Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)


Monday, November 14, 2011

Some unfiltered opinion about abortion

I've been away for a while, so this is going to cover a lot of stuff.  Bear with though, me because it all comes back to the 'pro-contraception' / 'abortion is a complex issue' theme that I wanted to pick up from the Sanger post.

First of all, let me say that I am relieved to see that Mississippi's"Personhood" measure was shot down by voters.  And while I did share pretty much all of the same concerns voiced by ClassicLiberal, I must say that I am not entirely surprised by the outcome.  While the pro-life camp has had their share of legislative and judicial victories, the historical record is largely filled with examples of public backlash anytime core abortion rights are threatened.  And that's what was happening here regardless of how much politically correct, verbal diarrhea the MI Legislature was trying to dress it up in.  They might rank 50th in adult literacy, but apparently the Republicans still can't overreach in Mississippi.  And let's face it: If you can't win an anti-abortion battle in Mississippi? YOU'RE OVERREACHING. And if you read the rest of that article, you'll see how Ohio voters responded to their anti-Union proposal, not to mention a recall-election, and a few others that went for the Democrats.  And this is coming off a HUGE win in 2010 and leading in to the 2012 election season.  Nice going, Republicans!  I'm seriously conflicted as to whether or not I want them to learn a lesson from all of this.  Part of me wants them to keep fucking everything up for themselves, but then that same part of me remembers just how mind-bendingly stupid and gullible the average American voter is.  Still: They've overreached, and the public spoke.  Every now and then? The good guys WIN ONE.

Now I wanted to say something about JLarue's comment from the Sanger post.

As far as abortion goes...  IMHO, morally speaking, it is simply never justified, with the exception of when it is being done to SAVE A LIFE.  Unless SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE, I simply do not believe it is a morally justified course of action. And NO, that judgement does not change when it come to RAPE.  That being said? I am pro-choice. Period. Without a second thought. And why? Because in contrast to the funny-mentalists on the Right, I do not labor under the delusion that anyone else should have their own behavior bound or limited by my opinion. My opinion, my principles, my beliefs all affect exactly one person: ME.

And it it the very fact that the choice is mine to make that I value and will vehemently protect.

(Pretty much the same way I describe my position on Gun Control as well: I despise guns, but I value the fact that the decision of whether or not I own one is mine to make. I don't own one, and I likely never will. But I will fight, kill and die to keep that decision mine.)

Now...  JLarue goes on to describe how much abuse has been received regarding [what I perceive] a very moderate pro-choice / moderate pro-life position.  And I've encountered this as well, particularly on extremely feminist websites such as Jezebel and Feministing(Two of my all-time fav's, BTW, to be sure. But it suffices to say that I don't agree with the bulk of their readership on this particular issue.) To suggest that a woman in labor can have an abortion up to the moment that the chord is cut? Well... it's every bit as psychopathic as it sounds: Which is to say, ENTIRELY. And yet? You'll get that!  I've gotten that!  DW has gotten that!  And it's completely, and utterly batshit insane!

Now, I'd LIKE to think that this kind of completely batshit insane extremism on the pro-choice side is purely in response to the completely batshit insane extremism on the Right, in general.  IOW: We have to take a hard-line, because they will absolutely, positively never stop!  They will never concede ANY GROUND, and they they will never stop clawing away at our rights no matter how much "common sense" / "common ground" we concede.  They will not stop until all abortion is punishable by death (by stoning, of course), sentence to be carried out immediately, without trial, followed by a Congressional declaration that the person now burns in hell.  In truth? That's where the political pro-life camp pretty much is, in the mainstream.  So, to be fair, I would like to think that any extremism on our side is nothing more than a reaction to that mentality on theirs. (I really would.) Unfortunately? No - we have our whackos too, Im sorry to say.  And even if a proposal (like the one I will present) would satisfy the Right forever (yeah, right!) you would probably find someone on our side who would say that I'm drinking the kool-aid.  They're idiots, yeah.  But they exist, sad as it is to have to acknowledge them.

Now... If you want to know how I feel about Abortion as a legal issue, as opposed to a moral one, you can click the on the Abortion Page at the top, check any of my past writings on the matter, or read the short version here.  This is what I would propose:

1) First Trimester: Abortion is legal, including federally funded as applicable, no questions asked.

2) Second Trimester: Abortion is legal when the health of the Mother is threatened.  And Congress would be obligated to define a list of health threats that would need to then be diagnosed. (Obviously, this list would be a source of continued debate, but I think that's OK. IMHO, this is really where the dabate should be anyway!)

3) Third Trimester: Abortion is legal only when the life of the Mother is in immediate jeopardy, and all other reasonable, commonly practiced options have failed, or have be ruled too risky. Doctor's judgement, but they may have to defend it.

An exception for Rape is not needed: It's covered in the first trimester.  Partial Birth Abortion?  Ugh.  COMPLETELY BANNED, at least until an ACTUAL MEDICAL Doctor provides me with ONE EXAMPLE in which this is actually needed, and explains to me why at that point a full vaginal birth, or C-Section could not be performed.  I've been told it can happen, but in all my reading I have yet to come across a single, definitive example.  And I can be tatlly flexible here. All I need is one example, spelled out for me in words that a product of the American Educational system can understand. So far? That hasn't happened. (And seriously... If you're an OB/GYN who's reading this? PLEASE feel free to educate me here! I'm 100%, dead serious! I really do want to know!)

And the problem with the "personhood clause" is that it not only would effectively outlaw abortion, but open a legal can of worms regarding stem cell research, IVF, and various forms of Contraception. Not cool.  I'm not going to get into a stem cell research debate here, but if you're interested you can read my proof.  Short version?

Until that embryo is fully implanted in the uterine wall, you haven't even reached the threshold of potential for life, let alone life.  (And please comment THERE if you feel you must, as I'd prefer to keep THIS POST strictly about Abortion and Contraception issues.)

