Do Fetuses Masturbate? by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #331 | @MDWorld
June 24, 2013 Mike Gold 0 Comments
With Saran Palin prostrating herself at Roger Ailes’ feet, you’d think since I’m in my “gee, them Republicans sure are stupid” thing, I’d be all over her – figuratively speaking. Nope. With great opportunity comes great responsibility, and I’m following John Oliver’s advice from last week.
Besides, this one is better.
The great nation of Texas has given us a Republican congressman named Michael Burgess. Congressman Burgess said, for the record, “Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful,” he said. “They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?”
No shit, Sherlock. Fetuses (feti?) jerk off – Crom knows what comes out – and evidently, that’s proof of personhood. This “bigger and dumber than ever” story gets better every week.
But no. Wait. That’s not the best part.
The best part is, Burgess is an ob-gyn. Or, to quote a more famous Burgess, “quack.” (Go ahead and sue me, asshole. I’ll stand on the fact that you’re an ob-gyn who believes feti really masturbate.)
Evidently, Burgess – and I want both an IQ and a DNA gender test on this incompetent lunatic zealot – never met a man. No matter what our age, be it two or ninety-two, we men always store our hands on our crotch whenever possible. Maybe it’s for the warmth, maybe it’s for relief, maybe we mourn Michael Jackson, but that’s what we do. The act itself does not make a fetus a baby any more than the umbilical cord makes it an astronaut.
Today’s Republican Party. More fanatic than the Taliban, and dumber than a donkey.
And the hits just keep on happening.
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check the website above for times and streaming information. Gold also joins MDW’s Marc Alan Fishman, Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
Neil C.
June 24, 2013 - 7:47 am
I’m sure some people will say give Democrats equal time, but they never do anything as dumb as this. Does this make the feti sinners, since isn’t masturbation a sin in the church?
Doug Abramson
June 24, 2013 - 8:30 am
If feti masturbate,and if they really are children; wouldn’t that make any sonograms showing it child porn?
Martha Thomases
June 24, 2013 - 8:43 am
Also, this elected official who claims to be a doctor for ladies’ parts doesn’t think women masturbate.
As always, these stories make me feel so sorry for the wives of these men.
Mike Gold
June 24, 2013 - 8:56 am
Doug, I think maybe there has to be motion that suggests actual jerking off. Perhaps a sonogram flip book.
Rick Oliver
June 24, 2013 - 9:51 am
Fetal masturbation is the source of original sin. So abortion performed after the start of the masturbation phase of development condemns the fetus to everlasting torment. Sorry. I don’t make the rules.
Mike Gold
June 24, 2013 - 10:01 am
Define “torment.”
George Haberberger
June 24, 2013 - 10:55 am
Since denying the humanity of the unborn is a frequent topic here at MDWorld, ridiculing an ob-gyn for an opinion that supports their humanity is hardly surprising. In fact I wouldn’t surprise me if you denied the label of human to a fetus who was revealed to be singing the greatest hits George Clinton. Nothing, no scientific discovery or personal revelation, can be allowed to threaten the sacrament of abortion without a snarky comment that ignores the obvious point.
“More fanatic than the Taliban, and dumber than a donkey.”
Interesting fact. Donkeys are quite intelligent. Although considered stubborn, that trait has been attributed the donkey’s strong sense of self-preservation. A horse pulling a plow will work until he drops dead from exhaustion. A donkey will not. This is why donkeys and horses are cross-bred to get a mule. A mule has the strength of a horse but the intelligence of a donkey.
Mike Gold
June 24, 2013 - 11:03 am
Is it the position of the anti-abortion movement that feti masturbate? Because if it isn’t, than it is the anti\-abortion movement’s de facto position that Congressman Burgess is an idiot.
I’ll tell you what. You get me a fetus that can sing — or even hum — George Clinton’s greatest hits, and I’ll get it booked on Letterman. You can use the appearance fee to support Congressman Burgess’s reelection campaign.
But if you get me a movie of a fetus masturbating and I’ll have you arrested. Doug’s absolutely right about that one.
I’m a big George Clinton fan. And I think you’d have to have hands on George’s stash to believe feti masturbate. We have a word for ob-gyns who think they do. This word is best articulated by Donald Duck.
Doug Abramson
June 24, 2013 - 11:26 am
George- Speaking for myself, there isn’t a “sacrament of abortion”. I’ve never had to deal with it on a personal basis and believe that it should be used to protect the health of the mother and as early in the pregnancy as circumstances permit. But that’s my personal opinion and its superseded by my belief that the government shouldn’t be able to dictate what an adult does with their own body. As for the snark, when someone brings up masturbation on the floor of a legislative body, its too good of a set up to let go.
