web analytics
Browse > Home / Abortion / I DO have a say in this

| Subcribe via RSS

I DO have a say in this

January 23rd, 2009 Posted in Abortion

Due to a recent comment on my site about what kind of say I have on abortion, I decided it was time to go ahead, throw caution to the wind and kick the issue of abortion right in the teeth.

Okay and wait…you’re AGAINST abortion rights? Yikes. The other stuff is all in fun, but this…unless you’re a woman, you’ve really got no say in this. Seriously. And if your wife feels differently…well. Wow.

Yep, I and my wife both are against abortion. Deal with it.

As for the argument of “you’ve got no say in this” I’m going to address that from two sides:

1 – Under the stance of since I’m not a woman I can have no say in the abortion discussion then I would submit that no one who hasn’t served in the military can have any say on the war in Iraq. Period. You haven’t been there, you haven’t been under fire, you haven’t served so take whatever ideas and thoughts you have about the war, pack them away and shut the hell up. That’s fair right? How can you have a vested interest if you PERSONALLY have not participated in it?

The ‘you’ve got no say’ is a load of crap and a distraction used to divert attention away from the real topic that not only is Roe vs. Wade the most flawed decision ever made by the US Supreme court since the Dred Scott decision, but also to throw a smoke screen over the fact that abortion is wrong. It’s technically not murder, thanks to judicial fiat, but it is still killing a life for no reason – and killing a life that has done no wrong.

Abortion is taking the life of the most helpless in our society and to say that half of the population can have no say, or should have no say, in something like this is not only wrong, but goes against everything that our society stand for which is that EVERYONE can have a say, and in this case should have a say since it is MY tax money that goes to support organizations such as Planned Parenthood.

2 – Why should men have no say in what happens to their children? Yes, THEIR CHILDREN. You see it took two people to make that child, but the stance of “you have no say” only takes into account the desires of ONE parent.

Now, the logic goes that it is her body, but that only works to a certain point. Let me use an example to demonstrate. Guy and Girl have unprotected sex, she’s not on the pill for whatever reason and she doesn’t make him use a condom – remember it’s HER body right, so it’s HER fault then isn’t it? So, now she is pregnant and decides to have an abortion because, like 95% of the abortions out there, it’s an inconvenience for her and she doesn’t want the punishment (to quote our new leader) of a child. The child is aborted, she goes on her way and the guy goes back to partying.

But what if the father of the child wanted to keep the kid? Too bad. He’s just shit out of luck on that.  It’s not his choice if the child lives or dies.  He wants to be a single father, too bad.

OK, now let’s turn it around. They have sex, she’s pregnant and decides to keep the kid but the dad doesn’t want to. Well, once again for dad, tough shit. He will have to pay child support because, unlike mom, he can’t just abort his parental duties according to the law. So, it may be her body, but it’s our kid, our money and our lives and yet according to my commenter we should have no say in any of it.

So, do you REALLY want equality then fine; give the fathers the right to abort the kid, or at least their parental responsibility, just like the women can but I will still say that abortion is WRONG!

It is wrong because a child is executed for simply being conceived while the left is against executing those people who have murdered, raped and destroyed other people’s lives because to them “killing is wrong”.

Yea, apparently it should be “killing is wrong unless you are killing innocent lives.”

Our country has the loosest abortion laws of the entire western world. We are the only country that allows a woman to go in and kill their unborn child on demand. What kind of society have we created where the miracle that is a child is thrown out like leftovers from last night?

The left wants us to think this is about empowering women, about giving women ‘control of their bodies’ and ignore the fact that because of this so-called ‘empowerment’ 49 MILLION abortions have been performed since 1973 and over 1 million just in 2006-2007.  With contraceptives available literally EVERYWHERE and in multiple types,  it is a shame of our society that this many lives are butchered for convenience.


We destroy our future for the convenience of the now. Welcome to the world of the liberal –terrorists don’t have to kill us, the left is doing that just fine right now.

28 Responses to “I DO have a say in this”

  1. Michael Says:

    Instinct, allow a little mic space for your old pal, Evyl Robot?

    ‘Smoke screen’ is right. ‘Pro Choice’ is probably the most deliberately mis-named mantra that we have ever faced. The Choicers don’t believe that a woman should have a choice any more than they think I should have a gun. Sarah Palin was criticized for making the choice to have a baby who has a condition. This seems to be the precident for these people. They don’t want anyone to have the choice on what should happen, they just want to perform abortions. Period.

    Saying that a man should not have a say in the matter is an excuse of convenience, and Instinct’s comparison to the Iraq war is quite appropriate. The reason the fems will throw that one out there is because they are running out of room to run. Women’s suffrage, equal rights, these are all good things, but as the pendulum swings, they have better than equal rights already. The pendulum swing in society is not a new concept. This is how George W. Bush went from an 80%+ approval rating to having a crowd of people sing him off the stage with “Na na na na” like a bunch of unbridled 8-year-olds on the playground. Being a light-pigmented man in 2009 in the Western world is being the most prejudiced against demographic that there can be in our current, ‘civilized’ society.