And I don't fuck around when it comes to Contraception issues.  You might have gotten that feeling for my last post on Sanger, but... yeah.  I really don't fuck around there. And that absolutely includes this bullshit idea that Pharmacists should be allowed to choose not to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, based on their  religious objections. As far as I'm concerned, this is nowhere near a protected right of theirs, but rather grounds for them to lose their license and business. Period. I'll spell it out for anyone stupid enough to have a different opinion on this matter...


I really don't think I could say it any more clearly. LOL.  And the Hatch Amendment has to go for exactly same reason.

(And if you disagree with me on that, you're either an idiot or you  just haven't thought things through completely: If there exists a legal medical procedure that costs-less than a covered alternative?The Government has a moral obligation to the tax payer to fund it! If you don't like abortion , don't have one! That fact that your political party has failed in it's efforts to outlaw is of no consequence to me, nor are that religious taboos to you choose to honor, but which have no bearing on anyone who does not. If you don't want it funded? Outlaw it. If you can't, because the majority of America is against you? Too bad. Suck to be you. The alternative is live birth which costs more. Abortion and contraception are low cost, L-E-G-A-L alternatives to that, and until that changes there is not reason to dick around on the periphery of it with things like funding.)

But I got to thinking over the past week... Why exactly is Contraception so important to me? I mean... sure, yeah: Copious amounts of consequence-free sex. But, in all seriousness... there's got to be more to it than that, doesn't there?

And I think there is.  And I think it goes beyond a parent's obligation to properly care for, raise and educate their children, and beyond our societies limited educational and social resources, not to mention our planet's finite environmental resources.  That's all fine and good, but I don't see any of it as a reasonable explanation for why I have such visceral feelings on the matter.  I mean: Environmentalism is a largely an academic issue to me.  It's a voting issue, yes, but I'm no eco-warrior.  I'm not going to get into a fist fight with anyone over it.  But you know what?  If a pharmacist's car were to get set on fire over his forcing his religion down his customers' throats because he refuses to fill birth control prescriptions? I'd sleep VERY well that night, and with a SATISFIED SMILE on my face, psychotic as that sounds.  My blood seriously boils that much over this.

And I'm not saying that to scare you.  (And I'm totally not kidding.) I just mean it to illustrate how strongly I feel about it.  As far as I am concerned:

Any restrictions on contraception, up to and including emergency contraception (aka: the morning after pill) I consider as a HATE CRIME against all women. 

You may feel that's an exaggeration, but it's how I feel.  And I think I can explain why.

I'm a feminist.

Not a political one in every way, perhaps... though I'm sure we'll agree on a lot of issues. Almost all of them, in fact. Just not one so extreme as to share any of the more psychotic opinions about abortion.  But you know what? I just value and respect women so much more than... well, than just about every single man I know.

A recent example of what I'm talking about...

Last week, I was in a bar in Tempe, Arizona with four of my colleagues, travelling on business.  These are Engineers: educated people who's intellect and opinions I trust respect.  Now... We're all engaged in an activity that four guys would normally be engaged in, in a bar in Tempe: Ogling women.  (And no, I'm not proud to admit that, but I'll be honest here.)  (And what's more, considering that we're all middle-aged and married?  It crossed the boundaries of both sad and a little creepy as well! LOL)  And believe me when I say that  there was no shortage of extremely conventionally attractive women there, no matter where you looked.  Lot's of beautiful women there, no doubt about it.  (And four pretty pathetic guys, no doubt about that! LOL)  And amongst all this, I noticed a girl sitting just off my 3:00.  Short, dark hair - very short pixie cut, with a single long, thin braid on one side. Very little makeup.  Tee-Shirt with holes in it.  The slightness bit pudgy. Not obese, just having noticeably more jiggle than most of the girls in the bar.  Eyebrows were bit unkempt (though nowhere nearly uni-brow territory - come on!) Nose-ring. A plain face, I suppose. I hope you get the idea. Basically? A slightly frumpy, artistic-looking, possibly lesbian woman, who I had no doubt my co-workers would be turned off by, in a bar full of cheerleaders and barbie-doll types.  Do you know what my first (and only) thought was? 

Of all the women in that bar that night - she looked by far to be the most interesting.

That's it. That was my only opinion.  And, sure, maybe it was based on cliches as much as there's were, but of all the people there, if I was going to make the effort to talk to ANYONE, she was the only one I was the least bit interested in: Because she what the one who looked the most interesting.  And when she left?  One of my co-workers muttered, "What a train-wreck!" To which another replied, "The Lesbian? Yeah, I know!"  And that's the real difference between me and pretty much every other guy I know: I was interested in HER. Her, the person. WHO SHE WAS was something that interested me.  They were only interested in how people looked, and only then if they conformed to the "barbie doll" standard of beauty. It was a object lesson in the objectification of women.  And sure - I could have been wrong: After all I was going only by appearances as well.  But I didn't feel the need to say disparaging things about the other women.  Indeed I didn't feel anything negative about them at all.  At worst? I felt neutral, because I felt there was simply too little to be gleaned from their conformance to the conventional standard of style and beauty.  That's not a BAD thing, but it doesn't tell me anything beyond what I can already see: THAT THEY LOOK NICE.  Which... Just isn't all that important to me.

I've said it before, and I'll stand by it: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears. I find so much more beauty (not to mention ugliness) in who people are than in what they look like. And that alone doesn't make me better than anyone else, at least  until they feel the need to unload disparaging comments on someone just because they don't give a shit whether some forty-year old, half drunk, married man in a bar finds them attractive.  But someone who refuses to play that game? Well, hey: THAT'S someone I'd look forward to talking to!

ANYWAY... I guess I just put that story out there to describe what I mean when I call myself a feminist. I simply respect and admire women as people, and I don't overly value physical appearance in women, anymore than I value say... money (for example) in men. It's just not important to me and does not define who you are. (Which is really all that matters.)

