Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   In a masterpiece of goalpost-moving, columnist opines that the Gosnell case is the anti-abortion movement's fault because they didn't badger his clinic enough   (theatlantic.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Kermit Gosnell, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, RH Reality Check, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Amanda Marcotte, Nexis, gag orders, intelligence  
•       •       •

1541 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2013 at 9:39 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



184 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-17 03:18:28 PM  

skullkrusher: Wessoman: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: If you want to elect to have an abortion which isn't medically necessary, I am not going to stop you but I don't want to be a part of it.

That's fine.

Just understand that you WILL be a part of it one way or another. You're on the hook for paying for that kid's education, sure, but "unwanted" kids are more often than not going to need school lunch help, and their families will more likely be taking advantage of programs like TANF, and SNAP (and, while the kid's gestating, WIC). And even with all that, what are the odds the kid is well-nourished? Assuming the kid's getting his vitamins, what are the odds they live in a stable family environment (especially considering we know mom already didn't want the kid)?

Not to mention the third-, fourth- and fifth- (...nth-)order problems - a kid growing up in the conditions above is more likely to not finish HS (and even if so, less than likely to attend or even graduate college), more likely to be involved in crime (and if it's drug- or sex-crime, hooray more expensive incarceration with all the health problems), and in general less likely to net-contribute to society.

Not to say it can't be done, or that "unwanted" kids will necessarily end up homeless junkies sucking dick for lines of Velveeta, but wouldn't you rather pay for an infinitesimally small part of a $100 abortion than all of that?

No.

I would probably pay for the small price for the abortion than the larger price for an incarcerated loser kid that wasn't conceived intentionally. But that's me the Conservative, always thinking about dollars and sense.

(Back.)

meh, I'd rather see the kid given a shot regardless of how remote and help him out if he needs it.


Implying it's an either/or.
 
2013-04-17 03:23:06 PM  

Wessoman: skullkrusher: Wessoman: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: If you want to elect to have an abortion which isn't medically necessary, I am not going to stop you but I don't want to be a part of it.

That's fine.

Just understand that you WILL be a part of it one way or another. You're on the hook for paying for that kid's education, sure, but "unwanted" kids are more often than not going to need school lunch help, and their families will more likely be taking advantage of programs like TANF, and SNAP (and, while the kid's gestating, WIC). And even with all that, what are the odds the kid is well-nourished? Assuming the kid's getting his vitamins, what are the odds they live in a stable family environment (especially considering we know mom already didn't want the kid)?

Not to mention the third-, fourth- and fifth- (...nth-)order problems - a kid growing up in the conditions above is more likely to not finish HS (and even if so, less than likely to attend or even graduate college), more likely to be involved in crime (and if it's drug- or sex-crime, hooray more expensive incarceration with all the health problems), and in general less likely to net-contribute to society.

Not to say it can't be done, or that "unwanted" kids will necessarily end up homeless junkies sucking dick for lines of Velveeta, but wouldn't you rather pay for an infinitesimally small part of a $100 abortion than all of that?

No.

I would probably pay for the small price for the abortion than the larger price for an incarcerated loser kid that wasn't conceived intentionally. But that's me the Conservative, always thinking about dollars and sense.

(Back.)

meh, I'd rather see the kid given a shot regardless of how remote and help him out if he needs it.

Implying it's an either/or.


huh?
 
2013-04-17 03:34:58 PM  

lennavan: The phrase "allowing them that choice" makes my skin crawl. Maybe I'm part libertarian. So long as they aren't infringing on the rights of another person, who the fark am I to choose for other people? So I'm pro-choice until the fetus becomes a person.


"There's a certain morality in not opposing the choice from being presented." I dunno how to phrase it - sounds like you got my point (and I think I got yours). Nothing wrong with disagreement.

skullkrusher: I'd rather see the kid given a shot regardless of how remote and help him out if he needs it.


A true bleeding-heart is you. :)
 
2013-04-17 03:35:09 PM  

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: If you want to elect to have an abortion which isn't medically necessary, I am not going to stop you but I don't want to be a part of it.

That's fine.

Just understand that you WILL be a part of it one way or another. You're on the hook for paying for that kid's education, sure, but "unwanted" kids are more often than not going to need school lunch help, and their families will more likely be taking advantage of programs like TANF, and SNAP (and, while the kid's gestating, WIC). And even with all that, what are the odds the kid is well-nourished? Assuming the kid's getting his vitamins, what are the odds they live in a stable family environment (especially considering we know mom already didn't want the kid)?

