Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This is non-sensical. I am not advocating a retroactive application and actually not advocating a federal application. I think the proper place for the decisions over what is legal and not to be made is in the legislature and specifically the state legislature.

Oh, so sorry. You would prefer that, should the situation arise again, they would not have such a choice, or at least that it not be legal

I suppose then they would have a choice to fly down to CA and get the procedure. Sort of like when I was 18 and CT raised the drinking age to 19 and I had to drive to NY to drink legally.

Yes, the question of your ability to drink at age 18 is perfectly comparable to the heart-wrenching decision your friends went through.

Perhaps if they were carrots you would be sensitive to them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Pro-personal responsbility denies everyone choices Ty, come on. I am personally responsible at the penalty of Federal incarceration for paying my Income Taxes, which denies me the choice of keeping all that I earn for myself.

I suppose when we restructure our society to one of utopianistic anarchy we will all have all the choices we want. My first choice will be to implicitly retain and exercise my Second Amendment rights, as needed if the liberal rabble rousers attempt to limit my choices.

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Schiavo was not retarded. She was in a persistent vegetative state.

No shit, I know what her diagnosis. The use of the word "vegetable" is pejorative. It is not a joke and it is not funny. But apparently it must make you feel good as you are staunch in your defence of it.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

She was also dragged through a spotlight she clearly avoided throughout her life, and her husband was dragged through the mud by kind, Christian people like you who care so much about the unborn and the virtually brain-dead. But not so much about functioning humans.

This is not relevant to your mocking of her and neither is who I care or don't care about or my religion or lack thereof. I am not a practising Christian but I don't mock their beliefs. Your attempt to use the word pejoratively, much like many liberals, ensures you will never win a presidential election anytime soon.

As for the husband, I think it was a he said, she said (the she being Terri's parents and siblings and friends). I would err on the side of life without corroborating evidence. Maybe someday if one of your kids is murdered by the state at the behest of her "husband", who is living with another wife and family, you will feel differently.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
your spokespeople at NARAL and NOW do though, which is where the impression comes from. If you are so comfortable with the legislative equation then why create and administer the pro-Roe litmus test for judges? And it is demos doing that, unless Kennedy and Schumer and Biden and Hillary switched parties.

NARAL and NOW don't speak for me. I know a fair number of liberals and I can say with confidence they don't speak for them, either. They are out there. Does Mullah Dobson speak for you?

If the Dems in the Senate do that it is stupid. Hear me loud and clear - if the Dems administer a pro-Roe litmus test, it will be the stupidest thing they can do. Far beyond the tactical issues, it also would be overstepping the bounds of what I believe the Senate should do in its advice and consent role, and I think the Republicans will drive a truck through that hole.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Oh, so sorry. You would prefer that, should the situation arise again, they would not have such a choice, or at least that it not be legal

I don't think the law can be made with one individual set of circumstances in mind. I have put out what I think is reasonable and just. Not no abortions. Just more limited than there are now. The law changes all the time and the consequences on an individual level are sometimes more severe sometimes less. I am not wishing tragedy or heartbreak on anyone but a change in the law that I think is more equitable and just to all of the life involved and more generally (although not in every case) encourages more personal responsibility. I also think, no matter how tragic, every experience in life offers someone the possibility to grow and learn something. While the results of birthing their child would have been sad and tragic, perhaps they would have learned something, grown or taken a different road in life that ultimately they would look at positively. Certainly, it wouldn't take much googling to find websites where people who have had catastrophically disabled children assert that they experience, while not ideal and while sad tragic etc, made them better, stronger etc. people.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

Yes, the question of your ability to drink at age 18 is perfectly comparable to the heart-wrenching decision your friends went through.

Perhaps if they were carrots you would be sensitive to them.

It was an example of how a patchwork of state laws offers choice. Not for substance but for form.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't think the law can be made with one individual set of circumstances in mind. I have put out what I think is reasonable and just. Not no abortions. Just more limited than there are now. The law changes all the time and the consequences on an individual level are sometimes more severe sometimes less. I am not wishing tragedy or heartbreak on anyone but a change in the law that I think is more equitable and just to all of the life involved and more generally (although not in every case) encourages more personal responsibility. I also think, no matter how tragic, every experience in life offers someone the possibility to grow and learn something. While the results of birthing their child would have been sad and tragic, perhaps they would have learned something, grown or taken a different road in life that ultimately they would look at positively. Certainly, it wouldn't take much googling to find websites where people who have had catastrophically disabled children assert that they experience, while not ideal and while sad tragic etc, made them better, stronger etc. people.