And so, for me, I think that explains why I feel so strongly about contraception.  Because as I see it there are three things, three accomplishments, that brought about the equality of women in society. (Which, it shoudl be apparent by now, I hold as an inherent good):

1) The first was the invention of firearms.  This may seem an odd choice, but consider it on a Darwinian level.  When your survival depends on hunting Mastodons with spears? There is no question that, by and large, men are better suited for that activity. When societal conflicts are settled in duels and in wars - both fought with swords, and possibly in armor as well - again, there is little doubt that men have an inherent advantage.  But two people with guns?  Well, hey: that's a 50-50 proposition, my friend!  And there is nothing about the basic physiology of men and women that gives one any inherent advantage over the others.  Unless you use you penis to help steady your shot, the FACT of the matter is that, given equal practice and equipment, there is no reason a women won't be every bit as good as shooting things as the man.  No so with spears, swords or even BOWS - since the power of the bow is in direct relation to its required drawing force. Physical strength, speed, agility and endurance gave men every advantage in hunting and in battle... Until the invention of the great equalizer: GUNS.

(That may also help explain my 2nd amendment stance as well, who knows? LOL.)

2) The second is women's suffrage.  And that one's pretty obvious.  Because proving that you can now do every important job every bit as good as a man (by shooting one, for example) will mean very little without a mechanism and the matching political clout to set things right.  So that's #2.

And #3...?

3) The invention, mainstreaming and full legalization of all effective forms of contraception, up to and including abortion.  Because even given the first two?  There is still no question that the sexes are not equal when it comes to pregnancy.  When two people have sex, at the moment of climax, the decision of insemination is ENTIRELY in the hands of the male, regardless of any previous agreement that may have existed.  (This is a particularly brutal reality in the case of rape.)  But ultimately? Absent of contraceptives, the MAN decides if pregnancy is going to be a possibility in any particular sexual encounter. And from that point on? It's the woman who carries the child. The woman who risks all the health implications of pregnancy. The woman who bears all of the all the lifestyle impacts of pregnancy. The woman who goes into labor. The woman who risks all the complications of delivery. (At one time accounting for up to HALF of all deaths amongst women, mind you!)  And until recently, it was the woman who was expected to either raise the child or surrender it for adoption.  Illegitimate fathers? Largely disappeared, up until a generation or two ago. And even now, it's the woman who takes the unpaid leave from her job to care for her newborn. And if she DID try to stop the pregnancy? The risk of death from abortion was entirely borne by the woman as well.

Contraception levels the playing field in the one area where things still remained inherently uneven.  Every discrimination law in the world cannot lesson the impact on a woman's life that a single unplanned pregnancy can have.  So I hold Contraception as a central pillar in the foundation of female equality in society.

Now... Getting back to abortion.  JLarue laid out what I think is arugably the ULTIMATE pro-life political principle: Do what is necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancy's in the first place.  [And if anyone opens their pie-hole about preaching abstinence, I'm going to hit you in the head with a brick. The FACT. FACT. FACT. Is that even in States that saw a reduction in teen pregnancies when their school's had abstinence-only sex-education, they still trailed behind the rest of the country in that reduction. It just doesn't work, so SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT!] And there are so many areas that we agree on here.  Here's MY anti-Abortion plan:

1) Mandatory, comprehensive sex education in the schools.  This would begin no later than ONE GRADE LEVEL BEFORE the average menarche for girls, and ONE GRADE LEVEL BEFORE the average boy becomes capable of getting a girl pregnant. If those grades are different? PICK THE EALIER ONE.  It would include a discussion of ALL forms of contraception, including a frank discussion of how they work, how they can fail, and how often they DO fail.  And, just to show any religious folks that I'm not a complete dick to their beliefs, it would include the FACT that abstinence is the ONLY way to protect yourself 100% from pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. (STD's, of course, would also be discussed, in depth.) AND? You can also have a frank, objective and factual discussion about what prohibitions exist in various religious circles.  This would, of course, be presented as  a matter of FACT, and not as an endorsement of those views. (The teacher can even share their own beliefs, but must also then remind the class that they are obligate to defer to the student's family's and the student's own personal judgement and values in these matters. It is simply not their place to moralize.)

2) EASY, CHEAP, and even SUBSIDIZED or FREE access to various forms of Contraception. Keeping Condoms out of schools will not stop teenagers from having sex.  Period. Just ask Sarah Palin.  Burying our heads in the sand on this point will only INCREASE the number of abortions that happened, completely independent of the legality there of.

3) STRENGTHEN THE INSTITUTION OF ADOPTION.  This is a big one for me: I'm adopted myself!  And it's hard for me to get specific about this (the post is getting too long as it is) but I have heard countless stories of birth parent's rights winning out over adoptive parents right's in so many case that take it to absurd levels due to the vagueness and weak language in adoption law. This does a great disservice to ALL parties involved, primarily the child.  Add to that the stigma that still exists when someone decides to give a child up for adoption. This has to be such a soul-crushingly difficult decision for someone to make.  And yet, what is the most common response from friends and family? "Oh, you should KEEP IT!  We'll help you!"  Um... No. No, you won't. You'll BABYSIT occasionally, and give a lecture about responsibility whenever you feel too much is being asked of you.  Fuck that.  Don't fall for that charade, unwed mothers of society!  If your life's plans didn't include children? Your choice is adoption or abortion. Period. And we really need to do a better job encouraging the former, and otherwise minding our own fucking business. Grandchildren are NOT a right!  What's more? There's a TEN-YEAR long waiting list for healthy, white babies in this country. Shit - that's what it was ten, twenty years ago! I'll be honest: I don't even know what it is now! So, seriously folks: They're not going to the orphanage.  That kid was adopted before you were even old enough to get pregnant.  S/He'll go to a good home.  (And before anyone tells me about foreign adoptions, make sure you've done your homework regarding the COSTS, RISKS and your LEGAL RIGHTS regarding those!)  But people really don't know very much about the process of adoption; public or private. And that's a shame. I think that's a huge problem.

