See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #201
   On June 4th, 2008 at 10:13 pm, atheling said:

   ooops, meant to finish:

   We can dream up a thousand crimes that are not in the Bible, so does that mean they are in fact not crimes?

2. #202
   On June 4th, 2008 at 10:30 pm, emjem24 said:

   One of Michelle’s most on-the-money columns. Abortion is truly an evil, nasty business.

   How the hell did that 13 year old even get an abortion? Where was her family? Who entered the mix to convince this kid to even participate in, what will be, for this young lady, a fateful decision?

   PP has always given me the creeps. What they do is disgusting, it isn’t investigated, and it leaves many young women with guilt, trama, and lasting physical damage if they receive a botched abortion. Every young woman in this country needs to be informed of their choices and not pressured, coerced, or lied into an abortion.

   PP is another example of forces within this country, including public education, that are trying to fragment families, and not allow parents to actually “parent” or be the guardians of their children that they’re supposed to be.

   My heart breaks for these woman that the butchers of Planned Parenthood exploit, mutilate, and in some cases, kill. Where’s the justice for these girls, liberals? You’re so concerned for the profits of oil companies and Wall Street that you look the other way when your protected constituents like Planned Parenthood profit off of their butchery.

   Planned Parenthood isn’t the only entity with blood on their hands. Their supporters, in Congress, State Legislators, and the mindless liberals who flock to their bandwagon are smeared with it as well.

3. #203
   On June 4th, 2008 at 11:00 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

   Those sly liberals. Naming it “Planned Parenthood” when in fact their mission is eliminating the so-called baggage associated with “unplanned” parenthood. They learned their skills from the Nazis who were also quite adept at “elimination.”

4. #204
   On June 4th, 2008 at 11:48 pm, Steve456 said:

   Attention, conservatives: If you want to prevent women from having an abortion, you’ll have to do it by force. Does that appeal to you?

   I used to transport pregnant women across state lines to help them procure an abortion back in the day when states outlawed the practice. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I’ll gladly do so again. Are you willing to use force to stop me?

   Before you answer, consider that I sometimes volunteer as an escort (read: bouncer) for medical clinics that perform abortions. And consider that nothing pleases me more then when I get to use reasonable force against demonstrators who attempt to prevent women from accessing these clinics. You’d be surprised how easy it is to subdue your sort. I’ll give Eric Rudolph this, at least he wasn’t a wimp.

5. #205
   On June 5th, 2008 at 12:01 am, SHoward said:

   Steve456 –

   You’re not scaring anyone around here. Put your act back in your candyland box.

6. #206
   On June 5th, 2008 at 12:09 am, SHoward said:

   You know, I just realized something — whenever I ride by an abortion mill, the pro-life protesters I see outside are usually retirees and women.

   I’m sure it’s real hard to subdue a guy that’s trying to keep his oxygen bottle connected.

   You’re not as tough as you sound, Steve456.

   BTW — having perused this posting, it looks to me like you’re the one that interjected physical confrontation here. That’s usually the mark of someone that’s a lot more brave behind his keyboard than he is in front of someone in anger.

   You should be careful about leveling veiled threats. You might just have to put your money where your fat mouth is one day.

7. #207
   On June 5th, 2008 at 12:34 am, alaskangrizzly said:

   And consider that nothing pleases me more then when I get to use reasonable force against demonstrators who attempt to prevent women from accessing these clinics.

   A man who enjoys inflicting pain on demonstrators protesting for the right to life. A man after __________ (insert brutal dictator from history here)’s own heart I’m sure.

8. #208
   On June 5th, 2008 at 12:36 am, bayou22 said:

   Wrote to both my senators and representative on this and heard back from…**gasp**…none of them. Coincidentally, I dont hear from them on anything anyways.

   I’m in Louisiana and Vitter is just keeping his head down (no pun intended) and Landrieu is toeing the left side of the line. Now that we have Cazayoux for 6 months, he’ll be a useless pawn as well. At least the locals killed the income tax!!!

9. #209
   On June 5th, 2008 at 1:02 am, emjem24 said:

   Steve456 said:

   I used to transport pregnant women across state lines to help them procure an abortion back in the day when states outlawed the practice. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I’ll gladly do so again. Are you willing to use force to stop me?

