Yesterday I decided to have spot of fun with the “progressives” over at the Daily Kos by responding to this Kos post about the framing of the case against partial birth abortion.
Sadly my comment was deleted by the mighty Kos censors (or at least cannot be seen by mere mortals such as the author). It began thusly:
Babies are frequently born short of term and grow up to live happy, healthy lives. Aborting a child that would otherwise live must be considered a killing by any logical thinker.
There is a point after which the parents’ right to an abortion – that’s both of them – ends. That hasn’t been defined legally yet, although this case may be a stepping stone toward that end.
My comment went on to note that the “woman’s right to choose” was itself framed to both give credence to the acceptability of the act and the removal of male input for or against it. Evidently this was not appreciated. As you can see, my comment is no longer there, although it was utterly without the bad language and manners, threats of violence and approval of same, and plain old bad taste that so frequently grace the mighty Kos.
I was therefore intrigued to be confronted by a Kos-ite calling herself Edwardssl and seems to have inside information about my now-defunct post.
What follows is our “dialogue” on the subject after she tracked me down and flamed my comment to another, unrelated post. E-stalking is (un)cool!
(Note the formatting: my words in regular text and hers indented and italized for clarity.)
You’re a real-woman hater, aren’t you?
I was just reading your blather about women in the hidden comments, such as
Ethically there is no such thing as a “woman’s right to choose”. There is a couple’s right to choose, perhaps, but the fact that the female hosts the child grants her no special privileges unless the male fails to meet his obligations.
A female host? What is this, Alien?
No man in the world tells me what to do with my body. NO ONE! In fact, no woman, either.
You’re a disgusting pig of a troll.
(Hidden comments? I don’t follow. Is that a Kos-ism?)
I do hate debates where one side claims 100% of the rights without corresponding merit. That’s the “women’s rights” side in this case, obviously.
Your right to “control your body” does not supercede your child’s right to live or your partner’s right to the child if you decline to meet your responsibilities. Your momentary inconvenience is unfortunate but not sufficient to dictate to the other parties.
You are so full of shit!
You feel so strongly about it, then don’t have a abortion. Mind your own goddamned business and leave others to make their own decisions. It’s her life, not yours.
You hate debates where one side claims 100% of the rights without corresponding merits? Take a look in the mirror, you hypocrite.
Who the hell died and left you in charge of determining what’s ethical and what’s moral. Having a child that you have no way to support? Bringing a child into an abusive family? Having a child that you are incapable of loving? The scenarios are endless. That’s a decision that needs to be left up to the woman. It’s all about her, and not about you.
Momentary inconvenience? If you think raising children who are loved and wanted, raising children to be responsible and sensible human beings, sacrificing everything for them for 18+ years, is only a momentary inconvenience, then obviously, you’ve never raised children.
Well, I’ve raised two, both in college now. They are doing great, we have a wonderful relationship. Because I wanted them, I was ready for them, and we could provide for them.
And yes, you should be sorry. And ashamed for your sexist attitude.
Let’s say Jack and Jill make a baby. They decide to get married and raise her. 5 months later they break up. Jack wants desperately to keep the baby and will assume full responsibility.
You argue that Jill has the right to terminate Jack’s child’s life and he has no recourse, simply because Jill is carrying her temporarily. Correct?
How is Jill ethically entitled to that authority?
I say she’s not. I’m not ashamed of that.
Recall that the topic was partial birth abortions. Jill has 4 months left to go before handing the baby over to Jack or, should he chicken out, giving her up for adoption.
This is both inconvenient and temporary. I won’t apologize for believing that Jill should do what’s right.
You are obviously educated and understand that there is a point after which a baby is a viable human being. Killing one after that is…well, what would you call it?
If Jack pulled some male “I ain’t havin’ no kid” crap and Jill is in the first 20 weeks, I think Jill has the right to act as she sees fit. The law of the land says so, her partner isn’t interested and, the baby isn’t viable at that point.
Given that most abortions occur in the first 3 months of pregnancy, that’s hardly claiming 100% of the right to decide.
I am a few years behind you in the child-rearing department but have 3 and about the name number of years of parenting experience as you do, so don’t presume to talk down to me on this basis.
As long as the fetus is part of her body,
Jill has the right to determine whether or not she keeps it.
And the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed with me, last week’s horrible decision on one rare type of procedure notwithstanding.
I can’t even begin to count the number of times babies have been born, onlyto have the boy, who after the child is here suddently realizes he’s in waaaaay over his head, bolts.
Yeah you can try to incite some irrational, emotional response by calling it “killing”. It’s a smoke screen for your pathological need to control the lives of women you know even know nor care one wit about.
We have 6.2 million single-parent mothers that receive no assistance from the fathers of their children, of which over 4.3 million have activily been trying to get it these deadbeat dads to support their children.
Are we going have more fathers in this country willing to take financial and emotional responsilibility for the offspring they produce? Doubtful. Are you going to guarantee support? Of course not. Are you going to adopt all these children and provide them with good homes? Of course not.
Each woman makes her own decision, on her own if she so decides. Period.
You disagree with SCOTUS’ recent decision; I disagree with their previous ones. Despite the fact that my side has given 98% of what yours wants you demand more. That’s pathological.
I guess it’s a waste of time to discuss further.
I demand what you have no right to take from me.
You started this diatribe of yours by saying that no man, or woman, can tell you want to do with your body.
As your employer will tell you, this is patently false. We are constantly told what to do every day of our lives. It’s childish propaganda to pretend otherwise.
Yeah you can try to incite some irrational, emotional response by calling it “killing”.
I wouldn’t call telling the truth in as simple, non-inflammatory words as possible trying to incite an emotional response. It’s called stating the facts, a simple technique that ought to be used more often.
Each woman makes her own decision, on her own if she so decides. Period.
That is just a determined father and an unbiased judge and/or SCOTUS away from being rectified as well.
I don’t usually engage in ideological battles with the enemy because they always end in in name-calling and talking past one another, at best.
In true Kos form, however, this one started out with the usual feminist vitriol right from the beginning. I let myself be drawn in because I’d asked for it and I felt like mixing it up a bit with them!
Note the standard form of liberal address: advance, particularly when no logical or even discernible facts are on your side, as if you were personally under attack.
Here we have a woman whose child-bearing years are over or nearly so spitting, clawing, scratching, eye-gouging, and name-calling as if she were on trial for her soul. Of course this is precisely the case. But that is in no way because of my marginally effective comments.
What hatred motivates this woman – who is obviously educated, mature, and intelligent – to not only accept but to embrace and even demand the right to kill an unborn child in or out of the womb and deny a willing father the right to his own child?
If I am to take her at her word it’s simply to create the right for women to have complete control over the reproductive process. Men are superflous in her view of the process, as shown above. It’s almost laughable, this posturing, yet I think in it she’s telling the truth: there is no valid use for a man in her arch-feminist world, save possibly as a beast of burden.
In summary, it was an interesting descent into the lair of the enemy at home.
I fear I am not cut out to take them on frequently; it’s not in my make up. Once a person reaches a certain level of incredulity with me, my “tune out, walk away” breaker trips and I am done with the conversation, as now.