Sarabeth Battles Her Worst Nightmare By Escaping Into Fantasy
by sarabeth at 12:00 pm on January 31st, 2006 in GeneralSo a woman’s right to choose is now on its way to becoming a thing of the past (anyone know what odds are being offered that Roe versus Wade will be overturned in the next five years?).
I don’t know what you are doing to console yourself, but I’m falling back on the last refuge of the truly helpless – fantasy.
Tonight, when President Bush arrives for the State of the Union address, there’s going to be an unexpected crush of Democrats reaching out to shake his hand. Several of them will be wearing Medici style rings, filled with a powerful hypnotic. The twelfth, and last one, to prick Bush with a ring (even my sources could not tell me to whom this honor falls), will lean over and whisper in Bush’s ear just before he takes the podium.
Bush’s entire address will consist of:
“Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, my fellow Americans,
I can’t bear it any more. I’ve been the worst President anyone could possibly be. You gave me your trust and I lied to you. I let you down. I lied about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. I lied about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I led you into a needless war. I’m responsible for the unnecessary deaths of more than 2,000 Americans and more than 30,000 Iraqis. I promised to restore honor and dignity to the office of the President, and my administration gave you only sleaze instead. I totally botched the response to Katrina. What’s the point of going on with this list? I totally screwed up everything.
I hereby fire Dick Cheney as Vice-President, effective immediately.
I hereby appoint (name withheld for security reasons right now) as Vice-President in his place.
I hereby resign from the office of the President of the United States, effective immediately.”
And he will then gouge out his eyes at the podium, before he is led away.
Daniel wrote:
I don’t think the president can fire the vice president. But I guess it’s your fantasy. :)
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 12:35 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
I’ve replaced Anderson Cooper’s picture on my dartboard.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 12:42 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Is saving 1.3 million unborn babies from a torturous death per year, really that distraughtful to you? I mean seriously. You lament over 30,000 Iraqi deaths but march on to crusade for the destruction of millions of the most helpless humans on Earth, I simply do not understand your math….in your world where up is down, I guess Bush is a monster, I truly feel sad for you…
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 1:11 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Dude, enough! We’re different species. Just fucking accept it and fuck off already.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 1:19 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
I have to say I kind of regret that outburst now that I see Jim has passed away.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 1:25 pm ¶
Nailed Saviour wrote:
In my fantasy somone explains to me how opposing abortion but supporting capital punishment makes any kind of sense.
I’d also like someone to explain how you can refuse to believe in evolution yet still be concerned about bird flu.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 1:34 pm ¶
Darryl wrote:
Damn….now who’s gonna write all those non-consentual sex mind control stories!
http://www.asstr.org/~jimc/
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 1:36 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
First, save the children who made it through the birth canal. Then, we can talk about this gross mischaracterization of where we stand and why.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 1:58 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
>I don’t think the president can fire the vice president. But I guess it’s your fantasy. :)
I didn’t want to throw in gratuitous violence, but if you insist
“I hereby fire Dick Cheney as Vice-President, effective immediately.”
is hereby replaced with the following stage directions:
(He pulls out a poison dart from the breat pocket of his coat, and shoots it into Cheney’s groin. Cheney instantly dies an excruciating death.)
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 2:01 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
>Damn….now who’s gonna write all those non-consentual sex mind control stories!
>http://www.asstr.org/~jimc/
Now that you’ve outed him (it’s true, check out Darryl’s link) maybe he’ll never show his face here again (she said hopefully)
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 2:05 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Well, this certainly doesn’t seem like a very Christian website. With stories available from 2005, I ask you, Jim: When was the conversion experience of yours?
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 2:16 pm ¶
Fernando wrote:
Seriously Jim, go troll somewhere else.
Meanwhile, CNN (lap dogs that they are) are dutifully reporting the White House leak that Dubya’s SotU will include a call to end US dependence on oil. Roll out the personal virtue!