Rene
June 24, 2013 - 12:10 pm
George –
When a guy says something so silly as Michael Burgess did, the guy is actually giving ammunition to the other side. Someone may be on the right side of a issue, and still be an idiot. You’re doing no good yourself by trying to deny or obscure the obvious fact that Michael Burgess is a big idiot.
Mike Gold
June 24, 2013 - 12:11 pm
He’s a dangerous idiot. He’s a congressman, and a ob-gyn.
Neil C.
June 24, 2013 - 12:29 pm
George will agree with anything, even someone invoking Satan, if that person is anti-choice. And that’s what he just doesn’t get: very few people are ‘pro-abortion,’ I am pro let the person who has something growing inside of them decide what they want to do rather than the government or a book of fairy tales.
Mike Gold
June 24, 2013 - 1:25 pm
George has an absolutist point of view on abortion. That’s his prerogative. I disagree with that point of view, which is my prerogative. Sadly, for the past several decades the argument has been phrased in such a manner that there’s no middle-ground: either you think that abortion is acceptable or you do not. It seems to me that if a person takes the position that abortion is the killing of a viable human being, then it makes sense that you would be opposed to abortion even in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the host. That’s consistent — consistently wrong in my point of view, but consistent to those who believe it.
What is life, who is entitled to life after birth, what is birth and why birth is or is not relevant any longer involves one’s position on various types of mystical thinking. There’s only faith involved in this argument, no matter how profoundly you believe in the concept of creation and/or birth. And since I believe one person has no right to impose his or her faith structures on anybody else, I must respect George’s right to his point of view. We can disagree; that’s cool and sometimes even fun.
My column wasn’t about the rightfulness of abortion. It was about a lunatic who swindled a medical degree and was welcomed by the Republican Party with wide-open arms and given a seat in Congress where he can impose his faith-based fascism fantasies upon others by saying that a male fetus can masturbate in the womb.
I do not know if he believes a female fetus can masturbate in the womb. Given his grasp of ob-gyn science, it certainly is possible that he doesn’t believe women can masturbate at all.
George Haberberger
June 24, 2013 - 1:33 pm
Doug,
I used the word “sacrament” to emphasize just how entrenched the culture of death is today.No evidence of the humanity of the unborn is to be given serious consideration. So much more has been discovered about embryology since Roe v Wade in 1973 that that decision is woefully obsolete. Some people have no problem believing the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. Do fetuses masturbate? Probably not. Most likely it is reflex action. like kicking. But then kicking has always been considered proof of life by expectant mothers.
Rene,
Thanks for the concern but as just as there are idiots on the right side of an issue, there are idiots on the wrong side.
Neil,
Your hyperbolic statements are false. Your “book of fairy tales” term is a straw man argument. I have never used the Bible as a reason for opposing the Pro-Choice stance, (really go check the archives of Brainiac on Banjo or Brilliant Disguise). My reasons are medical and legal.
Mike Gold
June 24, 2013 - 1:39 pm
Martha: Sorry I was swimming in a tributary of this discussion. I’ll tell you why I don’t feel sorry for these women.
Unless they were forced into marriage (which, admittedly, is a possibility), they married these clowns either knowing full well the nature of their beliefs or after abdicating the most basic due diligence required in order to make an informed decision about marriage.
I do not know if “Hey, I just found out my hubby believes boy fetuses jerk off in the womb” is grounds for divorce in the state of Texas. Personally, I believe in the Lenny Bruce philosophy that there should be only one ground for divorce, and that’s marriage. Period.
I would be interested in hearing your take on CDD — the Christian Domestic Discipline movement. In particular, I’d be interested in your take on marital roles (“The wife is to submit to her husband, and the husband is to love his wife; Eph 5:22-28) and discipline (“the husband has authority to discipline the wife. The wife does not have authority to discipline her husband; Gen. 3:16.” (Reference: http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/home.html). I should point out that if both partners enter into a CDD relationship voluntarily and fully-informed, it’s not really my business.
Until somebody gets hurt, which has probably happened, or killed, which probably will happen.
Mike Gold
June 24, 2013 - 1:41 pm
“My reasons are medical and legal.” Holy crap, PeTA must HATE you!
Neil C.
June 24, 2013 - 2:06 pm
Here is the only real answer when someone asks what is life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eEQ4J6Lnrs
“Medical and legal.” And I guess he went to the same medical school as Doctor Penguin.
Martha Tomases
June 24, 2013 - 2:19 pm
While I am entirely in favor of consensual role-play for those who are into it, that’s not my personal kink. At least not yet.
Many of these women get married young, learn a lot about themselves, and then feel sick, because they don’t believe in divorce. Or because they have kids. Or because they have come to enjoy a certain standard of living. Again, not my choices, but I have sympathy. Or at least empathy.
