That’s the kind of thing anti-choice activists are calling for. Yes, the American Taliban was in town last week, disguised as “values voters”.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Anti-choicers are the biggest frauds. They’re against every program that would help the baby after its born
Lila Rose, a Cal student? What hath God wrought? I graduated in a different eon: we had only Mario Savio, Jerry Rubin, etc.
Jr., Democrats have dropped the term pro-choice, much like they have dropped global warming. The term itself is a fraud. No choice for the baby, no choice on a poor baby, on where to go to school, and soon, no choice in the type of medical care. Democrats, pro-choice = no-choice.
Anti – choice? Stupid – just stupid. You are giving yourselves away. Do you think people who oppose abortions oppose choosing between broccoli and cauliflower, or choosing between a pickup and a jeep?
It’s about the unborn, the termination of a pregnancy. If that “whatever you want to call it” isn’t born, that is its chance at life that you have taken away. That is the choice – abortion.
I am not anti – choice. I choose rice over potatoes almost every day. I am opposed to the arbitrary and capricious termination of a pregnancy, for no other reason than the mother’s convenience.
I love how the trolls just assume that an abortion is a decision made lightly by the woman in question.
Clearly that’s why those poor, inferior females need the guiding light of their wisdom to legislate what decisions they can and can’t make concerning their own bodies.
Jody, I KNOW that they torture themselves for years after the decision with regret. Research has shown it; it’s no assumption. And I am not concerned with protecting the right of some female to fit into a bathing suit for her vacation ( a real reason given for a real abortion — so much for anguish ); I am concerned with all of us maintaining a healthy respect for life, lest we become an unfeeling nation.
Those stupid women need to be protected from themselves by men like Frank. Because Frank has made such good decisions in his life and is so wise that he should be able to control a woman’s reproductive life.
and since birth control ALWAYS works and women are NEVER raped, ultimately those sluts are getting what they deserved, eh Frankie? And if a woman risks her life to have an unplanned child, hey thems the breaks huh? Shouldn’t have had sex, ya’ dirty whore.
Democrats have dropped the term pro-choice,
I never have.
and since birth control ALWAYS works and women are NEVER raped, ultimately those sluts are getting what they deserved, eh Frankie? And if a woman risks her life to have an unplanned child, hey thems the breaks huh? Shouldn’t have had sex, ya’ dirty whore.
I didn’t know you felt that way. I am sorry to hear that. I don’t feel that way at all. Never did.
Because Frank has made such good decisions in his life and is so wise that he should be able to control a woman’s reproductive life.
And YOU have made such good decisions in your life and are so wise, that YOU should permit her to do something which might kill a child, harm her psychically and physiologically?
Of course, a teenager who gets herself pregnant with a boy she hardly knows is a cornucopia of wisdom and judgment.
See, I don’t look on myself as “permitting” a woman’s choice. It’s her pregnancy, her choice.
Frank DiSalle: Jody, I KNOW that they torture themselves for years after the decision with regret.
And do you KNOW that all women do this?
Because I KNOW that there are many women who are grateful for having had the choice and haven’t for one moment regretted being able to make the choice they did.
Research has shown it; it’s no assumption.
I call bullshit.
That is, I don’t doubt, should you bother to back up anything you say with actual support, that you could find research that says it. But I’m sure I could find research that says the opposite.
And I am not concerned with protecting the right of some female to fit into a bathing suit for her vacation ( a real reason given for a real abortion — so much for anguish )
I’ve no doubt that one woman somewhere got an abortion for reasons of vanity. I’ll even allow that it’s been a reason for more than one. But if your only reason to object is because of that minuscule percentage of women then you’ve got really weak support for your view, Frank. And if you had better reasons, why give that one?
I am concerned with all of us maintaining a healthy respect for life, lest we become an unfeeling nation.
So just to spot check, becuase I don’t recall if you’ve given your positions before, what are your positions on the death penalty, SCHIP and Head Start?
Frank DiSalle: And YOU have made such good decisions in your life and are so wise, that YOU should permit her to do something which might kill a child, harm her psychically and physiologically?
OK, that rebuttal is just plain nonsense. Frank’s trying to use similar sentence construction to Enlightened Liberal’s original comment to flip the argument around and ends up talking nonsense.
Of course, a teenager who gets herself pregnant with a boy she hardly knows is a cornucopia of wisdom and judgment.
All the more reason to force her into moterhood, right?
SDM: “… to force her into moterhood …”
HA! Yeah, make that girl become a car!
sigh This is what happens when I ignore the spellchecker.
No choice for the baby, no choice on a poor baby, on where to go to school, and soon, no choice in the type of medical care. Democrats, pro-choice = no-choice.
Fuck you, Impaler. First off, it’s not a baby – it’s a fetus. We’re not calling for infanticide being legal. Secondly, there is choice on where to send your kid to school. You can pay to send him/her to any fucking private school you want. Go nuts. Finally, the Democrats’ plans re: health care reform do NOT include a government takeover of all health care. Public “option”, imbecile. If you want to pay to have private insurance, you can. You can keep your own fucking healthcare. You don’t have to go with the government option. Jesus.
Also, I’d like to point out the hypocrisy of criticizing the left for a term like “pro-choice” when you fuckers throw around “pro-life” while supporting the death penalty and stupid, nonsensical invasions of foreign countries that kill many thousands of people. Fuck you.
I am not anti – choice. I choose rice over potatoes almost every day. I am opposed to the arbitrary and capricious termination of a pregnancy, for no other reason than the mother’s convenience.
You are a vile, contemptible creature Frank. If you’re right about the existence of the Christian god, you’re going to Hell in a couple short years (months?) when you die. Enjoy that.
