« CONGRESSMAN NORM DICKS ANNOUNCES HE IS FOR A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM FOR OUR HEALTH CARE AND I AM WITH HIM | tmccarthy0's Blog | Obnoxious, Argumentative, In-Your-Face and Mean: Yes I Am »

So Abortion Is Your Final Answer


I hate that health care reform opponents base much of their argument, not just on "socialism" but on government paying for abortion, and how they don't want their tax dollars going to fund abortion of any kind. Aside from the literally unanswerable question of how our tax dollars are divided and fund the government, no one seemed to protest town hall meetings by brining guns and threatening congress people and all that crazy stuff that has been going on recently.  But one of the major reasons cited by opponents of Health Reform is a belief that the federal government will fund abortions for women. Recently I was participating in another on-line discussion about health reform, and no matter how logical the facts of health reform might be; in the end all Health Reform Opponents bring their opposition to reform back to the abortion debate. Oh no they write, we shouldn't be forced to fun abortion. It is wrong and abortion should be outlawed. The abortion debate is debate that never has a winner. The abortion debate though allows there to be an obfuscation of the real debate going on about Health Reform.

There is no winnable argument based on analysis that protects Health Insurance giants. If an individual is implying or outright saying that insurance companies must be able to keep their profits and possibly make more, squander premiums, make bad investments, that individual is dismissed out of hand as either an employee of one of those Health Insurance companies, or as being someone with below average intellect and easily swayed by the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh.

So I ask is the abortion debate ever a winnable debate. People are quite entrenched in each side. In the 1980's I escorted women into Planned Parenthood clinic, when the likes of Operation Rescue and the many offshoots of that organization harassed women, nurses, and physician on a daily basis. I was young at the time and had a young child, he was one year old. I'd pack him up in my baby backpack take him with me, we'd escort women in together. Taking him with me tended to shut all except the most ideological clown (always men). Most people did not want to scare a small child. Yes even at 25, I seethed with disgust for those people.

Conservatives use many excuses as to why pregnant women should not have the right to decide what to do with their bodies. I would say the reason for the abortion really does not matter. There is always someone out there who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who just has abortions as birth control, and of course to anyone normal that sounds terrible, not normal, and of course this extreme example always leads me to wonder if it is true in very many cases, and yet, even if it is true, no matter how ugly it sounds, it is not my business to either pass judgment or oppose her right to have "dominion" over her own body.

There is something too Old Testament about people who believe women ultimately should not control their bodies when it comes to bearing a child. People who believe in these restrictions I would say have no respect for women. People moralize about abortion, it is wrong, although it is right to harass women seeking care at Planned Parenthood, it is immoral, yet they kill physicians and bomb clinics in the name of "God". However, isn't the truth really, that even if "God" does see this act as immoral, (although I would presume "God" is no micromanager and does not judge") that other people still have no business telling someone else what to do with their body. Law isn't necessarily about "religious morality" (yikes is that an oxy-moron), no matter what the overly religious might believe.

So in conclusion, my answer to all the pro-life folk out there, SERIOUSLY, YOU CAN BE PRO-LIFE IF YOU WANT I HAVE NO ARGUMENT WITH THAT, HOWEVER, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES, AND IF THIS IS YOUR EXCUSE FOR STOPPING HEALTH REFORM AND A VIABLE PUBLIC INSURANCE OPTION, THEN YOU ARE A MISERABLE EXCUSE OF A HUMAN BEING, I SUGGEST YOU GET A CONSCIENCE, THIS IS A MEASURE OF YOUR CHARACTER AND YOU HAVE FAILED MISERABLY.


311 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

If each of those people standing outside an abortion clinic is willing and able and will work with the law to adopt the fetus about to be aborted, more power to them.

If each of them standing out there will take in a child and raise it from birth to 18+ years and beyond, great.

Let them stand out there, outside the clinic, with their lawyer and psychiatrist in tow, holding out the paperwork, and.....great. That would work nicely.

user-pic

They won't they are out there to make people afraid. That was their goal, to make sure no one would go to Planned Parenthood again. They aren't willing to do anything except make the problem worse, However, the vast majority of women going to Planned Parenthood clinics were there for basic health care.

user-pic

There are unadopted existing children out there. They are shown on TV like puppies. But they are usually older or not perfect. Right to Life has no trouble ignoring them.

user-pic

Boy that is a fact isn't it. Older children are left in the system for years and it is not and easy life for them. Not easy at all.

user-pic

How many teenage children have you adopted when no one else would give them a chance? It's not just the "Right to Life" who are ignoring these children.

user-pic

Right to Life are the onces trying to force women to produce more unwanted children.

Women choose abortions because they know whether or not they are in a good situation for raising a child.

user-pic

Babies and Teenagers are the same in your eyes when it comes to the unwanted children category? That seems an odd position to take.