4) STRENGTHEN THE SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AVAILABLE FOR SINGLE PARENTS.  I put this last, because I would completely prefer [number three] over the risk of incentivizing this kind of parenthood.  But the fact remains that if the person just can't bear the thought of adoption, society has a far greater moral imperative not to incentivize abortion.  So for all the Right's bed-wetting about Welfare Queens?  Either PAY UP on welfare, or SHUT UP on abortion.  You can't have it both ways. And having sex should not condemn you to a life of poverty and/or charity.  This is the United States of American not a fucking Charles Dickens novel. So get over it.


Now THAT'S a Pro-Life stance that doesn't need to even TOUCH Roe v. Wade!


  1. LOL! It is exactly well thought out, reasoned arguments like this that infuriate the left and right both. You would think we could manage one thing at a time, right? Sex education? Adoption support? Easily available contraception? Ban partial birth abortion? I think whether the left is reacting to the asshats on the right or vice versa is a chicken and egg question. I know it seems like we are just yelling at each other across a great divide a lot of time. I am also glad the personhood measure did not pass in Mississippi. It was overreaching. Gotta run but glad to have you back.

  2. "I think whether the left is reacting to the asshats on the right or vice versa is a chicken and egg question."

    Yeah... You have a point, but I'm still keen to give the Pro-Choice camp the benefit of the doubt here. Between the two? I'd rather try getting the Pro-Coice crowd on board [with a proposal liek this] than the Anti-Choice crowd. (You're the only bona-fide PRO-LIFE person I've met so far. So I'll call them Anti-Choice, as long as they keep supporting Capital Punnishment, cheerleading endless War and voting Republican.) Hey, I could be wrong. Or blind. Or projecting. (Most likely.) But the fact remains that it's really the RIGHT that benefits most from this wedge issue. In an election where this was never discussed? The DEMOCRAT has the advantage. (Although, yeah, I supposed if it WAS outlawed, it would be our wedge issue, but I would still see us fighting for a far more moderate position that the one your are describing your friends defending.)

  3. I live in New Orleans and today as I was driving through my poor, primarily black part of town I thought to myself...if the right really wanted to do something about poverty and welfare bums(as they call them) they would not be trying to defund Planned Parenthood but providing funding to get it into these neighborhoods where young woman have multiple children by different men and it really is a way of life. I can seriously see they reason the right goes off on the need for welfare reform...I drive through neighborhoods where no one works...the old people are retired, the young woman have multiple children and there are no working young men. I know it seems just bigoted to say it but I see it every day. It really is like we reward people not to use birth control. And the right doesn't want them to have abortions but does nothing to prevent the pregnancies. And realistically they should. The fucking Ayn Rand model is not working. Excuse my language. Preaching personal responsibility all by itself is just selfish and stupid. Society does not function well on the every man is an island theory. Just my opinion.

  4. Oh, don't worry: NO ONE need ever ask to be excused for their language HERE! I think I've pretty well seen to that! LOL

    And absent of any racial or societal implications, it IS an unfortunate side effect of our current welfare system that we DO kind of encorage people not to use birth control. As for the neighborhoods, and the lack of working people... You have a point, as does the Right, but where I fall short of accepting it is that (1) at the moment, there simply aren't enough jobs to go around! Private enterprise won't hire them, and the Republicans won't let the Gov't hire them! Even if they were required to work to get welfare, we'd still end up subsidizing the day care on top of it. Maybe that would be preferable anyway? IDK. And don't forget: (2) Even in the best of times, we still have a TARGET for unemployment, and it's not "zero." We actually WANT a little bit of unemployment to stave off inflation, and keep labor rates down. (A side effect of our Free-Market, Capitalist system!) And as long as we're actually TRYING to keep ANYONE out of work, I can't accept the "Go find a job" pat-answer, unless there's some kind of labor shortage in the area.

    And on just about ANY issue, like you, I just refuse to accept the Conservative's answer of "Do nothing." I can't remember where I first saw it, but it sums it up perfectly: The people who admire Ayn Rand are the one's who don't understand George Orwell.

    One more thing, regarding the Right;s case against welfare, Check THIS out:


    I bring it up becuase you mention Blacks and not wanting to sound biggoted. Well... you MIGHT anyway, and here's the rub: Whites have historically made up the majority and remain a pluralty, of welfare recipients. So, it may be most prevalent among the black population, and growing fast in the Latino population, but White have always been, and remain, the largest racial subgroup of welfare recipients.

    And economically speaking, we might be better off with it than without it, even if we NEVER get a single check. The money all gets spent, which means that WORKING PEOPLE make income off it. And by reducing the number of people LOOKING for work, we can support better wages for those who DO. That's doesn't make it ALL GOOD, of course, and on an emotional level, I don;t suppose I feel any different form anyone else about it. But it's a far more complex issue than the Right wants to make it out as.

  5. jlarue: "...if the right really wanted to do something about poverty and welfare bums(as they call them) they would not be trying to defund Planned Parenthood but providing funding to get it into these neighborhoods where young woman have multiple children by different men and it really is a way of life."

    You want the right to support providing programs that promote the lifestyle you want to correct? PP promotes the multiple pregnancies by as many women as possible. They make a bulk of their money off of government subsidized murder of human beings. But, as long you you deny those are humans being murdered then PP (and liberals in general) will continue to defend their right to kill while decrying "endless war". Hey Eddie, how do you correlate the voluntary enlistment into the military with the involuntary slaughter of human beings (those aren't dogs growing inside every pregnant woman)?

  6. 1) Mandatory, comprehensive sex education in the schools.

    Eddie your number one reason for abortion prevention is a real doozy. You want to teach children how to have sex in order to prevent abortions? That's a classic. You might as well teach them how to drink so they won't do that also. And, while you're at it, teach them how to smoke and do drugs so they won't do them too.