Arbitrary and capricious. Holy shit, what an asshole…
And YOU have made such good decisions in your life and are so wise, that YOU should permit her to do something which might kill a child, harm her psychically and physiologically?
Well, I got news for you. I am quick enough… COCKBOY!
Also, I’d like to point out the hypocrisy of criticizing the left for a term like “pro-choice” when you fuckers throw around “pro-life” while supporting the death penalty and stupid, nonsensical invasions of foreign countries that kill many thousands of people.
You mean socialized vengeance?
I’ve no doubt that one woman somewhere got an abortion for reasons of vanity. I’ll even allow that it’s been a reason for more than one. But if your only reason to object is because of that minuscule percentage of women then you’ve got really weak support for your view, Frank. And if you had better reasons, why give that one?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. “Misusing” a right is no reason to take it away from everyone. By that logic, Frank should support criminalizing guns. After all, some people use them inappropriately.
And the call for abortions in public is basically proof of the ultimate goal of the anti-choice crowd. Slut-shaming. They want to humiliate women who have the audacity for liking sex.
I must say I am truly impressed by the passion of your comments. While the comment leaves much to be desired, I applaud your near psychotic defense of a contrived right to terminate pregnancies.
and Mambochicken, once again you demonstrate that you are an abusive bully, with nothing to say. Even frameone contributed more to these threads than you do.
You’re just another jerk who thinks his disgusting remarks about my age impress his peers.
You’re an evil prick, Mambo, and your kind will never outlive me.
As for that final epithet — trolling for pre-teens in White Castle is just your speed. Give my regards to George Michael, short eyes!
Frank DiSalle: once again you demonstrate that you are an abusive bully
Oh, the irony.
Women and their doctors should make medical decisions, not the government.
Funny how “small government” Republicans want the Nanny State to take over when it comes to issues of female health.
Making an argument against a woman’s right to choose is saying that you do not believe a woman should have control over her own body. Period.
Education and access to birth control are a necessary part of keeping unwanted pregnancies down. It is not a coincidence that the right is against both of these things as well.
They want to control women, and force their values on the rest of us. Simple as that.
Funny how “small government” Republicans want the Nanny State to take over when it comes to female health.
And considering their anti-medical marijuana stance, male health as well.
To be fair, Oliver, not a single person in the audience clapped at Rose’s “suggestion,” so even that audience (which, probably to a person, consisted entirely of people who agreed with her stance against abortion rights) probably thought she sounded goofy.
They want to control women, and force their values on the rest of us. Simple as that.
In what way do people on the right wish to control women? And of what value would it be to them? And how would forbidding abortions (assuming none ever took place again) actually “control women”, anyway.
Which values are being forced upon you? (This question particularly applies to men, who will not be having abortions, in any event).
Are you suggesting that there are no other values forced upon you? That you are in agreement with every single law, ordinance and policy with which you are compelled to comply?
Would you be willing to accept other “small government” suggestions, if Republicans stayed away from the subject of abortion – say, eliminating the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, and consolidating the Departments of Labor and Commerce, into a Department of Productivity and Global Competition?
Oh, the irony.
Let it go, S M. Unless you want my address?
Meh.
“In what way do people on the right wish to control women?”
By telling them what medical procedures they can and can’t have? By forcing women who might die during childbirth to go through the process? By not allowing women access to contraceptives that could prevent a pregnancy in the first place?
How fucking dense are you? You oppose Obama’s health care plans since the government will get involved in medicine, yet you’re all for it in cases involving women? You want the government to make choices for them?
And of what value would it be to them?
It’s to keep lower class women in the lower class. The Anti-choice crowd know good and well that the rich in red states will be able to easily afford to travel to a blue state to get abortions, while the poor cannot.
(assuming none ever took place again)
And here we come to the crux of the issue. Do you really believe that there will be no abortions if they’re nade illegal? Hate to break it to you, but women are going to have abortions whether they’re legal or not. All criminalization will do it make it more dangerous for them.
Would you be willing to accept other “small government” suggestions, if Republicans stayed away from the subject of abortion – say, eliminating the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, and consolidating the Departments of Labor and Commerce, into a Department of Productivity and Global Competition?
Well, they’d have to abandon a few other policies, but it would be a step in the right direction towards consistency.
Frank DiSalle: Let it go, S M. Unless you want my address?
I have your address Frank. Your state, your town, your street and, most notably, I’ve got your number.
Frank DiSalle: In what way do people on the right wish to control women? And of what value would it be to them?
That’s self-evident, Frank. The value is in having the power. Folks who want power over others want it so they have power over others. It makes up for their feelings of insecurity and inferiority. Being able to control others makes them feel better about themselves.
Do you really believe that there will be no abortions if they’re made illegal?
Of course not. Your plan was to execute them, and the doctor. That should cut down on illegal abortions considerably. Good idea, Zython.
It’s to keep lower class women in the lower class
In the first place, if abortions were illegal in the United States, you couldn’t a legal one anywhere, but you might be able to get one illegally anywhere.
So the question remains: Why would people who oppose abortion (not choice; no one opposes “choice”), want to keep poor people poor? Do you know anyone who wants to keep poor people poor, or has ever expressed the desire to keep poor people poor? I don’t.
In fact, I notice on television, anyway, that there are for more Christians than liberal democrats advocating for the poor.
That’s self-evident… Folks who want power over others want it so they have power over others. It makes up for their feelings of insecurity and inferiority…
Errant psychobabble. You have no evidence that people who desire power, desire it for its own sake. You have no evidence that there is a causal relationship between a person’s feelings of insecurity and inferiority, and their desire for power.