I am amused.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 2:51 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Is saving 1.3 million unborn babies from a torturous death per year, really that distraughtful to you?
wait, now torture is bad? so confused.
also, distraughtful? let’s not do anything rash like making up whole new words…
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 2:58 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I’m interested, do people here have a problem with the abortion issue being sent back to the states? If Roe is overturned, that is what will happen. Opinion polls show that the majority of the country favors legal abortion during the first trimester. Some states surely would vote to make abortion illegal, but most would not.
The abortion/death penalty analogy does not work. While I’m against capital punishment, I hate when people “on my side” utilize this tired and inaccurate comparison. People who are against abortion and for the death penalty differentiate (and validly so) between terminating a pregnancy and executing a convicted killer. They believe the punishment fits the crime in the latter case, whereas an abortion, particularly one done after the first trimester, is, let’s face it, ending the life of either a person or potential person, depending on where you stand, through no fault of that (potential) person.
How do the people here feel about abortion limits, as in no abortions after the first trimester except in the case of an emergency? If you are against that, could you explain why? Just curious.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 3:08 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>I’m interested, do people here have a problem with the abortion issue being sent back to the states?
it’s already impossible to get an abortion in the vast majority of US counties, 90% or something i think. i don’t think making it harder than that for lower income women to have abortions is a good idea.
>Some states surely would vote to make abortion illegal, but most would not.
i’m not speaking with the facts in front of me, but i’d bet that more did away with it than didn’t.
>How do the people here feel about abortion limits, as in no abortions after the first trimester except in the case of an emergency? If you are against that, could you explain why?
there are already enough limits, financial, geographic, notification etc.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 3:25 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I’d have to see some sources to back up that 90% claim. Regardless, do you see abortion as a necessary evil, or even evil at all? I’m interested because I think many people on the pro-choice side defend the right to an abortion without having analyzed how they feel about the procedure itself. Their knee-jerk objection to having limits, any limits, imposed on them outweighs their views on the matter at hand. I include myself in this group, and only recently have I taken a step back and really thought about how I feel about an abortion procedure. Now that I have, I’ve come back with the opinion that any abortion after a certain time, say the first trimester, is absolutely ending the life of a sentient and responsive human being. The more medical research on fetuses that is done, the more we find out how “human” they are after a certain point.
Now, that is not to say I want to impose these beliefs on others. I guess I don’t feel stongly enough about it to do that, although I can’t rule out the possibility of feeling otherwise as I grow older. I am still struggling with the question of whether personal choice outweighs the rights of, for example, a 5 month old fetus that responds to light, sound, and pain. I think I’m still on the side of personal choice, but just barely.
I don’t know, just some thoughts.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 3:45 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>I’d have to see some sources to back up that 90% claim.
RESULTS: From 1996 to 2000, the number of abortions fell by 3% to 1.31 million, and the abortion rate declined 5% to 21.3 per 1,000 women 15-44. (In comparison, the rate declined 12% between 1992 and 1996.) The abortion ratio in 2000 was 24.5 per 100 pregnancies ending in abortion or live birth, 5% lower than in 1996. The number of abortion providers decreased by 11% to 1,819 (46% were clinics, 33% hospitals and 21% physicians’ offices); clinics provided 93% of all abortions in 2000. In that year, 34% of women aged 15-44 lived in the 87% of counties with no provider, and 86 of the nation’s 276 metropolitan areas had no provider.
>do you see abortion as a necessary evil, or even evil at all? I’m interested because I think many people on the pro-choice side defend the right to an abortion without having analyzed how they feel about the procedure itself.
i’m not especially down with abortion, and would not want to be a part of one, but that’s nothing compared to having the govt or husband tell a woman that she has to carry a pregnancy to term. it’s a tough issue, but i fail to see how women should be held to the beliefs of religious zealots with the backing of the federal or state govts.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 4:23 pm ¶
sac wrote:
“it’s a tough issue, but i fail to see how women should be held to the beliefs of religious zealots with the backing of the federal or state govts”
That’s where I have trouble with the pro-choice argument, it’s not just religious zealots that are anti-choice, and it’s not just a religious viewpoint to be anti-choice. In fact, it’s a quite scientifc viewpoint to believe that a fetus (at a certain point) is a person and getting more so every year. How would you feel if, in 5 years, the AMA decides that at 4 months, a fetus is a viable human? After all, they are the scientific experts in this case, and much like the issue of evolution, where evolutionary biologists decide whether or not evolution is a worthy theory (which the rational among us can agree it is), medical doctors should be the ones to decide. Would you take the experts at their word in this case, and if so, would you agree that abortions after, in this scenario, the 4th month would be tantamount to murder?
