and relative concepts, and there is no single answer that will please everybody. For such an emotive debate, where the right of one life is weighed against the right of another, it is impossible to even reach a majority consensus. There is some merit in all of the various viewpoints, but one taken alone cannot provide any valid answer.
It's the very emotivism that plagues this debate--the lack of the ability to even arrive at some rational consensus without getting shrill that is indeed the problem. I wholeheartedly agree, and that's why I have advocated at length that this issue be subject to the democratic process and not determined by the decree of 9 appointed individuals of the supreme court who pretend to discern a consensus or some rational solution. I affirm that we allow the debate to play out in its proper former--state legislatures.
Ever heard of stare decisis? Apparently you don't buy it. I thought you were a lawyer.
This is where I refuse to answer - I do not know enough about the US legal system to comment upon the legislative aspect. I can give a scientific viewpoint, as you touched upon with the viability part, but that is only part of the wider picture.
As for the emotive aspect, debates about abortion, animal rights and the death penalty, for example, are always going to generate passion, because we are all human. As an example, if 'cold' science was used as the only basis for legislation, then I would wish to be no part of that process. This is why I prefer to use the term ethics, rather than morality, although the difference may be largely semantic.
That is fair and I respect your perspective.
No worries - I saw that amongst the legalese, you do have a moderate ethical view. I think that everybody falls under the term 'moderate,' as few of us see this as a black and white issue.
Fantastic summation Sufi.
Btw the only point I think I would elaborate is that Nick feels the particular State should have a greater say then the federal judges in this matter even though both (State/Federal) are from legal perspective.
well, when I say state should decide...to me that means the people of the state should be able to express positions and decide by vote what needs to be done concerning abortion and the individuals involved there
I think, subject to Sufi's excellent summation of the entire debate, this IS NOT democratic process. I don't know what else giving power to the states would do, either, in real life situations, except to make it difficult for more vulnerable and poorer women to obtain abortions because they would have to travel to a state where abortion is legal.
This is why I see the constitutional argument as primarily a conservative & pro-life activist one.
Why change a standing law when we are all free now to act from our personal values and choice?
That happened in Ireland, where a woman could travel to the UK for an abortion, at the time when she most needed her family and friends around her.
Bingo. That's what they want. Save more 'babies.' They don't think further than this. Same as our own VP candidate Sarah Palin not paying for rape examinations in her state, so that poor women, if pregnant after a rape, were more likely by necessity to continue in their pregnancy because of financial difficulty.
That was proven to be a mis-construed notion about Palin.
The woman was a walking PR disaster. I also genuinely did read four or five blogs, indepth bios and several newspapers surrounding the elections and all issues there of.... I don't think so.
PR is not the individual's self made disaster...but the medias'.
She was completely unqualified. Her disaster was her own huge ego n accepting the nomination.
I wouldn't want any person--male or female--in line for running the country with her pathetic resume. I'm frickin' more qualified, and have more foreign policy experience, and that is NOT saying much.
With all due respects to you lita. Although she has very little foreign policy experience but she still managed to become a Governor of a state and that should count for something(just trying to give credit where it is due). Btw I did enjoy SNL from Tina Fey.
It's cool, CW. We all have our opinions and a right to them. Again, I did study her in depth (I do that--I am kind of a analysis freak or something--especially when I have to make a decision.) One thing you have to realize is that our states our vastly different, and AK is still being carved up, circa maybe 1910 other places. She governs a state with a smaller population than the municipality of Chicago, or even smaller municipalities.
And also, believe it or not, this: "she still managed to become a Governor of a state and that should count for something," is a 'liberal' feel good talking point. I don't like what passes for journalism on CNN and other places.
I don't know why you mentioned about "liberal" feel good talking point. But I personally feel we have to be objective in admiring or disliking somebody. Since you have done your homework I assume you have come to an educated conclusion about her(which maybe I haven't done yet). Also since you have mentioned Chicago even Rudi Guiliani tried to mock Obama for being a "community organizer" in chicago even that I particularly disapprove of. Can there be somebody who is absolutely pathetic and still rise to a higher position. There has to be some qualities at least in that person which makes that person successful. This isn't about Sarah but my thoughts in general.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HahW5Qd_-7o
CW--
There are many, many individuals whose ambition supercedes their skill and ability. They do have a tendency to go far, because, in part, of their unethical activities in getting to their high positions.
