February 23, 2011

"None of this is about budgets. It’s about crushing enemies. Unions. Government programs. The social safety net. Abortion. Contraception."

Gail Collins gets stream-of-consciousness-y.

420 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 420   Newer›   Newest»
holdfast said...

@Jeremy:

That's actually a pretty well reasoned and reasonable position. It is, however, outside the mainstream of liberalism in America at odds with Planned Parenthood, NARAL etc.

Jeremy said...

Asiri - Fuck off.

Trooper York said...

Once again, another thread succesfully trolled by the master.

Very impressive return Jeremy.

You totally distracted everyone.

Phil 314 said...

Triangle;
The left uses similar statistics to point out how rich the top of the heap has become compared to the rest of us. They say that the wealth of the nation is concentrated at the top. The top 0.01% of families make more than $27 million per year. They also point out that the marginal tax rate on the top earners has decreased over time.

A fair point though I would respond by asking:

where is the point of "fairness" when the wealthiest pay a disproportionate share of the taxes?

I would also refer you to this and the the original WSJ that inspired it

And I would finally add, I'm willing to discuss tax increases when our federal government can demonstrate a consistent ability to lower spending. Until such time I will put my fingers in my ears and shout loudly:

LALALALALALALALA...

Jeremy said...

Roger - Thanks for a resonable answer to my questions, and I look forward to another round...but you do realize I'm outgunned in this arena.

rhhardin said...

Rhhardin, it seems that quite a lot of people have an interest in the lives of these fetuses. Does their interest carry no weight? Only the interest of... who exactly? Women are currently allowed to get abortions even if the father and all grandparents object.

Right, it's an interest based on a theory most often (human life begins at conception etc), or a desire for grandchildren.

The woman gets the say because society has no interest yet, and she is not a baby factory for the benefit of grandparents if she doesn't want to be.

Without choice, no ethics lives.

I'd argue it all based on the word soul, which seems even less promising but is actually clarifying.

Stanley Cavell has the paragraph:

``It may be that the sense of falsification comes from the way I understand the phrase ``have a body.'' It is really a mythological way of saying that I am flesh. But I am not satisfied with this myth, for it implies that I also have something other than a body, call it a soul. Now I have three things to put together: a body, a soul, and me. (So there are four things to be placed: I plus those three.) But I no more have a soul than I have a body. That is what I say here and now. People who say they have a soul sometimes militantly take its possession as a point of pride, for instance William Ernest Henley and G.B.Shaw. Take the phrase ``have a soul'' as a mythological way of saying that I am spirit. If the body individuates flesh and spirit, singles me out, what does the soul do? It binds me to others.''

To see if the fetus has a soul, which is the important thing, look not at the fetus but at the parents.

Are they planning a nursery, buying clothes, and so forth? Then the fetus has a soul.

It's curious how that works out.

At birth, society is impressed by cuteness and takes its own interest quite naturally, which is how every baby gets a soul.

Take the soul as what is valuable - which curiously was the religious argument all along before it got hijacked by scientism, the need to be theoretical.

Then the woman's choice works out very nicely.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Gail Collins just being ridiculous. Her piece is nonsensical.

Why should her inane ramblings be allowed? Once Republicans gain power, hopefully she and the corrupt organization she works for can be shut down. Free speech does not cover liberal writing, especially bad liberal writing.

And all this about abortion? Yes, of course Republicans want to make abortion illegal in all cases, including the classic "rape, incest, and life of of mother" situations. They've been saying that ever since Roe v Wade was decided. Why should Gail Nutcase Collins be surprised about that?

MayBee said...

At least Gail seems to think that tampons are safe.

Jeremy said...

holdfast - Read up:

1. Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 82 percent of our clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.

2. Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 621,000 unintended pregnancies each year.

3. Planned Parenthood provides nearly one million Pap tests and more than 850,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.

4. Planned Parenthood provides more than 3.3 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, each year.

5. THREE PERCENT of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.

6. Planned Parenthood affiliates provide educational programs to more than 1.2 million young people and adults each year.

Anonymous said...

Jeremy: That's better. Now your sentences are as short as short as your body parts "Fuck off." How meaningful, you dickless douchebag. Now run along so the grownups can chat.

Roger J. said...

Jeremy--when you participate in in the discussion rather than throwing bombs we can have some good discussions--thanks--I welcome contrarian opinions because they make discussions good.

and as it turns out it seems that you and I agree on basic questions of abortion--sometimes it takes a while to find that out, but again your participation is appreciated.

Thanks

Jeremy said...

Trooper - So you stop by to throw in a comment at the very end...and I'm supposed to give a flying fuck?

Got something relevant to say...say it.

Otherwise...who cares?

chickelit said...

the father, in a normal relationship should have a say in the fate of the fetus--it is NOT in my view a strictly the mother's choice.

Yes, because genetically, the child is like the intersection of two circles in a Venn diagram. Of course the child will later grow to have it's own independence from both.

Anonymous said...

Jeremy to Trooper: "Got something relevant to say...say it.

Otherwise...who cares?" Thank you. Now move on to Huffington Post.

Jeremy said...

Notice how much more interesting the discussions are when someone drops by to move the regulars off the dime?

Agree or disagree (and yeah, yeah, I know)...it's a hell of a lot more interesting than discussing a Gail Collins commentary.

chickelit said...

Free speech does not cover liberal writing, especially bad liberal writing.

Oh of course it does silly. Free speech makes no provision for subsidizing it though, so in that sense, speech is never "free".

Trooper York said...

Hey Jeremy take a compliment when you get one. You did a great job of changing the subject. Good show.

Of course most of us have seen it before.

I guess you had to come out of retirement because the left is losing so badly these days.

Mary E. Glynn said...

No Gail. It's about PR = personal responsibility. And the taxpayers picking up the tab. Them days are over.

Re. collective bargaining:
Do you know how long some of these public employees stay on the payroll, when charged with job-ending misconduct? I do.

Here's an example:

"The department took 18 months to investigate," Schauer said. "That doesn't mean she was on some 18-month vacation. Being on suspension is not a vacation."

Markham will be able to collect all the money the city put into her pension fund during the 22 years she worked for the police department. And she has a right to her unused leave, he said. "It's contractural," (Chief Noble) Wray said. "I understand how this may look from a taxpayer's standpoint, but my hands are really tied as to what the process allows me to do for termination."

Markham made $33.84 an hour, for an annual salary of $65,988, excluding overtime, said Pat Skaleski, payroll accountant in the city comptroller's office.

She has 977.5 hours of sick leave banked, Skaleski said, having earned half a day of sick leave each pay period, including the time she's been on paid leave. She also has about three weeks of vacation and 38 hours of comp time that was carried over since 2007, Skaleski said.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_1a175cce-30c3-11e0-b614-001cc4c03286.html

That's just the latest too... Look up previous Madison Police and Fire Commission disciplinary hearings, if you want to be shocked at how good some bad employees have it.

Gail Collins is right to be afraid, if she fears personal responsibility. Like, if you can't have your child ready for kindergarten, and need HeadStart, maybe you should focus all your attention on that ONE child, and not continue having more? The social safety nets are becoming more and more unaffordable for the rest of us.

Like Michael sang, "If you can't feed your baby, then don't have a baby!"

And this doesn't mean you can continue to count on somebody else paying for the abortions either, in your health insurance pool or otherwise.

And word to the wise? Don't have sex and risk conceiving a new life, if you can't afford even to buy a box of condoms, and want the taxpayers to finance that too. (Wear two, in case one breaks.)

The Gravy Train, public-taxpayer-picking-up-the-tab-days, indeed really are coming to an end. Money gone. Game over. Get used to it, and plan accordingly, or be prepared to rely on charity, because the taxpayers have been bled dry. We want to spend on our own kids/families, and resent having to pick up these increasingly outrageous tabs the liberals don't mind saddling us all with.

I can see where Collins' mindset would be scared of the consequences of ... you know, personal responsibility.

Ah, the horror, the Horror!!

chickelit said...

I guess you had to come out of retirement because the left is losing so badly these days.

Zing! Good one blogfather.

Mary E. Glynn said...

Soundtrack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPTsmswQVwg

MJ: "You Wanna Be Startin' Something?"


Fine. Pay for it yourself is all...

Jeremy said...

Trooper - "I guess you had to come out of retirement because the left is losing so badly these days."

I do better as the underdog.

And I'm not retired, I've just been drunk for past number of months.

Oh, and Merry Christmas.

Henry said...

Freeman wrote But I would also remind you that most computers allow the user to scroll up

That cracked me up. Jeremy has a computer that doesn't scroll up. It would explain so much.

Mary E. Glynn said...

MayBee said...
At least Gail seems to think that tampons are safe.

2/23/11 5:25 PM



BWAH -- HAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks for the laugh MayBee. Let me know where I can send the $5.

*wiping my eyes* Good one.

Drew said...

Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 621,000 unintended pregnancies each year.

That's sort of like "Obama's Stimulus Saved 100 Kajillion Jobs!" isn't it?

David said...

Jeremy knows that:

a fetus definitely isn't human, no doubt
it's really ok to kill them
even though they feel pain
and could, if not killed, become a human in Jeremy's eyes
exactly after 9 months
since then they are viable
which means they can live if other humans feed, shelter, warm and protect them
and don't kill them or let them die
so just kill them sooner, before we would have to shelter, feed, clothe and warm them (its so much work, you know)
and since there's nothing sinful or horrible about killing the little bundle of cells
its pain does not matter because even though it looks human and is human it's not human-human and not a life we care about until it's born and we have to feed, shelter and clothe the little human if it is are to survive.


Have I got this about right, Jeremy?

ken in tx said...

Why do you think South Carolina has a BMW plant, a Michelin tire plant and North American Headquarters, a Bosch plant, a Champion Aviation Spark-Plug plant, a Drive Automotive plant, a Lockheed Aviation Plant, a Freight liner Truck plant, a Westinghouse Rail Brake plant, a Dodge Automated Manufacturing Plant, a General Electric Gas Turbine Generator Plant and a General Electric Helicopter Engine Plant, a Boeing Major assembly plant for the Dream-liner, and a major export gate at Charleston? It's because we don't have unions here.

Anonymous said...

Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 621,000 unintended pregnancies each year.


Again, you are a silly, ignorant little leftist kid.

As demonstrated in that you believe this is a "fact"

I would feel sorry for you, but you're so smug that your self beclowning is well deserved.

Anonymous said...

Why do you think South Carolina has a BMW plant,

Because the Koch brothers shipped all the jobs overseas out of corporate greed?!!

Anonymous said...

(God is watching) "Which one?"

Does it really matter?

Look, when you die, you're going some where to explain to some one or some thing what you did while you had the gift.

Do you really want that conversation to be about why you murdered your kid by having it scraped out of your uterus with a vacuum?

Up to you pal.

It's legal, you'll get away with it here, but it's still killing your kid no two ways about it.

And you will be answering for it.

Make no mistake.

Unknown said...

Jeremy said...

Okay you Bible thumping teabaggers...

If the Bible doesn't support your claim that a fetus is indeed a "person," what exactly is your argument based on...other than the usual far Christian right bullshit?


If Jeremy actually picked up a book instead of the latest talking points from Kos, he'd know fetus translates from the Latin as, "little person", and that feminists merely wanted a euphemism they could use to make unborn children non-persons.

Rather Stalinesque, no?


un-educated - "Try again. USA Today polls are legendary for playing with the sample to get the result Al Neuharth wants..."

Yeah, right.

And the Rasmussen polling you were all raving about a day or so ago is spot on?

Duh.


Considering I'm the one with 4 years' Latin under my belt, I can safely say Jeremy is projecting again, but, as to Rasmussen, he gives the details of his samples, unlike Neuharth.

That's a big Duh back to him.

Bruce Hayden said...

And word to the wise? Don't have sex and risk conceiving a new life, if you can't afford even to buy a box of condoms, and want the taxpayers to finance that too. (Wear two, in case one breaks.)

Nobody but nobody who is going to get laid cannot afford condoms. They are routinely for sale at all the dollar, 99 cents, etc. stores that I frequent. All of them. All of the time. Plus, if you want to go big time, they also typically sell lubricant too, even though the condoms are typically lubricated too. And, this isn't for one, but rather, for an entire box - so the average cost of a condom is maybe a dime these days.

Now, they aren't the best, the latex-free ones with all the knobs on the end, but they will work for most situations. Oh, and I haven't seen the oversized ones for porn stars.

Anonymous said...

"Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 621,000 unintended pregnancies each year."

Planned Parenthood kills more black children every year than the KKK has in its entire existence (even when it was headed up by Democrat Robert Byrd).

In fact, not counting diseases on Earth, there is no other single organization that kills more black children each year than Planned Parenthood does. They are the leading cause of death of black children in America.

If it was not for Planned Parenthood, blacks would not be a minority in the United States.

Bruce Hayden said...

Because the Koch brothers shipped all the jobs overseas out of corporate greed?!!

Actually, I think that you would find that the companies shipping jobs overseas tend to support Democrats more than Republicans. Not like the government employee unions do, but more than half.

Why? Because they are also the companies that are most likely to engage in crony capitalism. Think GE, IBM, etc.

Anonymous said...

Ut: Yes, but in Jeremy's -I'm in a drunken stupor, I'm such an underdog and want Asiri to "suck my dick" if only I could find it -- it would be justifiable homicide. Unfortunately, Jeremy's parents did not subscribe to his beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Mary: Loved your Kickass post. Indeed. And, Maybee's. That was funny.

Jeremy said...

Henry "That cracked me up. Jeremy has a computer that doesn't scroll up. It would explain so much."

I thought she said "screw up."

Damn.

Jeremy said...

Ut - "Planned Parenthood kills more black children every year than the KKK has in its entire existence (even when it was headed up by Democrat Robert Byrd)."

This is the kind insane drivel that makes the rest of the regulars look bad.

Jeremy said...

David - I have no idea what your infantile rant has to do with the discussion today.

You sound like a twelve year old.

Jeremy said...

educated dunce - "Considering I'm the one with 4 years' Latin under my belt..."

And this relates to the discussion how?

And why would anyone care about a dead language?

Mary E. Glynn said...

Plus, if you want to go big time, they also typically sell lubricant too, even though the condoms are typically lubricated too.

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce...

Baby, this isn't about pleasure. This here thread is about protection.

Let's stick to the topic, and not go introducing these (presumably cost-added) variables, eh? Next thing you'll be talking cherry-flavored edibles, or something.

Just the basics, ma'am.

Jeremy said...

I have to say this; after being away for some time, between Ut, David, Asiri and a few others...the intellectual level of this site is plummeting.

At least you still have educatheter to help out with everybody's Latin.

That certainly comes in handy.

Big Mike said...

I think it's good to keep engaging Jeremy, as long as you don't let his snark get to you. The battle is for the hearts and minds of the people in the middle, not for heartless members of the Obama base.

No abortion under any circumstances is an extreme position. To be fair to Jeremy (did I really just type that???) there are genuine extremists on far right who actually do believe in a total ban on abortion. Of course, the thought that a baby born live, and viable, due to a botched abortion should be pitched into a trash can and left to die is also an extreme position. And there are numerous Democrats who agree with that postion, notably including Barack Obama, the titular head of their party. Abortion during any trimester, for any reason (or no reason at all), and by any method, is certain an extreme position, and I venture to say that it is held by several times as many Democrats as there are Republicans who believe in no abortion under any circumstances.

Once upon a time liberals would argue that the stark choice was between abortion at any time, for any reason, and by any method on the one hand or coat hangers in back alleys on the other. Of course Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia and the recent exposure of unsafe abortion clinics in Florida have undercut that. A pregnant woman with a coat hanger is only marginally worse off than going to Kermit Gosnell.

So, bottom line, let Jeremy -- and Gail Collins -- rant about abortion. They're merely helping conservatives in the battle for the center.

Jeremy said...

Okay...that's all folks!!

Off to get drunk.

And remember: Chiunque che sia in disaccordo può succhiare le mie sfere!!

Anonymous said...

Unions thugs begin the bloody - just like Democrat Mike Capuno (D-Mafia) signalled them to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm_Fl3AszuU&feature=player_embedded#at=26

Anonymous said...

Indiana Deputy Attorney General calls for using live ammunition to clear out Wisconsin protesters:

"You're damned right I advocate deadly force."

What liberals know full well is that, if pushed enough, Republicans will fall back to their fascist tendencies and start shooting people. Just like Kent State.

Anonymous said...

"I have to say this; after being away for some time, between Ut, David, Asiri and a few others...the intellectual level of this site is plummeting."

Don't fucking come back then. We preferred it when you stayed away.

In fact, we make these comments only so you'll go the fuck away.

Can't you see you're not invited, nor wanted.

GO. THE. FUCK. AWAY.

Anonymous said...

"I thought she said 'screw up'"
Ut "This is the kind of inane drivel..."
David "You sound like a twelve year old"

Yes, after writing "Suck my dick" and "Fuck off." That's pretty funny. The term is "projecting." How libtard argument by name calling.

Educated Dunce: "considering I have four years of latin under my belt " -- obviously all that is under your belt, since you have been home, drunk, and nothing else -- no one else -- to do but troll "but who cares about a dead language."

Obviously, no one. That is why you are home, alone, unemployed, and trolling intellectual sites exposing yourself. As a frustrated idiot. Just hoping one of us will "ooohhh Jeremy you're so sma-aart...." (Apparently, because no real woman in the flesh will ever tell you "you're soo hot...")