    Or does your plan on educating children about drugs/smoking/drinking involve telling them NOT to do them until they are old enough to know better. Nah, you're right, we should teach children how to drink, smoke and do drugs at the same age as you think we should teach them about sex. That way they'll know they can get drunk and have sex (protected of course) and they can do drugs and have sex (protected of course) and they can learn that they should smoke a cigarette after having protected sex. Because to teach them NOT to do any of those would be inexcusable by your standards, right? Since you think "It just doesn't work" then obviously NOT teaching them about drinking or doing drugs or smoking while they are children would be useless. It should be required that children are taught the complete mechanics of every danger known to man (woman) in order for them to be better capable of making their own decisions after class is over. It would certainly be better for children to experiment with sex, drugs, smoking, drinking after having someone teach them how to do it safer. Never mind teaching them NOT to do those things ... IT JUST DOESN'T WORK

    Here's why: do you teach children how to smoke in order to teach them the dangers of smoking? Do you teach children how to drink in order to teach them the dangers of drinking? And, do you teach children how to do drugs in order to teach them the dangers of drugs? Unless you say 'yes' to each of those, then why would you teach them how to have sex in order to teach them the dangers of having sex?

  7. conchobhar said in an off-topic rant from a different subject: "Trying to have the government take control of a woman's uterus because of your religious beliefs is definitely forcing your religion on others" (there was more, but this is what I'm commenting on)

    I'm not trying to force anything onto anyone's uterus because of my religion. Science has proven over and over again that when the two cells meet inside of a woman and form one "being" ... that "being" is HUMAN. You can look it up, if you want. I'm sure you won't find any scientist saying those two cells became a horse or cat or dog. They became HUMAN. Look at it this way, if it will help you understand the complexities of science. NASA is spending billions of dollars in an effort to find LIFE in outer space. Are they looking for "viable" life or just cellular life? Hmm, that is a simple analogy of what SCIENTIST'S consider LIFFE. You seem to think I'm demanding that you leave that life alone until it is born. You are mistaken, I'm not demanding that ... I vote for it. I let my American freedoms dictate the actions I'm allowed to do. One of those freedoms is to say I think abortion is wrong. Whether those reasons are religious in nature or not is inconsequential, since I'm not making any demands of anyone's uterus.

    Don't worry, conchobhar, I don't expect an ON-TOPIC answer from you in this article. I'll look for your answer in other articles as you take them off-topic. However, I do look forward to an off-topic response (from you) to the comments I just made. I wonder what you'll try to discuss besides what is actually being talked about.

  8. #'s 3 + 4

    3: "S/He'll go to a good home."

    IMHO liberals think those "good homes" are the ones that teach their children to be gay and claim it is expanding their horizons. And according to your statements, right-wing "good homes" don't exist.

    4: "And having sex should not condemn you to a life of poverty and/or charity. This is the United States of American not a fucking Charles Dickens novel. So get over it."

    What needs to be gotten over is the loony liberal's ideal that every home that adopts is a "good one". AND the fact that some of those "welfare queens" do IN FACT seek more children to provide more income for themselves ... in that "good home". What part of reality are you in conflict with? The part where "welfare queens" are present or that the adopted child only goes to a "good home"? Apparently, you think welfare queens don't exist and only liberals provide good homes. That is why so many think liberals have no clue when it comes to correcting the issues related to abortion and birth control and instructional knowledge of either in schools.

    Why is it you demand "information" and "alternatives" while denouncing the viable choice of abstention? Just because you can't control your urges does not mean others shouldn't be given the knowledge of that OPTION. Unless you feel your only duty to young girls is to say they either have protected sex or unprotected sex ... there is NO other options. No matter what, though, you state you want to teach them to HAVE SEX as school children. And claim that is the answer to abortions and adoptions.

  9. You say that as though being called an asshat by a liberal is a bad thing. Honestly, the more liberals hate what I say means the more right (correct) I am. You ultra liberals are so far tweaked in your ideals the only way you can get your agenda passed is to have rogue judges (probably paid off by special interest groups) institute them, since American voters always reject your ideals.

    You must really like to hear yourselves talk, because whatever you say it is said as though everyone should believe you. And, if someone doesn't, then they are "asshats". Thank you for your compliment. If you wish to discuss the topic, I'll bet Eddie will let you. Unless you don't have a tweaked ... I mean "unfiltered" opinion on abortion.

  10. I am pro life dude. My opinion of you is not based on your opinions but your really abrasive and hateful and somewhat spiteful rhetoric. Argue all day...I could care less, but you are really going around the bend a bit.

  11. William;
    I said all I intended to say to you on the Cain thread. Anyone who is interested can read and judge for themselves whether or not you have described me and my method of arguing accurately.

    As far as arguing with me in the future goes: first, get your GED. Be sure to take a course in remedial English, with a special emphasis on learning what is and what isn't a quote. Then see if you can get into a decent Community College, one that offers courses in Logic and Rhetoric. I would suggest Ethics, but I don't think they'd take.

  12. They don't offer "remedial English" in American schools. They only offer "remedial Mexican/Chinese/Arabic" now.

    As far as "ethics" go. That was coming from a person who fully supports killing innocent unborn humans while crying that convicted criminals are punished.

    And, I'm sure everyone would love to go to the "Cain" thread in order to find out your sentiments about abortion. Or, they will realize it's just a ploy (by you) to avoid the issue all together. I noticed both you and jlarue have only hateful comments to say, while jlarue whines about my hateful rhetoric. Typical liberal tactic. Don't worry, I expect no less/more from both of you. You do what you're capable of, at least you're being honest with yourself.

  13. William, stop being as assaht. ;)

    FIrst of all, knock it off with this “put people in a box who don;’t agree with you” nonsense. Every single of the “in-crowd” here that you’ve been arguing with over the past couple of weeks have ALL disagreed with me on something at some point. Steeve and I got into a LONG debate over Religion and the Origin of Christainity. And we remain in a state of disagreement over this matter. ClassicLiberal and I clashed mightily over Obama, in general, early on, the health care bill in particular and the filibuster in Principle. To this day I still disagree with him on the Health Care Bill and Filibiusters, although he and I have come to see eye-to-eye on Obama. We also differ on our level of Principle versus Pragmatism. This came up in which I stated that I will vote for Obama, and will be pissed AT LIBERALS if we get a “President Gingrich” because they stayed home. He’s keen to stand on principle and LET THE REPUBLCIANS fuck everything up by putting as asshat like Gingrich in the White House. Well… As much as I’d like to punish the Dem’s, I AM NOT willing to punish myself and the country along with them. So we disagree on MANY important points. JLarue, Cochobhar and pretty much everyone else disagreed with me 100% on the Death Penalty. And we all had a lot of back and forth on that. And at the end of the day, I still hold all of these people in the highest esteem, and enjoy every minute that I spend with them. And you know what? You and I disagree on the Space Program, but I completely understand where you are coming from, and completely respect your opinion in that singular instance.