You know what my first clue was that you didn’t know what you were talking about? You began by saying “It’s self-evident”.
Finally, you have no evidence that people who are opposed to abortion (the deliberate termination of pregnancy), have that position to acquire power. In fact, my own position, which I have seen reflected in sermons. demonstrations, and speeches for years, is that abortion preys on the most powerless among us – life in the womb. If there were such a thing as a “next powerless” it would be unwed teens who think that getting rid of the child would be beneficial to them.
Your plan was to execute them, and the doctor.
I’m sure Zython was serious.
In the first place, if abortions were illegal in the United States, you couldn’t a legal one anywhere, but you might be able to get one illegally anywhere.
I’m quite sure that Zython was referring to repealing Roe v. Wade and making this a “state’s rights” issue. The deep south would likely outlaw abortion while a state like Massachusetts would keep it legal.
Why would people who oppose abortion (not choice; no one opposes “choice”)
Yes, you do oppose choice, Frank. No one here “supports abortion.” No one here likes abortion. We just think that women should have the right to do with her body what she wants to. That’s it. You, on the other hand, do NOT think that a woman should be able to choose what she does with her own body. That means you are anti-choice, with respect to this issue. You thick stupid fuck.
In fact, I notice on television, anyway, that there are for more Christians than liberal democrats advocating for the poor.
Self-serving worthless blather. As usual. Your perception of the world is not the world in reality, Frank. We’ve all seen it countless times.
Mambochicken, once again you demonstrate that you are an abusive bully, with nothing to say. Even frameone contributed more to these threads than you do.
Yeah, yeah, broken record, Frank. If I’m an abusive bully, then you are a stupid ignorant fucking retard.
You’re just another jerk who thinks his disgusting remarks about my age impress his peers.
False. I don’t care if I impress my peers, and if I did, I wouldn’t do so by insulting you and making fun of your age. I make remarks about your age because I am happy that you will die soon and free the world from your horrible viewpoints on all things. You will die very soon, Frank, and for that the world will be a better place. Me commenting on it is both a means of celebration and a reminder to you that your sad days are numbered.
You’re an evil prick, Mambo, and your kind will never outlive me.
Evil? Ha. Good joke. And I don’t know what you mean by the second part – I will outlive you, handily. My “kind” will outlive you, absolutely. I (we?) just have to hold on for another year or so.
As for that final epithet — trolling for pre-teens in White Castle is just your speed. Give my regards to George Michael, short eyes!
Impressed you got the reference, although I suspect you googled it. They never troll for pre-teens in “Harold and Kumar.” And what are you talking about with the George Michael reference? You’re having another senior moment, Frank.
Your plan was to execute them, and the doctor. That should cut down on illegal abortions considerably.
Frank, you’re an idiot. I was referring to the fact that if one believes a fetus = person, then the death penalty for abortion is the only logically consistent position that person can have. Of course, no one knows what YOUR plan is, as you throw a hissy-fit when asked.
In the first place, if abortions were illegal in the United States, you couldn’t a legal one anywhere,
I thought you were in favor of state’s rights?
Why would people who oppose abortion (not choice; no one opposes “choice”), want to keep poor people poor? Do you know anyone who wants to keep poor people poor, or has ever expressed the desire to keep poor people poor?
Mainly the rich who employ the poor. Poorer people aren’t really in a good position to ask for pesky things like “a living wage”, “reasonable work hours”, and all the stuff that the middle class enjoys. It’s why many places hire illegal immigrants, and why they are willing to take it. In other words, “Beggars can’t be choosers”.
You have no evidence that people who desire power, desire it for its own sake
True. Sometimes, such as in the case of gay marriage, they desire it for no one’s sake.
If I’m an abusive bully, then you are a stupid ignorant fucking retard.
I take it that this is a demonstration of your logical, scientific mind.
I am happy that you will die soon
a) You won’t even know, fuckwit.
b) I guess you know less about life expectancy than you do everything else.
Leave it to you to assume that because you didn’t know that George Michael was arrested for trolling in a public lavatory, that I was having a senior moment.
I have news for you, junior, there are worlds, and solar systems, and galaxies and universes of stuff that I know, and you don’t, you pompous, self-important shitbag.
You won’t even know, fuckwit.
No, but that’s okay. I know it’ll happen soon. That is what makes me happy. That I don’t know exactly when it happens is inconsequential.
I guess you know less about life expectancy than you do everything else.
I know that you look like shit, Frank. And I know that you abused substances for the better part of 3 decades. That kind of thing will severely reduce your life expectancy. What a pity.
Leave it to you to assume that because you didn’t know that George Michael was arrested for trolling in a public lavatory, that I was having a senior moment.
No, I knew about that. The question, really, is what the fuck the relevance is. You just pulled that out of thin air, like a confused, disgruntled, angry old man with a cane. Dipshit.
I have news for you, junior, there are worlds, and solar systems, and galaxies and universes of stuff that I know, and you don’t, you pompous, self-important shitbag.
Those are units of measurement now? Crazy. I’m gonna hit up the grocery store and get a meteor of salsa and a constellation of tortilla chips.
Anyway, you don’t know shit, Frank. If you do, you would have demonstrated it by now on here. All you have is impotent and nonsensical beliefs, supported by precious little evidence, and reinforced by your own sense of self-righteousness.
You are a buffoon. A putz. A clown. A complete joke. And it will be a beautiful day when you are dead.
Frank, if abortion was illegal (let’s remember, it’s perfectly legal in America) would you lock up and/or execute the doctor? The mother? Both of them?
Just curious.
Frank, you’re an idiot.
Understatement of the fucking year, Zython.