Well, obviously the intelligence of those on this site hasn't plummeted that much. Now cuddle up to your bottle -- the only thing you will cuddle up with since even your keyboard has made an enemy of you -- and drink yourself into some nice world where you actually have a dick -- or, even a brain. Although, being small as each other, somehow discounts both -- oooh..., I will have to get a drink just the thought....

Anonymous said...

"If pushed enough, Republicans will fall back to their fascist tendencies and start shooting people. Just like Kent State."

Can't wait.

Where's my popcorn?

Mike Capuano (D-Mass Mafia) said it was time things got bloody.

I guess somebody decided to take him up on his offer since - as a spokesman for Demcorats - he said it's time to get violent.

You're not whining now that it's getting bloody like Democrats want it, right, dude?

You guys want blood, right?

Jason said...

The crazier the left gets...that means the more that the GOP is doing right.

This whole debacle of Walker vs. unions reminds me of a wrestling match where one guy takes down another guy to give him an escape, and takes him down again. And repeat. Until there is enough points to have a technical fall.

There are two things that have been proven in this whole debate:
1) Walker believes what he says and stands by it, and

2) The Democratic Party takes its marching orders from unions.

Unknown said...

Jeremy said...

Notice how much more interesting the discussions are when someone drops by to move the regulars off the dime?

You'll tell me when he gets here.

educated dunce - "Considering I'm the one with 4 years' Latin under my belt..."

And this relates to the discussion how?

And why would anyone care about a dead language?


Because it helps them understand the present and learn from the past?

And he was the one who brought up education, too; I so thought he was ready to learn something.

I have to say this; after being away for some time, between Ut, David, Asiri and a few others...the intellectual level of this site is plummeting.

Don't worry, as soon as you leave, it will return to its former superlative level.

Anonymous said...

Union thug attacks reporter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zm_Fl3AszuU

Big Mike said...

Jeremy signed off just after my post. Do I get points for that?

shiloh said...

Jeremy signed off just after my post. Do I get points for that?

No, but you may be eligible for a set of steak knives ...

Anonymous said...

Here is what is going on in Idaho:

The superintendent of public instruction in Idaho, Luna has offered a bill to the state legislature to reform the Gem State’s education system. It is a teacher union’s worst nightmare: The legislation phases out tenure, removes seniority as a criterion for layoffs, makes student achievement at least 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation, and includes a pay-for-performance bonus. But wait, there’s more: Luna’s bill would require the state to publish a “fiscal report card,” so parents could go online and evaluate their school district by the numbers: average teacher salary, expenditure per child, administrative expenses, etc. To top it all off, the bill would mandate that towns hold teacher-contract negotiations in the open. “I think this is probably the most comprehensive package that is working its way through a state legislature in the country,” Luna tells National Review Online.

And of course a teacher showed up at his house and his car was vandalized.

Anonymous said...

Mike Capuano (D-Mass Mafia) urges government workers to bloodily attack citizens:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703775704576162533209090102.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

garage mahal said...

What liberals know full well is that, if pushed enough, Republicans will fall back to their fascist tendencies and start shooting people. Just like Kent State.

That's the right wing idea of "freedom".

Anonymous said...

Sorry, the teacher didn't show up at Luna's home, it was his mother's house

“The thing that concerned me most was the first incident when a teacher showed up at my mom’s house,” Luna says.

But of course it will go unremarked by the likes of Gail Collins who sees liberals as all benevolent.

Revenant said...

Asking the exact moment when a fetus becomes a child with all the rights of a child is like asking for the exact moment when a child becomes an adult with all the rights of an adult.

The answer to both questions is "at an arbitrary point in time dictated by society". There's no objective standard. You can't study a child who is 17 years, 364 days old under a microscope and say "ah yes, I see here that his Rights Gland is a mere 1 day away from activation -- in one more day, he shall have his rights".

Alex said...

How about life begins at conception PERIOD?

Alex said...

Oh and the vulgar idea that worthiness of life is judged by independence? What happens when a sturdy 20-something breaks his leg and ends up in a hospital? Ooops, he can't take care of himself so let's euthanize him. Lefty logic folks.

Anonymous said...

"That's the right wing idea of "freedom".

Democrat U.S. Representative Mike Capuano (D-Ma) today urged government officials in Wisconsin to bloodily attack taxpaying Wisconsin citizens.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703775704576162533209090102.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Anonymous said...

"How about life begins at conception PERIOD?"

Um, life stops at PERIOD.

Just sayin'.

Freeman Hunt said...

Except, Revenant, in this case it's quite a bit more important because we're talking about the simple right to not have people kill you. I'd say that given that that's the right at stake, it's far better to err on the side of not allowing the person to be killed.

Freeman Hunt said...

Jeremy, again, use the scroll function.

You'll find my answers to both of your questions way back at 4:53 PM. I'm not going to repost things just because you can't be bothered to read the comments of the people you're conversing with.

Revenant said...

Because the Koch brothers shipped all the jobs overseas out of corporate greed?!!

I haven't actually heard a left-winger make that particular accusation, but it would be hilarious if they did. Koch Industries is primarily an oil refining company, and oil refining is an industry the left fights tooth and nail to keep OUT of the United States.

Anonymous said...

Union teacher orders students to beat up innocent child:

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/education/report-teacher-made-kids-beat-student

Anonymous said...

"Jeremy, again, use the scroll function."

Jeremy issued his hate speech then left, refusing to debate without resorting to tired old lefty ad hominem.

BO.

RING.

Unknown said...

What a trollathon!

Apparently, said troll had a snow day, or, perhaps, a taxpayer funded protest day. I vote snow day. Seventh graders aren't typically hired to teach public school, although Wisconsin may be liberal in that regard. Now sperm who have evolved to seventh grade intellect and with the proper union credentials can and often do teach public school. Still, I'm an optimist. I say snow day.

Bruce Hayden said...

Asking the exact moment when a fetus becomes a child with all the rights of a child is like asking for the exact moment when a child becomes an adult with all the rights of an adult.

The answer to both questions is "at an arbitrary point in time dictated by society". There's no objective standard
.

The problem here is, and continues to be, that the question as to abortion was not decided by society, but rather by five old men wearing black robes.

Many believe that the reason that abortion has continued to be an issue some 40 years later is that it was not decided politically, but rather by those Justices expanding the rights granted by the Constitution.

From polls through the years, I think that if abortion were to come to a vote today, the line would be drawn somewhere in the middle of the second trimester. Maybe at viability, maybe a little bit earlier. But most likely would exclude the third trimester, except maybe in the extremely unlikely case where the doctor has to decide which lives and which dies, the mother or the child.

In short, both no abortion and unlimited abortion are extreme positions, at least when looking at polls.

Collins appears to be in the unlimited abortion category, and as such, is the one with the extreme position. But her response seems to be to claim that the majority of Americans who want fewer abortions than she does are the extreme, radical ones. Typical leftist technique.

I think that one of the positive things that is going on right now is that leftists with extreme views, such as hers, are now coming under fire for those views. Before, they were given a pass because the MSM was, and continues to be, also leftist.

She just doesn't seem to understand that there just isn't enough money out there to support her feminist, socialist, world view. Maybe during a boom, but we are in the midst of a major recession, and luxuries, such as allowing government employees to fund the campaigns of the government officials they meet across the bargaining table, just cannot be afforded these days.

ricpic said...

It all boils down to the fact that Jeremy, that poor tortured soul, is without love. He is without love for others and vice versa. So, on the private level he is to be pitied. But on the level of public policy he and his cohorts in the loveless army of death are to stopped.

Anonymous said...

"But on the level of public policy he and his cohorts in the loveless army of death are to be stopped."

No. Not just stopped.

Crushed. (See thread title.)

Big Mike said...

@shiloh, I'll settle for just one of these. Thanks.

Revenant said...

Except, Revenant, in this case it's quite a bit more important because we're talking about the simple right to not have people kill you.

You might as well say that the decision over whether or not a mother can spank her child for using the f-word is a simple matter of free speech. Not so; it is a complicated matter of several interacting rights.

There are multiple rights at issue in abortion, the other major one being a human being's natural right to control his or her own body. If you forbid the mother from removing an organism from her body at a time when that organism has not yet acquired rights, you have committed an immoral act.

I do understand the urge to err on the side of caution in matters of life and death. On the other hand, I seem to recall you support the death penalty even though that carries a very real risk of killing innocent people. So I suspect you recognize that while "killing innocent people" is a risk we should avoid, it isn't a risk we should avoid at all costs.

Anonymous said...

"I think that if abortion were to come to a vote today ..."

This is the difference between liberals and normal people.

Liberals discuss - in quite rational sounding tones - whether we should debate and vote on murdering kids.

Anonymous said...

"On the other hand, I seem to recall you support the death penalty even though that carries a very real risk of killing innocent people."

You equate abortion with the death penalty?

Planned Parenthood killed 349,212 innocent black people in 2009 alone.