I know I’m dealing in hypotheticals here, I guess I’m in a hypothetical state of mind. Also, check out this NYT op-ed piece on how the pro-choice side shold be framing its argument. It’s totally brilliant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/opinion/22saletan.html?ei=5090&en=226e8bc4245f24a5&ex=1295586000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 4:37 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Oh, and thanks for the stats.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 4:42 pm ¶
matt wrote:
clinton said “safe legal and rare.” that worked for me.
Saletan: Give more money to Title X, the federal program that finances family-planning. Expand health insurance and access to morning-after pills. Educate teenagers about sex, birth control and abstinence. Many of these ideas are in the Prevention First Act, which Democrats ritually file and Republicans ritually ignore.
This is really the crux of it. Republicans don’t want to affect change, they want to punish and score points. I’ve written about this more times than I can count, and every time it is because there was another funding cut, hurdle to jump, medication delayed etc. It’s simply impossible to take them seriously when they say that this isn’t about controlling women’s bodies.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 5:30 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Saletan?
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 5:36 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Saletan?
the NYT link Sac posted.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 5:39 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>it’s already impossible to get an abortion in the vast majority of US counties, 90% or something i think. i don’t think making it harder than that for lower income women to have abortions is a good idea.
So impossible that 1.31 Million still occur? The problem facing the pro-choice side is the very argument of *when* a fetus is a *baby*, protected by law. I went thru this once before.
If a baby at 1 day of age is protected by law from harm, why not a baby still in the womb which is due tomorrow? Now, go back 1 month, most people would agree that this baby is in fact a *baby* and a life to be protected, yet there is no protection because of Roe.
So when is the right of the baby’s life just as protected as the baby who has been born? This is where the pro-choice argument utterly fails. When is the cut off point? 3 motnhs, 4? 5? 6? when?
Anyone who denies the life of the child in the womb is simply putting principal over a the life of an innocent child…
>First, save the children who made it through the birth canal. Then, we can talk about this gross mischaracterization of where we stand and why.
I’ve said this before, do it all in one bill, make *convienence* abortions illegal and at the same time in the same bill provide entitlements for child care and health care….
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 7:13 pm ¶
Fernando wrote:
JimC: So when is the right of the baby’s life just as protected as the baby who has been born? This is where the pro-choice argument utterly fails. When is the cut off point? 3 motnhs, 4? 5? 6? when?
On the contrary. I (and many others) argue that the foetus becomes a baby when it is capable of surviving on its own outside the mother. A month-old foetus is a bundle of tissue. A six-month-old foetus is essentially a baby, hence the common liberal opposition to late-term abortions.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 7:41 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
JimC, why are you such a strong advocate of eliminating abortions, yet you have not a strategy or a clear interest in determining how these 1.3 million fetuses/year will be cared for when they come to term? Clearly, if someone is considering abortion, they cannot care for their child, whatever the reason–selfish (as you might think) or otherwise. Is such a life desired for the child? What next? You can’t just prohibit something without dealing with the consequences.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 9:27 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>A month-old foetus is a bundle of tissue. A six-month-old foetus is essentially a baby, hence the common liberal opposition to late-term abortions.
But more and more the fetus can survive earlier in the pregnancy, however, it also depends from case to case, so who determines the viability of a fetus? This is the problem. There is no clear point, yet Roe makes it legal to have an abortion *at any time during the pregnancy*.
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 6:43 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I have suggested that we should provide this care, as previously stated, in the same legislation that bans abortions for *convenience* reasons, which accounts for 93% of all abortions. I have posted the data on this before. If we eliminated abortion as a form of retroactive birth control, that would satisfy the vast majority of abortion opponents. Furthermore, legislation can be added which protects women from abusive situations, that is if the woman fears that her pregnancy would cause someone to inflict harm upon her, they can seek protection. The excuses that are given to justify *all* abortions (except hardship cases, rape, incest etc.) can all be eliminated through legislation.