Not to mention the third-, fourth- and fifth- (...nth-)order problems - a kid growing up in the conditions above is more likely to not finish HS (and even if so, less than likely to attend or even graduate college), more likely to be involved in crime (and if it's drug- or sex-crime, hooray more expensive incarceration with all the health problems), and in general less likely to net-contribute to society.

Not to say it can't be done, or that "unwanted" kids will necessarily end up homeless junkies sucking dick for lines of Velveeta, but wouldn't you rather pay for an infinitesimally small part of a $100 abortion than all of that?

No.

I wish more people realized this

realized what?


That the people get paid for at some point. You have a pragmatic position; you disagree with abortion but you know its results and you would prefer to support the kids.
 
2013-04-17 03:37:15 PM  

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: If you want to elect to have an abortion which isn't medically necessary, I am not going to stop you but I don't want to be a part of it.

That's fine.

Just understand that you WILL be a part of it one way or another. You're on the hook for paying for that kid's education, sure, but "unwanted" kids are more often than not going to need school lunch help, and their families will more likely be taking advantage of programs like TANF, and SNAP (and, while the kid's gestating, WIC). And even with all that, what are the odds the kid is well-nourished? Assuming the kid's getting his vitamins, what are the odds they live in a stable family environment (especially considering we know mom already didn't want the kid)?

Not to mention the third-, fourth- and fifth- (...nth-)order problems - a kid growing up in the conditions above is more likely to not finish HS (and even if so, less than likely to attend or even graduate college), more likely to be involved in crime (and if it's drug- or sex-crime, hooray more expensive incarceration with all the health problems), and in general less likely to net-contribute to society.

Not to say it can't be done, or that "unwanted" kids will necessarily end up homeless junkies sucking dick for lines of Velveeta, but wouldn't you rather pay for an infinitesimally small part of a $100 abortion than all of that?

No.

I wish more people realized this

realized what?

That the people get paid for at some point. You have a pragmatic position; you disagree with abortion but you know its results and you would prefer to support the kids.


oh, gotcha. Well, the pragmatist in me supports free contraception when and if that leads to lower unintentional pregnancies but I am not willing to pay for abortion for those savings.
 
2013-04-17 03:37:51 PM  

Dr Dreidel: A true bleeding-heart is you. :)


been trying to tell you farkers that for years ;)
 
2013-04-17 04:56:29 PM  

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: If you want to elect to have an abortion which isn't medically necessary, I am not going to stop you but I don't want to be a part of it.

That's fine.

Just understand that you WILL be a part of it one way or another. You're on the hook for paying for that kid's education, sure, but "unwanted" kids are more often than not going to need school lunch help, and their families will more likely be taking advantage of programs like TANF, and SNAP (and, while the kid's gestating, WIC). And even with all that, what are the odds the kid is well-nourished? Assuming the kid's getting his vitamins, what are the odds they live in a stable family environment (especially considering we know mom already didn't want the kid)?

Not to mention the third-, fourth- and fifth- (...nth-)order problems - a kid growing up in the conditions above is more likely to not finish HS (and even if so, less than likely to attend or even graduate college), more likely to be involved in crime (and if it's drug- or sex-crime, hooray more expensive incarceration with all the health problems), and in general less likely to net-contribute to society.

Not to say it can't be done, or that "unwanted" kids will necessarily end up homeless junkies sucking dick for lines of Velveeta, but wouldn't you rather pay for an infinitesimally small part of a $100 abortion than all of that?

No.

I wish more people realized this

realized what?

That the people get paid for at some point. You have a pragmatic position; you disagree with abortion but you know its results and you would prefer to support the kids.

oh, gotcha. Well, the pragmatist in me supports free contraception when and if that leads to lower unintentional pregnancies but I am not willing to pay for abortion for those savings.


Why, because your blood God might turn your wife into salt?
 
2013-04-17 04:58:10 PM  

skullkrusher: Wessoman: skullkrusher: Wessoman: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: If you want to elect to have an abortion which isn't medically necessary, I am not going to stop you but I don't want to be a part of it.

That's fine.

Just understand that you WILL be a part of it one way or another. You're on the hook for paying for that kid's education, sure, but "unwanted" kids are more often than not going to need school lunch help, and their families will more likely be taking advantage of programs like TANF, and SNAP (and, while the kid's gestating, WIC). And even with all that, what are the odds the kid is well-nourished? Assuming the kid's getting his vitamins, what are the odds they live in a stable family environment (especially considering we know mom already didn't want the kid)?

Not to mention the third-, fourth- and fifth- (...nth-)order problems - a kid growing up in the conditions above is more likely to not finish HS (and even if so, less than likely to attend or even graduate college), more likely to be involved in crime (and if it's drug- or sex-crime, hooray more expensive incarceration with all the health problems), and in general less likely to net-contribute to society.