    But, I digress… There is a genocide going on today in the United States of America that makes the Roman slaughter of Christians look like happy fun good times. The left is murdering more babies than Hitler killed Jews, and nobody is CONCERNED! Our new fearless leader voted that if a doctor botches an abortion, and the baby comes out with a heartbeat, the doctor can go ahead and finish the job. Hippocratic oath my ass! This is exactly why the radicals will bomb abortion clinics. They are going to great risk to wage war against those perpetrating the genocide. I don’t condone their actions, but they seem a little more sane from that perspective, don’t they?

    Does the baby get a choice? Does anybody ask her if she wants to have her brains sucked out through a straw and have her body cut into little pieces before she has a chance to accomplish or experience anything? To never lose her first tooth? Throw her fist ball? Go on her first date? Earn a scholarship? Go to school and earn a degree? Become a medical researcher and discover the cure for AIDS? I’m afraid that question would be a rhetorical one. The common desire of life is to keep living. You can look around nature and see it anywhere at any time. The fact that the baby is ignored in the consideration is psychotic!

    As far as the 95% mentioned in this post are concerned, there’s absolutely no excuse for that. The woman DOES have the choice on what happens to her body. She can choose to keep her knees together, take a pill, or make Jimmy wear a jimmy hat. That sounds like several good choices. The man also has a choice. He can keep his pants on, or wear a jimmy hat, or have his doctor snip him in a fully-reversible, 20-minute outpatient procedure. The 95% should be outlawed and judged as the murder it is.

    Let’s talk about the 5%. The woman still has a choice. Can she be attacked and assaulted? Sure, she can. Can she carry a gun and kill the rapist instead of an innocent life after much personal pain, agony and emotional trauma? Absolutely. That’s what my wife would do. There’s no guarantee that you won’t get jumped anyway, but the chances of you making it out uninjured and alive are exponentially increased if you have a weapon that you are well-versed in using, and have the will to protect your body – as the ‘Choicers’ assert that they do. Choose to buy a gun. Choose to practice. You clearly have the will to kill, let’s identify your target.

    ‘Pro-Choice’ is an enigma that the left uses to manipulate feminists to push their agenda. They take advantage of these women with the seduction of power when the power is actually taken from them in the end. They tell them that this is how they can become equal with men. For one, women are equal to men. For two, their promises degrade women in the end. I don’t know about your, but I don’t appreciate the degradation of women. I find it offensive.

  2. Jennifer Says:

    No man has any say in what I do or don’t do with my body. Not really even my husband. Now, because I love him and respect him, his opinion weighs strongly on whatever decision I make regarding my body. The thing is, the child inside of a woman’s womb is not her body. The child did not choose to be there and is not committing any act of violence to temporarily use a woman’s body. Unlike a rapist, who actually does deserve to be killed for his actions.
    I carry a gun because I believe that I am the only one allowed to decide what happens with my body. I also take a pill every day to prevent an innocent life from borrowing my body for a period of time.
    Getting pregnant doesn’t just happen. There are 2 parents involved. Just because the woman carries the child, she is not more of a parent. And no parent should have the right to dispose of their offspring. No one would think that it was a parent’s right to cut their 2 month old child into little pieces and run them down the garbage disposal, so why is it accepted to do it to the unborn? A 2 month old is completely dependent on the parents for survival. So why the double standard?

  3. gatakitty Says:

    Instinct, dear Wingleader, Jen and Michael have said it all, so I’ll just put it in words even Libtards can understand:

    If you are an American citizen, or if you are a resident immigrant, or even an illegal immigrant, if you are within the borders of the United States of America, you have a say in the abortion issue, or any other issue that is discussed on American soil.

    It’s called the First Amendment. Just like the libs can talk their pro-death rhetoric, their anti-2nd amendment and anti-death penalty all they like, we can espouse our views, too. Deal with it, Libtards.

    Just because the liberals are too intolerant to acknowledge any viewpoint with which they disagree, it doesn’t nullify the First Amendment. It’ll take three-fourths of both Houses of Congress, PLUS three-fourths votes from three-fourths of the state legislatures to do that.

    Isn’t it odd, though, how quickly the Libtards will wield the First Amendment like a MAC-10 to justify the demented perversions of NAMBLA, the porn industry, and the like??? Go figure.

  4. ratso rizzo Says:

    Oddly enought, we probably won’t resolve this debate here. And just the three comments above show how vociferous any discussion on this can be.

    Almost everybody has an opinion on abortion, and they all think they’re right. It might be the most visceral issue you can think of…so shouldn’t it be outside politics? Isn’t it more of a moral and ethical issue? Me, I’d be heartbroken if my daughter got an abortion, but should I hate her as a murderer? Well, I’m probably not going to do that, and I feel sorry for you if you’d hate yours. Instead, we’ve done our best to teach our daughters to be careful. To be responsible. And to be accountable for their actions. I guess if everybody did that, there really wouldn’t be much debate on this, would there?

    Wait, is somebody defending NAMBLA????

  5. Instinct Says:

    No one said anything about hate except for you, but I think that if I teach my children right from wrong the question will never come up.