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 6:52 am ¶
matt wrote:
you sure did, from Pro-Life Ohio
i’m marginally sympathetic to your proposal, but at the end of the day, the war on contraception is being fought every day. i’ve written about what’s going on in africa where the consequence isn’t as much unwanted pregnancies, but death. the religious right is making a conscious choice that their faith is more important than the lives of the people we’re trying to help. this is disgusting, and is proof positive that nothing reasonable will come of this. so we fight.
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 7:14 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I’m not talking about africa, I’m talking about 1.3 million abortions here in the US, per year. This war on contraceptives, does it exist here in the US? I’ve not seen it. Eevn fundmentalist evangelical Christians don’t wish to abolish contraceptives…
Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)
From About.com->Women’s Issues
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
And I posted figures from two difrerent sources, yes one from Ohio Life…but the one above is outside a pro-life site…
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 8:08 am ¶
JimC wrote:
More abortion stats…
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 8:10 am ¶
matt wrote:
5 and 7 year old polls?
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 8:24 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Are there newer ones tha ask these same questions, not the ones you poasted before about “should the Roe V Wade be overturned” but these specific questions. Polls are flakey, add or remove on word and it makes a huge difference, mostly on the context.
I think the biggest problem about polls is that the people being polled don’t have a cluse as to what the question truly means, or the question is open to interpretation…
For example “Should Roe V Wade be overturned?” could be interpreted as should all abortions be illegal, in which case a large portion would say no because of the hardship cases, however, some would anser no because *any* abortion they feel should be legal. So the right question needs to be asked…
Should abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or health risk to the mother, be illegal? Has this question been asked lately?
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 8:30 am ¶
matt wrote:
why not? is an iraqi life worth less than an american one?
simply not paying attention then:
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 8:36 am ¶
sac wrote:
Hey, fancy new comment features.
Anyway, arguing abortion is futile as everyone here knows. To lessen the tension on this issue, a compromise is necessary, one that would involve limits on the time period a woman can have one, but also funding for programs that push contraception and abstinence equally hard. Also, drugs such as RU486 MUST be made legal and readily available. In my perfect world, I’d hand that pill out at club doorways. But a combination effort such as the one I propose would satisfy a large enough portion of the population that this issue could be put to rest except for the vocal fringes on both sides.
JimC, every recent poll has a majority of Americans favoring some form of legal abortion. Face it. Like drugs, abortions will never go away, so dealing with them honestly and reasonably is the only solution. To the liberals here, I also say that fighting to keep all abortions legal all the time is not the way either.
Just my two cents.
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 8:37 am ¶
matt wrote:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Dec. 15-18, 2005.
“Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?”
.
Legal In All Cases…………17
Legal In Most Cases………40
Illegal In Most Cases……..27
Illegal In All Cases…………13
Unsure…………………………3
That’s a 57/40 spread asked how the older poll was asked.
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 8:43 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>In my perfect world, I’d hand that pill out at club doorways.
Along with it a simple card that states Having Sex can lead to pregnancy, are you ready?
I agree but I beleive that if people understood the reasons why abortions are done, most would agree that it needs to change.
again, matt, this poll was not worded likeI had suggested. This poll question leaves way too much to interpretatino or misunderstanding. The question needs to include the specific reason why women have abortions…
For example:
Given that 93% of all of the 1.31 million abortion in the US are due to reasons such as “not ready to have children”, careers, etc etc , i.e. convenience reasons, should abortions be legal in the case of:
Not ready to have child yet?
Can’t afford a child?
Have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child?
Woman is too young (her parents or others object to the pregnancy.)?
Woman feels a child will disrupt her education or career?
Woman wants no (more) children?
Father of child wants the baby and would provide sole care if necessary?
Woman has an abortion due to a risk to fetal health?
Woman has an abortion due to a risk to maternal health?
Given these very specific questions, I beleive the outcome of the poll would be dramatically different….