Not to say it can't be done, or that "unwanted" kids will necessarily end up homeless junkies sucking dick for lines of Velveeta, but wouldn't you rather pay for an infinitesimally small part of a $100 abortion than all of that?

No.

I would probably pay for the small price for the abortion than the larger price for an incarcerated loser kid that wasn't conceived intentionally. But that's me the Conservative, always thinking about dollars and sense.

(Back.)

meh, I'd rather see the kid given a shot regardless of how remote and help him out if he needs it.

Implying it's an either/or.

huh?


Exactly.
 
2013-04-17 05:03:54 PM  

Wessoman: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: If you want to elect to have an abortion which isn't medically necessary, I am not going to stop you but I don't want to be a part of it.

That's fine.

Just understand that you WILL be a part of it one way or another. You're on the hook for paying for that kid's education, sure, but "unwanted" kids are more often than not going to need school lunch help, and their families will more likely be taking advantage of programs like TANF, and SNAP (and, while the kid's gestating, WIC). And even with all that, what are the odds the kid is well-nourished? Assuming the kid's getting his vitamins, what are the odds they live in a stable family environment (especially considering we know mom already didn't want the kid)?

Not to mention the third-, fourth- and fifth- (...nth-)order problems - a kid growing up in the conditions above is more likely to not finish HS (and even if so, less than likely to attend or even graduate college), more likely to be involved in crime (and if it's drug- or sex-crime, hooray more expensive incarceration with all the health problems), and in general less likely to net-contribute to society.

Not to say it can't be done, or that "unwanted" kids will necessarily end up homeless junkies sucking dick for lines of Velveeta, but wouldn't you rather pay for an infinitesimally small part of a $100 abortion than all of that?

No.

I wish more people realized this

realized what?

That the people get paid for at some point. You have a pragmatic position; you disagree with abortion but you know its results and you would prefer to support the kids.

oh, gotcha. Well, the pragmatist in me supports free contraception when and if that leads to lower unintentional pregnancies but I am not willing to pay for abortion for those savings.

Why, because your blood God might turn your wife into salt?


no, I just have philosophical and spiritual issues with abortion. I'm not very religious but I do have theistic leanings and I have moral issues with abortion when not meant to save a person's life. Thank you for showing your true, douchebag colors though, Mr Genuine Conservative.

You're not a terribly bright guy. You might want to tone it down.
 
2013-04-17 05:04:05 PM  

madgonad: Others are derived from the overall Conservative orthodoxy of pussy control.


As a dyed in the wool lib I'm not opposed to thorough background checks, but IMHO registration is out of the question.
 
2013-04-17 05:06:05 PM  

Wessoman: skullkrusher: Wessoman: skullkrusher: Wessoman: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: If you want to elect to have an abortion which isn't medically necessary, I am not going to stop you but I don't want to be a part of it.

That's fine.

Just understand that you WILL be a part of it one way or another. You're on the hook for paying for that kid's education, sure, but "unwanted" kids are more often than not going to need school lunch help, and their families will more likely be taking advantage of programs like TANF, and SNAP (and, while the kid's gestating, WIC). And even with all that, what are the odds the kid is well-nourished? Assuming the kid's getting his vitamins, what are the odds they live in a stable family environment (especially considering we know mom already didn't want the kid)?

Not to mention the third-, fourth- and fifth- (...nth-)order problems - a kid growing up in the conditions above is more likely to not finish HS (and even if so, less than likely to attend or even graduate college), more likely to be involved in crime (and if it's drug- or sex-crime, hooray more expensive incarceration with all the health problems), and in general less likely to net-contribute to society.

Not to say it can't be done, or that "unwanted" kids will necessarily end up homeless junkies sucking dick for lines of Velveeta, but wouldn't you rather pay for an infinitesimally small part of a $100 abortion than all of that?

No.

I would probably pay for the small price for the abortion than the larger price for an incarcerated loser kid that wasn't conceived intentionally. But that's me the Conservative, always thinking about dollars and sense.

(Back.)

meh, I'd rather see the kid given a shot regardless of how remote and help him out if he needs it.

Implying it's an either/or.

huh?

Exactly.


no, not "Exactly". That doesn't make any sense as a response. That's the sort of thing halfwits say when they know they're in over their head. By the way, have you figured out why your "slippery slope" nonsense from before was a function of your being an idiot and not anything I said or are you still a Genuine Illiterate?
 
2013-04-17 05:11:45 PM  

Wessoman: Why, because your blood God might turn your wife into salt?


Wait, so he's pro-choice, wants to pay for free contraceptives for women, is happy to chip in for medically necessary abortions but draws the line at paying for optional ones so naturally that makes him a bible thumper?