    Sure, it should be ‘outside politics’ except for the fact that is has been pushed into politics by our new fearless leader writing in an executive order that makes MY tax dollars pay for something that I find reprehensible. I also see nothing vociferous about the above posts, each commenter made their argument with clear and concise statements unlike what you have posted in which you have essentially said nothing except “gee I’d be sad about it”.

    And yea, there is someone defending NAMBLA, they are the bastards at the ACLU. But what that has to do with abortion I do not know, or is this another attempt to misdirect the argument?

    If you are trying to say that one is the same as the other then maybe I should just ban you right now because while I will accept arguments I will not accept outright insults.

  6. Serenity Says:

    Two things:

    1) The woman made the choice when she laid down and had sex with the male. It doesn’t matter if it was protected or not, we all know darn good and well that abstinence is the only 100% proven method against pregnancy. You know there are risks of getting pregnant despite the fact that a pill or condom is being used. So, she made her choice at that time. (Exception is the cases of incest or rape where the woman did not have the choice.)

    2) Why is it a fetus if it’s an unwanted pregnancy but a baby when it’s a wanted pregnancy?

  7. Ratso Rizzo Says:

    Um, no. The posting above mine brought up NAMBLA, not me. And I don’t see any connection between abortion and Iraq, gun control or NAMBLA – all of those issues were brought up by previous posters (and you) not me. Plus, the NAMBLA article you mentioned is from 2004, and we’re certainly in agreement that the NYACLU is at the far fringe of ANYONE’s political spectrum (in fact, they sued ME once! But that’s a different story). So why spend time on 5-year-old nonsense issues?

    I’m going to presume you don’t have kids, or you wouldn’t be so sanguine about your teaching them “right from wrong” being a preventer of all problems. Any parent knows that sometimes things happen despite our best efforts.

    Now…the important part. Yeah, I think abortion is a personal issue. I don’t want the government intruding on my right to bear arms, wear fur, hunt, fish, drive or make personal decisions with my partner. And that’s why I’m a Republican.

  8. Instinct Says:

    No, I don’t have kids yet, but I was a kid and I had parents. My parents taught me right from wrong and guess what? I’ve never had a girlfriend say “I’m pregnant”, never been in trouble with the law, have an honorable discharge from the military, and graduated Suma Cum Laude from my undergrad college.

    So essentially, your stance is that you don’t even consider it a child at all until after it’s born- correct me if that is wrong – and just consider it “a choice” instead.

    So what about the ones that survive the late term abortion process? Our new presidents stance is that even though they survived and are born, the doctors must kill them. Tell me how you can square that in your head? A living, breathing infant just left on a table to die?

  9. Ratso Rizzo Says:

    No, my stance is that the government doesn’t have standing to tell me or you WHAT we should believe. And some people believe that a fetus that couldn’t sustain life outside the womb does not meet the definition of a child. You (or I) may disagree, but that’s what they believe, And I don’t want the government intruding on their beliefs. Government screws up most things it touches.

    I’ll be honest – I had to look the late-term abortion question up. Here’s an Obama quote from a Fox News interview on 4/27/08: “On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. ….”

    Reading a bunch of things he’s said and voted on this subject, it’s hard to know WHAT he thinks. He’s kind of been all over the map.

  10. gatakitty Says:

    My compadre Instinct doesn’t have kids, but I do–three of them. Two boys and a girl. I have done my utmost to “teach them right from wrong.” Not because “the Village” that it takes “to raise a child” says so, but because I believe with all my heart that one day I will have to answer to my Maker for what I have done. I want to be able to stand before Him able to truthfully say that I have, quoting from Proverbs 22:6, “train[ed] up [my children] in the way [they] should go” to the absolute best of my human ability. That includes teaching the sanctity of ALL life–the baby seals, the baby whales, AND the baby humans!

    My daughter is on the debate team at her high school and came home one day recently incensed over what she had learned researching the topic of health care. Apparently, in Britain, ALL pregnant women are required to have their fetuses tested for Down Syndrome (she showed me the article). If the test comes back positive, the women are encouraged to seek an abortion.

    First off, the fetal test for Down’s involves the taking of amniotic fluid–an invasive procedure that puts the fetus at risk. If the woman doesn’t have any of the risk factors of Down’s, or she doesn’t intend to have an abortion under any circumstances, she shouldn’t be forced to undergo the procedure. Secondly, the taking of a life due to Down’s is murder of an innocent–plain and simple.

    I just celebrated the award of visas to a Christian family from a middle-eastern nation who has a teen-age child with Down’s Syndrome. They were persecuted in their home country and denied schooling for the child because of their faith. During the family’s visa processing, I had opportunity to witness this child’s older brother and the love, devotion, and tenderness he showed for his younger sibling–at every opportunity, the brother sacrificed to provide something special for his Down’s sibling. It was one of those moments that makes life special and renews my faith in humanity.

    Then along comes someone who espouses the murder of innocents–for that’s all abortion is, and I am not going to sugar-coat it by calling it a “choice.” Between 40 and 50 million babies have been aborted (according to that right-wing hate group called “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”). That’s twice the number of people who died because of the Third Reich (including both victims of Nazi persecution and soldiers/civilians killed in the effort to end Nazism). What’s going on now is nothing less than another Holocaust. We as a nation let the slaughter of Jews go unchecked until GERMANY declared war on US as a response to our declaration of war against Japan. We as a nation are turning our backs again on the slaughter of innocents. I will do everything within my legal rights to prevent that from happening again.

