Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Atticus Grinch]

Nations where belief in Hell is widespread more prosperous, less corrupt.

Guess there really is something to that Protestant work ethic, except by this reasoning the Catholics should be working their asses off.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Note that if the pill doesn't work 1 out of 1000 times, and you have sex, on average, just 10 times per month, the odds are that you will produce a child every eight years.

I see the angle you're working. "But honey, I had to give you a pearl necklace. Otherwise we'd have too many kids."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Wake me up when someone ignores the two extremes and publicly announces they are Anti-Roe, federalist, pro-choice, "safe, legal and rare"

I don't like Roe jurisprudentially, but I also don't think I want to live in a country with weak privacy rights. I would rather that these derive from more secure constitutional moorings, not penumbrae.

I went to some Federalist meetings in law school, and ate their pizza. Does that count?

I am pro-choice.

I wish abortions were safe, legal and rare. This would be likelier if people had better to access to contraception, information, and things like RU 486. Measures that discourage abortion by restricting choice conflict with the libertarian instincts I have.

I suspect that 80% of the board can agree with 80%+ of this.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't like Roe jurisprudentially, but I also don't think I want to live in a country with weak privacy rights. I would rather that these derive from more secure constitutional moorings, not penumbrae.

I went to some Federalist meetings in law school, and ate their pizza. Does that count?

I am pro-choice.

I wish abortions were safe, legal and rare. This would be likelier if people had better to access to contraception, information, and things like RU 486. Measures that discourage abortion by restricting choice conflict with the libertarian instincts I have.

I suspect that 80% of the board can agree with 80%+ of this.

2, especially the use of "penumbrae" and except the part about Federalist meetings. WTF?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I went to some Federalist meetings in law school, and ate their pizza. Does that count?

I had two beers at the National Lawyer's Guild meet-and-greet.

I think this makes the world whole, no?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't like Roe jurisprudentially, but I also don't think I want to live in a country with weak privacy rights. I would rather that these derive from more secure constitutional moorings, not penumbrae.

Roe's weakness is the fact that it tried to determine how to accomplish the balancing act and did so in a way that now shows its age.

I predict at some point the court will make the legislature undertake the balancing act and will then have 5 cases per year because legislatures will either refuse to or be incapable of balancing in a rational manner.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
Most 3rd trimester abortions are not done to save the life of the mother.

What does that have to do with what I said? You have my answer.

Originally posted by Not Me
Ok then, do you get enraged if someone crushes the head of an infant or hacks it to death with a scalpel? I do.

What does that have to do with what I said? You have my answer.

Originally posted by Not Me
The woman who left her infant to die could have given the child up for adoption. Your "abortion is necessary because we don't take care of unwanted children" argument is ludicrous.

(a) Yes, she could have. Wish she had.

(b) That was not my argument. I never said that abortion was "necessary". I think abortion is almost never "necessary" -- except when it is "necessary" because the choice has been made to save the life of a mother. I said that I think it is "necessary" that abortion remain legal. There is a difference. That statement was motivated by the truly horrid fate of many unwanted children and the resulting social costs.

(c) So, how do we compel people to do the right thing? We can't even get you to stop posting.

Originally posted by Not Me
By your definition, troll is one who smashes your argument to bits and pieces and made you look like a fool. Fool.

If you get to make up your opponent's argument, it is easy to win. You do have an audience of lawyers watching, though.

You have no redeeming literary, artistic, political or social value. You are merely obscene.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Rich Lowry liked Barack Obama's speech.

Out of curiosity, and if they are so popular, does anyone know of anyone who has actually had one of these late-term abortions? I have to assume they are very rare, not having encountered anyone who has had one for a live* baby. I presume the "statistics" are wildly overblown, just like the rest of the pro-life crusaders' tactics.

-TL

*I know of several tragedies involving dead babies due to cord accidents and one baby who did not develop right** for which D&Cs were necessary.

**And by this I mean would have lived to term or been able to survive on its own if it had been born.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
We can't even get you to stop posting.

True and it is stupid posts like this that chased bilmore away.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You have no redeeming literary, artistic, political or social value. You are merely obscene.

Bullshit. I am a good speller.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Note that if the pill doesn't work 1 out of 1000 times, and you have sex, on average, just 10 times per month, the odds are that you will produce a child every eight years.

Another way of thinking of it: If it costs about $250,000 in present value to raise a child, and the pill doesn't work 1 out of 1000 times, you should assume the child-rearing "cost" of each roll in the hay while on the pill is about $250.

Just so you enter your relationships with open eyes.

POTD.

[Not Me]

I just cannot take a party seriously that will allow Al Sharpton to speak at their convention.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Yeh, all men are selfish. Evil, too.

I didn't say that. All I did was wonder how many would agree to a pregnancy if that technology existed.

Well let me ask you then. If your wife was pregnant and both you and she wanted the baby but she had a heart condition that made carrying the baby very risky for her and for the baby. So much so that the odds were greater that both she and the baby would die if she tried to carry it to term. If there were a way for the baby to be implanted into you and you could much more safely carry the baby to term, would you agree to it? Be honest.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
I didn't say that. All I did was wonder how many would agree to a pregnancy if that technology existed.

Well let me ask you then. If your wife was pregnant and both you and she wanted the baby but she had a heart condition that made carrying the baby very risky for her and for the baby. So much so that the odds were greater that both she and the baby would die if she tried to carry it to term. If there were a way for the baby to be implanted into you and you could much more safely carry the baby to term, would you agree to it? Be honest.

Of course. No brainer.

IMHO, you've got to be single and childless, or have a really bad relationship with your spouse and kids, to even think there's a question in there.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Not Me
Bullshit. I am a good speller.

You're not even that.

sentient, not sentiant