Holy fark dude, it must be a trip living in BinaryWorld.
 
2013-04-17 05:12:57 PM  
skullkrusher:
no, I just have philosophical and spiritual issues with abortion. I'm not very religious but I do have theistic leanings and I have moral issues with abortion when not meant to save a person's life. Thank you for showing your true, douchebag colors though, Mr Genuine Conservative.
You're not a terribly bright guy. You might want to tone it down.

So your philosophical and spiritual issues with Abortion have an increased fiscal cost for society. I am sorry, but funding women's healthcare, and the occasional abortion, makes financial sense for society. Your philosophical beliefs don't. Especially since you don't exactly have a Uterus and really shouldn't have a say in the matter.

And nice Ad Hominem there, as well as a projection too.
 
2013-04-17 05:14:43 PM  

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: If you want to elect to have an abortion which isn't medically necessary, I am not going to stop you but I don't want to be a part of it.

That's fine.

Just understand that you WILL be a part of it one way or another. You're on the hook for paying for that kid's education, sure, but "unwanted" kids are more often than not going to need school lunch help, and their families will more likely be taking advantage of programs like TANF, and SNAP (and, while the kid's gestating, WIC). And even with all that, what are the odds the kid is well-nourished? Assuming the kid's getting his vitamins, what are the odds they live in a stable family environment (especially considering we know mom already didn't want the kid)?

Not to mention the third-, fourth- and fifth- (...nth-)order problems - a kid growing up in the conditions above is more likely to not finish HS (and even if so, less than likely to attend or even graduate college), more likely to be involved in crime (and if it's drug- or sex-crime, hooray more expensive incarceration with all the health problems), and in general less likely to net-contribute to society.

Not to say it can't be done, or that "unwanted" kids will necessarily end up homeless junkies sucking dick for lines of Velveeta, but wouldn't you rather pay for an infinitesimally small part of a $100 abortion than all of that?

No.

I wish more people realized this

realized what?

That the people get paid for at some point. You have a pragmatic position; you disagree with abortion but you know its results and you would prefer to support the kids.

oh, gotcha. Well, the pragmatist in me supports free contraception when and if that leads to lower unintentional pregnancies but I am not willing to pay for abortion for those savings.


Yeah, that's at least a consistent position, which I can respect. Seems too many in the pro-life camp seem to think that restrictions on abortion won't lead to more children needing financial support, somehow...
 
2013-04-17 05:15:50 PM  

lennavan: Wessoman: Why, because your blood God might turn your wife into salt?

Wait, so he's pro-choice, wants to pay for free contraceptives for women, is happy to chip in for medically necessary abortions but draws the line at paying for optional ones so naturally that makes him a bible thumper?

Holy fark dude, it must be a trip living in BinaryWorld.


It is. But I don't really compromise with a woman's right to choose, as long as Abortion is safe, legal, and above all rare. Of course, provided society does it's job, Abortions themselves should be rare. Nevertheless, there are exceptions, and I don't think I have ever spoken to any woman who uses Abortion in lieu of contraception.
 
2013-04-17 05:15:53 PM  

YoungLochinvar: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: If you want to elect to have an abortion which isn't medically necessary, I am not going to stop you but I don't want to be a part of it.

That's fine.

Just understand that you WILL be a part of it one way or another. You're on the hook for paying for that kid's education, sure, but "unwanted" kids are more often than not going to need school lunch help, and their families will more likely be taking advantage of programs like TANF, and SNAP (and, while the kid's gestating, WIC). And even with all that, what are the odds the kid is well-nourished? Assuming the kid's getting his vitamins, what are the odds they live in a stable family environment (especially considering we know mom already didn't want the kid)?

Not to mention the third-, fourth- and fifth- (...nth-)order problems - a kid growing up in the conditions above is more likely to not finish HS (and even if so, less than likely to attend or even graduate college), more likely to be involved in crime (and if it's drug- or sex-crime, hooray more expensive incarceration with all the health problems), and in general less likely to net-contribute to society.

Not to say it can't be done, or that "unwanted" kids will necessarily end up homeless junkies sucking dick for lines of Velveeta, but wouldn't you rather pay for an infinitesimally small part of a $100 abortion than all of that?

No.

I wish more people realized this

realized what?

That the people get paid for at some point. You have a pragmatic position; you disagree with abortion but you know its results and you would prefer to support the kids.

oh, gotcha. Well, the pragmatist in me supports free contraception when and if that leads to lower unintentional pregnancies but I am not willing to pay for abortion for those savings.