I'll agree that the Right to Life crowd has an internally inconsistent message and should be ignored whenever possible, but they are still a very small percentage of this country which is why abortion is still illegal.

My point still stands, however, that it isn't simply the fringe right who has abandoned these children to their horrible fates.

user-pic

Unwanted babies lead to unwanted teenagers. Forcing women to bear children when they know that the situation is not right to raise children leads to a wide variety of bad outcomes.

The Democrats have been doing things to help children like S-Chip while the Republicans have been opposing this.

If you know someone is profoundly pro-choice, you can almost always trust them to legislate for the welfare of women and children and when they are not the chances are at best 50/50.

user-pic

More broad generalizations with no real supporting data.

I know someone personally who is profoundly pro-choice and spends all his time and money fighting wild fires and helping poor communities in Africa become self-sustaining through their art. My republican father-in-law took in a family that needed political asylum and made sure they survived to provide for their kids.

I could point to just as many conservative religious organizations that do great work for women and children around the world as you could point to organizations trying to make abortion illegal. Not sure what you are trying to prove by turning every potential ally into an enemy, but good luck with those tactics.

I'll take a route less fraught with missed opportunities.

user-pic

Since you don't follow simple deductions -- I was taking the Republicans as a proxy for Right to Life as compared to the Democrats, looking at their respective voting records on S-Chip and drawing conclusions about whose actions showed they cared about women and children. Tell me again how this is a broad and unsupported deduction?

You are taking specific individuals as disproving the actions of the groups as classes. That is simply a logical error.

user-pic

You are taking specific pieces of legislation and using it to interpret the motives of an entire group of people. Seems to be the same exact tactic that you are dismissing as self-serving.

As to your specific example of SCHIP somehow being indicative of the democratic party's high regard for women and children alone, how is it that the measure passed as part of the bill that was supported by more republicans than democrats?

Sorry to add nuance and context to the discussion.

user-pic

The problem is that most unwanted pregnancies end up with unwanted children; giving a child up for adoption is a much bigger deal than many people realize. I don't care if these zealots support adoption; they have no business making someone have a baby and then forcing her to give it to them either.

Remember, these are the same people who don't want contraceptives covered by insurance; they don't want sex education to happen. They don't want food stamps; they don't want SChip; they would (as in Mitt Romney's case) deny welfare to unwed mothers. No. They don't give a flying you-know-what about the baby.

To them, carrying a baby to term, having the baby and then everything that comes after if you are alone, young, and poor -- well, that is what they GET for having sex in the first place. To them, these children are a fitting punishment.

Oh, an aside here:

Where do these people get off saying that a federal program to pay for health care should exclude any legal procedure? Because abortion IS a legal medical procedure. They have no standing to insist on this, even though the Hyde Amendment agrees with them. It is clearly unconstitutional. But even with it, they throw it up on the barn door to make sure it still sticks.

tmccarthy -- Don't we have enough to be pissed off about without you reminding us of ONE MORE THING! Just kidding -- thanks for the vigilence!

user-pic

I do not disagree with anything you've said. You are spot on.

user-pic

PLUS, they are not taking into consideration other things that would come into play when forcing women to have babies...perhaps having to give up a job in order to continue the pregnancy, having to get the father's PERMISSION to adopt the baby out, when maybe you don't even want him to know there IS a baby, having the father sue for custody, when if you thought he was a suitable father, you might have married him, the disdain some families would feel for the unwed mother...

None of this is anyone else's business. NO ONE should be forced to give birth to a child unless they want to. Period. End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

Tying this abortion crap to the health care bill is just a distraction. They would be against it even if abortions were not included. This is just yet another emotional argument designed to keep the bill from having any chance of passing.

user-pic

Exactly, it just isn't the business of others, that is the bottom line. It is somehow uncivilized to think that someone else gets to decide the health care choices of another human.

user-pic

Not much vigilance required to point out the crazy person on the corner shouting from the top of their lungs.

user-pic

And here is a note to you jasoneverettmiller, I've spent the last 25 years with best friends who are gay men, and like they say, don't try to out queen a queen, and in this case, don't try to out queen someone trained by queens because you simply will not win. But you can keep trying, I am having fun. And being you know wealthy, I have all the time on my hands that I need to continue my assault on you.

user-pic

This is why "liberals" haven't won a single battle since Johnson was in the White House. You attack that which you don't understand. Not sure what gay men or "queens" have to do with it, but I am glad you have friends. You seem to need a hug.

user-pic

jasoneverettmiller, if I need a hug I will get a hug from my hubby of 25 years, my children, 23. 19, and 18, or any one of my friends or relatives, but if I need to verbally assault someone I just look for lunatics like yourself.

user-pic

Lunatic? There you go responding with roundhouse punches in response to a tap on the shoulder.

Someone is clearly not giving you enough hugs, though with this sort of verbal assault as your standard response to basic inquiries, I wouldn't have to look very hard to find the reasons why.

