Rebel Without a Kos

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.

And re

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.

Partial Victory on Abortion, Bad Pun Intended

By a 5-4 margin the US Supreme Court made the right decision Wednesday by upholding President Bush’s Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. From the Houston Chronice:

Bush said that it affirms the progress his administration has made to uphold the “sanctity of life.”

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion,” he said. “Today’s decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people’s representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America.”

As I’ve discussed before here and here, it’s my belief that in America both unwanted pregnancies and the decision to have an abortion are very often the result of laziness on the part of one or both sex partners. We all know what causes pregnancy. Accidents happen, but the argument that ignorance causes unwanted babies simply isn’t true.

While it may seem callous to label a pregnant woman as lazy, the truth is that in most cases pregnancy is a short-term inconvenience that can be endured without significant, damaging, or long-lasting effects.

Certainly the laziness effect applies just as equally to fathers, far too many of who fail utterly to accept their responsibility for the care of their partners and their children. The male who abandons the woman to fend for herself is no man at all; rather he is a pathetic creature with neither soul nor courage.

It is inconvenient indeed to be forced to provide for the lives we create. Inconvenient and utterly necessary.
Planned Parenthood, predictably, disagrees:

Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: “This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women’s health and safety. … This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them.”

So did SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “Today’s decision is alarming,” she wrote in dissent.

Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a woman’s right to an abortion in 1973, “the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.”

Of course neither is correct: the law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman’s life is in jeopardy.

Which brings us back full-circle. If a woman’s life is protected under the law, the fact remains that most abortions are caused by a perceived inconvenience, usually on the part of the woman.

(Too often these decisions are made solely by the woman but that is another topic.)

That laziness is a factor in many abortions is particularly true in the case of partial birth abortions which, by definition, take place when the pregnancy is more than halfway complete. Four or fewer months are all that remain for the woman to complete her obligation to the child, allow him or her to live, and give the baby up for adoption. It’s not so hard. No harder than being murdered, for instance.

Perhaps it is not fair to criticize the individuals involved given the fact that our society demands instantaneous satisfaction of our smallest want or need. Nine months of unpleasant, unwanted pregnancy can seem like a much larger issue than it is when one’s perspective is lacking, as so many Americans’ are.

The ruling is more symbolic than practical. Even so it is important because it establishes a precedent against the most heinous forms of abortion. The LA Times says:

the disputed procedure is used in fewer than 5,000 of the more than 1.3 million abortions performed nationwide each year.


It was the first time the court upheld a ban on an abortion procedure. Though Wednesday’s opinion does not overturn Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion, the majority said it was prepared to uphold new restrictions on doctors who perform them and women who seek them.

The decision is likely to elevate the abortion issue in the 2008 presidential campaigns. Two of the court’s strongest supporters of the right to abortion are also its oldest: John Paul Stevens will be 87 on Friday, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 74. The next president might have to nominate one or more new justices.

Let’s hope so. Ginsburg’s comments make it clear that rational Americans could do little worse on this issue by replacing her and Stevens, who voted with her.

When is it OK to say ‘No’?

According to the Illinois legislature, it’s OK for a woman to say ‘no’ at any time during the sex act. True, technically their new law reads ‘any person’, but that’s an irrelevancy, perverse homosexual acts aside.

And what man would dare challenge this female-empowering law? Only one who is willing to bear the full inferno of a feminist firestorm the intensity of which would make Hootie Johnson’s persecution seem like an Arctic sleet storm.

The reality of human existence is that once a man penetrates a woman’s vagina with his penis, very little is going to stop him from finishing his pleasures. Certainly allowing a woman to change her mind in coitus would be the gentlemanly, the chivalrous thing to do, but this should not be the legal standard.

This law is a ridiculous example of male-castrating femi-nazis having their way with, indeed raping, the legislative process to encode their agenda on society.

But what answer will there be from men? None, I suspect.

Hang in there, Mr. Singh

Apparently Vijay Singh isn’t going to hear the last of Annika Sorenstam for some time. Certainly not if John Lopez has anything to say about it.