  11. Michael Says:

    “Now…the important part. Yeah, I think abortion is a personal issue. I don’t want the government intruding on my right to bear arms, wear fur, hunt, fish, drive or make personal decisions with my partner.”

    Similarly, if one of your plantation slaves ceased to be useful, the government should not bother you when you are trying to put them out of their misery. Right? Would that be OK with you?

    “And some people believe that a fetus that couldn’t sustain life outside the womb does not meet the definition of a child.”

    Many once justified slavery in America by their belief that blacks were not human, but rather some highly-developed primate. I suppose that the government should not have screwed with those people’s beliefs either, huh?

    “No, my stance is that the government doesn’t have standing to tell me or you WHAT we should believe.”

    I could not agree more – to a point. Let’s take gay marriage as an example. I think that homosexuality is wrong. I believe that it is an immoral life choice, and that those who practice it will have to answer to it before The Day is over. But, if two consenting adults make a choice to live like that, and they aren’t hurting anyone else, I’ve got no place to judge them. It’s not my job. Furthermore, it is not the government’s job to define the holy union of matrimony because they have absolutely no stake in the church – which is where marriage belongs. Therefore, I don’t think that gay marriage should be ‘legal’ because I don’t think that any form of marriage should be sanctioned by law. It doesn’t really have anything to do with law.

    The law should be there to keep one person from overstepping another person’s rights. It almost sounds like you, Ratso, might agree with me on that point. One person, getting an abortion is massively stepping on the rights of another person – to live. The debate comes in on whether or not a ‘fetus’ is ’tissue’ or a ‘human being’ I suppose. Most people on both sides of the argument can agree that abortion is not a good form of birth control. It is less than ideal for the purpose of convenience.


    As has already been stated here, the convenience of birth control constitutes about 95% of the practice. If both sides can agree that the 95% is unnecessary, and generally bad practice, we should eliminate that and then hash out the remaining 5% that bear the argument of the Choicers.

    And yet, they would never go for that. They will never even give time to the idea that this piece of ’tissue’ might in fact be a human being. That’s like making a ham sandwich for a Jew. And then, when he asks if that’s ham, you say, “Shut up and eat your fucking sandwich.” Do you understand why people might get up in arms about such things?

  12. Ratso Rizzo Says:

    I do understand why people get up in arms about this – As I noted above, there’s probably no more visceral issue. And I respect the sincerity of your beliefs, Michael, and yours, gatakitty. ALL of your beliefs (for example, Michael, I don’t believe that homosexuality is an immoral life choice, but I’d defend your right to believe it).

    And, I agree with Michael that the only purpose of law is to prevent people from doing wrong, based on our society’s standards (it’s basically a Hobbesian view of humanity, if you ever sat through Poli Sci 101). We as a society determine what our standards of “wrong” will be, and they’re rarely absolute. For example, we no longer tolerate slavery (even though we once did, and we continue to tolerate slavery in Korea, China and elsewhere). We eventually woke up to the slaughter of the Jews (although we seem to be tuning a blind eye to the slaughter of Palestinians). But….We think it’s okay to kill animals for fashion and food, even though there are plenty of non-animal substitutes. And on abortion, a large portion of our population doesn’t agree with you (in fact, I believe it’s the majority who don’t agree with you, but I could be wrong on that). As a society, we don’t have a clear standard on this. You’re clear in what YOU believe, but so is the other side.

    But you’re absolutely right…. we’d all agree that most abortions are the result of bad decisions (although I think calling it a “convenience” colors the issue unfairly). And as you said, both sides should focus on ways to to get people to stop making those bad decisions. We’re never going to agree or change each others’ minds about abortion. It’s not productive to try. It IS productive to improve education (including abstinence education) and provide women good alternatives to abortion. Agreed?

  13. ~ShyAsrai Says:

    i’ll be glad to trade the death penalty for no more abortions.

  14. Instinct Says:

    Not a bad idea ShyAsrai

  15. Michael Says:


    If you are equating human life and animal life, this discussion is pointless and over. If you believe in your rights to hunt, fish, eat meat, wear fur, and you think that those animals have the rights that people do, call before you come to my neighborhood – because we call that sociopathic around here. I have different boundaries altogether for sociopaths. If I read, “But….We think it’s okay to kill animals for fashion and food, even though there are plenty of non-animal substitutes.”, as yet another way to smokescreen the issue correctly, then please continue reading.

    A little over ten years ago, my wife went to the doctor to confirm suspicions that she was indeed pregnant. Confirm, the doctor did. That was just about the scariest thing that had ever before happened to either of us. I didn’t have a good job, the apartment was almost the size of a thimble, and we were barely out of our teens. We were both in college at the time, had behaved irresponsibly (as college students tend to), and having a baby was clearly not on our to-do list. The doctor actually encouraged Jen to get an abortion, as it was her opinion that we were in no position to raise a child. We talked between the two of us, tried to remain open-minded about the possibilities, and unanimously, with no second thoughts decided that abortion was completely unacceptable. The very suggestion was offensive! We were certainly not in a position to have a baby, but that would not cause us to correct our irresponsible behavior with a bad decision. Our choice to take responsibility forced us to drop out of school, buy a house, and seek better employment. The childish games were over, and it was time to live up to a higher standard.