Namaste.

user-pic

miller if you don't like it, go away, because I can continue this until it is time to go on my 25 mile bike ride and to the gym.

user-pic

It has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. I feel compelled to fight hypocrisy whenever I find it, so I hope you brought a lunch.

user-pic

You are so full of shit, fight hypocrisy, on a blog, hahahaha, you feel compelled to let everyone know how smart you think you are, how intelligent you think your arguments are, you seem to believe it is your judgment that is the correct judgment. Then of course you called me a flamer, when you are here at my little insignificant blog that affects exactly no-one. But being full of shit is a way of life for you folks isn't it, making sure we know how right you happen to be, you feel right so that makes it so doesn't it. Whatever, miller, you will always be a douche to me.
But on a lighter note, PAX was good this year and my fantastic kids got me an autograph of Wil Wheaton. Because nerds rule.

user-pic

There you go making personal insults when I have done nothing of the sort.

That you consider being called hypocritical (or the much softer critique of applying "double standards" to things) an insult only goes to prove the thin-skinned nature of your original premise.

Since your "insignificant little blog" happens to be at the top of a list on a fairly influential political blogging site, this statement becomes yet more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty and disingenuous debating style.

The biggest problem for the democratic party is that it is full of democrats who use your incendiary tactics to supposedly deliver progressive strategies. A losing proposition all around and one fraught with irony if you bothered to take off the ideological blinders for half a second.

Cheers!

user-pic

Yes because of all the power I have..... you are kind of a creepster aren't you miller, you really believe that my little blog has influence??? My name isn't Josh Marshall or Zachary Roth, holy crap! Disingenuous, really, so let's read your blog miller, your great words of wisdom, impart them upon us, the lower intelligence folks who just won't listen to your obvious higher intellect....
So what if it is the top blog on TPM today it is still a meaningless rant, that affects no one, not even you. But in that you think it does, thanks!

user-pic

We finally agree. Your blog is a meaningless rant.

user-pic

Sorry LisB, but that's not how these people think. All you have to do is read the religion clause in their life's Statement of Work. The only God in the world is their God; all others are frauds - even fellow Christian sects. One must believe or be put to the sword. That's why they're so enthused about Bu$h having gone into Iraq and Afghanistan - more souls to convert to their God or die by the sword. As for abortion, you have to go back to Byzantium times. The priests in the early church made a determination a woman was the root of evil because she was the reason for man being cast out of Eden. And that neanderthal thinking is still with them today - I have a cousin who turned evangelical and his wife told me this in complete humility. So the only way to have an intelligent discussion on the merits of abortion will be to completely bar the religious right from having any say in the matter. Besides, since they, the religion, doesn't pay taxes, they shouldn't have a seat at the table anyway.

user-pic

Agreed, no seat at the table. Like I always tell them if you don't like abortion that is fine with me, just don't have one, but stay out of others peoples business.

user-pic

I'd think that government authority stopping at the skin would be a point that these so-called conservatives could respect. I'd think the only way to get them to respect it is to make law that any man responsible for an out of wedlock pregnancy be castrated.

Why not? Having to raise a child is for all intents and purposes a lifetime sentence, shouldn't it be an equal one? Why should the deadbeat dads get off scott free? That they do is a matter of statistics, regardless of the minority that actually do pay up, and only until year 18. Parenthood lasts far longer.

user-pic

The privacy argument just does not work: they believe it is murder - and generally "privacy" is not a defence in that case.

user-pic

Well, that only makes sense if a zygote has the status of a person. So far they do not, although that is one area the right is pushing away at the issue.

Legally, until it is viable outside the womb, it is not a person, and therefore, not murder.

user-pic

Oh, you are talking, morally. I'm sorry to read your comment so poorly. But yes, the term murder is not "legal" murder, yet. So they can argue that, it does not have the force of law behind it.

user-pic

They've made great headway on that. I believe a state legislature or two have done so already.

user-pic

It is okay to believe whatever you want to like I stated, if you think abortion is reprehensible, that is fine, just don't get one, but stay out of other people lives because no one gets to make the choice for them. And one thing these folks don't realize is there will be abortion, no matter what, but shouldn't it be safe and legal. Oh I know you agree, I am just venting at the elusive "them".

user-pic

Yes, to preface, we do agree; I just wanted to drive home the viewpoint that the privacy argument is useless in trying to convince many of the anti-abortionists, even in the moderate end (just as neither you nor I would accept the killing of a born child as a "private matter.")

The only way to make progress with them - if that is the objective - is to first propagate the understanding that the issue is not about a truly living, feeling, sentient being.

user-pic

Oh I agree with you. No doubt.

user-pic

First, I agree with you with respect to abortion. It is nobody's business but a woman's and her doctor. Nobody.