Question, Frank – do you wonder why you are the only person that I continually blast on here? Does the question ever enter your feeble, drug-addled mind? Maybe you should think about that.
Ha, I just asked you to think. How silly of me. Carry on, dummy.
do you wonder why you are the only person that I continually blast on here?
Not exactly, but I have wondered why you persist in annoying me after I have insulted you, your mother and your father, in an apparently futile attempt to get you to shut the fuck up.
But you are a persistent blight, and won’t go away.
So, rave on, malodorous one. As I said to Burn, I don’t want you to die. Oh, no. I want you to be surrounded by people like yourself, and then live forever in the atmosphere of cynicism, resentment and contempt that you thrive in. While you’re at the bodega, pick up an ounce of humanidad.
I was referring to the fact that if one believes a fetus = person, then the death penalty for abortion is the only logically consistent position that person can have
1) You didn’t recognize that I was throwing your tactic back at you, of putting words in your mouth, then asking you to defend them. Not the sharpest tool in the box, are you.
2) It has been explained to you by me , and now, by someone else, that the statement “the death penalty for abortion is the only logically consistent position that person can have”, is just NOT SO.
One final example, and that’s it. If you don’t get it after that, too fucking bad.
A guy is driving down the road, within the speed limit.
A child dashes out in the street; he hits the child.
He stops, gets out and checks on the child. The child is dead.
Shouldn’t he get the death penalty? After all, he killed the child, didn’t he?
If you think he should, please explain why (to yourself, please; then you will finally understand).
If you think he shouldn’t get the death penalty, then simply substitute “guy driving a car that hits and kills a child” with “girl who has an abortion,” and you’re done.
Good luck.
It has been explained to you by me , and now, by someone else, that the statement “the death penalty for abortion is the only logically consistent position that person can have”, is just NOT SO.
Frank, just because you dreamed you did doesn’t mean it actually happened.
One final example, and that’s it. If you don’t get it after that, too fucking bad.
Frank, your example is involuntary manslaughter, which in this context would be similar to a miscarriage. The act of abortion, which requires premeditation, kinda disproves the “involuntary” part. If you want to draw an analogy of fetus = human, then an abortion would be similar to soliciting murder.
Zython, you are a numbskull. Try and use an analogy, for Christ’s sake! I am trying to explain something to you: There are circumstances where a person commits an act, and another person ends up dead, and it is not murder. Get it?
I am not talking about a pregnant woman running over her unborn bay in a car.
I explained it to you THREE times and Impaler explained it to you once . It is not the “human” attribute that makes it murder, you horse’s patoot. Was the child killed by the car not human?
It was the driver’s motive and intent.
If the woman can demonstrate that she failed to consider the fetus a human, she can be exonerated. If she can demonstrate that she lost sight of that fact, due to her stress, she cam be exonerated.
Stop being so difficult, kid!
Frank DiSalle: You have no evidence that people who desire power, desire it for its own sake. You have no evidence that there is a causal relationship between a person’s feelings of insecurity and inferiority, and their desire for power.
You’re right, Frank. When a husband beats up his wife it’s just because she deserved it, not because he had a hard day at work and needs to feel there’s someone he can pass the shit onto. When the jock bullies the nerd it’s just because the nerd deserved it, not because he scored higher on some test the jock failed and made the jock look stupid.
No, nobody ever wants to show they have some power over another person as a way to vent frustration or deal with some feeling of inferiority. Nope, that never happens.
If there were such a thing as a “next powerless” it would be unwed teens who think that getting rid of the child would be beneficial to them.
In many cases, it would be. That’s why many unwed teens who carry to term give the child up for adoption. Because not only is the child better off in a home where folks are prepared to care for it, but the unwed teen is better off without the burden of the child.
mambochicken had it exactly right. Your perception of the world in reality. Things you don’t like you just deny are the case, as if wishing would make them so.
Frank DiSalle: Do you know anyone who wants to keep poor people poor, or has ever expressed the desire to keep poor people poor? I don’t.
That’s because you live a sheltered existence. You insist on wearing blinders that limit your view of reality to only what you want it to be.
Yes, Frank. I do know people who have expressed exactly that desire in unflinching and direct terms. And many more who, while more circumspect in their comments, make their true opinions known quite clearly by their actions.
If the woman can demonstrate that she failed to consider the fetus a human, she can be exonerated. If she can demonstrate that she lost sight of that fact, due to her stress, she cam be exonerated.
Nonsense. How can she demonstrate that to your satisfaction, Frank? If she merely says, “I don’t think that a fetus is a human being,” she can get abortions? If I say to a court, “I don’t think Frank DiSalle is a human being. That is why I killed him,” do you think that I will be free to go?
What exactly DO you advocate, Frank? Making abortion illegal? If so, so how do you enforce it? What are the penalties for getting an abortion?
Because I don’t think I am alone when I say that I have no earthly idea what the hell you are talking about anymore.
mambochicken: You are a buffoon. A putz. A clown. A complete joke. And it will be a beautiful day when you are dead.
Yes, he is. And he is. And he is. And he is. But let’s dial it back on bit on the eagerness to dance on his grave.
Frank DiSalle: I have wondered why you persist in annoying me after I have insulted you, your mother and your father, in an apparently futile attempt to get you to shut the fuck up.
Frank, it does say a considerable amount, and not favorably, about your own level of maturity that you think that’s a viable way to get someone to shut up.
mambochicken: You are a buffoon. A putz. A clown. A complete joke. And it will be a beautiful day when you are dead.
Yes, he is. And he is. And he is. And he is. But let’s dial it back on bit on the eagerness to dance on his grave.