    So ENOUGH of that claptrap, huh? We're here to argue. No one's getting 'put in a box.' And everyone should be able to cope with some vigorous debate, and even the occasional obscenity, should that be necessary to drive home some emphasis.

    If you feel I’ve pigeon-holed you into the “AM Talk Radio” category, it is only because I’m left to wonder where ELSE someone might come up with such strong stereotypes about Liberals, that they can’t even put aside when the VERY PEOPLE THEY’RE TALKING TO have PLAINLY SAID that this is not how the feel, nor how they think, nor how they vote, nor does it accurately or adequately represent their positions! As I read through your posts, I see a LOT of distortion on your part, and it is plain to me that you are arguing with the Liberal phantoms in your head, rather than the Liberal Commenters on this blog, or with me. “AM Talk Radio” or “Fox” or “The Blaze” or “The World Net Daily” or WHATEVER, merely seemed to me to be the simaplest and most logical explanation of WHY that is. If you seriously came across such strong, and frankly bigoted and arrogant, opinions entirely on your own? Then maybe there IS NOT hope for you. The problem here – as is the case with most of the Right - here is not WHAT you think, so much as HOW. You accuse us of being closed minded, yet you can’t accept our positions as stated choosing instead to distort them and then debate your distortion, rather than what was said. Again… this is so similar to how Fox news operates 24/7 that I find it rather extraordinary (and rather a bit creepy) that you would choose to adopt this MO entirely on your own.


  14. (con't)

    As for MMFA… quoting people out of contest? PUH-LEASE. MMFA provides context, including accurate, FULL – not CROPPED – transcripts of what was said, and in many case several minutes of unedited video or audio TO PROVIDE THE CONTEXT of the SINGLE LINE they’re calling out. Anyone can make to claim to have been taken out of context, but that don’t make it so. And if you believe that’s the case, you’re either being stupidly obstinate and blind to reality or have simply never bothered to see how MMFA operates and how much context they actually provide. The HEADLINES may lack context, yes, as headlines ALWAYS DO. But they make it EASY to establish context. SO that’s a hollow claim, and making it reveals only ignorance on your part.

    And again… My hypotheisizing that this is the result of Fox’s (etc…) influence, actually give YOU the benefit of the doubt. Because I find it patently absurd that that you could actually research this on your own, reach all of the conclusions you do, and cling to them so vehemently, in the face of such overwhelming evidence that your stereotypes are not accurate. (I.E.: Every single one of us TELLING YOU that you are MISINTERPRETTING OUR WORDS AND POSITIONS.)

    NOW... On to your "points" about abortion...

    YOU SAY:

    "IMHO liberals think those 'good homes' are the ones that teach their children to be gay and claim it is expanding their horizons."

    Question: How is your opinion about what you wrongly believe my opinion to be even remotely relevant to this discussion? I mean… it’s bad enough that you presume to speak for me – AGAIN – and that you do so in order to set up a cheap shot that I’m sure you thought was painfully clever, but your “point” is not only irrelevant, but it reveals NOTHING about YOUR OPINION on the matter at hand! (In this case, in case you forgot, ADOPTION.)

    YOU SAY:

    "Eddie your number one reason for abortion prevention is a real doozy. You want to teach children how to have sex in order to prevent abortions? That's a classic. You might as well teach them how to drink so they won't do that also. And, while you're at it, teach them how to smoke and do drugs so they won't do them too."

    Are you illiterate? Do you not understand what the word COMPREHENSIVE means? How does your absurd misrepresentation come anywhere close to what I actually said? A COMPREHENSIOVE program would do more than cover “where babies come from.” THAT’S covered NOW, dumbass! Nor would it “teach kids how to have sex.” I have no idea how or why this would even be done, but it is not only a distgusting and idiotically narrow interpretation of what I’m proposing but it’s one that Fox news has leveled against Obama’s own proposals. So either your claim that you don’t watch them is wearing pretty thin – OR- “great” minds just think alike I guess.


  15. (con't)

    YOU SAY:

    "Why is it you demand 'information' and 'alternatives' while denouncing the viable choice of abstention?"

    Now i KNOW that you are either illiterate or a fucking liar. What you say here? Is a DAMNED LIE. Go back and READ the fucking words, doofus. I think you find that I state, VERY CLEARLY that a COMPREHENSIVE course (there’s that word again!) would INCLUDE the FACT that ABSTAINENCE IS THE ONLY 100% EFFECTIVE METHOD IN PREVENTING PREGNANCY AND STD’S! It's ALL THERE, BLACK AND WHITE, CLEAR AS CRYSTAL! You STOLE FIZZY LIFTING DRINKS! You BUMPED into THE CEILING, which now has to be WASHED and STERILIZED, so you get NOTHING! YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY, SIR!

    So… having utterly failed to even TRY and take on my points, in favor of speaking for me and then mocking the words YOU SAID in my place, let me ask you a simple question, regarding your position abortion. And please, I beg you, TRY to keep any explanation of your answer to a minimum. I don’t need a simple “yes” or “no” but I’d prefer it if you’d try to not anticipate what I’ll say, or endeavor to speak for me, as you’ve been wont to do, and then pre-answer that. Just give me no more and no less than what you feel adequately answers the following question:


    (And remember – we’re speaking LEGALLY now, not morally. I don’t just want your person feelings on the matter, but rather your opinion on how you believe the LAW SHOULD BE WRITTEN.)

    (And remember – we’re speaking LEGALLY now, not morally"

    Yes. And incest. However, I feel abortion should NOT be used as a form of birth control. IMHO life begins at conception (refer to my NASA analogy), comment on that if you want or ignore it if you want.