   Did your “escort duty” also involve transporting underage/minor girls for their abortions? Did you actively involve yourself in the execution of a felony?

   Do you think it right that 13 year olds, who aren’t even old enough to drive or vote, and without the consent of their parents, are getting abortions? How about other minors and underaged girls? Do you think it right that Planned Parenthood is killing girls, maiming them, scaring them for life at the same time making a profit off of their pain?

   What are you, a sadist? Do you get your jollies out of this sick business? Would you agree with this practice had it been your daughter?

   Your presence here, on this blog, is not only disgraceful, pathetic, and disrespectful, glorying in the practice of abortion and its profit which PP supporters like you do, it’s heinous. I guess you’ve got blood on your hands too.

   Does it give you a sick thrill, Steve, that these two girls have been maimed, made infertile, and tramautized for life? Do you glory in that? You’re a monster.

   Please, try this woman on for size, Steve, let’s see how you move me with your inhumane delight in the killing of babies and maiming of underaged girls who have been coerced, forced, or lied into their abortions. Who aren’t even old enough to make such a choice, let alone live with its consequences.

   You are one sick, twisted individual whose presence on this blog is meant to stick the knife in deeper to those women who regret their abortions, those who’ve seen their female relatives suffer the consequences. Why are you here? I have no use for people like you, who delight in killing. That’s what you do. If you’ve transported underaged girls across state lines… there’s no rock you can crawl under that any outraged parent or law enforcement officer won’t find you.

10. #210
    On June 5th, 2008 at 1:12 am, dakine said:

    And emjem predictably takes the bait.

11. #211
    On June 5th, 2008 at 1:19 am, Dimsdale said:

    On June 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm, Rusty said:

    You can’t get past the “coincidence” that more minority women get abortions than other groups.

    Whites have the plurality of all abortions in America. I am aware that there are considerably more whites than blacks in this country, but, again, it doesn’t seem to fit in with the eugenics theme.

    Whites are the majority of the population. Even if they have a smaller percentage of abortions, they will outnumber a higher percentage in a smaller population. Basic math.

    To wit:

    Blacks do, indeed, have much higher rates of abortions than whites or other minority groups. In 2000, while blacks made up 17 percent of live births, they made up more than twice that share of abortions (36 percent). If those aborted children had been born, the number of blacks born would have been slightly over 50 percent greater than it was.

    The comparison with whites and other minorities is striking. Whites made up 78 percent of live births, but only 57 percent of abortions. Non-black minorities had 7 percent of live births and 5 percent of abortions. If the aborted children had been born for either group, the percentage increase in the number of children born to these groups would have been less than that for blacks: 16 and 32 percent, respectively.

    Data from 1973 on indicate that black women’s share of abortions has consistently been at least twice their share of live births.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348649,00.html Yeah, yeah, Fox News. Counter these data if you can.

    Dimsdale, your point on Boy Scouts doing the right thing by barring homosexuals isn’t being well received on my end. You say they are preventing people from spending time with minors they may be attracted to? Homosexuals are not pedophiles.

    Sorry to hear that. I again cite the example of the Catholic priests. Your statement is specious: some homosexuals are absolutely and demonstrably pedophiles (see priests again) and would naturally gravitate to positions where they would have access to young boys. They may be pedophiles, but they aren’t stupid. (your statement, “homosexuals are not pedophiles is an absolute which rarely applies in life and never in biology).

    My mom, last I checked, is a straight woman. She was also an Assistant Scoutmaster who loved it so much she spent two summers living on a Boy Scout reservation in New Hampshire. Was she a risk to those Boy Scouts?

    A few towns over from me in Bourne, MA, there was a horrible scandal where a female Scout leader was statuatorily raping a 12-yr-old Scout. Clearly that means straight women should have no part in Scouting, right?

    As you own example states, not all heterosexual women are pedophiles (it is relatively rare actually, and I will assume you just asked your Mom. Read about it here: http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html), but, as you pointed out, one of them got in there and statutorily raped a minor boy.