Yeah, that's at least a consistent position, which I can respect. Seems too many in the pro-life camp seem to think that restriction ...


(Not that you're pro-life, mind you...)
 
2013-04-17 05:16:28 PM  

Wessoman: So your philosophical and spiritual issues with Abortion have an increased fiscal cost for society. I am sorry, but funding women's healthcare, and the occasional abortion, makes financial sense for society. Your philosophical beliefs don't. Especially since you don't exactly have a Uterus and really shouldn't have a say in the matter.


I shouldn't have a say in the matter of whether my money funds something? Yeah, you're a real "Genuine Conservative".

Wessoman: And nice Ad Hominem there, as well as a projection too.


I'm sorry, were you expecting a respectful response to your "blood god" post, you pants pissing farkwit?
 
2013-04-17 05:17:22 PM  

YoungLochinvar: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: If you want to elect to have an abortion which isn't medically necessary, I am not going to stop you but I don't want to be a part of it.

That's fine.

Just understand that you WILL be a part of it one way or another. You're on the hook for paying for that kid's education, sure, but "unwanted" kids are more often than not going to need school lunch help, and their families will more likely be taking advantage of programs like TANF, and SNAP (and, while the kid's gestating, WIC). And even with all that, what are the odds the kid is well-nourished? Assuming the kid's getting his vitamins, what are the odds they live in a stable family environment (especially considering we know mom already didn't want the kid)?

Not to mention the third-, fourth- and fifth- (...nth-)order problems - a kid growing up in the conditions above is more likely to not finish HS (and even if so, less than likely to attend or even graduate college), more likely to be involved in crime (and if it's drug- or sex-crime, hooray more expensive incarceration with all the health problems), and in general less likely to net-contribute to society.

Not to say it can't be done, or that "unwanted" kids will necessarily end up homeless junkies sucking dick for lines of Velveeta, but wouldn't you rather pay for an infinitesimally small part of a $100 abortion than all of that?

No.

I wish more people realized this

realized what?

That the people get paid for at some point. You have a pragmatic position; you disagree with abortion but you know its results and you would prefer to support the kids.

oh, gotcha. Well, the pragmatist in me supports free contraception when and if that leads to lower unintentional pregnancies but I am not willing to pay for abortion for those savings.

Yeah, that's at least a consistent position, which I can respect. Seems too many in the pro-life camp seem to think that restriction ...


of course it will. We'll make room for more :)
 
2013-04-17 05:19:29 PM  

skullkrusher: no, not "Exactly". That doesn't make any sense as a response. That's the sort of thing halfwits say when they know they're in over their head. By the way, have you figured out why your "slippery slope" nonsense from before was a function of your being an idiot and not anything I said or are you still a Genuine Illiterate?


And you missed the point entirely. Subsidizing a small taxable amount for women's health care, including abortion, as well as women's health care that is not abortion related whatsoever, as well as social work for disfortunate children are not mutually exclusive concepts. But you know, just get angry. That will solve everything.
 
2013-04-17 05:21:04 PM  

Wessoman: lennavan: Wessoman: Why, because your blood God might turn your wife into salt?

Wait, so he's pro-choice, wants to pay for free contraceptives for women, is happy to chip in for medically necessary abortions but draws the line at paying for optional ones so naturally that makes him a bible thumper?

Holy fark dude, it must be a trip living in BinaryWorld.

It is. But I don't really compromise with a woman's right to choose, as long as Abortion is safe, legal, and above all rare. Of course, provided society does it's job, Abortions themselves should be rare. Nevertheless, there are exceptions, and I don't think I have ever spoken to any woman who uses Abortion in lieu of contraception.



Wanna hear something awkward?  I bet skullkrusher agrees with everything you wrote.  He's not compromising with her right to choose.  He's saying he's not going to help her pay for it if it's optional.  There is a huge difference there.
 
2013-04-17 05:21:19 PM  

YoungLochinvar: skullkrusher: YoungLochinvar: Yeah... read that list more closely. It's the same list I had; based on the website (for the clinic) the first three listings are the exact same place (despite different listed addresses), two others are simply larger organizations with no actual clinics near Philly.

The Philly clinics are all different. The S Jersey Woman's Center has 2 addresses but I don't know if that means 2 locations where services are provided. There's another unique clinic in there too within 10 miles. So at least 5, maybe 6 places to go

YoungLochinvar: Funding, as a potential barrier, is absolutely relevant. My understanding was a number of Gosnell's client were there because they couldn't afford legitimate places, which is a problem that public funding solves...