If I can paraphrase your post with respect to health care insurance:

It is okay to believe whatever you want to like I stated, if you think health insurance is wonderful, that is fine, just get some, but stay out of other people lives because no one gets to make the choice for them.

user-pic

Okay I like that.

user-pic

Parenthood does last far longer.... forever in fact, because even when your children grow up and have jobs and have families of their own, payments of their own, etc, you still feel responsible, you still worry about them and you still want everything good for them.

user-pic

Hope you're joking there, Bwak -- sounds like punishment for having sex to me, which is the right-wing mantra. Also, remember that not all contraception is 100% effective.

Rhetorical question:

If they think that abortion is murder, then why to they object to preventing pregnancies in the first place? To that they answer, "Just say NO." But if you go back and tell them that some people just say "Yes," then the response is something like:

"Play with fire, you're gonna get burned." In other words Pregnancy as Punishment. I ask this: Is THAT moral? Never mind because these people have no idea of morality.

user-pic

It doesn't have to be a punishment, it is all about responsibility and protection. We had our babies when we wanted, not because of some mistake. Birth control is everything.

user-pic

My toungue was planted in my cheek to some extent C'Ville, but I wanted to point out that if this was about male bodies, there wouldn't even be a debate.

user-pic

And that is the truth.

user-pic

Well then, let's say that the unwed father would have nine months of simulated pregnancy (fun!) and then be legally responsible for the baby's financial well-being, as well as physical care.

Big remaining problem: An unwanted live baby who never did anyone any harm, but will not be loved and cared for.

I have no problem destroying an embryo or fetus, but I have a big problem with destroying a baby that is born and doesn't even know enough to realize it is being mistreated. They grow up to be the very people that republicans despise; then THEY have more unwanted babies. And so it goes.

user-pic

So true and so sad.

user-pic

I agree it's a vicious circle that Right-to-Lifers neither acknowledge or attempt to address. That seems to me to be a weakness that can be broadcast a little more forcefully

You've had some concrete suggestions here, C'Ville. They are appreciated. I recently escorted a young woman into a Planned Parenthood. I shielded her as best I could from the protestors. They screamed out "we will help you." I wish I had read all this sooner, then I could have shouted out, "but you won't help a year from now, much less 10 or 20. Babies need help far beyond what YOU offer."

As it was I counseled to not look at or engage them in any way. They had their gross signs, and their ugly chants.

user-pic

Because engaging them makes them believe they have the upper hand, and man they do not let up!

user-pic

Well, maybe we did the right thing then.

LOL

The right thing. Oy.

user-pic

Yes you did the right thing, even though it would be more fun to you know kick ass.

user-pic

You did the right thing. Yelling at them just makes them feel superior. A self-satisfied smile is far more meaningful (but I wouldn't be able to resist saying something like, "you care about fetuses but you don't give a shit about living children!")

Good for you for helping out at Planned Parenthood. I have to admit I ride past and on the days I see the protesters I only raise a finger, because I am on my way to work (ironically creating desperately wanted embryos).

user-pic

tm, these are the same people who have no use for those kids once they're born. They're disgusting excuses for human beings and the fact that they can have so much influence over every other aspect of health care is baffling.

Their battle cry is "abortion is murder" and that seems to be enough to shut up even the people who might otherwise argue against them.

You'll notice that most of the "religious" websites that scream about abortion see women as second class citizens whose role is to be subjugated. It all fits into their plan to keep women down a la the Old Testament. They find ways to recruit those women for whom they have absolutely no respect, and lo and behold, they become little Stepford wives, out there marching against other women--women who have found their freedom and defend their right to make choices about their lives.

I don't know how to fight against them, frankly, I only know they're scary and they're out there in HUGE numbers.

user-pic

Well, maybe crying "The First/Old Testament Is Murder!" might help, but it would mean they'd all have to read it page after page, from beginning to end, instead of having bits and pieces handed to them from some pastor or elder or priest.

user-pic

And I won't dispute they can believe it is immoral, but I do dispute their methods and the fact always remains, it simply isn't any of their business!
Yeah it is a Holiday!!!

user-pic
... these are the same people who have no use for those kids once they're born ...

They have plenty of use for them. A source of cheap labor and keeping all those prisons full of inmates on a revolving basis.

user-pic

clap clap clap, you are correct about that!

user-pic

Ramona, I don't think their numbers are all that huge, I just think they are another part of a very vocal minority. I mean do these folks ever stop screaming? Speaking softly with facts is one thing, but the scream clown factory these folks are is crazy!

user-pic

Then why do you keep bringing them up? Why do you imply they are such a bigger problem than this comment apparently says you really think?

Then to bring religion in as if the two-thirds of Americans who consider themselves Christians are all out there standing in front of abortion clinics.