I ask you, how many black people died from the incorrect application of the death penalty in 2009?

jr565 said...

rhardin wrote:
Without choice, no ethics lives.

Except with choice, the babies don't live. They are deprived of choice, as are fathers who contributed have the genetic material and will of course be on the hook for half the bills even if they don't want the kid later in life.
Then the man will be told he should have worn a rubber and he's responsible for his choice. Simply because the mother says so. Why does a woman who simply has a baby in her womb for 9 months get to dictate the bills he must pay for hte rest of his life?

Big Mike said...

@shiloh, there's something very like it available at 51% off at Amazon.com. Just be sure to go through the Professor's link.

jr565 said...

Ut wrote:
"I think that if abortion were to come to a vote today ..."

This is the difference between liberals and normal people.

Liberals discuss - in quite rational sounding tones - whether we should debate and vote on murdering kids.


Actually, these days if abortion were to come to a vote today, all the libs in govt would skip town and hide out in a different state.

jr565 said...

UT wrote:
"Jeremy issued his hate speech then left, refusing to debate without resorting to tired old lefty ad hominem.

BO.

RING."



Are we sure he's isn't in the Wisonsin legislature on the democratic side?

Anonymous said...

" ... all the libs in govt would skip town and hide out in a different state."

This will be the lasting icon from the Democrat's Wisconsin Debacle: A bunch of fucking pussies running away, afraid to debate.

We all know these people. We've all met them: They're the ones who want to change the rules in the middle of the game after they start losing. The ones who quit before the time runs out.

The ones who take their ball and - crying - go home with it.

The quitters.

The fucking losers.

Icons.

Amartel said...

Oh, GAIL, you whiny dorkasaurus. This isn't opinion - opinion implies thinking. This is an emotional outburst. It's feelings, nothing more than feelings. Gail has not troubled herself to honestly examine, much less express, the opinion she disagrees with before she "wandered off to the land of the insanely angry." She refuses to be diverted by the facts and now occupy herself with conspiracy theories and RAGE. This leads to galactically dumb statements, like how unions are actually "hefty political players resisting the country's slide into hopeless income inequality." No, GAIL. The unions are battling to get as much as possible and perpetuate their fat cat power, the country's economic woes and individual member bennies be damned. It's the end of an era. It's uncomfortable that "everyone is running around crying that we're broke." But we are broke. We are deep in the fucking hole. Real change is difficult and it is really coming whether we want it or not. And crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good.

Freeman Hunt said...

There are multiple rights at issue in abortion, the other major one being a human being's natural right to control his or her own body. If you forbid the mother from removing an organism from her body at a time when that organism has not yet acquired rights, you have committed an immoral act.

We're debating when it should acquire rights. Also, it is not as though women are unable to prevent pregnancy. Methods of contraception are legion.

I do understand the urge to err on the side of caution in matters of life and death. On the other hand, I seem to recall you support the death penalty even though that carries a very real risk of killing innocent people. So I suspect you recognize that while "killing innocent people" is a risk we should avoid, it isn't a risk we should avoid at all costs.

Yes. But we have 1.3 million abortions each year in the United States. All innocent people.

There are only 50-70 executions per year, and anti death penalty advocates have an extraordinarily difficult time finding a single one who is innocent.

So if we're talking costs, no, I don't think that a woman's absolute right to her body including the right to kill her baby is worth 1.3 million lives per year.

RuyDiaz said...

(Freemant Hunt) "I would be anti abortion rights even if I were an atheist."

That's not a hypothetical for me.

@Jeremy: You have upset me enough to give you a passing thought. Then I realized you were a bitter troll, trying to anger people you dislike. I tried giving you a second thought, but could only come up with 'meh'.

shiloh said...

Big Mike

Kinda expensive ;) more bang for your buck w/Ginsu I ~ Ginsu II $9.95 guaranteed for (50) years and $19.99.

And if you send before midnight tonight we'll include Veg-O-Matic free!

It slices, it dices ...

RuyDiaz said...

Gail Collins is hilarious--if you read enough without getting mad at her.

Every time one of her talking points is shot down, she moves to the next one, betraying no loss of confidence. Remarkable.

DADvocate said...

Whatever your position on when a human becomes a human, why is it such a critical issue for liberals and lefties that a woman be able to kill her unborn child on a whimsy?

Probably no more than 1% of abortions are due to a genuine threat to the life of the mother. The rest are performed for reasons greed and selfishness. Those qualities the libs always accuse others of possessing.

Having an abortion is tragic. Demanding to be able to have one on a whimsy crosses from tragic to moral decadence at one of the deepest levels.

David53 said...

Freeman schools both Jeremy and Revenant in the same thread. Very entertaining!

Beldar said...

Actually, for me, it's all about crushing Gail Collins. Because of who she is. Because of what she believe in. Because she's so very, very important.

And just because we can. Because we're evil. And we're Republicans. Bwah-hah-hah-hahhhhh!


\\

(Someone let me know who or what Gail Collins is, what she stands for, and what she believes in, please, 'cause I really don't know.

Actually ... never mind.)

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Babies are their own unique individuals. If there is such a thing as a soul they have one, and even if there isn't they have their own heart beat, their own brain waves and their own appendages. The idea that that it's a womans body and she has a right then is bogus becuase she's in fact exceeding her rights and inflicting harm on another persons body. And for all the talk about how it's her body and she has a right to do as she sees fit, that baby would not have been in her body if she hand't in effect put it there (with the help of a man). So why is she not responsible for that baby not being harmed.

And this doesn't even bring up the issue of the man in the relationship. Why should he get no say during the pregnancy but then be obligated to pay half if that's what the woman wants after the pregancy. If women want to not be mothers and can abort their babies, then shouldn't fathers who don't want to be fathers simply be able to not pay child support? We hold fathers in low esteem who shirk their responsibilities, yet aren't they just as capable of not being able to raise kids as mothers who use that excuse as a reason to abort their babies?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Oh boy! I missed The Great Freeman-Jeremy Abortion Debate! How will I go on? Was it Tivo'd.

Anyway, I loved Freeman's attempted Mad Lib, along the lines of "If it's not a person, it's a ______"?

How about, I'm just guessing here - A sea monkey?

As far as the point when it becomes anything approaching 1% person, let alone 100%, would the point when it develops nerve cells - and not even a functioning brain, mind you, but just nerve cells - even just a single one - would that be too ambiguous a benchmark?

Well, maybe for a conservatard it might be.

I find it appalling to the idea of reason that someone wouldn't picket lawns protesting the abomination of our allowing the plug to be pulled on old, comatose vegetables while making a permanent religious festival over their inability to agree that young, unformed ones are just as lacking in the realm of "personhood".

Anyway, as you were, Freeman. Apparently Jeremy performs at just the level of debate that you find stimulating.

David53 said...

Ha ha, it was no debate, it was a schooling.



vw: heman

shiloh said...

Apparently Jeremy performs at just the level of debate that you find stimulating.

hmm, blogging Peter Principle ;)

Merny11 said...

Thank you Freeman for pushing Jeremy to think - no small task ...
A woman certainly has the right to choose whether or not to have sex. Whether or not to use contraceptives. But once a child is concieved its no longer her body she's making choices about. its an entirely different, unique human being from herself. And she should not have the right to destroy it because its inconvenient. And the truth is, the overwhelming majority of abortions are done for that reason only. Pathetic.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

The truth is, the majority of abortions are performed before an embryo even has a brain.

Am I the only one here who is struck by the solidarity conservatives proclaim on behalf of their moral alliance with the brainless?

Igor for president. Vote for Igor.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I can understand how the heartstrings are pulled by images of rudimentary humans-to-be. I can't understand how someone can proclaim moral solidarity with a clump of cells that can't feel anything, however.

But maybe if I voted Republican I could understand the sentiment.

blake said...

So, Ritmo/Montana/Trickle/C4BDH, you'd be all right with limiting abortion to brainless organisms?

So, we could take out Jeremy any time?

MayBee said...

mad and calypso-
Walker on Greta talking about insurance being overcharged via WEA Trust right now.

Yay!

Jason said...

"mad and calypso-
Walker on Greta talking about insurance being overcharged via WEA Trust right now.

Yay!"

---------------------------

Hallelujah!

Kudos to whomever got in Walker's ear to tell him to beat that point to death. There are SO MANY people out there that have NO IDEA about what their teachers in their local districts make, much less how much money is sucked out by simple union crap like this.

Walker needs to mention this EVERY DAY from now until when this bill is passed. Its that important.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Joking aside, Blake, how the hell do you define morality while stripping it of anything having to do with the intentional infliction of pain upon a sentient being?

Don't you think that it takes a fair degree of callousness to favor a definition that does that?

How can you be moral, let alone promote morality, without having any fair-minded basis for defining cruelty?

Just wondering. But it's something the pro-gestation crowd is light-years away from coming to terms with, and it's a big part of what creates the chasm between their goals and where our courts and the majority of the American people really are.