Look at the fees for the S Jersey Women's Clinic. Far less than what Doctor Demento charged

YoungLochinvar: I mean, if you wanna make abortions more difficult to obtain that's your prerogative - I'm just not sure why you think it'll be any more effective than, say, the war on drugs. Market demands are usually met, legally or otherwise, and this is the type of stuff that happens on the black market for abortion...

abortion should be safe and legal (to a point with restrictions). I am opposed to them from a personal perspective but if you want to get one, by all means. Just don't expect me to pay for it unless it is necessary to save your life or the result of rape.

relcec: skullkrusher: madgonad: skullkrusher: are you joking? This motherfarker (allegedly) killed babies. He (allegedly) killed a women. He ran a "medical" practice under the most abhorrent conditions. What else does he have to do to be called a "monster"?

Actually, he performed a D&X.... poorly. Because he was a lousy doctor. A D&X is a procedure done in some third trimester abortions (which he shouldn't even be doing). It involves damaging the brain/severing the spinal column during extraction (while still in the mother). The reason for this is while a 24-28 week fetus will die very shortly after being removed, it doesn't happen immediately and the procedure was designed to guarantee that fetus would not be alive outside of the mother at all. This farkstick apparently did an intact extraction and didn't terminate the fetus until the end. It is a vague area of law, but technically abortions are allowed when fetal life signs are terminated in utero while terminating them outside of the mother can be considered infanticide.

arbitrariness of the law notwithstanding, that is what he's accused of. He performed illegal 3rd trimester abortions. He had stacks of aborted fetuses in farking cat food containers. I think you have the bar for monstrosity set a bit high

a monster? he's practically a hero!
see skull, you just way over analyze this. you need to see things as pure black and white right and wrong like pro choicers do around here.
they have a very simple test, in the grand scheme of things do I agree with what he was doing? well you like having late term abortions available right?
then the's charges are overblown, and the people who would like to string him up are really to blame for not being diligent enough.
if the answer is yes and the man is being attacked you must downplay his alleged crimes and attempt to defend what he did in any way possible while also attacking the people that disagree with you.

Everyone wants him strung up, you goddamned moron.


Hell, if he SOMEHOW gets off on "mental health" or because of some bureaucratic fluke, he'll go down in history as the only lynching victem who deserved it. Although, he may come back with the power to preform late term abortions IN YOUR DREAMS! (Call Hollywood, they're pretty desperate for ideas).
But when this bastard is convicted, they should make his execution a carnival. No, seriously! "Step right up and throw the metal ball at the doctor of death! 10 points if you get him in the stomach, 50 if you bean him in the head, 75 for a crotch shot, and 100 if you knock out a tooth!" It's one thing all of us can unify on, be you pro-choice or pro-life, Christian or athist, straight or gay, libreal or conservative!
 
2013-04-17 05:24:06 PM  

Wessoman: skullkrusher: no, not "Exactly". That doesn't make any sense as a response. That's the sort of thing halfwits say when they know they're in over their head. By the way, have you figured out why your "slippery slope" nonsense from before was a function of your being an idiot and not anything I said or are you still a Genuine Illiterate?

And you missed the point entirely. Subsidizing a small taxable amount for women's health care, including abortion, as well as women's health care that is not abortion related whatsoever, as well as social work for disfortunate children are not mutually exclusive concepts. But you know, just get angry. That will solve everything.


who said that were? Yeah, I get annoyed when either A) dishonest shiatbags mischaracterize what I say or B) mouthbreathing farkwits presume to talk to me.

Column A or Column B? Perhaps they're not mutually exclusive either?
 
2013-04-17 05:34:14 PM  

Wessoman: Abortion is safe, legal, and above all rare


Safe, legal, and rare is the worst slogan ever. Thanks, Clinton administration.
 
2013-04-17 05:53:17 PM  
I do blame the anti-abortion movement. Gosnell had unlicensed staff. Why go to an unlicensed doctor? Because he was cheap. Poor women are not allowed to use any public funding for abortions, so they have to save up the money on their own. That means they get abortions later, and they try to get cheaper abortions. In other words, they go to back-alley butchers, just as they did before abortion was legal. Anti-abortion activists have driven more reputable doctors out of business, and they try to shut down or cut off funding for Planned Parenthood (whether the clinics provide abortions or not).

If the anti-abortion crowd has its way, there will be more Gosnells out there, not fewer. Add that to the fact that so many of these so-called anti-abortion people are also anti-birth control and anti-sex education, and they are virtually building a whole army of Gosnells. Gosnell is a monster, no doubt about that. But the anti-abortion movement is the Doctor Frankenstein that built him.
 
2013-04-17 05:53:18 PM  

skullkrusher: I'm sorry, were you expecting a respectful response to your "blood god" post, you pants pissing farkwit?


skullkrusher: who said that were? Yeah, I get annoyed when either A) dishonest shiatbags mischaracterize what I say or B) mouthbreathing farkwits presume to talk to me.