This sort of discussion is as divisive and damaging and distracting as anything coming out of Limbaugh and Company.

user-pic

Okay no discussion because you said so and you are the ultimate decider of what we should discuss, so next time I will write to you and make sure my subject is A-OKAY....you know with the likes of you, jasoneverettmiller, self-appointed muckraker moderator.....

user-pic

Yes, that is exactly what I said. Do you have a learning disability that affects your reading comprehension?

Otherwise, I can't understand the level of vitriol you aim at anyone who doesn't sign-up for your unhinged witch hunt over a group of people you admit are a small percentage at best.

Ten points for predictability.

user-pic

Vitriol because I won't listen to you...jasoneverettmiller, didn't the fourth grade begin today and don't you need to be in class.

user-pic

More ad hominem attacks in place of actual thought.

Ten more points. That's thirty now! What are you going to buy? How about some nice moral outrage to go with your broad-brush generalities and partisan hackery?

Oh, wait, you seem to have enough of that already. I am sure they have some nice torches in stock, though.

user-pic

jasoneverettmiller, why not write you own blog about the plight of the angry white dude, they aren't popular with normal people but they are popular with douchey lunatics like yourself.

user-pic

Yet, neither CT nor I have used words like "douchey lunatics" to describe your paranoid ranting and raving on this blog.

See I can get personal too.

In fact, I could probably leave you in tears if I really tried, but I have a little more self-restraint than you seem to be in possession of.

user-pic

You only get personal by copying things I've already written, that is just sad dude.

user-pic

You are getting progressively less coherent.

user-pic

And you continue to be an "in the words of Van Jones" asshole.

user-pic
user-pic

Sheesh, the government spends "my" tax dollars on a ton of things that I don't approve of. Like... um... wars. Individual citizens don't get a veto on the government's spending of their portion of the total tax pool and if they did, most Republicans would scream bloody murder as people like me would veto every expenditure that doesn't directly finance the production and dissemination of obscene art.

user-pic

=D

user-pic

It is just another way to protest their grievances, and trust me I am all about protesting ones grievances, but sheesh, pick something else, something that has impact on the rest of society!

user-pic

Look how long they've been fighting Darwin and evolution.

user-pic

That is true, but when you are still a Neanderthal, I guess there is nothing more to expect!

user-pic

And PS, I really don't approve of Thomas Kinkade and would not protest outlawing his outlandish art! :D

user-pic

Your Kinkade comment -- very funny. Terrible stuff that, per topic, seems to be reproducing like rabbits. How about funding abortions of embryonic Kinkade works?
Seriously, though.
I've always wondered if anti-abortionists can justify rape, in the sense that if a woman is to have no say about what happens to her own body -- if she is to be regarded merely as a "host" -- then is she, in the pro-lifers' minds, also justifiable prey for the rapist? He, after all, only wants, as they do, to deny a woman control over her own body; he, like them believes it is all right to control it against her will, because it is according to his values; he is intent, as they are, that she be a submissive host -- just in a different context, and not nearly for so long?

user-pic

I think they think they can justify rape. Thanks for reading the Kinkade line, god I hate his stuff... he should be painting on black velvet.

user-pic

Under all that cloying Kinkade crap, it probably is black velvet.

user-pic

LOL!

user-pic

Rape doesn't happen to their womenfolk ... didn't you know that?

user-pic

LOL! Win...

user-pic

Another point:

Why should the deadbeat dads get off scott free?

This quote indicates a certain mindset that is rather biased. Many fathers do not want the children but the mother refuses to get an abortion.

If it's a woman's right to choose, it's a woman's right to pay.

I believe more enforcement of this concept would drive up the number of terminated unwanted pregnancies. A good thing.


user-pic

You, CT, are an ass hat.

user-pic

LOL Lis, yes, yes he is.

user-pic

I didn't make that point, but if you are a man, and you don't want children it is your responsibility to make sure you will not impregnate some woman. If that woman makes the choice to have the baby, the man is going to be responsible for child support. This is not an issue as far as the right of the woman, this is the issue of the right of the child. Children have a right to be supported by both parents and it is in the interest of the state to make sure that happens. All men can decide to wear a condom, to not have sex, or to use some other sort of protection, if they don't want child, but once the child is conceived, since they don't carry the child, they simply do not get a say in the matter. So if men don't want children, possibly they should learn the art of self satisfaction. :)

user-pic

Your response has the depth of those people taking 'chastity vows'. It's flippant to the extreme and degrading to men.

1) Condoms break.

2) Condoms slip off.

3) A woman can miss her pill and not tell her guy.

4) Women trick men into not using condoms because they merely "say" they are on the pill.

5) Women sabotage condoms.

I could go on...

The fact is that in your world men are guilty and women not. You don't see that if a woman "accidentally" gets pregnant she shouldn't have been involved in sex either, essentially negating your entire argument.

Indeed, you argue that no one should force a person to become a mother, but it's okay to force a person to become a father.