    The nearly ten-year-old boy in the next room is my reminder that we made the right choice. Neither of us has been able to get back to college, but have done fairly well for ourselves anyway. He is growing up tall, handsome, and strong. He has a mind like a steel trap, a great sense of humor, and a strong, sensitive heart. He believes in right and wrong, and good and evil. At his age, most of that manifests in Spiderman or Artemis Fowl, but his good personal choices are getting more frequent and more resolute as he continues to make the transition from boy to man. He passionately stands up for the rights and needs of those less fortunate. Much like his parents, he doesn’t always make the best decisions, but he does try, and he tries to make the best of it when he has screwed up. More to the point, he is well on track to become a man, and a great man at that.

    I said nothing about the law preventing people from doing wrong. I said that the law’s purpose should be to uphold the rights of individuals against those that would violate such rights. The point is that there are concrete absolutes in right and wrong that are not dictated by popular belief or the belief of only a few. Think back to the old, parental adagium of “If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you?” The results of such a preposterous, mass calamity would be no less disastrous, despite the supposed popularity of said action. If popular belief held that it was OK to kill your neighbor, would the popular belief make it acceptable? Society may accept it if you adhered to the customs by which to dispense with your neighbor, but does that not still violate his boundary of rights?

    The legalization of abortion is a failure on the part of the law to protect the right to life of the unborn. Within how many weeks does a fetus have a heartbeat independent of the mother’s? Twenty-two days. At three weeks, the heartbeat is discernable in an ultrasound. A baby born at 24-weeks instead of the 40-week full term has a 60% chance of survival, and at 26-weeks has a 95% chance of survival with today’s medicine. Half a century ago, a prematurity of 6-weeks was nearly a death sentence to the infant. Who knows? As medical science progresses, it may become unnecessary for a mother to be involved. Currently, in the US, 24-weeks is the generally accepted ‘late’ term limit on abortions that are easily gotten without first identifying problems with the child or mother. What happens when viability of the fetus is pushed earlier with a higher success rate? Will the late-term line be moved as well? At that point, will we look to the past, laissez faire attitude that we currently have towards abortion as birth control, and then will we finally see barbarism?

    If my child had been killed when he was no more than a bundle of cells in his mother’s womb, it would make it no less murder. States as conservative as Texas (Florez vs. Texas) and as liberal as California (People vs Harold Wayne Taylor – Supreme Court finding, at that) have convicted for murder of the unborn when the expectant mother is attacked. This is well-justified by the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Do you not see a discrepancy in that it is not considered to be murder when the mother consents to the killing of the child, but is when she does not? Who decided that “Mother” is synonymous with “God” anyway? If the mother’s body is so holy and sacred that she gets the right to decide who lives and dies, shouldn’t she protect it better in the first place? I would think so.

    I do not believe that everyone is fit to be a parent. I don’t think that many 20-year-old college dropouts can get married, have a baby together, buy a house, and then stand in the same room together eleven years later – much less still be passionately in love as my wife and I are. I would not recommend anyone take the road I’ve taken, as I don’t think there are more than a few that could take it with any degree of success. Does any of that make abortion the ‘lesser of two evils’ or acceptable in the least?

    The idea of providing women with alternatives is somehow your idea of holding out the olive branch here. There are lots of options. There have been lots of good options for a long time. Sex ed has been shoved down the throats of America’s youth for decades. We all remember the scare videos that depicted genitalia that resembled rotten vegetables. The biggest problem with public sex ed is that it belongs in the home, not in the classroom. I’ve got no problem with science class telling the kids that a sperm and an egg make a blastocyst/zygote/fetus that will eventually become a child unless interrupted. I’ve really got no problem with them teaching kids that there are medical and barrier methods to prevent the cycle, or that if they don’t ‘engage’ they don’t have to worry about it in the first place. But, parents are shirking their responsibilities by not talking to their kids about sex. That is where ethics and morals should be taught, not in the classroom.

    I have yet to hear a convincing argument on why abortion should continue to be legal. Many states have recalled license plates that contain the letters ‘WTF’, and replaced them in the fear that the plates could offend some people. Pretty much anything the ACLU does is to protect the feelings of those that would otherwise be offended, for that matter. Whether it is murder or not, since it is so easily avoidable, why should its practice continue since many people find it to be an egregious act of violence?

    I suppose my problem with abortion boils down to this:
    (1) To some, to many in fact, it is a heinous act inflicted on the most innocent and helpless of victims.
    (2) It is so very unnecessary. There are options upon options and alternatives upon alternatives.
    (3) Why should those that think it’s probably acceptable treat those that do not as if we are stupid, when simply avoiding the offensive act is… well… so simple?