I understand why you exercise the slightest bit of restraint, Sean. I really do. And I can appreciate it. But, I think that in certain cases, it’s not particularly odious to be happy about an individual not being able to poison the well of human understanding anymore. Frank’s comments are almost always just wrong, and in many cases are horrible things to say. I’m not going to apologize for being happy about his eventual passing.
But, as always, I can be convinced that there’s more to consider…
Frank DiSalle: One final example, and that’s it. If you don’t get it after that, too fucking bad.
A guy is driving down the road, within the speed limit. A child dashes out in the street; he hits the child. He stops, gets out and checks on the child. The child is dead. Shouldn’t he get the death penalty? After all, he killed the child, didn’t he?
I’ll try to explain slowly for you, Frank.
Murder is when you intend to cause the death of another person. Manslaughter is when you cause the death of another person accidentally.
Zython was asking about an appropriate penalty for abortion considering there are those, like you, who consider it murder. The intentional taking of another life.
Your example is manslaughter. The accidental taking of another life.
That you can’t see the clear distinction between these two just emphasizes, yet again, how difficult reality is for you to grasp.
mambochicken: Because I don’t think I am alone when I say that I have no earthly idea what the hell you are talking about anymore.
Nope, you’re not.
I thought I was following Frank, that he was opposed to allowing abortions. But then that last post where he seemed to be saying abortion is OK if the woman thinks the fetus isn’t a human seems to run counter to that.
No doubt Frank will claims that we’re just too stupid to understand what he’s saying. But, then, he’s the one who can’t distinguish between intentional and accidental in his examples, so I’m comfortable with it being that he isn’t able to say what he means very well. (Unless his just casting insults and empty threats, of course.)
mambochicken: But, I think that in certain cases, it’s not particularly odious to be happy about an individual not being able to poison the well of human understanding anymore. Frank’s comments are almost always just wrong, and in many cases are horrible things to say. I’m not going to apologize for being happy about his eventual passing.
Nor would I shed a tear. Frank is the guy, after all, who repeatedly made it quite clear that he was serious in his threats to cripple me until I spent the rest of my life sipping meals thru a straw.
But even in blog comments there are some lines not to be crossed too cavalierly. And repeated gloats over someone’s demise is one for me.
But even in blog comments there are some lines not to be crossed too cavalierly. And repeated gloats over someone’s demise is one for me.
Fair enough. I don’t think that I am being too “cavalier” in my commentary, necessarily, but I can see where others may think that I am.
I’m still amused by how Frankie McTrollenstein is trying to conflate vehicular manslaughter over whether or not a woman has any control over her own body.
See, he thinks distracting from the original point will gain him ground. The original point being, of course, that he believes that if some tramp gets knocked up she should be required by law to carry it to term, regardless of how she got impregnated. Further, she should have to pay for her own care and that of her child out of pocket, unless she had the good sense to get a high paying job with health benefits, in which case she is still a whore but a sensible one.
Being able to control others makes them feel better about themselves.
In other words, Sociopathy.
Why would people who oppose abortion (not choice; no one opposes “choice”)
Bullshit.
No one here “supports abortion.” No one here likes abortion. We just think that women should have the right to do with her body what she wants to. That’s it. You, on the other hand, do NOT think that a woman should be able to choose what she does with her own body.
Been saying the same thing for years. No one on the “pro-life” side seems to get that.
a) You won’t even know, fuckwit.
I expect your posting frequency might slow down a little bit.
Frank is the guy, after all, who repeatedly made it quite clear that he was serious in his threats to cripple me until I spent the rest of my life sipping meals thru a straw.
Wow. And I missed that? Dammit!
It’s obvious what should happen here; Women should henceforth be forced to carry to term. However, after delivery, it’s okay for them to run over the baby with their car. “Accidentally.”
Wow. And I missed that? Dammit!
Yeah, it was pretty amazing. For all of Frank’s whining about civility, he’s the only one here I see actively threatening anyone else. What a piece of shit.
Listen up: As I explained in clear English, abortion does not have to be murder, I never said it was the same as hitting someone with a car. I know quite well the difference between manslaughter and murder. Are you familiar with “felony murder”?
“Felony murder is a killing that happens during the course of the commission of a felony [hypothetically, an illegal abortion]… If the killing happens during certain felonies, determined by the state, it will be considered first-degree felony murder. The felonies most often included in this category are arson, robbery, burglary, rape, mayhem and kidnapping.”
So if abortion were to be considered a felony murder (a murder {of the fetus} while committing a felony), then it would seem to me that the state could impose any penalty it chooses. [emphasis added - fd]
You may think I am wrong about that, but I am able to distinguish between purposeful and accidental; and I am specifically saying that abortion is neither 1st nor 2nd degree murder, and I am further saying that there are any number of circumstances which argue against a charge of abortion as murder.
While you, as usual, quibble over what kind of idiot I am, and discuss the ethics of wishing someone who posts a comment would die, I have given some thought to the topic, long before Oliver posted this thread.
It is my opinion that only in rare cases would abortion be considered 1st or 2nd degree murder, e.g., if there was evidence that she had alternatives, and didn’t even consider them; or statements from witnesses that she had no reasonable excuse to have an abortion other than her wish not to be pregnant.
These, of course, would be arguable.
As unhappy as it might make you, mambochicken and Sean Martin, I am under the care of two doctors, and have an excellent chance of surviving til this thread scrolls out of sight.
So, if you have anything intelligent to say, step up and say it, [expletive deleted].
And, remember, Martin, you said it was over and Oliver told you to end it.
But liberals and rules ? “Rules? We don’ nee’ e-stinkin’ rules!”
I am further saying that there are any number of circumstances which argue against a charge of abortion as murder.