Please explain your logic?

user-pic

Women sabotage condoms..... ok.... my response was not about women, it was about children and their right to be supported by both parents. Your choice is a clear one, if you do not want children, you can a.) wear a condom b) have a vasectomy c) quit having sex with women and take up the art of self-satisfaction or d) see a hooker
But if you impregnate a woman all I am saying is you don't get to choose whether or not she has an abortion and you don't get to choose whether or not to pay child support.

user-pic

And all I'm saying that since you want a guy to be involved financially, then he gets to be involved in the decision for the abortion. If the woman wants to carry the child to term but the father does not, then it's her financial responsibility.

If she can't handle that responsibility, she shouldn't be having sex with the guy.

See? It's easy to turn your argument around.

Of course, your comment amounts to "women get special privileges" -- which is about as sexist as it gets.

user-pic

Exactly... you are against choice, tmccarthy0... for the guy.

That's a double standard.

If the guy can't control the woman's body, then the woman can't control the guy's future. That's a single standard.

user-pic

Are you still here. Guess what, you have a choice when you have sex. But tell you what if you stick exclusively to men you will have no such problem. In the mean time, not to blow you off or anything, but why not take it to your single unwilling dad support group instead of TPM.

user-pic

Keep going. Any more insults you feel comfortable in making?

You never did explain why:

It was not okay to force a woman to become a mother

but

It was okay to force a man to become a father.

I'll wait for your answer. My question is rather direct.

user-pic

As is everything else about you, CT.

user-pic

Oh I have many more insults, like how you were forced to have sex with that woman.... or was it sex, or is it that no one will have sex with you so this is merely an intellectual exercise.
Mostly I don't care what your problem with women happens to be, I suggest you take it to the bar where some other bitter guy might care!

user-pic

And to be accurate, my post has nothing to do with men and forcing them to be fathers, read it. It is about stopping health reform by using the issue of abortion. Your personal issues don't affect me at all. But your issues with comprehension is at issue here, and there is no where in my post that mentions child support.

user-pic

There was a comment about deadbeat dads and I commented on that.

It was you who chose to answer that comment.

Now that you find yourself in a position that is untenable (mostly because you apparently were better at flippant responses than having an actual position) you claim it's not important to answer the comment.

You are not a very good communicator for your cause. Your prepackaged taunts don't make you look particularly impressive.

And it's quite evident from your comments that you aren't about fairness.

user-pic

Oh thanks for your lovely complement, I live to be loved by the knuckehead angry white guys. You are so incredibly predictable, so you are in the cult of Ayn Rand are you, figures, all 20 year olds discover and worship her eventually. I have confidence you will grow out of it though, eventually.

user-pic

Now you bring race into it as well?

And age?

Why are you posting on a left of center website anyway?

You have taught me the sound of one hand clapping.

While you still haven't answered my simple question, your continuing the one-sided escalation of taunts and insults is a new phenomenon here.

Congrats on breaking new ground!

user-pic

Is this all you can pick on, tonight, CT?

C'mon, man. Broaden your horizons somewhat.

user-pic

What is it like to be the constant victim, you kow the victim of nothing, oh no I called you a white guy, but I didn't call you a cracker, or a honkey or a howlie, or a fat fuck or a douche or what you really are, an asshole.
You are a whiny little baby boy, mad no one will listen cause you know everything, you've come here to make sure we understand just what victims white guys are, women victimize them constantly and have babies to make them pay, and the angry white guy never gets ahead at work cause someone is always out to get them and the angry white guy cries and moans at the lack of respect in the world, and the angry white guy is nothing more than exactly what he is an angry white guy and then gets mad when someone points it out. Okay, I called the WAAAMBULENE for you. It'll be there shortly, wait by the curb, Randian lunatic. Seriously head back to the angry single father white dude support group, they might respect you!

user-pic

Posting anonymously really makes some people totally unbearable. Hint: Their initials aren't CT. You should feel free to write more when you are able to answer simple, non-threatening and non-personal questions like the one originally raised.

As it is, you remain part of the problem and not part of the solution. Kind of like the people you are condemning with your blog in the first place, though I am quite sure you will miss the irony.

"Flame on!" in five, four, three, tw....

user-pic

Well that just hurt now jasoneverettmiller, but take your fanboy behavior and haunt CT's blog, that is if he has one.

user-pic

There you go. Casual dismissal of serious critiques by way personal insults in the place of reasoned arguments.