    "Is that even in States that saw a reduction in teen pregnancies when their school's had abstinence-only sex-education, they still trailed behind the rest of the country in that reduction. It just doesn't work, so SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT!] "

    Your words, Eddie. YOU said "it just doesn't work". Then told everyone not to even mention it. Now you claim to have approved of abstinence as a viable form of birth control? Well, I guess in your world you can claim red is blue then blue is blue then red is red all you want if it will support your claims that red is blue/red/green/orange. I guess you need to cover all your bases so you can seem like you know it all to anyone who reads your posts. You seem quite demonstrative in your claims of IMHO, but when called on your own statements, you make sure you are for something at the same time as being against it.

  17. OK, William;
    Show me where I said either of these things:

    "...fully supports killing innocent unborn humans while crying that convicted criminals are punished." (You do keep telling me, erroneously, what I "fully support".)

    And, speaking of "innocent unborn humans:"

    (And remember – we’re speaking LEGALLY now, not morally"

    William: "Yes. And incest. However, I feel abortion should NOT be used as a form of birth control. IMHO life begins at conception ..."

    So, it seems that you don't have any objection to the killing of "innocent unborn humans" in principle, only in circumstances. If you believe that the zygote stage of development is a human being with all the rights a human is born with, where do you get the idea that you can make that distinction? How is the child of rape or incest any less innocent than one conceived more conventionally? Are you a "sins of the father are visited on the sons" kind of person?

    By the way, your "I don't demand...I vote" statement is a distinction without a difference. If your vote is successful, the state will, as per your instruction, take control of women's uteruses and will insert itself between women and their doctors. That is something that, in the context of the Affordable Health Care Act brouhaha at least, is anathema to the loudest voices coming from the right. I'm not assuming anything about your position there, but if you are opposed to AHCA on those grounds, I think you ought to rethink at least one of your positions. (Not that I expect you to care what I think.)

  18. "So, it seems that you don't have any objection to the killing of "innocent unborn humans" in principle, only in circumstances."

    Of course you ignore the context that I was demanded to stay within. Eddie demanded that I give an answer within "legal" limits. NOT a "moral" one. You want to hear my true feelings on abortion? Then remove the stringent limits that I'm demanded to speak within ( I notice I'm the only one who has that demand made of them. Why is that Eddie?). There's nothing better than running an article called "unfiltered opinion about abortion" then limiting the participant's (well, only one participant) opinions to within only certain criteria.

    No comment on my NASA analogy? I didn't get one from Eddie either. But that was fully expected. I hardly think you could comment on when life begins for some scientists, but life begins at a different time for scientists who offer to support your ability to murder unborn human lives. Must be nice picking and choosing which scientist you want to believe in order to find support for the issue at hand. Some left-winger denounce that practice concerning other issues, but it sure is handy when you NEED support for killing unborn humans.

    Just for the record, what IS you opinion on capital punishment? What IS your opinion on abortion. This is a thread on abortion, you are allowed to tell us what you think on the subject. Unless you don't want to admit that I'm right concerning what I think about your opinion on death of the innocent/guilty are. Then I would expect you to fully ignore that.

    And, you are wrong. One vote is NOT the same as a demand. Unless I am the ONLY voter. Which you should pray never happens. And no, the state will not do anything 'per my instructions'. That has been proven over and over again with all those liberal rogue judges who constantly over-ride the will of the people in order to appease the extreme wackos who comprise the far left wing in America.

    BTW, the woman never stops having full and complete control over her uterus. Only, when a human life starts growing inside her (because of her own inability to control her urges) she is now responsible for 2 lives. Nobody at any time is in control of her uterus other than her. I don't know what makes you think that. Well, other than you extreme wacko left-wing viewpoints.

    "Are you a "sins of the father are visited on the sons" kind of person?"

    What is that supposed to mean? Is that some kind of out-of-context Bible reference? And I'm supposed to answer that? Try to give actual questions if you're going to ask them.

  19. Just answer the questions as posed, and quit going off on rants.

    I can't speak for Eddie, but I didn't address your NASA "analogy" because it's as far from being accurate and relevant as Mars is from earth.

    By "stringent limits" you seem to mean staying on topic.

    I don't think a conversation between you and me on abortion would be very productive. You've said that you don't want to get into a pissing match with an "atheist" (evidence?). Setting aside the fact that most of your arguments with folks here have a yellow tinge, I take you at your word and, since you clearly judge me to be an immoral s.o.b. because I don't consider potential human life more precious than actual human life, and I think the same about you because you do, there's not a lot of non-yellow space for us to occupy. So zip up your fly.

  20. Ok, you want me to answer the question as YOU posed it? I don't think any kind of abortion is right. Unless the life of the mother is at risk by carrying the unborn human life to full term. If you terminate any pregnancy for any other reason, I feel it is murder of a human being.

    And your views on abortion are what?

  21. That if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

  22. That's just plain stupid. Nothing unexpected there.

    I take it you have no intention of actually discussing the subject, just finding some way of disagreeing with a right-winger? I would expect that of an atheist who can't defend their position. But, you're afraid to express your actual feelings, huh? So, who knows what you are or what your opinion is on the one most dividing subject in American history (beside racism).

    Funny how you asked for an opinion, and the best response you can come up with is that. And to think you were whining about my knowledge level. Now I see what yours is.

  23. I wouldn't expect you to have the patience or brains to look into that statement William, but here's a hint. It has to do with power.

    I have a neighbor, a deacon in the local Catholic Church, with whom I've had long discussions on this matter. We disagree on some fundamental issues, but can disagree without animosity, mainly because his reverence for life doesn't stop with birth. I told you above why I think it's useless to discuss this subject with you. Your mind is dogmatically closed, and on subjects like this you write as if you think people who disagree with you are (your words) "immoral sinners," or "fully support...murder." I guess that 'history' you read doesn't have the bit about "Judge not..."