Synova said...

"In fact, not counting diseases on Earth, there is no other single organization that kills more black children each year than Planned Parenthood does. They are the leading cause of death of black children in America."

It was, after all, Sanger's stated purpose.

Penny said...

Things getting a bit tense here.

Might just be a rumor, but I heard Nero's putting on a free concert in town!

Unknown said...

Remember a while back-

Hey hey. Ho Ho. Althouse trolls have got to go.

Jeremy that is you. You are a troll, liar, charlatan and a fraud.

You are also a racist. Do not think anyone forgot about your "liberal" use of the N word that was so bad Althouse had to delete your posts.

Fen said...

Julius: What liberals know full well is that, if pushed enough, Republicans will fall back to their fascist tendencies and start shooting people. Just like Kent State.

Then liberals must be very stupid. Because thats not what happened at Kent State.

RuyDiaz said...

"I can understand how the heartstrings are pulled by images of rudimentary humans-to-be. I can't understand how someone can proclaim moral solidarity with a clump of cells that can't feel anything, however."

The 'clump of cells' canards; who could have possibly seen this coming?

To call it a clump is to try to win by careless re-definition. From fertilization on, what you call 'a clump', will become one or more fully developed human beings. The zygote carries within itself the sequence that leads it to become an adult human being.

There is no mystery to this. It wasn't easy. Many scientists had to work for centuries to discover this. But discover they did, and thanks to their effort this knowledge is available to all of us. I suggest you look into it, before throwing out ideologically driven nonsense like 'clump of cells'.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

How about life begins at conception PERIOD?

Interesting proposition put forward by Alex.

Let's give him a hand, Ladies and Gents! Give the man some recognition for implying that his sperm cells are all DEAD.

If he ends up somehow siring a junior troll or two, I guess that will mean he'll have pulled off quite the feat. USING DEAD MATTER TO GIVE RISE TO LIVING THINGS.

Jeebus, conserva-libertarian-tards. Science class, much? Life and personhood are two different things. Even a slime mold is quite alive, as repeated appearances by Fen reveal.

Ok, maybe he's a little better than a slime mold. ;-)

MayBee said...

Jason- the point he made about the NEA that I found very good was how much teachers themselves could save if they had other options.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I see Ruy is poking about to register his complaint with the somehow highly offensive term "clump".

So noted. Also noted: His inability to raise any argument with what those busy scientists seem to have found out about "brains".

Talk about a red herring.

Fen said...

Ritmo, just call it sub-human before you kill it. Thats always worked for your kind in the past.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

just call it sub-human

You mean, call it by what you think of gays who have the gall to believe that they are human and patriotic enough to qualify for military service?

In Fen's ahistorical world, he probably defined himself as a Republican before he was a sub-human.

Do you really think that political parties are timeless entities, and that their goals, ideals and philosophies don't change or attract different interest groups at different points in time?

I imagine that in your ill-educated world, you probably do.

David53 said...

I taught public school in Texas for a few years. Texas is a right to work state but most teachers in Texas are a member of either the NEA or the TSTA, primarily for the cheap insurance. Insurance against the possibility some student's parents would sue you for something. Of course I never knew anyone who got sued...what a scam.

Fen said...

Ritmo: You mean, call it by what you think of gays

I never said anything like that.

What a feeble attempt at deflection.

Revenant said...

We're debating when it should acquire rights.

Let me put it a different way: the mother has a right to control her own body for all 9 months of the pregnancy. The fetus has a right to live for less than 9, but more than 0, months of the pregnancy. So you can't say this is just about the one right; both matter.

Also, it is not as though women are unable to prevent pregnancy. Methods of contraception are legion.

I don't see the relevance. The mother has a right; it doesn't matter why she chooses to exercise it.

Yes. But we have 1.3 million abortions each year in the United States. All innocent people.

So you say. I would say that to date we have killed zero innocent people through legal abortion, but probably hundreds via the death penalty.

In any event, the point is that you're perfectly willing to risk killing innocent people. Saying "yeah, but only a few" is weak tea.

There are only 50-70 executions per year, and anti death penalty advocates have an extraordinarily difficult time finding a single one who is innocent.

A single one death penalty supporters will concede is innocent. :).

But in any case "you can't prove it has happened" isn't a valid response to "it could happen". If X is a possible outcome of Y, X *will* eventually happen if you keep doing Y.

RuyDiaz said...

"I see Ruy is poking about to register his complaint with the somehow highly offensive term "clump".[more stuff]

No, you were using a term incorrectly. Which I pointed out. If you don't like it you can try expressing yourself better next time.

As for 'inability to raise issue with brains', or whatever: you flatter yourself. The usual argument--used, for example, by Carl Sagan--is that 'as a compromise', abortions may be permitted up to the time when distinctly human brain waves appear.

But that's an arbitrary point. The fetus has been developing for months before that time. You could choose a number of dramatic points before and after; up to the moment of the first discernable heartbeat, up to the moment it 'looks human' to a panel of experts, or whatever.

Doesn't change the fact that it was human since the moment its genetic individuality was determined and its development launched.

DADvocate said...

the mother has a right to control her own body

The meme that a woman has the right to control her own body is one of the greatest lies of the pro-abortion crowd. Ask around and see how many support legalized prostitution.

Synova said...

Rev: "Asking the exact moment when a fetus becomes a child with all the rights of a child is like asking for the exact moment when a child becomes an adult with all the rights of an adult.

The answer to both questions is "at an arbitrary point in time dictated by society". There's no objective standard. You can't study a child who is 17 years, 364 days old under a microscope and say "ah yes, I see here that his Rights Gland is a mere 1 day away from activation -- in one more day, he shall have his rights".
"

True enough, but at least you understand the question.

The point assigned "arbitrarily" by society must have some basis or it really would work to examine a child who is 17 years and 364 days old and determine that her rights activate on the morrow. We actually do have reasons to chose age 18 for a child's majority. Likely somewhat similar to the reasons that certain drugs for depression can cause it for kids below that age. There is a reason for "adulthood" rites to be customary at 13 or there about as well.

There are reasons to chose "quickening" for a baby, and reasons to chose some period of time after birth before counting a child as fully arrived and ready to be welcomed and named, giving time for a weak newborn to die naturally.

But what we've got now is science.

We can detect a pregnancy within weeks of conception, see the fetus soon afterward, and measure the heartbeat and brain activity long *long* before quickening.

We can keep a child alive outside of the womb near 24 weeks of gestation. Which, IIRC, is about when quickening usually occurs anyhow. We might someday be able to dispense with a biological womb all together.

And when it comes right down to it, a human baby is no more able to live without assistance at 2 years old than it can at 24 weeks gestation.

Our ultimate choice may be arbitrary, but it does involve reasoning of some sort. What it comes down to is if someone says they can't know what the right answer is so they ignore the question or if someone says they can't know so they'd rather play it safe and err in a direction that means not killing a human because they've misjudged it all.

I really don't know *why* everyone is arguing abortion with Jeremy but he made several excessively dumb attempts at slam-dunks: First, that pro-life is about men wanting to force women to bear children. Second, that the Bible doesn't clearly lead us to a pro-life opinion. Third, that naming it "murder" obviates any support for the exceptions of rape or threat to the mother's life.

These are thoroughly regurgitated "pro-choice" slanders and misrepresentations, "clever" little attempts to push pro-life into a corner and the pro-lifers are left watching the resulting oblivious victory end-dance with a WTF look on their faces.

(1. Women are as pro-life as men, if not more so. 2. While specific interpretations vary among believers the principles in scripture of valuing reproduction itself, the unborn, and newborn, as well as "those who can not tell their left hand from their right" which would seem to include small children and mentally retarded, are hard to miss, unless someone is really trying to miss them. 3. Self-defense is not murder. We have a long and easily understood tradition of understanding that murders are different than killing the exact same person in order to preserve one's own life. Nothing about abortion to save the life of the mother requires a weaker status for the fetus, nor even requires the threat to be absolute rather than an assessment of relative risk.)

Anonymous said...

So our friendly conservatives would have abortion made illegal?

Then what?

'Cuz you know that if one of their daughters became pregnant at an inconvenient time, it'd be just as likely as not that they would encourage her to seek an abortion.

After all, the social embarrassment would be too much to take. Morals are just convenient ways for people to define themselves, easily sacrificed for the sake of expediency.

The good wholesome conservative parents will help to arrange the underground abortion and be all hush-hush about it.

Meanwhile, those who aren't "elite" enough or rich enough won't have the same option.

All that social conservatives want-- all that they have ever wanted-- is to make the rules for everybody else.

Of course, liberals do the same in other areas. But those other areas are not the topic of discussion here.

Toad Trend said...

So I see that thread has completely devolved into a crevasse of C4 cutting snark. Have a clump of cells on me, C4.

I read the article and found it particularly stale and lacking substance.