  16. Ratso Rizzo Says:

    No smokescreen. The animal rights thing was to illustrate the complexity of moral/ethical/religious thinking. Hindus believe that cows are sacred – and they really believe that with all their hearts, and they think we’re sinners because we like a big juicy steak. Are hindus stupid? I don’t think so, and I don’t think you do.

    Of course, it’s wonderful that you have a healthy, happy son. We’ve been blessed with 3 amazing children, now much older than yours – but we had a similar situation way back when. When my son was born, we lived in a ONE-ROOM apartment in Manhattan. 23 years later we’re still together (now we have more rooms, thank God). like you, it never occurred to us to do anything but have them, raise them and love them.

    I mostly agree with you. Seriously. But…I just came back from a meeting about health care cost projections and the approaching crisis in medicare/medicaid financing. it was depressing stuff, largely because I was reminded that about 70% of health care expenditures are due to lifestyle-related isses – primarily obesity, diabetes and smoking. By 2020, 78% of Americans will be overweight. 23% of us still smoke. The point is that even though everybody knows it’s dumb to be fat and smoke, a lot of people still do it, just like a lot of people are going to get pregnant. And a lot of those people are not like you and me – in fact, a lot of them are a step above animals themselves. I was a cop for 22 years, and I don’t tell graphic stories (or “cop porn”, as I always think of it), but suffice it to say that there are children being born into horrors that you cannot imagine. These are not mothers who abort because having a baby would mess up their social calendar for the Fall – having an abortion is probably the one decent thing these skanks have ever done in their lives, because they’d be damning their baby to a life of misery. Even if Congress were to grow the balls to outlaw abortion, what shall we do with those people, and their babies? Most of the alternatives you’re mentioning are available to white, middle-class women – there’s not a whole lot of services being offered to 17-year-old crack whores in Bed-Stuy. It seems you’re envisioning a world where everyone will come to their senses and start doing what’s right. You’re younger than I am, so you may live to see that world…but I doubt it.

    Oh, and my son, that one from the one-room apt? He’s a sergeant in the 101st Airborne, currently in Afghanistan. I HOPE what he’s doing will eliminate the need for your son to go there and do the same job. I hope.

  17. Instinct Says:

    Ratso, your stance justifies abortion by saying that the kid would have had a horrible life but I am sorry that is no excuse. Yes, I saw some horrible things as an MP and so has my father (homicide, drugs) and both my brothers (DWI and SWAT) and I can tell you that not one of us has the attitude that abortion was the right thing because the mom was a crack head, druggie.

    As far as that kind of person goes, that’s why we have the social services we do. Yes, they are flawed and children slip through the cracks, but if the mom is that bad then you remove the child and put them in a home or an orphan age where they can grow in a safe environment with decent role models.

    I would suggest forced sterilization for those kinds of parents when they are convicted of child abuse, but the ACLU is against that.

    Medicare/Medicaid goes, that really has nothing to do with this argument so I am not going to address that except to say that it is another area the government needs to move itself out of.

  18. Ratso Rizzo Says:

    Deintely in agreement on forced sterilization (with due process, of course).

    There ARE no orphanages anymore, and that may be part of the problem. There’s a horrific foster care system that turns kids into feral monsters, sexual predators and substance abusers. And it’s only the most egregious cases that wind up in child abuse convictions. Most of these poor kids just….rot.

    Definitely DON’T agree on Medicare/Medicaid. Those are about the only two programs that the government has managed well (well, Medicare, at least. Medicaid is run by the states with varying results. )

  19. gatakitty Says:

    MEDICARE MANAGED WELL?!?!?!?!?!? If you believe that, Ratso, I’ve got some beachfront in Tennessee for sale! P. T. Barnum would LOVE you!

    But I digress. Yes, we need a well-run system of orphanages. The foster care systems of the individual states are broken beyond belief (if there is a state with anything resembling an adequate foster care system, please show me the proof and and I’ll happily retract it).

    My point is, though, that having a crack-head for a mom is NO reason to have an abortion. A friend of mine (a quadriplegic) and his wife adopted THREE siblings, all with fetal alcohol syndrome. They made sure the kids got all the love and care to make up for what they had been denied in their early years. The youngest was two at the time of adoption and had never spoken a word in her life. She didn’t speak a word for two more years. Then she began to speak and hasn’t stopped since! What a joy!

  20. Ratso Rizzo Says:

    Of course, there are success stories of adopted kids that are heartwarming and touching and we admire the heroic people who can give of themselves like that. But those stories are the exception that prove the rule that there are thousands of kids living in horrible circumstances, as you acknowledge. Is abortion the solution for that?? Of course not. I’m merely saying it’s fatuous to suggest that if we eliminated abortion we’d have nothing but happy moms taking their kids to the park. We’d have more kids flooding a disastrous system.

    Don’t be dissin’ on my Medicare. It provides health care to millions of Americans and it does it cheaper and with lower admin costs than private insurers. Of course, it helps that Congress can order providers to participate and shift the true costs to employers, but that’s the price of living in a semi-democracy. It’s not perfect and it’s gonna be in big trouble by 2018 because of the swarms of old people who will become eligible, but Medicare is a pretty darn good success story.