This takes maybe a while to realize or see...and I am older than you.
For me, the political race (because in part as it was SO important at this point in history) and study there of was not limited to what I read in the occasional newspaper and CNN (I actually believe I heard that actual point on CNN). I am certain in my personal decision and in the designation that she was fully unqualified to lead.
As for the 'liberal' talking point, you have to understand that the news outlets are businesses, and have an interest in displaying what they will to gain readership and ratings. I could go on, but, yeah... like I said to Nick earlier, I'm getting tired...
Well we have management seminars where we are taught that more than our skill and ability it is our attitude that determines our altitude. Maybe having a strong desire in this case ambition is a positive attitude to be admired(sometimes the question is not whether "because of" but whether "in spite of" the apparent lack of those attributes a person achieves those goals). But I do want you to take rest(and not bother to reply to this now). Have a good day.
Yes, I agree, but I also agree that Obama and liberals wanting to take away the laws that have been brought into courts during this last administration is not right. They protect the underage girls (in almost every case is a statutory rape or coercion, in every situation) and their families communication, the doctors who don't want to provide abortions for ethical/moral reasons (which they are entitled to), the absolutely without a doubt, viable babies in the later trimesters from partial birth abortion,
And the one that bothers me the most is the millions of my and other taxpayers money that feeds the abortion industry...and it is an industry.
Just like the faith based individuals and organizations now that help and support unwed mothers and their babies, there are more than enough private individuals and groups that would pay for abortions in needed circumstances
Lita- I totally agree with you that our personal values should decide. I already mentioned my views on this matter earlier. To a certain extent I believe in SJ's spiritual beliefs about soul/karma. Hence would it be justified if in India/Nepal we have a law that bans cows from being killed/consumed or in Islamic countries pigs being consumed/killed. Just because a majority spiritual/religious beliefs makes for a certain line of thinking it can't be justified as a just law for everyone(Btw Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US so even the majority argument won't hold water for long). Hence if I feel it is wrong for me to abort my baby then I will not just as I will not eat cow(in fact I am vegetarian). As I said earlier my belief of soul existence in all life forms shouldn't be the basis of a law for everyone. Hence the way I look at the world I can't make everybody else look at it the same way. There would be different situations hence pro choice still gives an option to those whose personal values seem to agree with it. Whereas pro life gives no choice to those who disagree with it.
Yes, CW-
I have my own spiritual beliefs, maybe kookie, maybe not (I have not said) and I have used all perspectives to come to my personal as well legal and feminist views.
That is the key - if a religious person uses an ancient text against abortion, then I give little credence to the idea. If they use SJ's line of reasoning, about their belief in a soul, then that is a different matter, and is a very pertinent ethical viewpoint.
I did a cross referenced analysis of different cultural perspectives and beliefs. Found there was something of a theme. I think there is somewhat of a universal in this. However, for many, many reasons, I fully support freedom of CHOICE.
Sufi- How do you know whether their line of thinking is due to religious beliefs or based on their personal individual soul searching experiences. It is difficult to decide what the basis of their beliefs are. About soul some deny even the existence of soul then what are you going to do about it? I guess personal values are personal and they should be left alone so that everybody has a choice in those matters.
That is the core of the matter - putting my science head on, science cannot decide 'how' ethical something is, so it is always a matter of spirituality and philosophy. Tough question!
To bring this back around to thread point a bit...I would not typically share my complete personal values and beliefs with everyone, anywhere...but here I feel I can because no one knows who I am hahahahahahahaha (although it would not be hard to find out, I guess!)
When it would come to dealing with a group in a face to face varied perspectives situation, I can be "moderate" in my views to seek common ground. I am not totally in wacko vil !