As I said on Saturday, my idea of marriage I cloves equals.
But then, I have never knowingly slept with a Republican.
George Haberberger
June 24, 2013 - 2:52 pm
Mike,
“It seems to me that if a person takes the position that abortion is the killing of a viable human being, then it makes sense that you would be opposed to abortion even in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the host.
A small clarification. In the case of the health of the “host” (though I prefer “mother”) abortion is allowable as it would be a matter of self-defense. Of course “health” means “life-threatening” not “This is giving me morning sickness.”
Neil,
Medical: Medical science has determined that at the time of conception, a human life exists. Everything beyond that point is a matter time.
Legal: As a human life, what legal justification exists to deny that life its existence? Where is the due process?
Not that it matters, but that is great song from a great album. Harrison was my favorite Beatle. He deserved more of the spotlight and didn’t really get it until The Concert for Bangladesh. Also loved The Traveling Wilburys. Harrison, Dylan, Orbison, Petty and Lynn. Better than Crosby, Still, Nash and Young.
Mike Gold
June 24, 2013 - 2:59 pm
Okay. Harrison was my favorite Beatle. And I know I absolutely NEVER name-drop, not ever, ever, ever, but I was introduced to Mr. Harrison by his friend Peter Max after Max and I did a guess appearance on a Chicago teevee show called “Underground News.” This show was shot in the same studio where Paul Harvey shot his teevee show, and when Harvey heard a real Beatle was going to be there, he hung out for a couple hours to meet him. Yep, and that’s the rest of the story.
Now. Let’s all sing together:
Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in.
Sorry. I couldn’t help myself.
George Haberberger
June 24, 2013 - 3:23 pm
Wow! Cool story Mike. I’m envious. But then you’ve met Ditko too.
So, even a square like Paul Harvey wanted to Meet the Beatles. That’s… nice.
Mike Gold
June 24, 2013 - 3:38 pm
Martha, I can do a month of columns on all that. We’ll see.
The reason for divorce isn’t necessarily “I hate you.” It’s often “I’m no longer that person, you’re no longer that person, we’re no longer that couple.” Untreated, that can evolve into “I hate you” and, absolutely, it is in the children’s best interest to avoid getting to that point.
Mike Gold
June 24, 2013 - 3:47 pm
George, Paul Harvey was very square, but VERY involved in our culture. He was on the board of the MacArthur Foundation and had to pass judgment on all kinds of creative endeavors. His radio shows were recorded at WLS-FM in Chicago, downstairs from the classic Top 40 station. From about 1969 on, WLS-FM broadcast underground hippie music. I did a turn there myself and, I’ll tell you, the broadcast booth wasn’t big enough for Clark Kent to change clothes in… and there was a musician’s union guy in there to cue records (“let me show you my gun,” Rudy Wants To Buy Yez A Drink, Frank Zappa, Chunga’s Revenge).
Given the nature of the time, very often when we had a guest in the booth that guest was pretty well polluted with an illegal aroma. When I was there I did overnights, so when musicians came over it was after their gig and most of them were pretty gassed. (And don’t get me started on Dr. John.) Harvey came in around 6AM, and I am absolutely certain he got a pretty heavy contact high quite frequently.
Unknowingly, I’m sure. But it was a funny thought… given the times,
Rene
June 25, 2013 - 7:56 am
George –
There are idiots on both sides, but the idiots on the Pro-Choice side are working on your favor and harming their own cause. While the idiots on the Pro-Life side are hampering a cause you believe in. I don’t understand why you must close ranks and defend Burgess, minimizing his idiocy.
Also, you want to defend your anti-abortion ideals by appealing to medical science and legality. You know something? Forget it. You guys are never going to stop abortion by doing this.
Because, under a materialistic worldview, Pro-Choice makes the most sense. To a materialist, what is a human being? It’s a physical entity that more or less looks like other human beings. It’s a social entity that has a network of social relationships. It’s legal entity supported by a legal structure that keeps an orderly society.
Fetuses don’t look like human beings. Fetuses don’t have a network of social relationships, when their own mother doesn’t want then. The well-being of unwanted fetuses isn’t necessary for an orderly society. Under a materialistic worldview, unwanted fetuses are shit out of luck, my friend.
Only by recognizing that all human beings have God-given souls the Pro-Life position makes sense.
George Haberberger
June 25, 2013 - 9:22 am
Rene,
I appreciate your sentiment but I am not defending Burgess. (I opined above that fetuses probably do not masturbate). I was simply pointing out that whenever someone attempts to make a case for the humanity of the unborn, (no matter how ill-conceived), something must be done to counter it. It actually seems like the Pro-Choice faction are the ones who are constantly closing ranks. Bill Maher had a piece about this issue on his show last Friday so Mike’s column here was not the first I’d heard of it.