To wit?
It is my opinion that only in rare cases would abortion be considered 1st or 2nd degree murder,
So you are in favor of the mother being put to death, if the state allows it, then, yes? Mighty Christian of you.
If a woman goes to a doctor and asks for an illegal abortion, that would be tantamount to hiring a hit man, wouldn’t it?
Now, it’s conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder. Then who gets the needle? The person who actually did the deed or the person who hired a third party to do it for her?
<i<I have given some thought to the topic
As much as you can. Which is to say, not much.
if there was evidence that she had alternatives, and didn’t even consider them
Thought policing, now? Awesome! This just keeps getting better.
witnesses that she had no reasonable excuse to have an abortion other than her wish not to be pregnant
Yep, because other people really ought to have the right to determine what is a “reasonable excuse” and what isn’t for another person. That seems like a great idea.
my opinion that only in rare cases would abortion be considered 1st or 2nd degree murder
So what… otherwise it would be manslaughter? Or at least carry a penalty similar to manslaughter? You gonna throw the woman in jail for a while? The doctor? I know that it’s up to the state, but I want to know what YOU think is fair and just.
As unhappy as it might make you
On the contrary, Frank, I am very happy. I explained why above. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote. It’s all there.
So, if you have anything intelligent to say, step up and say it, [expletive deleted].
Frank, the next intelligent thing you say will be your first. There are countless examples where I, or Sean, or Quaker, or Rex, have tried to reason with you. But you are an unreasonable person.
Wait, what if someone drives the woman across state lines to get an illegal abortion? Now it’s a federal case. And conspiracy to commit murder.
Where does it end?!!
Duros: Wow. And I missed that? Dammit!
By Ow’s request, the exchange between Frank and myself (started here when I called his bluff, continued here where he made it clear he’s serious (see 9/15, 5:21)) has ended. But that doesn’t mean I’ll forget it occurred.
Frank DiSalle: While you, as usual, quibble over what kind of idiot I am, and discuss the ethics of wishing someone who posts a comment would die,
OK, I withdraw my attempt at civility. As requested by Frank, I set aside my objection to people publicly posting their joy at thoughts he would die.
I have given some thought to the topic, long before Oliver posted this thread.
As have I and, I’m sure, others hear, Frank. Much of the criticism (the “quibbling”) is over the fact that, despite your long consideration, you’re not really expressing yourself well. The “runs over a kid and kills it” example, for example, was clumsy.
I am under the care of two doctors, and have an excellent chance of surviving til this thread scrolls out of sight.
Which only covers you for the next, what, 2-3 days? Threads tend to stop being active and die off after about that long.
And, remember, Martin, you said it was over and Oliver told you to end it.
I’m not continuing the discussion, Frank. I’m not forgetting it happened, either.
Duros , and mambochicken , your attempts at disputing what I have said are absurd. Duros pretends I have said things I have not even said , then expects me to defend them.
mambochicken, for a guy who pretends to be a scientist who knows how to apply the scientific method, you really suck at it, Rudimentary facts escape you while you reach, reaaaach, reeeeeaaaaach for some fancy rhetoric to hang an insult on.
To wit:
Thought policing, now? Awesome!
No, Beaver , it’s called determining or at least demonstrating motive.
Yep, because other people really ought to have the right to determine what is a “reasonable excuse” and what isn’t for another person.
Yes, Sparky! Here in America, we call them a Jury.
Two strikes ! Care to go for three?
mambochicken: Yep, because other people really ought to have the right to determine what is a “reasonable excuse” and what isn’t for another person.
To be fair, we do do this all the time. In trials to determine whether self-defense was justified, for example.
and the light goes on — who’da thunk it?
Duros pretends I have said things I have not even said , then expects me to defend them.
No I’m not. I have legitimate questions about your position, Frank.
it’s called determining or at least demonstrating motive.
Not the way you originally put it, Frank. You are not clearly expressing yourself. Either that or you don’t know what the fuck you’re trying to say.
To be fair, we do do this all the time. In trials to determine whether self-defense was justified, for example.
Fair enough. I retract this component of my commentary. I was wrong on this.
Everything else I said stands, though.
why should I be required to answer all your hypothetical questions?
Suppose I answered them all, “When it is time to consider the legislation, those points will be considered”?
Would that be satisfactory?
Am I the resident expert on “soon – to – be passed, but – not – yet – in – existence abortion legislation”?
Am I suppose to provide you prognostications for how 50 states will each handle abortion as a crime?
If you have a point, make it.
Two strikes ! Care to go for three?
No, just one strike, Frankie. And you’ve never even made contact with the baseball.
If you have a point, make it.
Read the fucking thread, asshole. There are countless objections to your idiotic blather all over this thread. But noooo, you need to play the poor victim, and make hypocritical pleas for civility. Fuck you, Frank.
I feel badly for your children.
why should I be required to answer all your hypothetical questions?
You brought up the kid getting hit by a car. I thought it was game on.
If you have a point, make it.
My point is perhaps you have not given this quite as much thought as you should.
Swing and a miss! Ball four.
Everything else I said stands, though.
So fucking what?
Duros: The kid getting hit by a car was 10 comments ago, and I already explain its tangential relevance.
Swing and a miss would not be a ball. I guess you know as much about baseball, as you do about law.
“Hit man”
Hehe.
So fucking what?
95% of what I’ve said on this thread makes more sense than anything you’ve said, Frankie. I make one error, which I immediately retract because I’m shown to be wrong, and you think it’s a major victory for yourself.
Everything else I’ve said on this thread beats your stupid arguments, Frank. Everything else. Your arguments are nonsensical, impractical, and/or just plain stupid.