Yes I second Lita. You have changed the tone and also made me participate with your accommodative view of others. You should go to Gaza as a Peace Envoy
I think she was talking to Sufi, but I do try to do the same
Oh Yes I was talking to Sufi earlier(wasn't that summation amazing). SJ even you are very accommodative. Btw Lita after that 30 mile bike ride you deserve a much needed rest. Ok then take care. It was great talking to everyone today. I especially would thank Sufi for taking the initiative.
Aw Shucks :embarrassedsmiley: Thanks, folks.
Thank the Greeks for that - they sure know how to argue, but they have an etiquette for judging when things have gone too far.
Not going to Gaza, though - That, I fear, is an impossible task!
Come on Sufi you are a dreamer. And don't rule out any dreams. Maybe it is a difficult possibility but not impossible. In case you achieve that task you did say it was a "possibility" and in case you didn't you did say it was "difficult"
Sufi--
As far as the abortion debate goes, excellent answer! We are in some ways all informing each other, which, as process goes, is informative in itself.
There are some here who do not want a summation, I think! And all kinds of motives are at play.
Truthfully, I have no problem with legal limits on abortion. I think there should be, as long as it is also widely available (and this means access in all states) to women.
Anyway, as I stated previously, I think this is something of a high school level debate, as the use of emergency contraception becomes more prominent and acceptable.
my main concerns, believing in karma the way that I do, is that an individual (the pregnant mother) has the information and support she needs from all realms: firstly personal information (with family when she is underage) from ALL positions of thought (basically that there are spiritual, physical and personal ramifications of abortion) then family and the father (when applicable) and their spiritual guidance.
Please, I ask everyone to read the information from the conservative views at the Elliot Institute and from Lifenews.com as well as liberal views.
How can we ignore all the varied types of situations and perspectives that come up when we don't know about them? It is wrong to have to act in ignorance and a really sad to act out of fear.
SJ: I know about the other perspectives. I have done enough reading and research on my own (and am including it in the upcoming hub & how I arrived at a decision) to be satisfied on a personal level and confident of the ethics of what I support.
I am awaiting Nick's response to Ralph.
feasible reality...there's an whole new thread in the making
BTW... I've got to say--thank you, Sufi, for turning the tone of this post. That takes some kind of skill, .
Sufi-
But you sound highly American with that "Aw Shucks" line... lol
You know, must be the Ouzo. I think I could use some today!
OK, off to bike hub land and rest. Let there be peace throughout the forum (yeah, right)......
Trying to foster dialogue with our cousins across the water by learning to speak your strange foreign language
Actually, most of my work is in US English, so I must be picking up a few of your sayings! I also read too many comics during a misspent childhood.
Just about to sink an Ouzo or two - work for the day is finished. Enjoy the bike hub.
Thanks CW, maybe too many dreams sometimes.
If we fail to even dream of peace then we are lost.
thank you all for the chance to practice life !
Take Care and hopefully we will chat again soon.
CW-
Ah, management 'seminars.' Hahah...Talk to Pam Grundy or Elena, lol, trusted veterans.
Maybe I will seek their counsel too. Btw take rest and sorry if I prompted you to reply
So one needs to believe in the concept of the soul to understand why abortion can be hurtful to the mother and the baby. There is no freedom of choice for the unborn soul, that is why it is up to people to protect them in their process of growth and development.
Just because people don't talk enough about the soul, doesn't mean it is not a reality. Ignoring it doesn't make it not so either. Every soul has the right to a life to balance their karma.
I believe it is more harmful to mother than child - with long term painful emotional (and soul) consequences in this life - I do have good reason to believe that the souls waiting for birth may have the opportunity to move on to other bodies. I really can't go into why I think that, but it is a strongly held opinion for private reasons.
(I still think abortion is wrong ... no doubt ... and it is certainly cruel to the child as well as the mother.)