It was an example of how a patchwork of state laws offers choice. Not for substance but for form.

Karl Rove sure does suck.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
NARAL and NOW don't speak for me. I know a fair number of liberals and I can say with confidence they don't speak for them, either.

Perhaps, but you and your pals are rank and file kool-aid drinkers. NARAL and NOW speak for the entrenced pseudo-intellectual elitist Demo party leadership libs, which is why they are out front in every court nomination"battle". They are the Demos abortion storm troopers.

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda

If the Dems in the Senate do that it is stupid. Hear me loud and clear - if the Dems administer a pro-Roe litmus test, it will be the stupidest thing they can do.

You use "if" as if the thought is beyond the pale. If they don't already employ what has the issue been for the last 30 years? the conservatives want the issue to go back to the legislatures where it belongs. The liberals want it with the judiciary.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Consumer and service provider. I would put the focus and the more severe penalties on the latter. For a doctor, I'd say one strike and your license is out. Other than that I don't know-i have not fully examined the possibilities or the equities.

I need more analysis than that. What are the penalties for people who perform abortions but are not licensed doctors? You can't take away licenses they don't have. Do you have a bunch of incarcerated preggos (if the abortion doesn't take, and they are convicted of attempted abortion)? Or have them doing community service at 8 months, or after the kid is born -- which would take them away from any children they might have? Way to encourage strong families.

I need a well-thought-out plan from you, not just some pie-in-the-sky crap about how something is "bad" or "wrong."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't think the law can be made with one individual set of circumstances in mind. I have put out what I think is reasonable and just. Not no abortions. Just more limited than there are now. The law changes all the time and the consequences on an individual level are sometimes more severe sometimes less. I am not wishing tragedy or heartbreak on anyone but a change in the law that I think is more equitable and just to all of the life involved and more generally (although not in every case) encourages more personal responsibility. I also think, no matter how tragic, every experience in life offers someone the possibility to grow and learn something. While the results of birthing their child would have been sad and tragic, perhaps they would have learned something, grown or taken a different road in life that ultimately they would look at positively. Certainly, it wouldn't take much googling to find websites where people who have had catastrophically disabled children assert that they experience, while not ideal and while sad tragic etc, made them better, stronger etc. people.

You do realize its your party that has set the scorched earth no-compromise stage for the abortion debate. No one can reach across the aisle because the Jesus Crazies won't take anything shy of a full on ban on the procedure at all stages. The most virulent of your party are trying to ban contraception and morning after pills.

I'd love to meet you in the middle. I agree abortion should have some restictions. But that ain't going to happen when the insane on the fringes drive the debate. We on the left can controol NARAL and NOW. They are elites. We can shame them into reasonableness by calling them shrill and accusing them of intellectual dishonesty. But your side cannot control its loons who see their position as a divine, unchangeable edict from the LORD! I mean, really, how can NARAL not take an extreme left position when its faced with people calling all abortions murders and claiming life begins at conception?

We can get our crazies to the bargaining table. Can you bring yours?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No shit, I know what her diagnosis.

Then why are you accusing me of "making retarded jokes"?

Oh, I know -- you are insane.

The use of the word "vegetable" is pejorative.

No, it's not. She was in "a persistent vegetative state." "Vegetable" is a common shorthand for that.

"Veggie" or "carrot" are pejorative and insulting, and when used just to piss you off, as I've been doing, perfectly appropriate.

This is not relevant to your mocking of her and neither is who I care or don't care about or my religion or lack thereof.

I'm not mocking Terry Schiavo, but wouldn't that be the least of her worries?

I am not a practising Christian but I don't mock their beliefs.

Nor do I. Those who carried torches for her, like you, did a fine job of mocking themselves.