"You can’t negotiate with people who want to balance the budget by cutting taxes".

Really?

wv - dayektor

Jason said...

It's about "crushing enemies" and not about budgets?

Well, in Rhode Island - perhaps the most liberal state in the union - the city of Providence is laying off EVERY TEACHER in their district, as they dont know how much money is going to be in their budget.

But yeah...budgets dont matter.

If anyone needs to see an example of what can and will happen in districts and state agencies all over the state if Walker doesnt get the collective barganining position he wants, just look at Providence, RI.

Revenant said...

"the mother has a right to control her own body"

The meme that a woman has the right to control her own body is one of the greatest lies of the pro-abortion crowd. Ask around and see how many support legalized prostitution.

You know, before you accuse me of being a liar you might want to actually ASK what my position on that is.

Freeman Hunt said...

'Cuz you know that if one of their daughters became pregnant at an inconvenient time, it'd be just as likely as not that they would encourage her to seek an abortion.

I don't think that your fantasies about hypocritical conservatives count as arguments.

Anonymous said...

Observations, not fantasies, Freeman.

But those are just everyday people in my life.

I'm sure that the big wig conservative moralizers-- the Larry Craigs and Ted Haggards and Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells and Tom DeLays and Rush Limbaughs of the world-- would never act with a hypocritical sense of inflated personal entitlement.

I guess it's just in my fantasies that those moralizing Catholic priests that I was forced to listen to while growing up were molesting little kids.

Yes, Freeman, all fantasies!

Synova said...

"'Cuz you know that if one of their daughters became pregnant at an inconvenient time, it'd be just as likely as not that they would encourage her to seek an abortion.

After all, the social embarrassment would be too much to take. Morals are just convenient ways for people to define themselves, easily sacrificed for the sake of expediency.

The good wholesome conservative parents will help to arrange the underground abortion and be all hush-hush about it.
"

I think this is one of those put up or shut up situations.

Explaining your own prejudices about some other group is not an actual argument. Show some objective basis for this.

Because really, the "social embarrassment" was too much for Palin to take, right? Other conservatives just TURNED on her. It was brutal to watch.

At least find some anecdotes where the inconveniently pregnant college student and her baby-daddy get pressured to abort by baby-daddy's hyper-religious pro-life mother and supported and encouraged to keep the baby by the expecting-co-ed's progressive folks... instead of the other way around.

Synova said...

Seriously, Julius.

Explain Palin. Explain how the social consequences were just too much to take.

Liberals sure as hell hated her.

Revenant said...

Explaining your own prejudices about some other group is not an actual argument. Show some objective basis for this.

It turns out that Julius knows all sorts of formerly pro-life women who got knocked up, had abortions, and told him about it.

I find that story completely believable. Don't you?

Birkel said...

C4:
"The truth is, the majority of abortions are performed before an embryo even has a brain."

The brain begins to develop in the third week after implantation.

Wrong again.
And not even close.

Anonymous said...

I never said Palin was hypocritical, Synova. She's clearly not. But many other conservatives are.

I admire Palin for sticking to her values while so many of her fellow conservatives turn out to be hypocritical scumbags.

The point is that conservatives want to set up a system where the rules they make don't apply to them. The rules apply to everyone else-- the non-elites, the poor. There are no rules for the well-off and connected.

Freeman Hunt said...

So you can't say this is just about the one right; both matter.

I never said it was just about one right. I'm saying that one far outweighs the other.

I don't see the relevance. The mother has a right; it doesn't matter why she chooses to exercise it.

The relevance is that if she has a right to not be pregnant, she can prevent that from happening without killing someone. Once another person is in the mix, that person's right to live outweighs her right to total control of her body for nine months.

In any event, the point is that you're perfectly willing to risk killing innocent people. Saying "yeah, but only a few" is weak tea.

That's not weak tea, that's a perfectly rational calculus. We risk innocent lives in all sorts of activities from waging war to driving cars. The magnitude matters. So does the intended purpose. Additionally, though it's arguable, I think that the death penalty saves lives overall.

In abortion there is no "risk of killing innocent people," you are always killing innocent people, and you're doing it for no other reason that impatient selfishness.

Synova covered other important points.

Freeman Hunt said...

It turns out that Julius knows all sorts of formerly pro-life women who got knocked up, had abortions, and told him about it.

I find that story completely believable. Don't you?


Yes, and I'm sure their harrowing tales included stuck up, country club parents who slapped them around and called them "sluts" before whisking them off to the abortion doctor. Afterwards, of course, the soulless, black-hearted, conservative parents played tennis doubles and casually sipped Mai Tais.

It was all so horrible!

Freeman Hunt said...

Thank god those real life women had at least one shoulder to cry on.

Revenant said...

In abortion there is no "risk of killing innocent people," you are always killing innocent people, and you're doing it for no other reason that impatient selfishness.

If you view that as an indisputable fact then it was dishonest to even ask where the line should be drawn. You were just trying to score points.

I'm not interested in that.

RuyDiaz said...

Julius, really? That's your trump card, that conservatives are hypocrtical and that it's all part of a class conspiracy to boot?

Pardon the non-elite allusion, but "my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

David53 said...

Ha, Rev aborts and goes home.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

its genetic individuality

What does "genetic individuality" have to do with the price of beans, or anything else for that matter? Corpses have their own genetic individuality, too, of course. So do starfish.

What is with you science illiterates? It's like you learn about some currently heavily investigated concept in biology, and then immediately slap it on like a bumper sticker to an abortion debate. Weird and strange.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

So, the beginning of the development of a brain = having a brain.

I will tell all the real estate consumers in Philadelphia that the foundation of the new high rise + or - the few metal rods jutting out of the construction site means that it is readily habitable. We will help them move in tomorrow.

I'm a Shaaaaark said...

The point is that conservatives want to set up a system where the rules they make don't apply to them. The rules apply to everyone else-- the non-elites, the poor. There are no rules for the well-off and connected.

Actually, I'd like to "set up a system" where the rules are the same for everyone. Unfortunately, conservatives like myself are fought tooth and nail on that by democrats/progressives at every turn.

Especially the well-off and connected ones.

Freeman Hunt said...

If you view that as an indisputable fact then it was dishonest to even ask where the line should be drawn.

Asking where the line should be drawn by the other person's philosophy is dishonest? I don't think so.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I fully invite Don't Tread and any other interested party to declare the mental viability of someone with 3-weeks of embryonic neurological development to be sufficient and compatible with life as we know it.

RuyDiaz said...

"What does "genetic individuality" have to do with the price of beans, or anything else for that matter?"

You see, you missed the part where it was 'genetic individuality' AND self-directed development. You know, the beginning of life.

I would not call you scientific illiterate, though; the modifier scientific is completely superflous.

Freeman Hunt said...

I guess I'm getting old. I have to go to bed. I'm tired.

I'm a Shaaaaark said...

I fully invite Don't Tread and any other interested party to declare the mental viability of someone with 3-weeks of embryonic neurological development to be sufficient and compatible with life as we know it.

We elect them to congress, don't we?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

You can throw as many ridiculous qualifiers into your own ignorant stipulations as you like, RuyDiaz. An embryo has no "self-directed development" as it requires a uterine environment to develop. It will not "self-develop" or "self-direct" its own development or whatever other bullshit gibberish you put together because once it is removed it will not develop at all. That is the whole point of opposing abortion in the first place you doltish numbnuts.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Well, you guys do anyway, Shaark.

RuyDiaz said...

Another, more general observation, which applies to some, but not all liberals here....

What is it with the obsession to see yourselves as bright, enlightened and special? Is smugness that precious to you?

Jesus.

RuyDiaz said...

Sleep well Freeman.

I'm a Shaaaaark said...

Well, you guys do anyway, Shaark.

We could play 'Compare the dumbass in congress' game all day long by party line, and I'm guessing it would even out pretty much.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Smugness isn't, but facts are.

What do you find so special and enlightened about factlessness, Ruy? I mean, it must feel nice to attain enlightenment and become special (get it?) without facts. So you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes and focus on the nirvana that exists in that special little world in your mind.

The rest of us will engage morality with facts, as this is what, you know, life in the real world requires. I know you think that makes us special. Maybe it does. But I don't find it too hard.

RuyDiaz said...

An embryo has no "self-directed development"[...]

"A computer program has no self-directed instructions, as it needs an internally consistent logical environment,and energy to function."

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Did you have a point, RD? Or are you just getting tired?

RuyDiaz said...

C4;

"We will engage morality with facts..."

So, you are starting soon, right?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

That was funny.

Again, did you have a point, or are you just trying your hand at Palinesque rhetorical games?

RuyDiaz said...

The point was that you reply was irrelevant. Everything exists in one environment or another. The fetus interacts with its environment, but the instructions that unfold its development are carried in its genetic code.

(Genetics. You know, science and stuff.)