You’re a joke.
I feel so very badly for your children. I hope they know what a disappointment of a human being you are.
I make one error, which I immediately retract because I’m shown to be wrong,
You should try this sometime, Frank. It’s how rational people work.
I am beginning to suspect that, as hard as it is to believe, none of you have any idea of the content of law.
Do you think it’s a dictionary that says, abortion see murder.
Each piece of legislation defines terms, as used in other pieces of legislation, so that it is clear what each term means.
Each piece of legislation may contain limits as to what it will not effect.
Each piece of legislation contains sanctions — penalties for failure to comply under specific and general circumstances.
Are none of you aware of this? Have any of you ever read a law?
Mambochicken, I regret that you have seen fit to mention my children in a negative light. I find your remark insensitive and offensive, and if you had any grace or civility, you would discontinue such despicable and obnoxious behavior.
Mambochicken, I regret that you have seen fit to mention my children in a negative light. I find your remark insensitive and offensive, and if you had any grace or civility, you would discontinue such despicable and obnoxious behavior.
I’m not insulting your children, Frank. I am simply acknowledging that their father is a pitiful excuse for a human being. And that makes me sad.
I don’t care that you think my remark is insensitive and offensive. Your request for “civility” is hypocritical, and therefore rejected. I am civil to those who haven’t irreparably damaged their own reputation in my eyes.
Fuck off.
The kid getting hit by a car was 10 comments ago,
So what? Proximity = relevance? I don’t think so.
and I already explain its tangential relevance.
No, actually you didn’t. As was pointed out to you one is not like the other.
Do you think it’s a dictionary that says, abortion see murder[?]
Nope. That was you.
Swing and a miss would not be a ball. I guess you know as much about baseball, as you do about law.
“Hit man”
I see. Deflection. I separated Hit from Man at the request of spell check. My mistake.
Duros – see the comment on September 23, 2009 at 4:57 pm, where I explained the reason for the manslaughter analogy. I explained quite clearly that I was not equating manslaughter with murder — quite clearly.
I have taken quite enough shit from the execrable mambochicken, and I have no desire to continue this any further.
Call me names, make up all the bullshit excuses you want, but there is no excuse for your behavior. It has been several hours since anyone had anything to say that even imitated an attempt to discuss this intelligently. You have proven to my satisfaction that you are cowardly, inept, uneducated and narrow minded — the very things you claim to despise in others. It’s called self-loathing.
So that’s a no, then, you haven’t really thought this out.
Got it. Thanks, Frank.
Frank DiSalle: and the light goes on — who’da thunk it?
I stated you were right about one small, tangential piece of what you said, Frank. Don’t start acting as if you’ve convinced someone of your central argument.
Frank DiSalle: Do you think it’s a dictionary that says, abortion see murder.
No, I think you’ve picked up on a word or phrase and run with it thinking it’s the position everyone is taking.
Hard to remember with all of the comments that have been made but, mambo, duros, Zython, Jaim, Jodi, did any of you say abortion = murder? I though it was only brought up as a hypothetical “Well, if abortion is to be considered murder then shouldn’t the standard penalties for murderers apply?”
And now Frank has taken that as we all do indeed think abortion is murder?
Frank DiSalle: Mambochicken, I regret that you have seen fit to mention my children in a negative light. I find your remark insensitive and offensive, and if you had any grace or civility, you would discontinue such despicable and obnoxious behavior.
Yes. Shame on him who would mention a person’s children in the course of a comment. Clearly the proper course is to immediately apologize. Or is that only wrong when it’s someone else doing it?
Frank DiSalle: It has been several hours since anyone had anything to say that even imitated an attempt to discuss this intelligently.
“Anyone”
So, you’re including yourself in that, Frank?
(Hey, if you’re going to make a case out of typs (”hit man”), then your grammar is fair game.)
You have proven to my satisfaction that you are cowardly, inept, uneducated and narrow minded — the very things you claim to despise in others. It’s called self-loathing.
Oh! You ARE talking to yourself.
The hit man reference was not to a typo, but to the idea that paying a doctor for an abortion is like hiring a hit man. I thought that was funny.
I thought the usage, “anyone else but me” was a bit awkward.
And , finally the wittiest riposte of all : “I’m rubber, you’re glue; whatever you say, bounces off me and sticks on you.”
Shame on him who would mention a person’s children in the course of a comment.
First of all, the reference would have to refer to real children, and second of all, it would have to be a negative reference. Mine was neither. Third, mambochicken felt no need to apologize. Is he not your arbiter for all that is right and righteous?
the reference would have to refer to real children
Why? Says who?
it would have to be a negative reference
I am sure that your children are wonderful people, Frank. Despite the fact that they have an absolute shitbag for a father figure.
Mine was neither
The only response to this can be laughter. Wow.
mambochicken felt no need to apologize
No, I don’t. You’re a dick, you have children, and that’s unfortunate. I have not said one negative thing about your kids, Frank. Not one.
Their father? Sure.
But I don’t know your children, and it would be unfair for me to make any judgments about them.
About their father? Sure.
Is he not your arbiter for all that is right and righteous?
What?
Frank DiSalle: I thought the usage, “anyone else but me” was a bit awkward.
I get that. Why make the effort to actually write what you mean? No reason to start now.
First of all, the reference would have to refer to real children…
So now you’re saying any kids I may have don’t exist?
…and second of all, it would have to be a negative reference. Mine was neither.
Nor was mambo’s by your apparent standard.
Is he not your arbiter for all that is right and righteous?