What has always puzzled me is the belief that a baby is not alive until birth. Maybe Farmers should take this same approach with growing crops. The Farmer goes out plants his seed, waters the seed, next day he goes out and does not see a plant popping out of the ground, and then says; "It must not be alive, I will just plow it up." How foolish would that be? No, the Farmer has enough sense to know that once the seed has germinated, it is alive. If people used the same way of thinking about a Farmers seed as they do for the unborn child, we would have no food to eat.
I wonder why people so easily have this opinion about a child, but refuse to use the same logic when it comes to a Farmers seed? Could it be because they are more concerned about eating and staying alive than they are the value of another life?
Good analogy. It is almost exactly the same thing. Crop in field - baby in womb. Exactly the same thing. Rape victim - weed? Yes, I like that one. Should the farmer be allowed to kill the weeds and unwanted crops in his field or is that life too precious?
What has always puzzled me is why people with no knowledge of biology think the farmer should be legally obliged to bring that crop to fruition and then spend years looking after it with no help from those people.
But you go ahead and try forcing that farmer to do what you think is right.
That is freedom right there. Freedom to force your ignorance on others by means of legal pressure. Born to be free to force others to do what you think huh?
I tried to find a response to the question, but all I found was something about weeds. No mention at all about crops, may I ask why?
This is what is called a contrary viewpoint. I saw no mention of weeds in yours. See how that works?
Crops - OK - I will stick with your analogy.
Other possible crops.
Diseased crops. Should the farmer be forced to continue to look after these and nurture them?
Crops that were accidentally planted after a night of drunken ploughing with a stranger and will prevent the farmer from continuing to care for the crops he wanted. Should the farmer be forced to nurture these and grow them by the law?
I won't continue - I think you probably understand better now?
Interesting definition of the word "murder" you have invented though. And if there were "just as many professionals" that agreed with your parochial freedom-killing belief we would not really be having this discussion. That is the trouble - you "believe" and prefer to ignore the scientific facts and evidences. And no amount of facts will change your "belief."
You believe you are entitled to an opinion on what some one else chooses to do with their body, and would like to have a law written that backs up your belief. Otherwise known as slavery. Traditional values?
You might want to change your inappropriate user name.
A seed is not a plant. A zygote or embryo is not a baby or a child. Don't you believe that women also are "born to be free?"
Freedom is relative in the sense that knowledge does not imply wisdom, or the strength to live by wisdom. Everyone knows where babys come from, the act of sexual intercourse without contraception or abstinence.
Well, so we need to be teaching the generations respect for their reproductive potential and some self discipline and healthy psychological values about relationships. All this "right to do with my body as i wish" has promoted a a twisted and unhealthy values system of thought and action concerning relationships seeped in instant self gratification.
You know the statistics are that most abortions come about because of individual choices of lack of knowledge and wisdom, not rapes and violence.
No, I do not believe a woman is free to commit murder. I have explained before that my belief is that the child is a living being at conception. We can argue this until we both drop dead and neither side will win the argument because I can find just as many professionals who hold my view, as you can yours. So the bottom line is you have your view, and I disagree, I have my view and you disagree. I have stated my view and you have stated yours, that's pretty much the end of the matter.
Guys! Read about the history of abortion and the philosophical and religious ideas about it through the centuries--that's right, centuries. I think from there, perspective will be gained.
Abortion, its practice, etc. and even this 'debate' is SO old. It has nothing to do with the problems of the new generation (which is what every generation says about the one coming up).
I still want to do a hub on the subject, because this does seem to just go round and round. Can't say when, however....
I must say, there sure have been a lot of souls trapped in physical bodies who were malnourished, exploited as slaves, diseased, killed by their own parents, tortured, and sometimes made into raping, murderous, exploitive monsters themselves with unfettered birth rates throughout history. ....simply ONE argument and one piece of the puzzle....
Honestly, the whole thing seems so obvious to me, it kind of makes me tired...
Yes but you need to be strong.
Otherwise you have the "There are unborn souls that need to be born so they can reach for the christ consciousness as I have done, and then they will understand that all we need to do is legislate against those that do not know the damage they are doing to these unborn souls that deserve the right to be enslaved, abused and killed in America's wars (my kids kill people for money and that is all they are good for). So I think we need to listen to everyone, ignore them and then do as I say.