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

And no, RD, this isn't Facebook so you can't thumbs-up your own comment and have that be the ultimate judgment on it.

But you can try to use facts and reason to defend it, if you're not too smug to do so.

RuyDiaz said...

Freeman may be getting old, but I'm old already (34). Going to sleep people. Back tomorrow, even if I don't post.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

The point was that you reply was irrelevant. Everything exists in one environment or another. The fetus interacts with its environment, but the instructions that unfold its development are carried in its genetic code.

This is simply a bs evasion of the point that you (rather retroactively) inserted. First you made reference to the point at which "its development (was) launched". You objected to being called out on the other irrelevance you raised, so you then modified this piece a bit. It doesn't change the fact that the SCOTUS brought up viability for a reason. Even a newborn human will not immediately cease development if it is outside the environment that nurtures its own development, let alone that which incubates an embryo.

You seem to not be getting this whole "learning to make a point" thing. Why is that?

Fen said...

Rev: You know, before you accuse me of being a liar you might want to actually ASK what my position on that is.

There's no need to. You're just doing your Bill O'Reilly Con again - attacking to the right to bolster your cred as a "reasonable moderate".

You'll be back to normal in the morning.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Everything in the cons' minds comes down to money.

That being said, how much did Bob Barr pay for his mistress's abortion?

If Julius is right, I'd like to know the incidence of abortion among the Country Club Contingent of the Republican Party.

jr565 said...

C4BDH wrote:
"Anyway, I loved Freeman's attempted Mad Lib, along the lines of "If it's not a person, it's a ______"?

How about, I'm just guessing here - A sea monkey?"



So it's your guess that prior to becoming a person a fetus is in fact a sea monkey? I think you have to answer with a snark because there is no way you can actually answer the truth - namely that all a fetus is a PERSON at an early stage of development, from conception to death. A fetus is not a separate entity any more than a toddler is, any more than a teenager or a senior citizen is.

"As far as the point when it becomes anything approaching 1% person, let alone 100%, would the point when it develops nerve cells - and not even a functioning brain, mind you, but just nerve cells - even just a single one - would that be too ambiguous a benchmark?"

As the link someone else posted shows babies have all five regions of their brains developed (though not fully formed) and some cranial nerves are visible.Not to mention that the fetus already has a beating heart that beats regularly. by week 9 (that's only 2 and 1/4 months of a 9 month development) a babies genitals are differentiated and a baby can make a fist (meaning it has formed hands) and red blood cells are produced in the liver.
But at no point in the process is the fetus anything but the same organism it will be when it's born.When it comes out of the vagina it is simply the same organism more fully developed.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Oooooooohhhh! Red blood cells! Certainly a sign of sentient existence if ever there was one!

How about the woman just lays back and throws sea monkeys on her vagina and watches them dribble down to the bottom of the orifice as if being beckoned into life in the grand precession we call "birth" - that event that you feel has no significance at all compared to turning two cells into one. Magic! ONE CELL FROM TWO! One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them!

Love those parentheticals, too - especially the one about being fully developed "(though not fully formed)". That was cool.

jr565 said...

C4BDH wrote:

Oooooooohhhh! Red blood cells! Certainly a sign of sentient existence if ever there was one!

What part of an organism that goes through different stages of development is still the same organism don't you understand? Is a toddler a separate individual than a teenager? Or is it the same person/individual?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Save the fucking Sea Monkeys already!

The next time I see an anti-abortion protester with their graphic signs, I'm going to make one that displays the gills and tail and nubs of an embryo alongside an englarged picture of a sea monkey and ask them what the difference is. (I think I'll also put a cartoon of a happy sea monkey swimming peacefully below the comparisons, just to emphasize how happy and lifelike they really are). How many people kill sea monkeys each year? Did you know that sea monkeys have brains? (They are definitely developed if not fully formed, of course).

Do you know that the genocide of the sea monkeys is a moral travesty of the first order, and that it puts us in a line of succession starting with Adolf Hitler and ending with the Anti-Christ?

jr565 said...

C4BDH wrote:
(I think I'll also put a cartoon of a happy sea monkey swimming peacefully below the comparisons, just to emphasize how happy and lifelike they really are). How many people kill sea monkeys each year? Did you know that sea monkeys have brains? (They are definitely developed if not fully formed, of course).


So sea monkeys are no different than humans in your book? One thing I'd wager is that whatever stage of development a sea monkey goes through, it's still a sea monkey in all it's stages of development.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Neurologically they're no different from "humans" with no CNS save some developing cranial nerves and a few cells in the part of the plan we will one day call "a brain". But don't let that get in the way of your religious ideas regarding "organismal integrity".

Save the organisms, jr.

Fen said...

Ritmo: That being said, how much did Bob Barr pay for his mistress's abortion? If Julius is right, I'd like to know the incidence of abortion among the Country Club Contingent of the Republican Party.

Out of arguments with his back against the wall, Ritmo responds with "conservatives have abortions too!".

chickelit said...

Suppose we consider a new life to be like a new invention, which under our laws must be both new and useful.* The novelty of a new life (identical twins aside) is self-evident in its genetic code. Inventions occur (again under our law) following conception and reduction to practice. The two events may be connascent or sequential. Conception is the fixed and permanent idea of the invention, while reduction to practice is the embodiment of the idea. Like a parenting, only an inventor can contribute to conception.

New life indeed does begin at conception, but it's not fully embodied until some indefinite point in time.
_____________________________________
*As for the usefulness of a newly conceived life or idea, that take requires time. The following anecdote may apply. Sometime in the 19th century, a delegation of government dignitaries visited Michael Faraday to view his electric motors and other inventions. One person said "This is all very interesting, but of what possible use are these toys?" Faraday responded: "I cannot say what use they may be, but I can confidently predict that one day you will be able to tax them." :)

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Oh, I'm soooooo out of arguments!

How many did you have, Fen?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

But Chickie, when two cells become one, it's like magic. I heard the process even includes DNA or something - which is like the same as being a living, breathing, fully formed and functioning human being. Every scientist knows this, no? Having DNA means that you are touched by God. It's like that means he signed off on you and said: "Here, now go do battle with the evil liberals. I declare you to be ALIVE."

jr565 said...

C4BDH wrote:
Neurologically they're no different from "humans" with no CNS save some developing cranial nerves and a few cells in the part of the plan we will one day call "a brain".
Except sea monkeys go on to become sea monkeys, whereas that fetus goes on to become a more developed human. And at what stage of development are we talking? Why don't you look at the fetal development timeline. Very early in the process a human fetus is more than simply a clump of cells. And, frankly anyone who was so ignorant that they couldn't differentiate a sea horse from a developing fetus has no cause to argue for the ignorance of others. Are you really that obtuse? Apparently so.

Revenant said...

There's no need to. You're just doing your Bill O'Reilly Con again - attacking to the right to bolster your cred as a "reasonable moderate".

I see Fen has decided to join this moral debate. Perhaps he'll share his theory about how only simpletons and ignoramuses think slavery is inherently evil. That's the kind of cutting moral insight that separates the lightweights from the true intellectuals.

You'll be back to normal in the morning.

And the insight just keeps on coming.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

But Chickie, when two cells become one, it's like magic. I heard the process even involves DNA or something - which is like the same as being a living, breathing, fully formed and functioning human being. Every scientist knows this, no? Having DNA means that you are touched by God. It's like that means he signed off on you and said: "Here, now go do battle with the evil liberals. I declare you to be ALIVE."

chickelit said...

C4: You miss the my point: It's not life, but new life. Do I have to whip out my Robert Frost again? Because I will!

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Is jr (is that short for "junior" BTW? Which grade of middle school are you in?) really so obtuse that he cannot differentiate between having a few nerve cells and having the hundreds of billions or more than form a brain and give it its function? Apparently so.

jr565 said...

But Chickie, when two cells become one, it's like magic. I heard the process even includes DNA or something - which is like the same as being a living, breathing, fully formed and functioning human being.


No one but you is ascribing the forming of a human being as some form of magic. It's perhaps miraculous that such a process is in place, but the process itself is very straightforward. That fetus is simply one stage of development of that living breathing fully formed and functioning human being. You woudln't be here if you hand't first been a fetus. And what do you mean by fully formed? Since a human is constantly growing and developing when are they fully formed? If you took a baby out of a womb through a cesarian section and that baby was viable, but was not fully formed (since it still had to go through two more months of growth and development) would it not be alive in your mind? And define functioning. Babies can't walk or talk or eat for themselves. Is a new born the same as a teenager?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Ah yes. The newness of a unique DNA blueprint. So fresh! So invigorating! So NEW!

Is it just me or are you one of the few here with sufficient scientific and biological literacy to also get that? I hoped so. ;-)

chickelit said...