Ten more points for predictability.

user-pic

There are no serious critiques when you are off topic on the subject at hand, and my subject isn't douchey single fathers who don't want children.

user-pic

The comment wasn't about douchey [sic] single fathers trying to avoid child-support. I actually had one of those, so I know the difference. You, on the other hand, appear confused by the mildest of questions that run counter to your thesis.

user-pic

Just out of curiosity, tp, what makes you think CT is white? It occurred to me recently I don't know what color he is...not that it matters.

user-pic

sorry...tm, not tp!

user-pic

I don't know but I suspect it because of his whining and wanting to be a victim constantly. I used to hang out with some dudes when I was commuting on the ferry we all rode motorcycles, and they constantly whined about child support, being a victim of the world, and his shtick sounds exactly like theirs. I don't care if he whines, but this whole deal about how men are trapped into supporting children they don't want is a key feature of the middle class white guy whine. So he might not be white, but he didn't deny it so I presume I am quite correct. It gets old, we used to get the same dudes in our gender studies classes when I was in college, they came in wanting to teach all women a lesson about men and just how victimized they were and low and behold they were always white guys, angry white guys.

user-pic

Stilli: As you know, I've been called old, young, Republican, uber-rich (that last one I wish were true!)... just another log on the stack, I guess. I'm pretty sure we've established my gender... but I'm not sure we've established anything about my orientation or marital status... so those are still up for grabs.

user-pic

You are pretty good at keeping the personal stuff to yourself! :-)

user-pic

I didn't.

user-pic

Golly. Calling out the black kettle, I am:

Now that you find yourself in a position that is untenable (mostly because you apparently were better at flippant responses than having an actual position) you claim it's not important to answer the comment.

You are not a very good communicator for your cause. Your prepackaged taunts don't make you look particularly impressive.

And it's quite evident from your comments that you aren't about fairness.

I won't even bother to try to Block Quote that heavy-handed shit.

user-pic

CT made some very cogent argument about why a man shouldn't be responsible for a baby he didn't want in the first place as long as he takes the proper precautions. Just like a woman shouldn't be forced to carry a baby to term if the father doesn't believe in abortion.

Your immediate response to his very non-personal comment?

You, CT, are an ass hat.
You and the original poster are the ones with an untenable position, Lis.

user-pic

CT isn't even commenting on the blog, I could care less about some bitter douche who made a baby with someone and now has to pay child support. This isn't the discussion, because that isn't an issue to me, that is a personal issue of personal responsibility. Here is what I told my 8 year old, years ago, having sex comes with consequences. Those consequences can be in the form of sexually transmitted diseases or even a baby, if you don't want either one, use protection. For CT if he didn't want child the solution to that is a VASECTOMY, like the one my husband had after our third child. This discussion, jasoneverettmiller, is about health reform and the rights excuses for not having any reform. If you don't like that write your own blog about the plight of idiot single men who don't want children... I am sure it would be a hit... NOT.

user-pic

That actually wasn't what he said.

He said if a guy does all the right things and the woman still gets pregnant and then wants to take the baby to term and raise that baby then the guy is clearly not liable for that child. Just like if a woman wanted an abortion and the dad didn't, she shouldn't be required to carry it to term.

Your inability to see the double-standard in such a stance as well as your immediate and visceral response to anything resembling criticism tells me you aren't a serious writer.

Flame on!

user-pic

Those are the things that happen when you have sex jasoneverettmiller. Didn't you learn that in sex-ed class, or haven't you taken sex-ed yet?

user-pic

Another straw man to slay, tmccarthy0. Didn't you learn about logic in high school, tmccarthy0?

user-pic

I believe it is you who misses the point here, jason. After all, if a man were to have done "all the right things," he most certainly would be in a position to claim the unimpeachable defense of "I am not the father to that child."

Unless, perhaps, it could be proven that she stole his sperm from him whilst he was waiting for a train or something. Not very likely.

But then again, I respond only to what you have written. I now expect you will share with us what you meant in the next round of whack-a-mole

user-pic

The original comment describes an accident in which no-one is really at fault and should that guy be required to support a child he would have preferred they went with an abortion instead.

The flip side of the argument is what if I accidentally get a woman pregnant and don't want her to abort? What if I am willing to take all financial liability for that child. Should she be required to take that baby to term?

Of course not, hence CT's original comment about a seeming double-standard in this debate. Though I might have used different words or a different example to describe the phenomenon, it is hardly surprising coming from the fringes of either party.

user-pic

SleepinJeezus,
I think that is my favorite handle of all time except for the person who used cherstolemyface as their handle!
jasoneverettmiller, just came to school the "libruls" cause we don't know anything and we shouldn't write things he doesn't agree with. I mean if only we could learn from his far superior intellect! I believe both he and CT are bitter single fathers but they didn't want to be fathers, or some such thing. And he hates is when I call him douchey.

user-pic

Now I am a bitter single father who didn't want to be a dad? I bet my "librul" wife will be shocked to find that little "fact" out. I hate to repeat myself, so here is the same response I had to your other brilliant deductions.

user-pic

Believe me, tm, jason and I have quite a history. I frequently try calling him out on an his outrageous contradictions or perhaps try to shake him free of his firm grip on an alternative reality ("jason-world), but the discussion always seems to quickly devolve into a game of intellectual whack-a-mole and me standing with a hammer in hand. He is the virtual Black Knight who patrols these pages. He's pretty difficult to take seriously, for he's usually quite quickly reduced to a figuratively bloody mess despite his dogged persistence.

user-pic

Ohh, I haven't had any experience with him first hand! He does seem quite enamored with himself though. Which makes me laugh every time I read one of his responses!

user-pic

I am going to have to consider the source on this one since you apparently believe the civil rights struggle took place over a period of time between 1954 and 1964.

user-pic

SJ, I know you can appreciate nuance and the like, so I must step in here and say that, yes, Jason definitely gets my point -- the key of which was "no-fault" accidental pregnancy.