Column A or Column B? Perhaps they're not mutually exclusive either?


lennavan: Wanna hear something awkward? I bet skullkrusher agrees with everything you wrote. He's not compromising with her right to choose. He's saying he's not going to help her pay for it if it's optional. There is a huge difference there.


Actually yes. There is not much difference between Skullkrusher and I's innate philosophies. Since Skullkrusher throws a Honey Boo Boo like tantrum when people presume to speak for him, I will wager and guess that he sees Abortion as a personal responsibility issue. You see, I would guess that if a woman were to become pregnant, and then choose not to have the child, then he, as a taxpayer, should not in anyway subsidize the abortion because it was her personal responsibility that she got knocked up in the first place, and why should Skullkrusher, or anybody else for that matter, pay for the abortion. That is a reasoned and fair analysis.

Where I differ is that seeing women of color, or the state of education in some regions of the Republic, I find that very often there is not the access of contraception for women who choose to exercize their sexuality. Furthermore, there is a definite societal drag and fiscal cost for having unwanted children born into society. To me, the costs of an unwanted child would more than mitigate the subsidization of the occasional non-medical Abortion. I mean, since we are paying for F-22's and tax breaks for the wealthy, I think it's a wiser usage of societal resources.

So basically, the moral and philosophical arguments against abortion still come from misuse of religion and superstition. While I am not Atheist, I do not factor philosophy into the Abortion argument.

So yes, I understand the differences, Lennavan, and I disagree with Skullkrusher on that key point. But he's easily wound up, and I am enjoying see him turn red for a bit. And yes, I am a Troll jerk.
 
2013-04-17 07:54:47 PM  

Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: part of the problem: The simple answer is that liberals are incapable of thinking ideologically impire thoughts. Or any other kind of thoughts for that matter. Just admit this is sick, politics be dammed.

They feel as if they give even and inch or close down one clinic... that anything that the anti-abortion side will be happy about... it's a loss for their side.

They often say "safe, legal, and rare" but "safe" has no concern really. They use "safe" as a modifier for legal. Regulations designed to keep this from happening are called "hyper regulations" designed to shut down clinics. Inspections are treated as an attack.

When Louisiana closed down the New Orleans East clinic there was outrage by abortion rights activists even though there was the same health issues as what Gosnell's clinic was being accused of. Thankfully, IIRC, no woman died there before they shut it down.

Trolls responding to trolls responding to trolls...


yo dawg...
 
2013-04-17 08:08:20 PM  
part of the problem: Marcus Aurelius: The anti-abortionists drove the procedure out of hospitals and into back alleyways. This is the result of all their hard work.

Not accurate.
The clinic model was once believed to be a win for women's rights as it kept abortion out of the control of the hospital industry. Didnt work out so well but facts are facts.

Why is it so hard for liberals to just say this is a horrible and monstrous event that should never have been allowed to occur nevermind what you think of abortion?

The simple answer is that liberals are incapable of thinking ideologically impire thoughts. Or any other kind of thoughts for that matter. Just admit this is sick, politics be dammed.


Dear Problem:

I am a farkin flamin librul hippie, like my dad, who was also a farkin badass firefighter.

I think this was some farkin monstrous shiat. It should not have been farking permitted to farkin occur.
In that, you spoke correctly and I do indeed concur.

However: YOU...do not tell ME what MY farkin ideology IS, nor do you determine whether it is "puuuure" according to some farked up b*llsh*t pseudo-standard that some drug-addict whackball cable TV news millionaire screaming-head freako flabbers from his nether orifice after a Po-Babby Sammich at Joe's Godly All-American Red-White-&-Blue Greasy Spoon Cafe.
I DETERMINE THAT and my thoughts are as ideologically impure as the day is long.
 
2013-04-17 08:53:37 PM  

Wessoman: skullkrusher: I'm sorry, were you expecting a respectful response to your "blood god" post, you pants pissing farkwit?

skullkrusher: who said that were? Yeah, I get annoyed when either A) dishonest shiatbags mischaracterize what I say or B) mouthbreathing farkwits presume to talk to me.

Column A or Column B? Perhaps they're not mutually exclusive either?

lennavan: Wanna hear something awkward? I bet skullkrusher agrees with everything you wrote. He's not compromising with her right to choose. He's saying he's not going to help her pay for it if it's optional. There is a huge difference there.

Actually yes. There is not much difference between Skullkrusher and I's innate philosophies. Since Skullkrusher throws a Honey Boo Boo like tantrum when people presume to speak for him, I will wager and guess that he sees Abortion as a personal responsibility issue. You see, I would guess that if a woman were to become pregnant, and then choose not to have the child, then he, as a taxpayer, should not in anyway subsidize the abortion because it was her personal responsibility that she got knocked up in the first place, and why should Skullkrusher, or anybody else for that matter, pay for the abortion. That is a reasoned and fair analysis.

Where I differ is that seeing women of color, or the state of education in some regions of the Republic, I find that very often there is not the access of contraception for women who choose to exercize their sexuality. Furthermore, there is a definite societal drag and fiscal cost for having unwanted children born into society. To me, the costs of an unwanted child would more than mitigate the subsidization of the occasional non-medical Abortion. I mean, since we are paying for F-22's and tax breaks for the wealthy, I think it's a wiser usage of societal resources.

So basically, the moral and philosophical arguments against abortion still come from misuse of religion and superstition. While I am not Atheist, I do not factor philosophy in ...


You also forget that abusive partners will practice reproductive coercion.

They will refuse condoms, throw out BC pills, and have even torn out UTIs. They want the victim to be completely dependent upon them, the quickest way to do that is to have a kid with them.

It's already difficult to leave abusive men, add a kid into the mix and it's 100x harder.
 
2013-04-17 09:44:36 PM  

lennavan: part of the problem: Why is it so hard for liberals to just say this is a horrible and monstrous event that should never have been allowed to occur nevermind what you think of abortion?

The simple answer is that liberals are incapable of thinking ideologically impire thoughts. Or any other kind of thoughts for that matter. Just admit this is sick, politics be dammed.

This is a horrible and monstrous event that should never have been allowed to occur.  This is farking sick.

/Pro-choice liberal.

I would appreciate you retracting the bold part now.


The simple answer is that conservatives are incapable of admitting that their stereotype doesn't apply to all liberals.
 
2013-04-17 11:38:38 PM  

Nabb1: The people who have politicized this make me sick. Besides, it's their side's fault this happened.


I see you agree with the idiotic logic that the horrors that transpired inside a licensed, legal abortion clinic are somehow the fault of the protestors on the outside?

Shame on you, seriously.
 
2013-04-17 11:53:54 PM  
First no liberal media covered this story. It ran on Fox News for weeks while no one else covered it. I wondered if all the stories were true, why nobody else reported it.

Then the Wash Post ran a story about the shameful lack of coverage and the flood gates opened. Suddenly, its worth reporting but best if you can spin this clinic as some backalley-coathanger-illegal operation. Except that's not what it was. It was a licensed abortion clinic with a sign on the street.


The truth is that this should not be about protecting guys like this for the sake of plan B. Late term abortions should be universally banned. In fact no abortions after the fourth month should be allowed.

Instead of downplaying or protecting the Gosnells in this business, liberals should be protecting the babies that have developed to t he point where they are human.
 
2013-04-18 09:01:27 AM  

Animatronik: First no liberal media covered this story. It ran on Fox News for weeks while no one else covered it. I wondered if all the stories were true, why nobody else reported it.

Then the Wash Post ran a story about the shameful lack of coverage and the flood gates opened. Suddenly, its worth reporting but best if you can spin this clinic as some backalley-coathanger-illegal operation. Except that's not what it was. It was a licensed abortion clinic with a sign on the street.


The truth is that this should not be about protecting guys like this for the sake of plan B. Late term abortions should be universally banned. In fact no abortions after the fourth month should be allowed.

Instead of downplaying or protecting the Gosnells in this business, liberals should be protecting the babies that have developed to t he point where they are human.


Dude there is no media blackout, it was all over the news when the story broke back in 2011. There were fark threads about it.

Libby feminist blogs like jezebel have been following the case closely.

This is not a liberal or conservative issue, he is a horrible monster no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.

How about we work together to prevent another Gosnell from happening instead of playing the blame game.
 
2013-04-18 10:17:08 AM  
 
2013-04-18 12:53:05 PM  

Wessoman: There is not much difference between Skullkrusher and I's innate philosophies. ... I will wager and guess that he sees Abortion as ...

So basically, the moral and philosophical arguments against abortion still come from misuse of religion and superstition. While I am not Atheist, I do not factor philosophy into the Abortion argument.

So yes, I understand the differences, Lennavan, and I disagree with Skullkrusher on that key point. But he's easily wound up, and I am enjoying see him turn red for a bit. And yes, I am a Troll jerk.


Right.  So you two agree on the vast majority of the issue.  One single tiny component you disagree on you totally imagine the reason is because of religion, therefore you decided to troll him.

Seems reasonable.
 
Displayed 34 of 184 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report