Ode to C4-BDH:


But God's own descent
Into flesh was meant
As a demonstration
That the supreme merit
Lay in risking spirit
In substantiation.
Spirit enters flesh
And for all it's worth
Charges into earth
In birth after birth
Ever fresh and fresh.
We may take the view
That its derring-do
Thought of in the large
Is one mighty charge
On our human part
Of the soul's ethereal
Into the material.

~Robert Frost


wv = bonapp (Marketing tool for Pomme Computer in France)

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

And you wouldn't be here if a specific one of the billions of your daddy's sperm cells hadn't made it through to meet up with a particular one of your mommy's eggs, jr. So what the fuck is your point? Am I supposed to hand pick the very special fucking sperm cell whose existence was crucial to your arrival? Am I supposed to position them the right way? F off already with this ridiculous nonsense! Who the fuck cares!

jr565 said...

C4 seems to think that there is either a clump of cells or a fully formed baby, no development in between because every time he argues about fetuses he always refers to clumps of cells and never the developing fetus.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I never said there is no development in between but I am flabbergasted with your lack of understanding of which of those points of development in between has any relevance or not.

Every time you get on here it is like a learning session. Maybe if I had Glenn Beck's chalkboard we could indoctrinate you in the style that would feel familiar.

jr565 said...

C4BDH wrote:
Am I supposed to hand pick the very special fucking sperm cell whose existence was crucial to your arrival? Am I supposed to position them the right way? F off already with this ridiculous nonsense! Who the fuck cares!

what are you babbling about? Are you on some kind of meds? I'm trying to respond and literally cannot understand what you're arguing. Who's saying we need to position sperm the right way and pick the very special sperm cell crucial to my arrival other than you?

jr565 said...

C4BDH wrote:
I never said there is no development in between but I am flabbergasted with your lack of understanding of which of those points of development in between has any relevance or not.

All stages of development are relevant.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

You don't understand what I am arguing because you are simultaneously engaged in a remedial effort at learning basic embryology.

When you don't like being reminded of the randomness of your daddy's sperm shoot, I am only reminding you that it is a required phase, much like this one:

You woudln't be here if you hand't first been a fetus.

Just as irrelevant.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I'm saying we need to position your daddy and mommy the right way. Get the right "pre-JR" sperm into line.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

All stages of development are relevant.

Yes! Having fingers and toes is sooooo much as relevant as having a central nervous system, with all that that entails. SOOOOO RELEVANT!!!

jr565 said...

C4BDH wrote:

When you don't like being reminded of the randomness of your daddy's sperm shoot, I am only reminding you that it is a required phase.

So? And?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I'm tired.

Good night, jr - my little yolk sac.

shiloh said...

So Robert Frost wrote an ode to C4.

Well, he's certainly taken the road less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.

Or something.

Folk who enjoy being disagreeable are really quite entertaining ;) especially when they win every debate, the lack of formidable winger competition at AA notwithstanding.

btw, y'all had me at sea monkeys ...

chickelit said...

Ah yes. The newness of a unique DNA blueprint. So fresh! So invigorating! So NEW!

Yes, I get that. You're sort of saying that new life is obvious in view of previous life. You're like a Patent Examiner rejecting a claim based on 35 USC § 103(a).

I would respond that in the biological sciences, unpredictability of new inventions is given special weight. In other words, we may all look and act more alike than we differ, but that's not to say we're each obvious or predictable.

jr565 said...

C4BDH wrote:
Yes! Having fingers and toes is sooooo much as relevant as having a central nervous system, with all that that entails. SOOOOO RELEVANT!!!

Relevant in terms of what? It's simply a stage of development. A baby has a heart beat and a developing brain before a central nervous system, but is a brain not relevant? Is a heart not relevant?

jr565 said...

C4BDH wrote:
Yes! Having fingers and toes is sooooo much as relevant as having a central nervous system, with all that that entails. SOOOOO RELEVANT!!!

YOu added the word "as". I never said having toes is as relevant as having a central nervous system. But just because it's not AS relevant doesn't mean it's not relevant in the development of a fetus. It's all relevant from week one to week 42.
Also, inso far a baby is alive when it's fully formed isn't at all accurate considering a baby can survive outside of the womb at around 6 months on his own but has barely formed lungs yet. If you go by the argument that a baby must be fully formed to be alive, then you could have a live baby on an incubator still developing lungs that you would argue was techically not alive even though it would in fact be living.

test said...

"Jeremy said...

Notice how much more interesting the discussions are when someone drops by to move the regulars off the dime?"

So the asshole who contributes nothing nevertheless congratulates himself. Probably the result of our education system's overemphasis on self esteem.

Fen said...

Ritmo: You don't understand what I am arguing

Your position is that if you can't determine it is human with 100% certainty, then its okay to kill it.

Much like those that gave us slavery, the Trail of Tears and the Holocaust.

Anonymous said...

Julius said...

So our friendly conservatives would have abortion made illegal?

Then what?

'Cuz you know that if one of their daughters became pregnant at an inconvenient time, it'd be just as likely as not that they would encourage her to seek an abortion.


You mean like Sarah Palin did?

You people are beyond parody at this point.

Fen said...

Revenant: Perhaps he'll share his theory about how only simpletons and ignoramuses think slavery is inherently evil. That's the kind of cutting moral insight that separates the lightweights from the true intellectuals.

And you still can't comprehend what you read.

Guess I was wrong when I said you would return to reason in the AM.

Fen said...

And Rev, the argument you were making downthread was that the *people* involved in slavery were inherently evil, not just the institution.

Thomas Jefferson? Evil Incarnate.

So yes, ignorant and simplistic.

Rick67 said...

@Jeremy - You ask good questions and articulate your position well. I was active in pro-life movement for 3 years in college and have heard a lot of bad arguments/rationales for elective abortion and still do. (And yes bad arguments/rationales against elective abortion too.) I don't think what you expressed is ultimately persuasive but I would rather focus on the positive point.

But - with respect - I don't have much patience for the "if men got pregnant" line. It's an offensive little piece of anti-intellectual solipsism designed to dismiss *people* who hold contrary views rather than engage the merits of the arguments involved. So when *women* express opposition to abortion do abortion rights advocates suddenly listen carefully to those voices?

@All - Why the bleep are we debating abortion pro or con? This isn't about abortion. This is about Gail Collins and the mental diarrhea she splattered on the pages of the New York Times. Although... she's half right. In a way it is about crushing enemies - or to be more precise taking a huge stream of money and influence and thereby of power from the Democratic party.

Toad Trend said...

@C4

"I fully invite Don't Tread and any other interested party to declare the mental viability of someone with 3-weeks of embryonic neurological development to be sufficient and compatible with life as we know it."

Seems to me you are living proof, C4. Your desperate bleatings about life and its relative viability are entertaining. Mental viability? Well I don't know your age, but it would seem the slime mold status you assign to Fen might be an upgrade for you.

Assigning a qualifier like 'mental viability', would tend to eliminate many forms of life. Are you advocating genocide? Herbicide?

Do us all a favor, go have a stiff RoundUp smoothie and let us know how that warm/fuzzy mental viability feels.

Fen said...

Do I get any superpowers from being slime mold?

jr565 said...

Fen wrote:
our position is that if you can't determine it is human with 100% certainty, then its okay to kill it.


Except scientists can determine that it's a human fetus. So Ritmo is full of crap. No scientist or doctor has trouble figuring out whether a fetus is a sea horse or a human fetus. There's no confusion there. There is so much certainty in fact that they can chart it's development week by week. At no point in that development is it anything other than human, or a separate individual than when it will be born.
So Ritmo can determine with 100% certainty that it's a human.

Fen said...

/my quote was clipped, it should read

your position is that if you can't determine it is human with 100% certainty, then its okay to kill it.

Sorry, but if I don't correct that, Ritmo will get confused again.

jr565 said...

Even the argument that a baby isn't alive until it's viable is a bogus argument in determining when life starts because the viability of a baby changes as medical capabilities grow. Now 5 month old babies have a percentage chance of survival outside the womb, yet prior to that they have beating hearts and active brains. And that central nervous system that Ritmo is yammering about is there but not fully developed.
Yet if a baby is premature can it survive outside of the womb on it's own? Usually it's hooked up to various tubes as it hasn't fully formed it's lungs yet, so there is a difficulty breathing and obviously it needs various nutrients. Whether it's being fed by a mother or by a machine, it still needs those things to continue developing. From a scientific standpoint what is different about the baby outside of the womb versus when it was inside the womb a day before? Is it a separate entity?
Since it's the same entity at the same stage of development whether in or out of the womb, it puts a lie to Ritmo's argument that its humanness can't be determined. Since preemies are not fully developed yet live hooked up to a machine it puts a lie to Ritmo's argument that full development determines life. A preemie isn't fully developed yet there it is living. And the baby was similarly living while inside the womb. It is simply reliant on the mother to live for those first few months of development.
For all his talk about science Ritmo seems pretty ignorant of the human developmental process, and seems perfectly willing to kill babies for some arbitrary reason.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 420   Newer› Newest»