June 18, 2013

"Texas Congressman: Masturbating Fetuses Prove Need for Abortion Ban."

This anti-anti-abortion snark isn't funny:
As the House of Representatives gears up for Tuesday’s debate on HR 1797, a bill that would outlaw virtually all abortions 20 weeks post fertilization, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) argued in favor of banning abortions even earlier in pregnancy because, he said, male fetuses that age were already, shall we say, spanking the monkey.

“Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful,” said Burgess, a former OB/GYN. “They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?”
This is getting a fair amount of attention from pro-abortion rights bloggers, and I'd just like to say — and note that I support abortion rights — that this mockery is very ugly.

ADDED: Pharyngula writes, obviously intending humor:
... I think the good Christians of Texas ought to regard this as an argument for abortion — the sinful little self-polluters must be punished!
Balloon Juice jokingly detects sexism and instructs readers ("Juicers") to find the hilarity:
Just when you thought you’ve heard it all, some dude bro starts talking about male fetuses jerking off, and then your brain starts to cry... I find it very interesting that the concern is only for male fetus pleasure. Because women are just brood mares who can’t feel pleasure. Where’s the love for female fetuses? Damn.

Have fun with this one, Juicers.
The first commenter says: "'I fap, therefore I am'? Sounds like a plausible slogan for today’s GOP wankers. Jesus God. Where is that meteor already?"

Speaking of "the good Christians of Texas," why don't good liberals seriously believe "I fap, therefore I am"? At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

ADDED: I respond to the question "What's so 'ugly' about the mockery."

283 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 283 of 283
Darcy said...

@bagoh20

That's hot!

Therein lies the rub. :)

Fr Martin Fox said...

Terry Canaan said...
Remember, we need to force women to give birth against their will because liberty!

You know, that's really a dumb argument. I'm not saying you are dumb; I'm saying it's unworthy of any intelligent person.

As far as "forcing" someone to give birth, you might as well speak of "forcing" someone's heart to beat, or someone's lungs to breathe.

Or, if you really want to harp on the "forcing" business, let's cite some others, and I'll be interested if you are consistent:

- We "force" parents to pay for the care and feeding of their children--it's called "child support."

- We "force" parents to continue supporting their children up to a certain age, denying them the "liberty" of post-birth "abortions."

- We "force" parents to provide education for their fetuses, up until high school or thereabouts, either by "forcing" the parents to send their children to school, or provide for their education some other way.

- We "force" parents to respect the bodies of their children by not beating or molesting them.

Either you agree with some of these forms of "force"--or else you are in favor of...well, you can figure it out, and so can everyone else.

That's why it's a dumb argument.

bagoh20 said...

Ahh Darcy, our comments are on separate pages, like ships already passed in the night. Watch out for the icebergs back that way.

Birkel said...

Father Fox,
I got there first.
Neener!

Fr Martin Fox said...

Birkel said...
Father Fox,
I got there first.
Neener!



Not only that, but with far fewer words! Well done!

Birkel said...

:)

Anonymous said...



"When talking about 20 week bans versus other week bans we are talking about the law being involved. How then are you not going to have govt in that decision?
Life begins at X under law. What is allowable is a determination of law. Morality may play into the creation of said law, But it's going to be law taht determines the specifics of what is allowable and not allowable when it comes to abortion. Therefore, there is no way to separate that from govt. Since govt creates and enforces laws."

6/18/13, 2:28 PM

Gotta agree with Jr. here. Yikes.

jr565 said...

St Croix wrote:
Pro-lifers give birth to new voters. Pro-aborts don't.

But even so, there's no guarantee that those voters will be pro life. They might rebel and become pro choicers.
But even if they do, their parents should tell them that but for their parents being pro life they might not be in the world today having discussions about being pro choice. Ask the prochoicer would they have been ok with the choice to abort if it mean they never existed.



Anonymous said...

It's fun being sinful, all it takes is feeling remorse a minute later, right? "Forgive me Father"........

garage mahal said...

They fear a simple solution that will change things for them.

The bottom line is these hard core "pro lifers" hate women. Ultrasounds are just a shame device for women having sex. You don't even have to look at the ultrasound, at least in Wisconsin anyway. In the same legislative session they are slashing millions in healthcare and child care services.