BTW matt, the text input box seems a bit small…
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 9:09 am ¶
matt wrote:
you can’t phrase poll questions like that because it calls for accepting data not supported by the preponderance of the data. you have one study that found that.
you can make the outcome anything you want, but there are hundreds of polls that ask a variety of questions, and all have some sort of pro-choice leading by double digits. you want different questions to support your POV. that would be like me in March 2003 running a poll that said :30,000 Iraqis will die violent deaths due to Bush’s war, do you support him?
polling just doesn’t work like that.
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 9:20 am ¶
sac wrote:
TExt box is acting weird.
Anyway, that poll you suggest Jim is ridiculous. Do you propose that abortion clinics ask those types of questions and turn away the women who are just not ready to have a child? Don’t you think people would answer in whatever way would get them the abortion? Also, I’m pretty sure most rational adults know that the majority of abortions are done out of “convenience.” And something like 85% of abortions are done during the first trimester.
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 9:22 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Try as you might, you can’t stop the fucking. Can you address the contraceptives, Jim? RU486? Matt makes a great point about the right’s war on contraceptives. Let’s hear it, b.
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 9:28 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Whatever the meathod is, I think the polls so far do not adequately reflect the reasons behind the abortions, So, cust out the pretext of my version and just ask the questions on the individual cases and I still think it would result in a much different coutcome.
Making people think about the issue is the key. Simpyl asking “Should all abortion, some, or none” is does not address the issues. However, asking should abortions be illegal for reasons of convenience, and possibly simply stating that the vast majoirty of all abortions are done for convenience reasons…
My point is I highly doubt the average american realizes the stats, and if given the stats, they may think a bit harder about the questions…
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 9:30 am ¶
JimC wrote:
No but people seem to not think about the consequences…
I don’t know about any war on contraceptives, I’m a Baptist and in a pretty conservative area and I’ve not see this. I don’t beleive this is the mainstream of Christian beliefs….
And because of this I highly doubt anti-contraceptive legislation would make it. Furthermore, the possibility of it should also not deter from the problem of convenient abortions used as retro birth control…
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 9:36 am ¶
matt wrote:
not to polling. what you are suggesting is some kind of education campaign, not public opinion research.
the average american citizen is not up on stats in almost every case. like the ones who think they benefitted from the bush tax cuts or the ones who support him even though they lost their jobs or rights due to his policies. i’m all for education, but you don’t do that through polling questions.
proper public opinion research (polling) must follow a detailed set of guidelines, and can’t ask things as you suggest
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 9:39 am ¶
matt wrote:
i just provided you with several examples. do you need more, because there are plenty.
does it get more mainstream than the federal government? or is the government just being extremist by appointing these types to people to high-ranking positions?
each successive budget adds money to abstinence-only education and subtracts it from contraception.
so sez jim. they are cutting birth control and cutting access to abortions. what part of that isn’t cruel and ideological?
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 9:46 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
ah, true of people in almost any situation. this is the rule and not the exception. the human condition…
deja vu…
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 9:48 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Then expose that instead of fighting abortion. Keeping abortion legal for convenience reason simply because of a perceived attack on contraceptive use/education seems like a bad approach. If abortion is wrong let’s do something about it, and at the same time address the social issues that would arise because of its ban.
Furthermore, stressing abstinence is a long way from criminalizing birth control. Also, someone’s personal views on contraception does not make it the law.
Those examples you posted are not evidence of a concerted effort to extinguish birth control….no matter how hard they would try to do it, I believe the vast majority of Christians have no problem with birth control. Morning after pill, maybe, that’s a little different…I know some birth control is considered “abortive” like IUDs, and are controversial, but a pharmacist taking liberty to withhold birth control is not mainstream thinking….
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 10:14 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Then the polls have no value…plai nand simple. If the poll is taken from people uneducated in the issue, it has no value other than to get an idea of what the uneducated thinks.
I really doubt that asking these would violate any guidelines…
“Should abortion be legal when there is no hardship such as rape, incest, health risk to mother or fetus?”
“Should abortion be legal if the mother’s career or education would be interrupted?”