  21. Instinct Says:

    Yea, I used to have to deal with Medicare, their version of controlling costs and making it cheaper was to tell doctors that medicare was only going to pay 50% of the charged fees. We could all make our cost savings look great by just saying that we are only going to pay half the bill.

    And since private insurance is then soaked for the difference, wow – medicare gets to look even better. Soon they can look fantastic by saying it’s free and making us private insurance taxpayers foot the whole bill – what a success story that will be!

    Boy, won’t they look so much better than private insurance which will have to triple to pick up the tab.

    But if abortion isn’t the solution to the problem, then why keep doing it? It’s a corrupt answer that doesn’t fix anything and instead only destroys, so why keep doing it? Wouldn’t that money be better spent actually addressing the cause of the problems instead of just murdering one symptom of it?

  22. Ratso Rizzo Says:

    No, Medicare actually has an even better deal than you realize: They can pay that doctor 50% of charges and FORCE him to accept it as payment in full (because they’re the government!). The soaking of private insurers comes when that doctor tries to make up that lost revenue from private insurers. And since an internist in NYC makes an average of $400,000 a year, that’s a LOT of soaking that needs to be done. Me, I’d expand Medicare eligibility, not contract it. Sorry, I don’t feel bad for someone who makes $400,000 a year. And almost all areas are over-bedded by hospitals, and the inefficient ones should close, thus increasing bed-days for the ones that don’t and returning them to profitability.

    For a host of reasons (mostly Americans who are killing themselves with cigarettes and junk food) – employer-sponsored health coverage is going to increase in cost by about 50% over the next three years. Medicare’s gonna look pretty good to the 20% of workers who are going to lose benefits because their employers can’t afford them.

    How did we get on this, anyway? Oh yeah, me.

    On your last paragraph: Ab-so-damn-lutely. I’d be happy to see our money going to education/prevention programs instead of tragic, wasteful abortions. See, we’re not so different after all, are we?

  23. gatakitty Says:

    Again, Rizzo, if you believe that EMPLOYERS pay for Medicare, (and I quote from three posts above: “it helps that Congress can order providers to participate and shift the true costs to employers”), that beachfront in Tennessee is still available.

    Yes, employers get CHARGED for Medicare, but guess who pays for it??? You, I, and/or anyone else who patronizes said employer for services, whether it’s the extra 50 cents added to the cost of a Big Mac, or the $3700 “taxes, licenses and fees” added to the just-negotiated cost of your new ride. Employers don’t just absorb the cost out of the goodness of their heart, for the luvva Mike. Get real.

    Dear God in Heaven, you must be stringing us on, because you can’t possibly be that naive. Then again, maybe you are one of those people who have been suckered by popular culture into believing that getting an education and/or using one’s own brain synapses for cognitive thought is “selling out to ‘the Man.'” Lord knows that I’ve had a lot of those in my classrooms over the years. It’s always sad to see to whom they’ve REALLY sold out.

  24. Ratso Rizzo Says:

    I really have no idea what you’re trying to say; Of COURSE employers pass on their tax and benefits costs to their customers, just like they pass on the cost of rent, raw materials, advertising…

    And to be precise, the cost of medicare is shared by employers and Employees through FICA taxes. They pay an equal amount, based on the employee’s wages…..

    Wait. You don’t get that the “it helps that….” was IRONIC. Have they not gotten to irony in your classroom yet?

    Plus, the cost shifting that I was referring to (and I believe Instinct was referring to was the phenomenon of health care providers raising charges to private payers to offset the reduced payments they get from medicare. Don’t sweat it – I think they cover Economics in your class on the day after Irony, so you can catch up then.

  25. Michael Says:

    “Oh, and my son, that one from the one-room apt? He’s a sergeant in the 101st Airborne, currently in Afghanistan. I HOPE what he’s doing will eliminate the need for your son to go there and do the same job. I hope.”

    Please give your son a heartfelt thank you from us. Afghanistan is a rough place right now from what I understand. I have nothing short of the deepest respect and gratefulness to those brave men and women that are doing the dirty work in the name of freedom and liberty. I hope that if our country ever needs it, those countries that we have liberated and/or supported will reciprocate by stepping in to liberate us as well.

    Now that that’s been said, let’s get back to business…

    You start by saying, “Okay and wait…you’re AGAINST abortion rights? Yikes. The other stuff is all in fun, but this…unless you’re a woman, you’ve really got no say in this. Seriously. And if your wife feels differently…well. Wow.”

    And this conversation has devolved into the benefits of government-run health-care. As you said, “How did we get on this, anyway? Oh yeah, me.” Oh yeah.

    When you said, “Now…the important part. Yeah, I think abortion is a personal issue. I don’t want the government intruding on my right to bear arms, wear fur, hunt, fish, drive or make personal decisions with my partner. And that’s why I’m a Republican…” and, “my stance is that the government doesn’t have standing to tell me or you WHAT we should believe…” you sound like a registered Republican with nearly Libertarian leanings – which I can certainly relate to.

    This seems to conflict terribly with your view on Medicine by Big Brother. No matter how you slice the pie, Medicare and Medicaid amount to The Man taking money out of the private sector so that the government can take care of the private sector at their sole discretion – which they are incapable of doing without skimming quite a bit of money off the top. That’s something that I don’t ever think I’ll agree with. If I thought that the government should be taking care of groups of people that are incapable of taking care of themselves, I would be opposed to the lottery – as many believe that it takes advantage of the less fortunate. I’ve heard it referred to as ‘the tax on the poor.’ -at the risk of throwing further confusion into this particular discussion.

    Ratso, I’m not going to presume to being able to figure you out after a couple of nearly anonymous internet posts, but what gives really? At first, you sound like a rabid supporter of abortion, and you’ve given credit to alternatives, and acknowledged that abortion is a far less than savory solution to a bigger problem – I believe the words you used to describe it were “tragic” and “wasteful.”

    That is exactly the way I feel about the murder of the unborn… Maybe I am idealistic, but I have seen atrocities in my handful of decades on the planet. I just don’t believe that one bad decision cancels out another.

    Instinct, I don’t think I’ve ever gotten 25-comments on a single post. I tip my hat to your hits.

  26. Ratso Rizzo Says:

    Thanks for the thank-you to my son. We’re very proud of him. Our soldiers are doing a great job in an awful place. And no matter how people feel about Iraq, Afghanistan or anything else we’re doing around the world, I’ll say this about post-9/11 America: He’s never heard anything but positive words and thanks from people he’s encountered in restaurants, airports, etc. Sometimes he and his buddies have to turn down a free drink or a meal because they get so many offers from strangers. It’s very nice to see.


    Yup, I definitely defy categorization, and I’m darn glad of it. We’ve become polarized by lockstep thinking in this country, and it could destroy us. It seems everyone has to fit into their liberal or conservative box, or put everyone else into one. I hate that, because if you can’t be open to conflicting opinions, why bother having a brain? So, yes, I support abortion rights because I oppose government intervention into our personal lives – and despite being a practicing Christian, I don’t share your belief about “life” beginning at the moment of conception. But programs that offer real alternatives to abortion – faith-based or not – will get my vote every time.

    And on health care….Yes. Sadly, there are some things that government DOES do better. I like it that the city runs the stoplights, not Stoplights Corp., Inc. I was a cop, and nobody ever asked whether I was a profit center for the city – I just did my job. Private employer-based health insurance is really a historical accident – it really didn’t exist in large numbers until after WWII when the government imposed wage controls and the labor unions negotiated for benefits instead. Now, employers are unfairly saddled with absurd costs they never could have foreseen – something like 30% of the price of a GM car is attributable to benefits. It’s one of the reasons they’re not competitive in a global economy. So yeah, I think healthcare is a national imperative like defense. I wish it wasn’t so, but it is.

    I was sarcastic in my response to gatakitty above and I feel badly about it. (I was having a crappy morning). Maybe it’s pollyanna-ish, but a civil debate is a great way to learn from other people. So I really do try to stay civil.

  27. gatakitty Says:

    Ratso, this may sound weird, but I think I owe you a debt of gratitude for the recent trip down memory lane.

    The progression of this particular discourse is one I haven’t enjoyed since 1995–January of 1995, in fact, for that was when my beloved grandmother passed away. She was the matriarch of our family in every sense of the word. She ruled with an iron fist–within an elbow-length kid glove.

    Although she was a gracious and genteel lady with an abundance of love for her family, no one dared cross her–not even my uncle, who was notorious for his pranks upon buddies who were about to be wed (the most impressive involved breaking into the chem lab at Georgia Tech and liberating an array of organic–and indelible–dyes). Whatever she said to my uncle the day before his brother (my dad) wed my mother is lost to history, but the getaway car had nothing but “Just Married” and a few tin cans for decoration!

    My point is that her will was the stuff of legend. She would not be told by anyone how to live her life or what to do. Period. She divorced (something Southern society women did NOT do!) her alcoholic, abusive first husband in the 1920’s, then headed straight to Hollywood with nothing but her possessions loaded in her car, her toddler son, and a pet monkey. She later returned to Georgia, met my grandfather, married him, bore him two children and settled happily into middle-class society–because it was the life she wanted with the man she wanted. And yes, he wore the pants in the family–he was the only person who could say “that’s about enough,” and she’d stop.

    Rizzo, the verbal repartee of the last few days reminds me of life with my grandmother. Just because she was strong-willed didn’t mean she was inflexible. You just had to know how to do it. If we wanted her to do something, all we had to do was bring it up. She would tell us in no uncertain terms “no.” Then all we had to do was let it drop. It never failed–two days later, she’d call with a brilliant idea she’d gotten–then proceed to describe just what we’d wanted her to do in the first place!

    Reading the 180 digression of your rhetoric the past few days was like bantering with my grandmother all over again. Thanks for the nostalgia trip, Rizzo!

  28. Ratso Rizzo Says:

    That’s a beautiful story about a great woman. I’m sure your grandmother is in heaven, giving the angels hell.

    I’ve enjoyed our hijacking of Instinct’s blog as well. I’m not sure we’ve accomplished anything, but any time we can get past the silly “Libtard!” and “Bushitler!” stuff and have a real discussion, that’s a good thing.

Leave a Reply