Love the fetus hate the baby.

Birkel said...

What of hard core anti-lifers like Garage Mahal?

Anonymous said...

Garage, can't you hear it already? "Taxed enough already! We won't pay for your mistake! No raising my tax to support millions of babies born to single mothers!"

grinder said...

What's so "ugly" about the mockery?

Birkel said...

I enjoy the continued eugenics debates. Garage and Inga have identified themselves with the side in favor of abortion because babies cost too much and would deprive society of too many resources.

Those hard core anti-lifers* and their eugenics are so cute when they get riled.

*Do you prefer the term pro-death since it sounds more positive?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Garage:

The bottom line is these hard core "pro lifers" hate women.

The number of females killed annually by abortion in U.S. has to be in excess of 600,000, based on the usual estimate of 1.2 million total abortions.

We pro-lifers "hate" women so much, we want to prevent the killing of every single one of them.

Such "hate"!

Meanwhile, Garage and others "love" women so much, they want the killing to continue.

Such "love"!

harrogate said...

What this post is really bothered by is the idea that these sorts of politicos on the right are not taken seriously. Althouse implies that that Burgess is mainstream, his rhetoric is mainstream. Which notion itself is a good subject for mockery.

Nathan Alexander said...

The bottom line is these hard core "pro lifers" hate women. Ultrasounds are just a shame device for women having sex.

There's the "fear" approach of fascism, mentioned earlier.

And put garage on record that making more information available to someone making an important decision is a horrible, no good, very bad thing!

Hey, garage, do you know the suicide rate of women who have had abortions is much, much higher than those who haven't had one?

"Abortion increases the likelihood of suicide," is the finding of research in the United States, Britain and Finland. After an abortion a woman has to deal with painful issues of grief and loss. Keeping the baby reduces the risks of suicide because the mother lives to care for her child.
The Finland study revealed a six-fold increased rate of deaths from suicide among aborting women. BMJ 1996;313:1431-1434
A study conducted in Wales on 408,000 women between 1991 and 1995, found that women who had induced abortions were 225 percent more likely to commit suicide, than women admitted for normal delivery....
"A recent American study came up with similar results, examining the medical records of 173,279 low-income women who had abortions in 1989. Four years later the annual suicide rate was found to be 160 percent higher among the aborting women than those who delivered their babies....The primary reason given for suicide after an abortion, is the long-term clinical depression suffered by a percentage of women. This post-abortion grief or trauma can lead to abusing drugs and alcohol, with an added risk of suicide."


For liberal fascists, black is white, up is down, we've always been at war with Eastasia and helping women want to live is hating them.

garage, I think I'd prefer liberals hate me than want to help me. People liberals claim to help end up dead or in poverty WAY too often.

damikesc said...

Love the fetus hate the baby.

Pro choicers are notoriously not fond of either.

Pro-choicers are quite fond of enslaving children who have no voice on the issue to a lifetime of slavery to the state to pay the debts that their selfish parents stuck them with.

The number of females killed annually by abortion in U.S. has to be in excess of 600,000, based on the usual estimate of 1.2 million total abortions.

I've not seen a single study that had boys and girls aborted at an equal pace. Girls are always aborted more frequently.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Nathan:

Presumably, Garage et al. are entirely in favor of women exercising their choice of killing themselves after they've exercised the choice of killing their child.

Because he loves women; and anyone who wants to prevent the deaths of women--born and unborn--"hates" them.

Birkel said...

harrogate:

I will note that you do not care whether the Congressman was "correct". You care solely for your ability to chastise him because his views were unacceptable to your political religion. NOTED

Now, if the Congressman said something "true" and it adds to the understanding of this truth -- is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Nathan Alexander said...

Friar,
Yep.

I'm going to repeat this for emphasis:

People liberals claim to help end up dead or permanently stuck in poverty WAY too often.

Fr Martin Fox said...

damikesc said...

The number of females killed annually by abortion in U.S. has to be in excess of 600,000, based on the usual estimate of 1.2 million total abortions.

I've not seen a single study that had boys and girls aborted at an equal pace. Girls are always aborted more frequently.


Oh, I agree; but for the sake of argument, I saw no point in trying to refine the number.

But if folks like Garage feel I'm not fair in giving him credit for how much he truly "loves" those unborn girls--if he wants credit for "loving" even more girls down the garbage chute--well, I'll let him pick a number higher than 600,000.

Ann Althouse said...

"What's so 'ugly' about the mockery?"

The Congressman described the fetus's humanity: It does something that we are invited to recognize as part of our shared human condition and therefore to appreciate its reality and to feel empathy.

The mockers are taking this delicately stated image of the fetus touching or holding its genitals and turning it into a picture of a baby masturbating -- "jerking off," "spanking the monkey" -- and asking us to laugh at it, even as we are expected to accept its being killed. The very thing that the Congressman used to call us to think of it as human, they would laugh at before killing it.

If you are going to take it into your hands to kill a human being, you don't diminish it and laugh at it first. For example, an execution -- assuming it is permitted at all, as it is in the United States -- is carried out with somber respect. Even as this human being will be killed, we must demonstrate that we understand the profundity of what we are doing.

Picture executions where the condemned person is subjected to mockery first. (That was done to Jesus, by the way.) Some would say any death penalty is wrong, just as some would say that any abortion is wrong. But few would say that ridiculing the condemned being -- dehumanizing him -- is acceptable.

In their eagerness to deny that the fetus is a person, abortion rights proponents -- some of them -- are making sport of it.

This reminds me of Kermit Gosnell joking about a large fetus, saying that it was big enough to walk to the bus stop. Think about why that was considered shocking by many people.

bagoh20 said...

Inga,

You are free to give as much of your own money as you wish to help the single mothers. How much is that, by the way?
Oh, you mean you want to give MY money to them?

That was the whole reason I didn't screw them in the first place, and now I have to pay anyway because someone else did? Do I at least get the sex now, or just the bill? I should get a book of gift certificates entitling me to one night stands with any woman I hand them to. That would be fair, and besides, I need that - I'm feeling a little bloated and unattractive this week.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Nathan:

I'm not offended to be called one, but I'm not actually a "Friar" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friar)

I do bear a, er, growing! resemblance to the cinematic "Friar Tuck" however!

Dante said...

The first commenter says: "'I fap, therefore I am'? Sounds like a plausible slogan for today’s GOP wankers. Jesus God. Where is that meteor already?"

This is the kind of attitude that can admit no new information. It's a completely closed mind, that picks up positions as personal identity. To refute even a single idea held this strongly would require a complete revision of his view of the world, and furthermore his identity within it.

Nathan Alexander said...

Oh, I see: Fr stands for "Father" not Friar.

I'm not Catholic, I guess that is painfully obvious now.

harrogate said...

The Republicans on the House since 2010 have written and argued for a number of abortion laws that really stands out, by any same measure.

Fair enough. Such major emphasis is not what they ran on though, is it?

garage mahal said...

Oh, I agree; but for the sake of argument, I saw no point in trying to refine the number.

This reminds me of that Daily Show bit where they asked pro life George Bush how many people were killed by his decision to invade Iraq. He looked stunned, like, he had never really given it much thought. Every life is precious, right?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Nathan Alexander said...

I'm not Catholic, I guess that is painfully obvious now.

Nah; a Catholic might as easily have said the same.

I get called "Padre," "Pater," "Pastor," "Reverend," "Preacher Man," "Mister," etc.

In Europe, there is a custom of calling a priest, particularly a "secular" priest as I am (i.e., I'm not in a religious order), "Don" -- hence, Don Martin (if you say it as the Spanish would, I think it sounds rather nice!)

Finally, the custom of calling a priest "Father" originated with priests who were in religious orders, but gradually migrated to all priests.

Birkel said...

harrogate and garage mahal continue to ignore the humanity of a baby because it is not yet outside the mother.

I am quite sure that makes you both monsters in the classic sense of the word.

Fr Martin Fox said...

I said:

Oh, I agree; but for the sake of argument, I saw no point in trying to refine the number.

Garage said:

This reminds me of that Daily Show bit where they asked pro life George Bush how many people were killed by his decision to invade Iraq. He looked stunned, like, he had never really given it much thought. Every life is precious, right?

I'm not following that argument; but if your point is to lump me in with George W. Bush, you are making assumptions, some of which are falsified by things I've said over and over here. Namely, I've made it crystal clear I didn't like George W. Bush and didn't vote for him.

I used to joke with friends, back around AD 2000, that he bid fair to be the Antichrist, and I had a nickname for him: "SOS"; the first "S" stands for "Spawn"; I'll let you fill in the rest.

And, in case you're interested, I was against the Iraq War.

So maybe try another argument besides guilt-by-association?

AReasonableMan said...

Nathan Alexander is an obsessive defender of life in this thread. Yet, in other threads, he argues equally vehemently that an armed man who shot an unarmed teenager in cold blood should go free without any penalty.

Respect for life is apparently conditional in young Nathan's mind.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Oh, and Garage?

One of the (many) reasons I was so strongly opposed to George W. Bush, from 1999 forward, was because in my view, he was not, and is not, "pro life."

Now, I don't expect you to know that; but that shows the folly of such guilt-by-association arguments.

Birkel said...

AReasonableMan:

There is a decent argument that a pregnant woman has every right to defend her own life against anything -- including a baby -- that would kill her. That is a classic self-defense argument with which few people disagree.

I will let Nathan Alexander defend (or not) himself. I do not think you clever but note your effort.

NOTED

Nomennovum said...

If you are going to take it into your hands to kill a human being, you don't diminish it and laugh at it first.

Perfectly stated.

Patrick said...

Nathan Alexander is an obsessive defender of life in this thread. Yet, in other threads, he argues equally vehemently that an armed man who shot an unarmed teenager in cold blood should go free without any penalty.

Assuming that you're talking about the Zimmerman case, it could be that he believes Zimmerman only shot Martin after having his head bashed on the cement walk. You may see it differently, but those positions are not in contradiction.

Darcy said...

It's fun being sinful, all it takes is feeling remorse a minute later, right? "Forgive me Father"........

*sigh*

I'll bite. No, it's not fun. It's not fun because if you believe sin exists the remorse should be, and is, real.

Anyway - I'm sorry I insulted you, Inga. It was unkind of me.

garage mahal said...

I'm not following that argument; but if your point is to lump me in with George W. Bush, you are making assumptions, some of which are falsified by things I've said over and over here

I was comparing your comment "saw no point in trying to refine the number" to Bush's no real comprehension on how many people were being killed in Iraq.

Roderick Reilly said...

Granted, the pro-abortion folks are a malignant bunch. However, why do the most adamant pro-lifers make such stupid remarks that leave themopen to ridicule, and thus end up deflecting their own arguments? Shall we call this Todd Akin Syndrome?

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...
Nathan Alexander is an obsessive defender of life in this thread. Yet, in other threads, he argues equally vehemently that an armed man who shot an unarmed teenager in cold blood should go free without any penalty.


Uh, whether or not said teenager was "armed" is irrelevant as a matter of law.

You are really, really fucking dumb, and really, really bad at this.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
The bottom line is these hard core "pro lifers" hate women.


Stupid leftist dipshits like you take to the Internet to project.

Birkel said...

BREAKING NEWS:

garage mahal just compared himself to former president George W. Bush.

George W. Bush, we are told, did not care about soldiers that died in Iraq, despite evidence to the contrary.

garage mahal admits he does not care how many female babies are aborted. But unlike the Evil Bush garage mahal thinks too few female (and male) babies are aborted.

Well played, garage mahal. You get points for honesty.

AReasonableMan said...

I have to buy a laser printer, small office size, best if it could do color and BW. Want to limit to Brother, Cannon and Samsung for reliability. Would like it to take a full ream of paper in one go. Any suggestions?

bagoh20 said...

I think it's worse than mockery to equate a convicted murder with a unborn child, but that's just me.

And to defend the mockers, they really are mocking the right to life people, not the fetus.

One of the main purposes of both incarceration and execution is to demean the criminal, and especially for all to see. At least it was until very recently when it started falling under the effects of political correctness, but this is new. People were executed in private in the past only when the government was ashamed of what it was doing, and afraid it was unjust.

Birkel said...

Roderick Reilly:

What about the Congressman's views was stupid? Was it somehow incorrect? If it was incorrect, please demonstrate how you know this to be true. If what the Congressman was correct, can we assume you think facts are stupid?

Thank you in advance.

Thomas said...

"Until the moment of personhood is defined, there is no libertarian position on abortion."

Alternatively, a libertarian dedicated to the nonaggression principle could decide that wherever that precise "moment" may be, it's better to err on the side of caution, and select, for purposes of law, that's reasonably likely to be well clear of the actual moment where allowing abortion constitutes sanctioning a violation of the nonaggression principle.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...
an armed man who shot an unarmed teenager in cold blood


That's a great fucking synopsis of what happened.

Really.

Thomas said...

Terry Canaan:
"Remember, we need to force women to give birth against their will because liberty!"

Do whatever you like with your uterus, just so long as you don't suck out someone else's brain.

The possible presence of a "someone else" is what this discussion is all about, and which the friends of abortion are determined to ignore.

Because choice, or something.

garage mahal said...

Any suggestions?

Ditch the color, unless you really do need it. I have a deal for you!

AReasonableMan said...

garage mahal said...

Ditch the color, unless you really do need it. I have a deal for you!


I only want the color on occasions. Mainly because I can't be bothered to walk out of my office to the main printer to get the printouts and more legitimately because this printer is sometimes broken. Apparently no one gives a toss about printer quality any more. So I want to keep the color capability but mainly use it for BW.

garage mahal said...

AR
If you wanted to go with HP, I can help. lpimark (at) yahoo

AReasonableMan said...

Garage this is going to seem naive but the last time I bought a printer was over 10 years ago. It was a HP workgroup printer and has been incredibly reliable. My question is do color laser printers have a mode where they just function as BW printers and when in this mode are they just as cheap as a BW printer?

Anonymous said...

Birkel, try being accurate, I'm for 1st trimester abortions being legal. The first trimester ends before the 20th week, so I'm even stricter in my stance on abortion than some conservatives. Ive had conservatives here on Altouse agree with me on this.

garage mahal said...

AR
You would be just printing from the black cartridge if printing in b/w. The cost per page would probably be higher than if you printed from a monochrome printer. But really not too big a deal unless you're really cranking out a lot of volume.

Meade said...

I'm a conservative moderate liberal and I agree with Inga on that.

Anonymous said...

Meade, hey it's better than being a libertarian conservative anarchist, like Achilles.

Baron Zemo said...

It's pretty funny that an ultrasound is such a terrible thing. I mean you get an x-ray before you get a tooth pulled.

It's the same thing for these mooks.
Just like ripping out a bad molar.

MCD said...

As usual, the Republicans have played their stupid hand and made it easy for Democrats to scorn them and avoid the actual issue.

The issue is -- does a fetus/baby that/who can survive outside the womb have a right to live? Put that way, I think most people can agree that it does have the right to live.

Birkel said...

Inga,
You say as much. Fine. You are one step up from the eugenicist, garage mahal.

Kensington said...

"It's fun being sinful, all it takes is feeling remorse a minute later, right? "Forgive me Father"........"
===============

It doesn't sound like you've ever experienced remorse. I have and find it hard to be glib about.

Saint Croix said...

St. Croix, pro choice or pro aborts don't have children themselves? Really?

Yeah, that was a little sloppy of me. They have far less children. Compare and contrast the reproductive rates of Muslims, Catholics, and Mormons with secular liberals.

The breeders shall inherit the earth.

Saint Croix said...

And to defend the mockers, they really are mocking the right to life people, not the fetus.

That's exactly right. The baby is beneath their contempt. They don't see the baby at all. They are mocking pro-lifers for seeing something that does not exist.

It's similar to the feminist chant, "It's my body, it's my choice." There is no baby in that rhetoric. There is no father in that rhetoric. Indeed, I have heard feminists say that men should have no opinion on abortion, as pregnancy is a woman's issue and does not concern men at all(!)

When pro-aborts start using terms like "cancer" or "sea monkey" to describe the baby, then their hate is obvious. But that sort of angry rhetoric only comes out when they are challenged. Their preferred option is the "civilized" option of simply ignoring the baby and pretending she does not exist. Thus they talk about abortion like it's plastic surgery. "I had a procedure done."

Nathan Alexander said...

ARM's greatest talent is defeating strawmen.

ARM, I reject your premise as so childish and stupid as to be beneath even you.

Yes, even you.

Nathan Alexander said...

garage,
Your premise regarding George W. Bush relies on a several idiotic assumptions, as well.

One could as easily assume that based on the goofy look on Obama's face when asked about drone strikes that he relishes having innocent people bleed to death, slowly and intense agony.
Or one could as easily assume that President Obama has personally killed more than a dozen hours-old infants, in line with his views on partial birth abortion mistakes, and laughed and videotaped himself doing it to replay it and enjoy it.

Those things all have the exact same amount of evidence as your assertion.

So, you might want to draw back a little bit and reconsider. I know it is easier to feel smug if your starting assumption is that someone you don't like is evil and stupid...but the problem with that method is that you become what you assume.

From your heartless postings on this thread alone, it seems you have long ago become a compassion-less monster.

Titus said...

Shocking that this congress thing, who is a doctor, is hideous looking and enormous.

How many obese docs do you see today?

Look at that fat fucks face.

He is huge and gross and the face of the white fat old southern nearly extinct repube party.

But, if he runs for president, there is a good chance he is a shoe in to win.......the primary.

Demos pubes they are really really against you.

chillblaine said...

"...note that I support abortion rights..."

Tell me please, is there a stage of gestation in which the fetus may have it's rights defended? In your opinion, that is.

AReasonableMan said...

Nathan Alexander said...
ARM's greatest talent is defeating strawmen.


And your strength appears to be compartmentalizing morality. I understand that as a lawyer this may be professional advantage for you.

damikesc said...

And your strength appears to be compartmentalizing morality. I understand that as a lawyer this may be professional advantage for you.

So, for you, self-defense and cold blooded murder are the same thing morally?

That is one of the more baffling moral stances I've ever seen.

AReasonableMan said...

damikesc said...
So, for you, self-defense and cold blooded murder are the same thing morally?


It would be good if Zimmerman had to first sign a release form before killing, similar to that proposed by Althouse for abortion. Something along the lines of:

I George Zimmerman acknowledge that I am about to take the life of an unarmed teenager innocent of any wrong-doing, despite my fevered imaginings. I further acknowledge that any normal man in exactly the same position would not feel the need to resort to this action. i realize that going forward most normal men will view me as a cowardly pathetic unmanly weasel, little will have changed.

In the absence of such a signed release form a trial is the only reasonable recourse.

Nathan Alexander said...

ARM,

A person has a right to defend their own life from a life-threatening assault.

It is a pity you can't keep up in even basic moral discussions.

AReasonableMan said...

The purpose of a trial is to question the moral seriousness that Zimmerman brought to the killing of this unarmed and innocent teen. I doubt that Zimmerman is capable of the depth of thought required to bring adequate seriousness to such a killing. He has had no training in the consequences of firearm use and appears to lack any intellectual or moral depth. You have repeatedly rejected the idea of a trial in this case but then turn around an apply very different criteria to pregnant women.

AReasonableMan said...

Nathan Alexander said...
It is a pity you can't keep up in even basic moral discussions.


You're a fucking lawyer, don't lecture me on morality.

damikesc said...

The purpose of a trial is to question the moral seriousness that Zimmerman brought to the killing of this unarmed and innocent teen.

Funny, I thought it was to determine if he committed a crime.

Learn something new every day.

I doubt that Zimmerman is capable of the depth of thought required to bring adequate seriousness to such a killing.

A reasonable assumption, clearly.

:rolleyes:

It would be good if Zimmerman had to first sign a release form before killing

So, yes, murder and self-defense are the same for you. Grand. Hope your loved ones never have to face the risk of death and need to rely on you for help. They will be screwed.

Were you born a moron or did you have to work at it?

AReasonableMan said...

damikesc said...
Hope your loved ones never have to face the risk of death and need to rely on you for help. They will be screwed.


It is the moral preening exemplified by this statement that best explains the lack of success of the right to life movement.

Applying the same logic that you and Mr Alexander use for pregnant women, it would be appropriate to require any prospective gun owner to undergo an anal probe while being exposed to images of gun victims, since said gun owner is a potential killer of someone for whom personhood is not in question. In addition, by the logic of Althouse, we should require a signed statement requiring said gun owner to acknowledge the moral seriousness of gun ownership with its potential to take a life, before allowing purchase of a gun. Much the same would apply to any purchases of ammunition.

damikesc said...

It is the moral preening exemplified by this statement that best explains the lack of success of the right to life movement.

Yes, because sentencing others to death due to your inaction is the height of moral rectitude.

Really. Totally is.

Applying the same logic that you and Mr Alexander use for pregnant women, it would be appropriate to require any prospective gun owner to undergo an anal probe while being exposed to images of gun victims, since said gun owner is a potential killer of someone for whom personhood is not in question.

1) Unlike abortion, gun ownership is a specifically listed Constitutional right.

2) Unlike abortion, gun ownership does require quite a few hurdles. Licenses aren't just given away. Background checks are done.

You're becoming more of a clown than usual.

AReasonableMan said...

damikesc said...
Hope your loved ones never have to face the risk of death and need to rely on you for help. They will be screwed.


Have you ever actually been in a street fight? Do you know anything at all about how to defend yourself in tense situations? Or, are you just some useless little weasel scared of his own shadow who bought a gun to escape the pathetic gnawing feelings of inadequacy that sweep over you every night as you try sleep in sweat stained sheets knowing that panic and confusion is all you will have when things go bad. People like you and Zimmerman should be banned from having guns because of lack of moral fiber.

damikesc said...

Have you ever actually been in a street fight?

Not since college.

Do you know anything at all about how to defend yourself in tense situations?

Actually, yes. Thanks for asking.

Or, are you just some useless little weasel scared of his own shadow who bought a gun to escape the pathetic gnawing feelings of inadequacy that sweep over you every night as you try sleep in sweat stained sheets knowing that panic and confusion is all you will have when things go bad.

Are you attempting to make a point here? Because you're failing.

People like you and Zimmerman should be banned from having guns because of lack of moral fiber.

People like you should be banned from speaking due to being a fucking moron.

AReasonableMan said...

So now you have a prolonged post with no discernible point. You attack me repeatedly, question my ability to defend my family and at the end you have nothing. Simply lazy ad hominen attacks. What are you trying to say? Make a coherent argument.

damikesc said...

So now you have a prolonged post with no discernible point.

I debated expending the effort to make your gibberish a point --- but if you don't care enough to do so, I fail to see a reason for me to.

You attack me repeatedly

Awwww...I forgot that you didn't attack me. Provided you ignore when you did and all.

question my ability to defend my family

Not so much ability as a desire to do so.

What are you trying to say? Make a coherent argument.

My argument is that anybody who argues that murder and self-defense are in any way comparable are morons.

You proved my thesis with gusto.

Micha Elyi said...

"I am pro-life, but but still pro-RU-486. ... Because that way it is the mother's hand that kills the baby... without dragging a doctor and some nurses into it."
--Nathan Alexander

You've been misinformed - about how RU-486 works (always requires a follow-up visit to the doctor and more medical attention if complications occur; many attempted RU-486 baby poisonings end up in a surgical abortion anyway), about how one becomes responsible for a killing (the poison supplier is morally responsible just as is the poisoner), and what "pro-life" means.

Micha Elyi said...

"I am pro-life, but but still pro-RU-486. ... Because that way it is the mother's hand that kills the baby... without dragging a doctor and some nurses into it."
--Nathan Alexander

You've been misinformed - about how RU-486 works (always requires a follow-up visit to the doctor and more medical attention if complications occur; many attempted RU-486 baby poisonings end up in a surgical abortion anyway), about how one becomes responsible for a killing (the poison supplier is morally responsible just as is the poisoner), and what "pro-life" means.

Micha Elyi said...

"Ultrasounds are just a shame device for women having sex."
--Garage Mahal

Many abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, use ultrasounds during surgical abortions. What's more, they prefer the kind of ultrasound Planned Parenthood's own advocates likened to "rape!"

Thanks for making clear why they do that.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 283 of 283   Newer› Newest»