    Now, abortion may be an overwhelming issue to you, and it is certainly an emotionally charged and divisive one. But it is hardly the "one most dividing subject in American history (beside racism)."

    Not that I find it insulting (though I know you mean it to be), but you keep calling me an atheist. Why?

  24. I did not call you an atheist. I said "I would expect that of an atheist who can't defend their position". Then I said "you're afraid" to defend your position. Then I said "who knows what you are". I don't consider calling someone an 'atheist' to be an insult. No more than if I call someone a Catholic.

    I fully understood your statement. Hence my reply.

    You think abortion isn't one of the most dividing subject in American history? Name 5 other issues that are more divisive (not including racism).

  25. "you think people who disagree with you are (your words) "immoral sinners," or "fully support...murder." I guess that 'history' you read doesn't have the bit about "Judge not..." "

    The author of that history book I referenced actually makes that judgement for me. I simply agree with it. So if there is a judgement being made it wasn't by me. Perhaps your Catholic neighbor can clue you in on that one.

    And you disagreed with that deacon, yet your mind is fully open? How can you mind not be just as closed as mine if yours was not changed by your discussions with him? Did you choose not to accept his proof or did you discard his proof as unproven? What makes you mind more open if it doesn't change either? Oh wait, you're not saying you have an open mind. You're just whining that mine is as closed as yours, but you do it in a way that you don't actually admit it.
    Give me a good reasons why I should accept that the life growing inside a woman should be allowed to be terminated (I call it murder) for any reason besides it could endanger the woman life if brought to term. And the NASA analogy is directly related to this concern, since one of your first reasons will be "viability". Now, do all you brag you can do and give me good reasons why I should support murdering an innocent life.

  26. Conchobhar - DUDE, YOU TOTALLY STOLE MY THUNDER! LOL. I laid out the trap, Willie walked right into it and... well, I guess I just should have checked back sooner. LOL.

    William - No, Conchobhar is 100% correct, without a shodow of doubt, regarding your position on there being a Legal Exception for Rape. (And BTW, why do people alwasy "and Incest" to that? If the incest was forced, then it's covered by Rape and if was consentual (*ew*) then why allow the exception?) ANYWAY, you walked right into the trap - though admitedly it was a lose-lose scenario either way. I can't adequately respond here, so, if you read this, I'll be posting (hopefully) later tonight laying out what's wrong with your position, as well as the OTHER SIDE of the trap (IOW: Your MORAL position.)

    Bottom line? When it comes to protecting human rights, a pro-life stance either DOESN'T EXSIST (the path you chose) or is completely indefensible. And I'll show you why.

    Also - no one needs to convince you that abortion is ever morrally justified. You're entitled to that opinion. It's one that I share, and, if I understand people's positions correctly, is shared by MOST of my readers. The issue is one of forcing your opinion onto someone else. Of forcing them to endure some hardship and/or risk for the sake of what YOU believe. That's the difference here. Abortion as a legal issue is NOT one of Life-vs-Death as you would suggest (that's the MORAL side of the argument) but rather one of CHOICE-vs-NO CHOICE regarding one's own reproductive rights.

    Anyway, you can reply to that if you'd like, but I'm going to be taking it up in a new post, so I'm more likely to just respond to that thread.

  27. Oh... Will... One big point though that I DO want to address. You missread my "abstinent" position, AGAIN, rather profoundly. I don't know if that was do to intent or illiteracy, but you continue to either twist or simply mnisunderstand my words. The "STFU" in this case was (clearly) aimed at 'ABSTINENCE ONLY' (ONLY. ONLY! O-N-L-Y!!!) programs. NOT programs that include abstinence (the only 100% protection) as part of a COMPREHENSIVE program, that includes information about ALL FORMS of contraceptives. Now I'm being nice this time, but I don't care for having to repeat myself. So I'm going to get angry if you put words in my mouth on this point issue again. The words are all there. Read them a bit more carefully next time, if you please.

  28. William: Show me where in that 'history' book abortion is mentioned.

    We can now add "open mind" to "quote," "out of context," "history," "myth," and "consort," as words or concepts you don't understand.

    You: "I fully understood your statement. Hence my reply." I doubt that, given the fact that you continually misrepresent my arguments when you attempt to deal with them. (I just happened to glance up and, right above this box I'm typing in I can see Eddie complaining that you put words in his mouth, and I can recall Classic Liberal saying the same. I've also read their arguments and your "analyses" of them, and they're right.) Another case in point: " since one of your first reasons will be "viability". Now, do all you brag you can do and give me good reasons why I should support murdering an innocent life." As for the first partial sentence, a quote from conservative novelist Tom Clancy: "The assumption is the mother of all fuckups." As Eddie said, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I've bragged about what?
    The reason, which seems good to me and not to you, is that you have no standing in the matter. It IS NOT YOUR CALL. No matter how you choose to pettifog it, taking the freedom of choice away from that woman IS taking control of her uterus.

    You: "You think abortion isn't one of the most dividing subject in American history?" You not only misrepresent me, you can't keep yourself straight: If you had originally said "one of the most," no one in his right mind, and certainly not I, would have disputed you. You did not say that. You said, "the one most.." and that makes all the difference.

    By the way, what are the "stringent limits" placed on you? That you can't get away with misrepresenting what others say? That amorphous "group think" rants get short shrift? Or do you resent not being able to use tautologies? Just how are you limited in a way that no one else is?

  29. And here I thought that when you said, you didn't want to get "into a pissing match with an atheist," you meant me. I guess the old ego is out of control again.

  30. " "You think abortion isn't one of the most dividing subject in American history?" You not only misrepresent me, you can't keep yourself straight: If you had originally said "one of the most," no one in his right mind, and certainly not I, would have disputed you. You did not say that. You said, "the one most.." and that makes all the difference."

    You are correct. I had said 'the one most'. I did mean "one of the most", but I wrote it the other way. Just for shits and giggles though, what is more divisive in our country than abortion rights (besides racism)?

  31. BTW, conchobhar, what religion do you follow? If you give me another "none of your damn business", I'll have to assume you are an atheist. Which is still my guess.