I certainly believe that all human beings have God-given souls, but that is a poor argument against abortion. Not everyone believes that, (and they certainly have that right), so the “God-given” terminology can be easily dismissed as a religious view. Although, as I have posted on these boards before, there are Pro-Life atheists.
A fetus’ lack of social relationships or different appearance certainly cannot be a justifiable reason for denying them legal status. Full-grown humans are divergent in appearance and social relationships. Hell, I know some people who are not even on Facebook.
Mike Gold
June 25, 2013 - 9:25 am
George, if you bestow “legal status” onto feti, they’re going to want the vote. Then they’ll want to move into your neighborhood and marry your sister. Where will it all end?
Rene
June 25, 2013 - 11:59 am
George –
According to the strictest materialistic science, consciousness is just a trick the brain plays, and none of us is really a “I”. Plus, we don’t really have something that could be called free will. When the “specialness” and “sacredness” of a human being is just a social/psychological construct, you expect that specialness to be extented to fetuses? Why? When fetuses are so different from ourselves that we’re not even able to empathize with them and claim they must be special because we fell ourselves to be special, on account of a trick of the brain.
While there are Pro-Life atheists, I find it very hard to argue for Pro-Life from a purely materialistic viewpoint. I think that that is a doomed endeavour.
I’d rather argue for the possibility of a soul to dissuade Pro-Choicers, taking care to make clear that believing in the soul doesn’t mean you have to swallow any one sacred book wholesale.
Doug Abramson
June 25, 2013 - 3:21 pm
George- I don’t think that anyone here is attacking to discredit pro-lifers. This moron just said something too stupid to leave alone. For us snarky, sarcastic types; this was a softball hanging in the middle of the plate. Kinda like Rep. Gommer, from Texas comparing sex ed in public schools to life in the Soviet Union. () Its too stupid to leave it alone.
Mike Gold
June 25, 2013 - 4:25 pm
… which begs the question about sex in Soviet Union public schools. Is that like sex in Texas? Would Gommer even know?
Doug Abramson
June 25, 2013 - 7:20 pm
Probably not. Based on other public statements, I’ve developed the theory that Gomer (misspelled in previous post) is actually a semi-sentient sponge. As we all know sponges frequently reproduce asexually. Sexual reproduction is probably too complicated for poor Gomer.
Mike Gold
June 25, 2013 - 8:04 pm
And asexual reproduction is merely a more productive form of masturbation!
Doug Abramson
June 25, 2013 - 9:41 pm
Well, I guess the “gentleman” from Texas is qualified to be a fetus. He sure ain’t much of a congressman.
Neil C.
June 26, 2013 - 5:18 am
What is it with Texas?
Doug Abramson
June 26, 2013 - 5:51 am
Mesquite causes brain damage?
Rene
June 27, 2013 - 1:36 pm
It never ceases to amaze me how Conservatives are obsessed with sex and the Soviet Union. And sometimes both.
You know how it is. Liberals are obsessed with the things they like. Conservatives are obsessed with the things they hate.
Mike Gold
June 27, 2013 - 1:48 pm
Ha! That’s great!
Neil C.
June 28, 2013 - 6:20 am
They also are convinced that allowing gay marriage will lead to bestiality. More projection?
Mike Gold
June 28, 2013 - 6:30 am
They Religious Right always goes there. It’s amazing. At first I was pissed — how dare they conflate gay sex with bestiality? In short order, it became their talking point, and it has been so for years. So… I gotta figure… these self-repressing zealots have a real problem and we normal people should NOT let our pets anywhere near them.
And I’m serious about that. I can cope with some people being too stupid to understand the meaning of “consenting adults” but when they persist in adding the word “animals” to that phrase, I gotta figure they are deeply disturbed and probably should be locked up in some PeTA prison.
And I’m serious about that, too.
Rick Oliver
July 1, 2013 - 2:39 pm
If you want to marry your dog, that’s fine with me…assuming your dog has the mental capacity to understand and sign a legal document. If you want to marry your cat, make sure you have a really good lawyer and a pre-nup.
Mike Gold
July 1, 2013 - 2:57 pm
I have two cats. One isn’t quite two yet; she’d hardly be a consenting adult. The other one is five, and he’s a he-cat. He is fully capable of making an informed decision, possibly without any catnip.
But his lawyer is a real bitch.
Neil C.
July 1, 2013 - 5:38 pm
Come on guys, this is a SRS issue! 😛
Mike Gold
July 2, 2013 - 12:53 pm
There are SO many places to go with that.