Your attempt to use the word pejoratively,

Wrong again (but you are consistent). I call you a Christian because I know you aren't. And I know that it pisses you off -- whether because you are ashamed by your non-Christian life and conduct, or ashamed to think that your views align with the religious right, I'm not sure, but it's not really my concern.

much like many liberals, ensures you will never win a presidential election anytime soon.

I'll alert my campaign manager right away. He'll appreciate having the next few years off.

As for the husband, I think it was a he said, she said (the she being Terri's parents and siblings and friends).

And then the court said.

I would err on the side of life without corroborating evidence.

What life? She had zero chance of ever recovering even a minimal level of consciousness. She was dead but for our technical ability to ram nutrients into her.

But I'm just a murderer, evil, blah blah blah blah blah. We know the drill.

Maybe someday if one of your kids is murdered by the state at the behest of her "husband", who is living with another wife and family, you will feel differently.

Ooooh, good one. Put husband in quotes. After all, he's really a cold, callous murderer. I suppose it was his moral obligation to remain at her bedside for a few decades until Bill Frist mdae a different tele-diagnosis.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't think the law can be made with one individual set of circumstances in mind. I have put out what I think is reasonable and just. Not no abortions. Just more limited than there are now. The law changes all the time and the consequences on an individual level are sometimes more severe sometimes less. I am not wishing tragedy or heartbreak on anyone but a change in the law that I think is more equitable and just to all of the life involved and more generally (although not in every case) encourages more personal responsibility. I also think, no matter how tragic, every experience in life offers someone the possibility to grow and learn something. While the results of birthing their child would have been sad and tragic, perhaps they would have learned something, grown or taken a different road in life that ultimately they would look at positively. Certainly, it wouldn't take much googling to find websites where people who have had catastrophically disabled children assert that they experience, while not ideal and while sad tragic etc, made them better, stronger etc. people.

I think that you should adopt a severely disabled child. I'm sure it wouldn't take much googling to find a website that would facilitate this.


Until you do that, stop making decisions for people who can't handle doing so either.


And yes, I know that some people find strength in raising such children, and God bless them. I grew up very close to one such family (my brother's god-parents). But in many other instances, such situations lead to parents divorcing and a host of other serious family, personal, and financial problems.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Perhaps, but you and your pals are rank and file kool-aid drinkers. NARAL and NOW speak for the entrenced pseudo-intellectual elitist Demo party leadership libs, which is why they are out front in every court nomination"battle". They are the Demos abortion storm troopers.

In other words, yes, Mullah Dobson does speak for you. Got it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
In other words, yes, Mullah Dobson does speak for you. Got it.

I find your use of black kitchenware offensive.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I need more analysis than that. What are the penalties for people who perform abortions but are not licensed doctors? You can't take away licenses they don't have.

A special degree of murder. Felony. 5-10 years first offence. 20-life for second.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Do you have a bunch of incarcerated preggos (if the abortion doesn't take, and they are convicted of attempted abortion)?

Sure. there are pregnant women in prisons and jails, no? They way the system works I doubt that someone post-first trimester who gets arrested for attempted abortion will be convicted prior to delivery, although she could be in jail.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Or have them doing community service at 8 months, or after the kid is born -- which would take them away from any children they might have? Way to encourage strong families.

I am not against community service sentences for attempted abortion or even, maybe, in some cases, for women who procure successful abortions.

Originally posted by ltl/fb


I need a well-thought-out plan from you, not just some pie-in-the-sky crap about how something is "bad" or "wrong."

Why? I am admittedly not a public policy wonk. I am giving my general view. I am not qualified to create sentencing statutes/guidelines. It is not what I do.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
A special degree of murder. Felony. 5-10 years first offence. 20-life for second.

Sure. there are pregnant women in prisons and jails, no? They way the system works I doubt that someone post-first trimester who gets arrested for attempted abortion will be convicted prior to delivery, although she could be in jail.

I am not against community service sentences for attempted abortion or even, maybe, in some cases, for women who procure successful abortions.

If the woman convicted of getting an abortion (or trying) already has several children, what happens to them? If she was unsuccessful in the unmonitored, held to no medical standard abortion, but the fetus was damaged, who takes care of that kid? It'd have to be foster care, right, or is termination of parental rights part and parcel of the conviction.