“Should abortion be legal if the mother does not want to have any more children but otherwise no hardship such as incest or rape or health risks during pregnancy are invovled?”
etc, etc ,etc ,etc
these questions can be asked, I’ve seen more loaded questions in polls than these….
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 10:22 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Fair enough, but how much money do you need to say: “Don’t fuck.”?? When they take money from contraceptives and put it into abstinence-only education, that means fewer contraceptives are available to those who need it.
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 10:22 am ¶
matt wrote:
perceived? have i not produced enough evidence of a concerted effort to reduce access to contraceptives? i’m not really concerned with how my approach looks when compared to what the opposition looks like.
cutting funding for contraception is the reality. personal views are important when it’s the opinion of the people setting policy.
not the ones in power, not even close
it’s becoming a major issue as more and more refuse to do their jobs. there are several lawsuits pending, and the outcome, should it be in their favor, will change the whole game.
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 10:24 am ¶
Nailed Saviour wrote:
Maybe the question should be “Should women be legally required to carry an unwanted pregnancy to it’s full term”?
Posted 01 Feb 2006 at 10:23 pm ¶
Nailed Saviour wrote:
Maybe the question that should be asked is
“Should women be legally mandated to carry pregnancies to full-term, unwanted or otherwise”?
The point is, there is no universe in which a woman wakes up in the morning and thinks, “Great, today I’ll think I’ll have unprotected sex, cos I feel like having an abortion in a few weeks.”
No one take the decision lightly, and to suggest otherwise is simply disingenuous.
Posted 02 Feb 2006 at 4:57 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Why stop there, “Should a woman who has a unwanted 1 week old, be able to legally kill it?” About as stupid….
Posted 02 Feb 2006 at 10:02 pm ¶
screwtape wrote:
It’s comments like this, Jim, that make everyone else think you are such an asshole. To be frank, my first reaction was “what an asshole”. So was my third.
Mainly, Jim, you give the impression you do not want to understand any perspective but your own. You just seem to want to pass judgement and throw gasoline on the fire.
Posted 03 Feb 2006 at 4:56 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
you’re such an elitist, screwtape.
Posted 03 Feb 2006 at 7:00 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
I am comfortable with that.
Posted 03 Feb 2006 at 8:22 am ¶
JimC wrote:
No my comment was basically to show the illogical argument of declaring a fetus as not legally protected by law when essentially there is not much difference between a fetus at 9 months which has no legal protection and a 1 day old baby…yet the pro-choice crowd goes to extreme lengths to block *any* legal definition of protection of *any* unborn child as that would set in motion a legal challenge to set a limit on when an abortion can take place….see the cascading effect?
Posted 03 Feb 2006 at 12:09 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Anybody have the stats on the number of abortions performed in the ninth-month that don’t involve a threat to the mother’s life? I’d look it up, but I’m busy reading the latest issue of Elitist Monthly. I’d recommend you all read it, but it’s so exclusive that you actually have to be invitited by the publishers to read it.
Posted 03 Feb 2006 at 12:27 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
By “extreme” you mean like clinic-bombings and doctor-shootings, right?
Posted 03 Feb 2006 at 12:29 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Ahhh, yes, and you’re right, this is very misguided actions by extremely disturbed people…
However, it still doesn’t excuse those who stop at nothing to make sure that absolutely no protective rights are granted to the unborn child. These groups were upset when Scott Peterson(sp?) was charge with a “double” homocide because that meant the unborn child was “murdered”…..
Posted 03 Feb 2006 at 1:04 pm ¶
screwtape wrote:
They stop at illegal activities. So, I would say what they do is excusable.
Because it sets a legal precident that erodes what we believe is a correct ruling in Roe v Wade. Just as you would be upset if they did NOT charge him with a double homicide.
Posted 03 Feb 2006 at 1:44 pm ¶
K,D, wrote:
good for you…i agree with you and love what you said. Bush is a total idiot, a drunken bum who did not win the vote of the people…but rather was given it by his good buddy the judge who decided the people had no right to elect the president…he would just choose for them! You go girl!
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 1:12 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Just curious: how did you discover this two-year old post?
(Nothing like reading two-year-old stuff and deciding it stands up well to the test of time.)
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 1:38 pm ¶