Where do you come up with this stuff, Frank? Oh, right. Made up out of whole cloth, reality warping to fit your psychoses. I forgot.Frank DiSalle: I thought the usage, “anyone else but me” was a bit awkward.
I get that. Why make the effort to actually write what you mean? No reason to start now.
First of all, the reference would have to refer to real children…
You saying I don’t have kids?
…and second of all, it would have to be a negative reference. Mine was neither.
Nor was mambo’s by your apparent standard.
Is he not your arbiter for all that is right and righteous?
Where do you come up with this stuff, Frank? Oh, right. Made up out of whole cloth, reality warping to fit your psychoses. I forgot.
Wow.
Is anyone else seeing double, or is it just me? (hic)
You may think I am wrong about that, but I am able to distinguish between purposeful and accidental;
How can you accidentally have an abortion? (Outside of miscarriage, which would be better described as “involuntary”).
Do you think it’s a dictionary that says, abortion see murder.
From the rhetoic used by the anti-choice crowd, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Hard to remember with all of the comments that have been made but, mambo, duros, Zython, Jaim, Jodi, did any of you say abortion = murder?
Umm, nope, don’t think so. Frank has, though. Perhaps not here, but in other threads.
Is anyone else seeing double, or is it just me?
Did you do that on purpose?
Did you do that on purpose?
Nope. Double hit the Paste command by accident.
did any of you say abortion = murder?
Umm, nope, don’t think so. Frank has, though. Perhaps not here, but in other threads.
I know I’m gonna regret this, but could you try to find one of those instances? If you were to check my original MySpace, which is several years old, you would find this statement by me:
From that, you should gather that I have long ago abandoned the view that abortion is murder.
But I suppose you’ll find something like it, and then give me the third degree with the help of your erstwhile colleagues, trying to force me to “confess” that my words mean “abortion is murder”.
You play the same game*, over and over again; you play it badly, and then you accuse me of making you do it. The only thing that stops me from laughing uproariously is the rather sobering thought that, because of you, there is a President in the White House who may destroy this country before he himself is carted off to St. Elizabeth’s.
* Mambochicken will hurl epithets at me with much derision and contempt, proclaiming that I deserve them, while he pretends he is a joyful fellow, and intent on the scientific method.
* S Martin will try to parse something I have said into something else entirely, instead of simply asking, as anyone else might, “What did you mean by that?” He will then reference an event, from which we were both requested to move on by the owner of the blog.
* Zython, the ankle biter, will show up about 150 comments in with his attempts at snark and wisdom, nearly always falling short of the mark.
* Quaker will scurry to his Merriam – Webster to see if there ia some way to dispute what I said, by resorting to middle English or Plattdeutsch.
Who are we, man or woman, to prevent that life from coming into the world?
Who the fuck are you, Frank, to tell a woman that she has to bring a pregnancy to term?
is the rather sobering thought that, because of you, there is a President in the White House who may destroy this country
Saying stupid things like this is why we mock you, Frank. This is a really stupid thing to say. Think about it. After all this country has survived, the thing that will destroy it is a black liberal in the White House. You’re an idiot.
Mambochicken will hurl epithets at me with much derision and contempt,
Yes.
proclaiming that I deserve them,
Yes.
while he pretends he is a joyful fellow,
Sometimes, I am.
and intent on the scientific method.
Yes, very much so.
Frank, that’s the most truthful and correct statement you have ever written at this blog. I am blown away. Ha.
there is a President in the White House who may destroy this country before he himself is carted off to St. Elizabeth’s.
Frank, why do you hate America?
So when the last President lied to the American people to get the unnecessary war he wanted, signed off on torture, partied while a major American city was being destroyed, and dropped the ball on national security, which resulted in the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history, that’s your idea of competent? But when the President has the audacity of *gasp* being black and raising taxes of rich people, he should be carted off to the loony bin?
Frank, the only one who should be in St. Elizebeth’s is you.
But I suppose you’ll find something like it, and then give me the third degree with the help of your erstwhile colleagues, trying to force me to “confess” that my words mean “abortion is murder”.
No, Frank, I really have no interest in scouring the archives of over the last 4 years you and I have been commenting here. I do remember you expressing words to that effect, however.
So I’ll stand pat.
So I’ll stand pat.
Frank hits his 19.
Frank DiSalle:
From that, you should gather that I have long ago abandoned the view that abortion is murder.
Actually, from that I don’t gather that at all. Your snippet (and granted it may have been only part of a larger piece you wrote, but you only provided the snippet) says that the result of pregnancy is a child and we shouldn’t get in the way of that life coming forth.
If anything, from that I would infer that you are opposed to abortion. Now that’s not saying that you equate abortion to murder. But, since you’re against preventing the life from coming forth, it would again be reasonable to infer that you would view preventing it as a course of action that should not be allowed (i.e., a crime).
In any event, what you wrote certainly does not make it clear that you abandoned the view that abortion is murder. You do seem to have a problem saying what you actually think you are saying.
Frank DiSalle: …there is a President in the White House who may destroy this country…
That’s a phrase that gets tossed off without any thought by the people who use it (whether using it regarding Obama or Bush or any other person) and I’d really like to know just what it is supposed to mean. What would “destruction” of the country look like?
Presumably it doesn’t mean physical destruction with cities reduced to rubble and millions dead. I doubt anyone short of a Glenn Beck-level wingnut thinks Obama is going to turn American’s missiles inward. So what does “destroy the country” really mean.
Serious question, and I’d welcome a serious reply.
Frank DiSalle:
* Mambochicken will…
* S Martin will…
* Zython will…
* Quaker will…
* And Frank will whine that people don’t understand him and that everyone is fucking assholes who should be beaten until they die while bemoaning the lack of civility.