Let me say it again: Vijay Singh would be an American hero, if only he were American. But I don’t hold that against him, not if he’s going to take on the nauseatingly politically correct crowd that dominates modern life.

Mr. Lopez’s editorial is just the sort of pathetic pap that makes one ashamed to have him representing the city that one lives in. The irony of this is that he gets it right at the beginning of his obsequious rant when he says “We probably all would have let it go, already”. Good idea, John. You should take your own advice.

In a society where a private golf club has to fight a bloody media battle to retain control over its membership list and a man has to look both ways before telling a joke, Vijah’s stance for the integrity of the PGA tour is something to be admired, not villified.

Women at Augusta? No.

Let’s have some more whining about Augusta National not admitting female members, shall we? Here’s a particularly inane article by Frank Deford of Sports Illustrated. There are times when freedom of speech can be really annoying. Frank’s comments on the ineptitude of the U.S. and international olympic committees are over the top as well, but at least those have a reason behind them; there’s no such purpose here

It would be tragic if Augusta were to cave in to the demands of the women’s libbers. First and foremost, the rule of law is on the side of Augusta. Period. End of discussion. For rational Americans, that would be enough. A federal appeals court seems to agree.

However, even if the law were interpreted to the detriment of the golf club, they would still be morally correct to hold to their values. Contrary to the views of NOW, their female supporters and their male abettors, men have a legitimate, inalienable right to disassociate themselves from women at places and times of their choosing. Womens’ rights to do the same are sanctioned by the politically correct crowd. The hypocricy is amusing, at least.

As I have said before, I would prefer to see the members of Augusta National raze the club to the ground rather than bow to these vile femi-Nazis. Rock on, Mr. Johnson.

Martha Burk is a Fool

Something that irked me like crazy all of last year has recently poked its foolish little head back to the surface: the National Council of Women’s Organizations — led by chairwoman Martha Burk — and Jesse Jackson are still attempting to bully Augusta National golf club into admitting a female member. As anyone with a lick of common sense will tell you, there’s no reason on Earth why a private club should admit anyone they care not associate with.

With the war in Iraq, the aforementioned browbeaters are keeping a lower profile that they would otherwise. But make no mistake: Burk wants to jam this vendetta down Augusta’s throat, no matter what the majority of Americans think. Now, the only reason this issue garnered attention in the first place is that the press is biased towards Burk’s position.

Witness USA Today. In their own poll, they found “the overwhelming majority supporting Augusta National’s position”. Yet this paper published a piece in which all four of their writers took the opposing point of view. No supporting argument was considered. The moral of the story: think, make up your own mind, then consider the media’s position. Not the other way around.

Ex-CBS Exec Quits Augusta

The Augusta National Golf Club has suffered its first defection. Read about it on

Apparently Mr. Wyman does not respect the right of private organizations to choose their own members. That’s his privilege. However, in agitating for CBS to join in a boycott of Augusta is going too far. It is doubtful he will find support there.

Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer affirm the right of the club to follow its own moral compass. Does anyone have the right to force such members to bow to their will?

The answer is a resounding “No”. Hootie Johnson and his fellow members should vote to bulldoze the club before bowing to the pressure of a special interest group that is attempting to force an unpopular agenda down their throats.

Women Demand Augusta Accept Them

Martha Burk and the National Council of Women’s Organizations have declared war on an the males-only Augusta National Golf Club. Read Ron Borges’ commentary on

What right does Burk have to lead this boycott? The right of an American exercising freedom of speech. What reason does she have? Only that of a foolish destructionist. Who is she to speak for anyone? Someone lacking a meaningful viewpoint.

What’s nearly as bad is that Mr. Borges’ column is a pathetic sop to Burk and her NOW-related ilk everywhere.

We sincerely hope that Augusta stands firm in the media-whipped storm of women’s liberation-inspired drivel. It is, after all, their Constitutional right to choose with whom they associate.

An poll supports our position:
Should Augusta National include women as members?
Yes; There’s no reason to discriminate – 22
No; It’s a private club — they can do what they want – 78%

* 21380 responses