And the "I saw a forum post about abortion, so I will say my piece. I cannot be bothered to read all the other opinions, but I think we need legislation against those that do not see that a corn bud is the same as a baby that will be murdered as it slumbers in the womb and I have no interest other than to make sure the law enforces what I think."
Tiring............
Yeah, I was going to say something about frontal lobotomies, just between you and me...lol
But--think many of their feelings ('arguments') come from an emotional perspective--from what I've seen in this slightly 'bible belt' section of AZ is that they have had rough lives and all this kind of talk is something of a protective device.
What I truly don't think they get is that freedom of choice is actually protecting their beliefs and their right to act as they wish within their communities as it stands. And the fact they don't seem to worry about any other part of a woman (including those unborn females) at any point besides her womb.
Well, I wasn't going to mention frontal lobotomies.....
Odd. The whole thing. It seems to come strongly from a strange place. A place where the last thing they want is legislation against personal freedom - except on this issue.
They want to carry a gun. They want to be free to worship whatever religion they choose. They want small government. But -
They want legislation that prevents a woman from choosing an abortion. And will reach for all sorts of BS that supports that position - even though it goes against their core beliefs.
Hard to work it out. Until you start to understand religion and politics. Then it all becomes clear.........
Has a lot to do with sex--they don't particularly care for what gay people do in their own bedrooms, either, and would legislate against them.
Yes, they would drag their 'religion' into governance. A constitutional no-no...and constitutes an erosion of all freedoms! They are true NEOcons, not conservatives. Think they are very unaware of themselves.
Well, that is the other issue. Not that there should be any infringement on personal choices, but there are some choices that are immoral, and should be illegal. 'cept mine
Yep. 'Father knows best.' The thing with some of them, is I believe they truly FEEL it (whatever that says). Others--one here in particular--are interested, I believe, in exploitation of that naivety. Ever so. And it pisses me off.
Ah well, you have let that one get under your skin. I feel more "pissed off " at the one that cloaks it in other terms and pretends to FEEL.
Same thing, but less obvious......
I think it is the definition of freedom that needs to be more fully defined. Freedom is not free, there are always consequences. Yin and Yang...the natural order of things...what brings imbalance needs to be balanced.
There is no equivalency of crops to human beings...a poor analogy.
I think the rape abortion is an interesting question. Even Christians will hesitate on this issue because of the lack of responsibility the woman had in making the baby. However, the old adage "Two wrongs don't make a right" applies. As hard as it is for the raped woman to carry a child planted by a rapist it is, nevertheless, wrong to murder it. As intimately familiar with this particular situation as I am I know how hard it could be for the female, but that does not make it right.
How do you feel about capital punishment? Contraception?
Well, if he is ignorant enough to think that scraping a cluster of cells out is "murder,".............
He seems to be a fan of a life sentence for the raped mother though.
by Jackie Lynnley 5 years ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by A Thousand Words 12 years ago
Hello, fellow hubbers! So, this is something that's been bothering me for a while. First, I'd like to open that I am not a christian or religious person. I am simply me, a person trying to understand what people's stances on the matter and why it is a constant debate. To me, the answer is obvious,...
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
Presently, a woman has, by law, the freedom to end her pregnancy. After all, its her life and her body. Is this issue, free-choice abortion, a matter of politics? Social science/politics is about what is good for society as a whole. Is abortion good or bad in the light of what is best for...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
Abortion is THE MOST CONTENTIOUS arena and subject of American politics. Abortion also generates the MOST VISCERAL reaction among people. However, what business and concern it is whether a woman elects to have an abortion. She knows the reason and the circumstances as to why she...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
liberalization and the broadening of women's reprodutive freedoms, especially in terms of a woman's right to choose and the issue of contraception? What makes some conservative men view a woman's greater reproductive freedom and/or choice is an affront to "morality" and "family...
by Dawn Bostick 14 years ago
Do you believe that abortion is murder or is it just a choice?
Copyright © 2024 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2024 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |