tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post3230215962746319717..comments2024-03-29T00:04:32.434-05:00Comments on Althouse: Rand Paul's anti-abortion campaign.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger350125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-81245891119865241562012-08-01T19:23:11.953-05:002012-08-01T19:23:11.953-05:00I used that language because I don't feel that...I used that language because I don't feel that the Palins and their ilk respect life or its quality so much as they respect procreation. They reduce people to acts, minds to material, people to DNA, and then ask (demand, really) that I grant the worldviews that revolve around such dehumanizing reductions respect. But I don't respect these attitudes, I never have, and - barring some incredibly unlikely arch-conservative outreach into a sort of reason that is both empathetic and relevant - I see little reason to do so in the future. <br /><br />Look at the way they've treated the other baby's father. It's disgusting. Years ago conservatives would have had a problem with that. But nowadays I suppose they find no opportunity for celebrity or supposed/(feigned?) martyrdom too cheap a vehicle to advance themselves politically. It's really pathetic and I have no inclination to succumb to its justifications. Ditto the "fertility cult" perspective they've made of the poor handicapped baby. As unfortunate as his condition is, their choice to make a spectacle out of that, for the sake of their own self-aggrandizement, goes way beyond unfortunate. It's morally obscene. An obscenity matched only by how blind they are to it, this gluttonous need of theirs to define themselves as the heroes in everyone <i>else's</i> situation.<br /><br />So this response is moreso for the confused jr. The rest of Saint Croix's replies are worth considering, even if some were still worded in a more emotionally distorted way than they needed to be.Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Togetherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059991118123693141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-627684555562247522012-07-29T12:05:56.701-05:002012-07-29T12:05:56.701-05:00her interest in spawning one retarded kid
This is...her interest in spawning one retarded kid<br /><br />This is so vile I ask you to reflect on what you said. You might contemplate that there are lots of people who have handicapped children.<br /><br><br />Why are you asking reflection of Ritmo. Do you think him saying "spawned a retard" is in any way out of character for Ritmo? It sounds like you're giving him WAY too much credit to not be a complete douche.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/07630491937904835553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74796658109547021932012-07-29T03:49:27.313-05:002012-07-29T03:49:27.313-05:00You, yourself, admitted that for a great deal of t...<i>You, yourself, admitted that for a great deal of time post-conception embryos still lack the brain activity that legally defines life.</i><br /><br />Yes, some abortions are not homicides. So? Many abortions take place in the last few weeks of the first trimester, in the second trimester, or in the third trimester. Let's focus on the homicides, shall we?<br /><br /><i>You said this as a way of arguing against defining conception as the point of legal, living personhood.</i><br /><br />Equality requires applying our death statutes to all our people. <br /><br />Under our death statutes, many abortions are homicides. I focus on those. They outrage me. <br /><br />You don't care, because you continue to dehumanize babies throughout the pregnancy. I know you're a sensitive man, and thus I know you are aware that this is highly immoral and unethical.<br /><br />I believe that's why you keep changing the subject. You don't want to think about the homicides. You continually revert to talking about the early weeks of the first trimester, as if every abortion happens in the early weeks of the first trimester. <br /><br />I tell you that 1% of abortions happen in the third trimester. You say this: <br /> <br /><i>And they comprise a miniscule proportion of abortions.</i><br /><br />Yes. It is a small percentage of abortions. 1% is a tiny percentage. <br /><br />But the numbers of abortions are so high (50,000,000), that the actual body counts are mind-boggling (500,000). <br /><br />Decent people are appalled by this. You would be, if you thought about it. But you shut your brain off and try to change the subject.<br /><br /><i>her interest in spawning one retarded kid</i><br /><br />This is so vile I ask you to reflect on what you said. You might contemplate that there are <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/wonkette-editor-comments-on-reprehensible-birthday-greeting-to-trig-palin/" rel="nofollow">lots of people</a> who have handicapped children.Saint Croixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17876368500159112781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71592463186714641712012-07-29T02:59:24.395-05:002012-07-29T02:59:24.395-05:00The whole reason D & E procedures ("late-...<i>The whole reason D & E procedures ("late-term abortions"?) exist in the first place is because the risk of delivery is a GREATER threat to the life of the mother.</i><br /><br />You're confusing the D&E with the D&X and recyling pro-choice rhetoric from 1979. <br /><br />Read <b><i>Carhart</i></b>, Ritmo. I link to it in every other abortion thread. Read the damn opinion! <br /><br />The <b><i>Carhart</i></b> cases are in regard to partial-birth abortion (a.k.a. the D&X). This abortion procedure requires the doctor to induce labor and deliver the baby. <br /><br />Everybody agrees the D&X is safer than the D&E. Why? Because birth is safer than the D&E. Why? Because when you give birth to the baby, the doctor doesn't have to rip the baby out of the womb piece by piece.<br /><br />All of this stuff is in the Supreme Court cases, which you obviously haven't read. Your rhetoric is 15 years out of date. Try to keep up.Saint Croixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17876368500159112781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71186853659739351762012-07-28T20:18:57.219-05:002012-07-28T20:18:57.219-05:00Has the Supreme Court even been asked to weigh in ...Has the Supreme Court even been asked to weigh in on the dangers of breast implants? It seems that good old fashioned tort law and class action suits have addressed this issue just fine. <br /><br />But I forgot. In this case state medical boards have been given the breathing room to focus on the actual, you know, MEDICAL issues without being forced into some confusedly ideological moral crusade. <br /><br />Which is as it should be.Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Togetherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059991118123693141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-35973015871268741612012-07-28T20:15:25.333-05:002012-07-28T20:15:25.333-05:00The whole reason D & E procedures ("late-...The whole reason D & E procedures ("late-term abortions"?) exist in the first place is because the risk of delivery is a GREATER threat to the life of the mother. That's pretty much the reason this phenomena exists. You are simply being ignorant and paranoid. And they comprise a miniscule proportion of abortions. You can be concerned about them all you want to be. That's fine. But you are not describing the medical risks of not performing them fairly.Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Togetherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059991118123693141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53403472888059708642012-07-28T20:08:51.935-05:002012-07-28T20:08:51.935-05:00Casey Anthony's "mom" was acquitted,...Casey Anthony's "mom" was acquitted, dude. Something that can happen to anyone accused of ANY crime.<br /><br />You really need to chill out for a spell. Just because you had a flash of reason and insight that happened to limit the excesses of your ideology, doesn't mean the sky will now fall. You are confusing morality with some kind of totality.Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Togetherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059991118123693141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71584078223739041562012-07-28T20:05:03.199-05:002012-07-28T20:05:03.199-05:00And the paranoia that anyone on the left cares abo...And the paranoia that anyone on the left cares about Governor Half-Term and her interest in spawning one retarded kid out of the burgeoning brood (while supposedly flying over a thousand miles after her water broke to do so - how's that for not "caring" for the unborn?) is laughable. It gives your side the sense of martyrdom it seems to pine for, I suppose. But really, no one cares. <br /><br />Although it does seem interesting that mental handicaps stir the right wing's heartstrings moreso than other handicaps. I wonder if there's a reason for that...Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Togetherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059991118123693141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-70506547139898594722012-07-28T19:59:37.431-05:002012-07-28T19:59:37.431-05:00Oh whatever, Dude.
You, yourself, admitted that ...Oh whatever, Dude. <br /><br />You, yourself, admitted that for a great deal of time post-conception embryos still lack the brain activity that legally defines life. You said this as a way of arguing against defining conception as the point of legal, living personhood. You probably did this as a way to keep the ideas of your own "pro-life" side, as biased as they are, "viable". <br /><br />So settle down and be consistent. Just because you are afraid of the rhetorical and illogical excesses of the anti-4th amendment crowd doesn't mean that everyone else is a "fascist".Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Togetherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059991118123693141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-21690557078443395622012-07-28T07:56:14.392-05:002012-07-28T07:56:14.392-05:00To say that there are moral inconsistencies in the...<i>To say that there are moral inconsistencies in the pro-life position regarding punishments is an understatement.</i><br /><br />The prosecutors who are charging Dr. Kermit Gosnell with murder are not prosecuting any of the women involved. Under your theory, since this is a "moral inconsistency," we cannot prosecute Gosnell for killing any of the babies he has killed.<br /><br />That's just absurd as a matter of law. Prosecutors have a lot of flexibility in regard to whom they decide to prosecute for murder. <br /><br />In the grand jury indictment against Gosnell (and the other "doctors") the women seemed like victims. They were described as drugged, half-naked, and in a great deal of pain. <br /><br />In many cases, the woman is going to be unconscious when the crime occurs. Most of them (perhaps all of them) had no idea that Gosnell would be killing a newborn.<br /><br />Of course in many cases there are fathers involved as well. You could theoretically prosecute these men for the murder of the baby--particularly if they are paying for it.<br /><br />But it's far easier to make the case against Gosnell. He's greedy, he's lazy, he put his patients in jeopardy (accidentally killing at least one woman). He violated the ethics of the medical profession. He killed for money. And he did it over and over and over and over. <br /><br />A woman might kill one baby in the course of her life. Or even two or three. Gosnell killed two or three every day. He killed thousands of babies in the course of his practice.<br /><br />Of course women (and men) have been prosecuted and convicted for killing their own children. See <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/2020/infamous-cases-moms-allegedly-murder-kids/story?id=10588541&page=2" rel="nofollow">this</a>. But it's notable that no matter how outrageous the crime, we don't seem to seek the death penalty against mothers who kill their own children.<br /><br />Another moral inconsistency! So perhaps, since we've detected a moral inconsistency, these women have a right to kill their children?<br /><br />Criminal law is not that rigid. We want everybody to receive equal justice. But every case involves different facts, different prosecutors, different defense counsel, and different juries. Casey Anthony killed her child and got away with it. The <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/prom-mom-baby-killer-jailed-1181519.html" rel="nofollow">prom mom</a> served three years in prison for manslaughter. All the women who hired Gosnell will go free. Okay. We should fight for justice in the criminal justice system. But it's absurd to think that every case can (or should) get the exact same punishment. <br /><br />If and when abortion is criminalized as a type of infanticide, I would not exclude mothers from the crime as a statutory rule. And of course that's done for political purposes. Millions of women have had abortions, and they may fear that they can be punished retroactively. That's not the case (the ex post facto clause forbids retroactive punishments). But I think excluding the mother from the criminal statute is an attempt to say, "you're not to blame for this." Pro-lifers really want to punish the mass murderers who kill for profit. <br /><br />That may be a moral inconsistency. But it hardly follows that the desire to focus on the worst of the bunch means that no crime is going on.Saint Croixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17876368500159112781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37551739469186177822012-07-28T02:23:35.170-05:002012-07-28T02:23:35.170-05:00I should make clear that early abortions (the D&am...I should make clear that early abortions (the D&C) are safe for women, for the most part. Certainly not as dangerous as the D&E.<br /><br />But of course working in a bakery for 12 hours is safe, for the most part. And yet when libertarians found an unenumerated right to do that in <b><i>Lochner</i></b>, liberals jumped up and down.<br /><br />"We should be able to regulate industry for people's health!" <br /><br />So what's riskier, working in a bakery or having an abortion?<br /><br />Which is a more fundamental right, terminating a pregnancy or baking bread?<br /><br />And yet <b><i>Lochner</i></b> is bad constitutional law, but <b><i>Roe v. Wade</i></b> is right?<br /><br />I swear, if we took the baby out of the argument, and just attacked <b><i>Roe</i></b> for all the injuries inflicted on women, liberals would have nothing to say.<br /><br />Imagine a Supreme Court that found a constitutional right to breast implants, and then ignored all the injuries that women suffered from the surgery.Saint Croixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17876368500159112781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-63216920664379259572012-07-28T02:00:29.873-05:002012-07-28T02:00:29.873-05:00Or consider the D&E abortion. This is a late-...Or consider the D&E abortion. This is a late-term abortion procedure where the doctor rips the baby out, piece by piece. Is that dangerous to the woman? Of course!<br /><br />And yet the Supreme Court insists that this dangerous procedure cannot be regulated by the state. You cannot require a hospital visit, for instance. <br /><br />For decades the Supreme Court insisted that abortion is always safer than birth. Anytime a state tried to regulate the abortion industry to protect women, the Supreme Court would strike the regulation and say "abortion is safer than birth!" They would repeat this like a mantra.<br /><br />And then it turned out that abortion doctors were inducing labor and delivering babies. Why? Apparently birth is sometimes safer than abortion!<br /><br />Justice Breyer writes this:<br /><br /><i>The D&E procedure carries certain risks. The use of instruments within the uterus creates a danger of accidental perforation and damage to neighboring organs. Sharp fetal bone fragments create similar dangers. And fetal tissue accidentally left behind can cause infection and various other complications.</i><br /><br />He would go on to write of the "free floating fetal head" problem, which is when the doctor rips off the baby's head and loses it in the uterus.<br /><br />This is the same Supreme Court that has been insisting for decades that the D&E is safe, that it's a constitutional right, that it cannot be regulated by the government, and that we have to accept all the injuries and deaths that women receive from this abortion practice.<br /><br />In <b><i>Akron</i></b> the Supreme Court would say shit like this: "D&E abortions may be performed as safely in an outpatient clinic as in a full-service hospital."<br /><br />You don't know this! You're not a doctor, are you? For decades the Supreme Court would prattle about the D&E abortion without actually knowing what the fuck they were talking about. Only in <b><i>Carhart</i></b> would the Supreme Court bother to inform themselves about the D&E. Finally they list all the dangers of the D&E. And still the assholes insist that we cannot regulate the D&E!<br /><br />Any health regulation of abortion has to be run by the judiciary. It's a scandal how little the abortion industry is regulated. And the press fails its duty because the press is utterly biased, and blind, to any and all criticisms of abortion.<br /><br />Often young girls who have a D&E find out the hard way that they will suffer miscarriages after their abortions. You have to break open the cervix to perform a D&E abortion, and this damages your cervix. There are plenty of injuries and even deaths to women from the D&E.<br /><br />The abortion industry is filled with doctors who violate their Hippocratic Oath. And many of these doctors have no admitting privileges in hospitals. They represent the bottom of their medical class. It's hardly brain surgery to use your medical skills to kill a small baby. I imagine a lot of them do it because they can't find other work.<br /><br />Their incompetence is so notable that it's considered a major abortion breakthrough to deliver the baby and kill her outside the womb. <br /><br />So that's the logic of <b><i>Carhart</i></b>. "Yes, we've been wrong about the danger of abortion for decades. It's actually quite dangerous. Oops. Sorry. You might want to give birth instead. And the only reason we're saying this is because this particular birth involves killing the baby in the middle of it. You could put the baby in a neonatal care unit, which might keep her alive. And of course birth terminates the pregnancy either way. But we're not actually trying to keep the baby alive. Or, for that matter, worried about your health. We're just trying to protect abortion, and our reputation. Have a nice day. Safe sex!"Saint Croixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17876368500159112781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75801302219775519832012-07-28T01:57:58.298-05:002012-07-28T01:57:58.298-05:00Even if we dehumanize the baby and define her as a...Even if we dehumanize the baby and define her as a commodity, <b><i>Roe v. Wade</i></b> is still a horrible opinion because of all the injuries and deaths inflicted on women.<br /><br />For instance, <b><i>Roe v. Wade</i></b> itself says that a state cannot protect a woman's health in the first trimester. The rhetoric Blackmun uses is "an abortion free of regulation by the state."<br /><br />Insanity!<br /><br />Blackmun goes on to say that states can require a doctor in the second and third trimester. But not the first.<br /><br />Madness!<br /><br />That was the very first error the Supreme Court had <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=423&invol=9" rel="nofollow">to fix</a>. And the Supreme Court takes forever to hear cases. So it was almost 3 years before the Supreme Court could clarify and say, oh, yes, of course a state can require a doctor in the first trimester. We didn't mean what we said!<br /><br />They fucked up the law for three years. They accidentally legalized all the abortion mills. And you can imagine all the injuries and deaths caused by unlicensed doctors doing abortions.Saint Croixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17876368500159112781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17431849287719908972012-07-28T00:18:20.287-05:002012-07-28T00:18:20.287-05:00Liberals just see it from both sides and accept th...<i>Liberals just see it from both sides and accept that objectification and depersonalization is always bad, no matter the gender of the person.</i><br /><br />Yes, yes, liberals are wonderful! Unless you're unborn, in which case it's poison in the neck.<br /><br />You liberals say you love the handicapped. You pass laws outlawing discrimination against the handicapped.<br /><br />But in private, in secret, you have a 95% kill rate on the handicapped. And you mock Sarah Palin for keeping her child.<br /><br /><i>They do not go so far in their capitalism to endorse turning people into commodities</i><br /><br />Yes, because <b><i>Roe v. Wade</i></b> is so respectful of human life. Are you aware that Blackmun cited the pagan baby-killers, Plato and Aristotle, for the viability doctrine? <br /><br />You can't get more reactionary than going back into the B.C. era to find your laws. The pagans defined women and children as sub-human because they are physically weaker than men, Ritmo. Just like a baby in the womb--or halfway out of it--is weak and helpless.<br /><br />Is vulnerability a suitable rational for denying humanity? <br /><br />The viability doctrine is a measure of weakness. You can't survive, so it's okay to kill you.<br /><br />And yes, this is fascism. <br /><br />You can't win this fight, Ritmo, which is why liberals always, always want to change the subject. You, for instance, want to talk about men and women. Justice Ginsburg wants to change the subject to rape. You liberals avert your eyes from the baby's plight because you cannot stand to think about it. You know you will feel awful if you do.Saint Croixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17876368500159112781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28896146287828709072012-07-27T19:17:12.018-05:002012-07-27T19:17:12.018-05:00The feminist desire to have absolute control over ...<i>The feminist desire to have absolute control over human reproduction has reduced men to sport fuckers. And that has made relations between the sexes far more brutal than in the period when abortion was illegal.</i><br /><br />This is an interesting point, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. (Surprise!). I'd say that giving women more and more choice and say in not only their reproductive choices, but their relationships (these developments were basically simultaneous), encourages them to take more responsibility for how they treat and think of the people with whom they choose to become involved in this way.<br /><br />Of course, it hasn't been entirely successful. And the persistence of basic sexual norms, translated through culture and economics into a modern-day reality whereby visual attractiveness in women is so desirable that it can remain essentially a glamorous commodity, means that there will be women everywhere who only look upon men as a financial commodity in return. It's mutually demeaning and reductive, and contributes no less so to the cheapening of both fatherhood <i>and</i> motherhood (you can't reduce one without reducing the other). But not something that conservatives have a better answer for. This is one huge part of the media culture that they seem to have willingly accepted. <br /><br />Liberals just see it from both sides and accept that objectification and depersonalization is always bad, no matter the gender of the person. They do not go so far in their capitalism to endorse turning people into commodities, even if by non-coercive means.Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Togetherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059991118123693141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-85451857530891950802012-07-27T18:53:32.387-05:002012-07-27T18:53:32.387-05:00Or am I "vastly incurious"--a favorite t...Or am I "vastly incurious"--a favorite term slung around here by lefties years ago.chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34016193237602509172012-07-27T18:51:34.863-05:002012-07-27T18:51:34.863-05:00Each line of that "arabic" comment is pr...Each line of that "arabic" comment is probably a different malware link. Good thing I have self-control and don't even need protection. Is that old-fashioned of me?chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-63359831999588016882012-07-27T18:31:48.252-05:002012-07-27T18:31:48.252-05:00And they are selling Samsung! Everyone's a Cap...And they are selling Samsung! Everyone's a Capitalist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24471554640844644562012-07-27T18:23:31.760-05:002012-07-27T18:23:31.760-05:00Looks like al Qaeda has infiltrated.Looks like al Qaeda has infiltrated.chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-27108295425198117382012-07-27T17:57:23.771-05:002012-07-27T17:57:23.771-05:00Here's a quick way to show that Allie oops log...Here's a quick way to show that Allie oops logic is in fact an endorsement of abortion. Apply it to any other issue, and you would quickly find it to be an immoral argument in favor of the indefensible. Would Allie oop be pro choice when it comes to slavery? There are a lot of parallels there.In that case We're dealing with people who are considered not fully human, who because of that view are treated like property by their owner. and this treatment was codified into law making the slaveowner right under law. <br />Slave owners could even make the argument that abolishing the practice could decimate the economy.<br />So then let's apply Allie Oops argument to slavery. She would argue that blacks aren't 3/5ths human but fully human with souls even. And that it's not only immoral but unlawful to continue to enslave blacks, however, she thinks that the slave owners have to come to this conclusion themselves, and she is not their confessors or judges. Plus, she never personally had slaves, but if others did, she cannot judge their actions, and they will come to see the error of their ways in the hereafter.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/07630491937904835553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2614882992125908532012-07-27T17:33:43.226-05:002012-07-27T17:33:43.226-05:00Allie oop wrote:
I believe that what is is that ja...Allie oop wrote:<br />I believe that what is is that jar is the remains of a human baby. It's my own personal belief that it had a soul. That soul will move on to another body when the time is right.<br /><br />Didn't I and and several other commenters here say yesterday that there are inconsistencies? Life is not written in black and white there are mostly gray areas. Deal with it as an adult.<br /><br> not good enough saying "there are inconsistencies". Is there any other example of a human with a soul that you would say its ok for another person to kill/murder as a personal choice? If we're talking about a baby one day out of a mothers womb that is strangled by its mom, for whatever reason would you argue that the act was killing a person, BUT who are you to judge or would your argument be one with a bright and distinct moral argument (absent inconsistencies). Are you pro choice on infanticide for example, or will.you put your foot down and say no.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/07630491937904835553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24538513742989774182012-07-27T16:35:01.922-05:002012-07-27T16:35:01.922-05:00Ken, if I were you I would delete your words abou...Ken, if I were you I would delete your words about shooting an abortionist or women who have the abortion too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72864005758415800112012-07-27T16:32:11.413-05:002012-07-27T16:32:11.413-05:00Allie,
I hope I don't read about you or see y...Allie,<br /><br /><i>I hope I don't read about you or see your mug on TV one day.</i><br /><br />Unlikely as I lead a quiet peaceful life and don't go around randomly hurting or killing people or supporting those who do, the way you do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-31912575003302699332012-07-27T16:30:13.158-05:002012-07-27T16:30:13.158-05:00Allie,
I'm out = "I have failed utterly ...Allie,<br /><br /><i>I'm out</i> = "I have failed utterly in my defense of killing children"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36164949020670489962012-07-27T16:27:56.304-05:002012-07-27T16:27:56.304-05:00Allie,
I am not calling for the death of babies.
...Allie,<br /><br /><i>I am not calling for the death of babies.</i><br /><br />Do you or do you not support abortion? <br /><br />If I were to say it's okay to kill homeless people, no doubt you would claim I am calling for the death of homeless people. It's only fair that your own words be turned against you to see your own moral twistedness and complete disregard for the most helpless of human lives.<br /><br />You should be weirded out. Killing babies should weird you out. It means your human.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com