We can turn around many of the arguments presented here with things like:

"Having sex is a risk and if the woman doesn't want to carry a baby to term, she shouldn't be having consensual sex."

Have you heard of these arguments? I have. From the right.

Or how about tmccarthy0's idea that we should give 16 year old boys vasectomies if they want to be sure not to have a kid. (Which opens up a nice little parallel to abortion: do the physicians have to tell the parent about minors getting this type of surgical procedure?)

Because tmccarthy0 offered only two ways of avoiding accidental pregnancy: chastity and vasectomy.

Now... which side of the political spectrum does that sound like?

I think that the topic of abortion has gotten to the point that both left and right have simply refused to think about the issue at this point. Both are wrong and both injure one party or the other.

I also think that tmccarthy0's comments here have brought TPM to a new low. She is not about discussion of anything, seems to confuse a blog as a billboard (on a political site, yet!), and excuses her behavior as "just being Irish". Just imagine if someone came on TPM, said racial things and then when asked why, the response was "Hey, can't help it, it's in my genes." In fact, tmmcarthy0 did say something akin to this, in the vein of "some of my best friends are gay".

And this goes unchallenged? I bet if I posted something like that it wouldn't.

user-pic

Word.

user-pic

"Word." I've never quite understood that little comment of yours Jason. At least not the way you use it. It DOES sound hip, though. Presumably, you're not using it as one of those useless blog comments whereby one commenter just slaps down a mindless vote of support for the other though, right? Because CT hates that sort of crap, as we all know!

And since you almost usually place it after a comment by Clearthinker, I'm assuming it means something like....

"My! What a wondrous thing! A talking puff adder!"

Or perhaps (since you two are close, and seem to share some things), it means,

"Jesus CT, how can you talk with that celery up your ass? Doesn't it hurt? Truly, you are tough as nails, harder than a marine, and just the kinda guy I respect! Ooooooh lala!"

Don't worry though. The only way CT could possibly complain would be if your "Word" was just a mindless how of support. No chance of that, eh?

user-pic

It means that anyone with half a brain would consider this the last word on the subject.

user-pic

Word.

user-pic

I have no doubt that those with half a brain DO consider your comments (and CT's) the last word on the subject.

user-pic

Haven't read them all, and don't intend to either, but that's my favorite comment I have read in this blog.

user-pic

PS: Word.

user-pic

Beat'cha!

user-pic

Please explain yours.

1) Condoms break. This explains it all??

2) Condoms slip off.Oh! THIS explains it all.

3) A woman can miss her pill and not tell her guy. A man can promise he'll "pull out" too.

4) Women trick men into not using condoms because they merely "say" they are on the pill.Guys can trick girls into thinking that condoms are the only answer, and then just pretend to wear one.

5) Women sabotage condoms.Men sabotage intelligent posts about pregnancy, but I could go on....


I could go on...

The fact is that in your world men are guilty and women not. You don't see that if a woman "accidentally" gets pregnant she shouldn't have been involved in sex either, essentially negating your entire argument.

Indeed, you argue that no one should force a person to become a mother, but it's okay to force a person to become a father.

Please explain your logic?

user-pic

Those last two paragraphs were Clearthinker's. Not mine.

user-pic

Yeah Lis, he is one of those angry guys, he got some woman pregnant and doesn't think he should have to support that kid, cause the mom is just spending all that money on herself anyway!!!! It is an old story, but one we've heard before.

user-pic

You got all that from this? Those are some amazing powers of deduction Almost bordering on the fantastic. You should take that act on the road!

user-pic

My mom has a favorite apron she wears while in the kitchen for family get togetgers ... If it's a Woman's Place to be in the Kitchen, then it's a Man's Place to be in the Wrong.

user-pic

OMG, that is beautiful, I am going to use that! Your mom is hilarious!

user-pic

Hey stupid ... didn't your father teach you to take responsibility for your actions? You know damn well what the possible outcome of a night of a roll-in-the-sack could be. The blame goes both ways and both share the responsibility. As my Dad told me, "you have the choice and that makes you responsible for what you do - no one else, so think before you act."

user-pic

Ironic to call someone stupid when you clearly didn't read and/or understand what was wrote.

user-pic

May I suggest you re-read what I wrote.

I believe what you saw in your mind is what you anticipated I would say, but is not, in fact, what I wrote.