    You make my case for me. If only heterosexual men are allowed to be Scoutmasters, the problem is obviated, whether it is predatory homosexual men or heterosexual women. Likewise with girl scout leaders.

    It is basic criminology: Means, motive and opportunity. The means are obvious, as is the motive, and the venue provides the opportunity. You can have all the feel good arguments you want, but all you will be doing is endangering minors.

    On June 4th, 2008 at 1:46 pm, Rusty said:

    You are denying someone membership for not believing in your religion or in an aspect of your religion. That’s discrimination based on religion.

    It is a basic tenet of most religions that you subscribe to their beliefs, else they reserve the right to excommunicate you or whatever. They are private groups and can make whatever rules they like. If you don’t like them, then make your own religion. It has been done many times before.

    And, regardless, atheism is a religion. It’s an answer to questions about God and reality. Just because the answer is “none of the above” and they don’t have ceremonies doesn’t mean it’s not a religion.

    No, atheism as a religion is really some New Age crap that defies the basic definition of religion that implies a belief in a higher being. In dictionaries, religion is defined as “any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) and character of God.” Also, “a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.”

    Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. The word actually means “no theism.”

    Just for giggles, consider Blaise Pascal’s wager: No one knows for certain whether God exists. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. It’s a gamble whether you believe in him or not.

    He described the payoff of this gamble as follows. If you choose to believe in God, and you happen to be right, then the reward is infinity. Eternal bliss in heaven, etc. However, if you are wrong, then you lose nothing at all. On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you’re right, you gain nothing (in either of the previous two cases, you just die and that’s the end). But if you are wrong, your payoff is negative infinity. Eternal suffering in hell.

    But I digress…

12. #212
    On June 5th, 2008 at 1:23 am, emjem24 said:

    Dak:

    Predictably, you’re filling the void with even more empty mockery.

    I’m quite…. underwhelmed.

    What, exactly was your point, I forget.

13. #213
    On June 5th, 2008 at 1:24 am, dakine said:

    The “God bet” in Pascal’s wager is for sissies…only a candy ass atheist makes that wager.

14. #214
    On June 5th, 2008 at 1:27 am, alaskangrizzly said:

    My role is to make sure the state doesn’t criminalize the choice to make that decision.

    By promising to violate the law if it should be reversed to the way it was before?

    You can’t even hold up to what you stated, you wouldn’t be “making sure the state doesn’t criminalize it” you would be by force aiding and abetting a fugitive of the law by violent means.

15. #215
    On June 5th, 2008 at 1:27 am, dakine said:

    emjem, my point is that you’re generally overwrought and emotional in almost an unhinged way just about every time you post. The words are different, but you come off like the hysterical lefties you hate so much. And, btw, Steve just kicked your hind parts in his last post.

16. #216
    On June 5th, 2008 at 1:29 am, dakine said:

    How was it before alaskan? If Roe goes down (and I from a legal point of view, I think it is bad constitutional law), the vast majority of states would still permit abortions.

17. #217
    On June 5th, 2008 at 1:32 am, alaskangrizzly said:

    the vast majority of states would still permit abortions.

    Depends on how it is (hypothetically) overturned, if it is by Constitutional amendment then it would negate state law.

18. #218
    On June 5th, 2008 at 1:37 am, emjem24 said:

    Steve456 said:

    I said “women,” not “girls,” sister. I can tell the difference.

    Can you? I highly doubt it. Any rabid abortion supporters will transport anyone across statelines given the appropriate “incentives.” Such is the case with some PP supporters who’ve done just that.

    If my daughter felt she wasn’t ready to raise a child, or didn’t want to, I’d drive her to a clinic myself.

    Again, since there are many permissive parents out there who have no clue what their kids are doing, especially sexually, I don’t find this a surprise. Out of sight, out of mind, right, Steve? No talk of other options, right? Do teenagers know what’s right… or will you talk your daughter into something that may feel “right” at the time but will lead to much regret later on?

    Well, that’s a loaded question. Planned Parenthood provides a useful social service by allowing girls/women who aren’t prepared to raise and love a child the option to delay childbearing until they’re ready to do so. That’s all.

    Abortion= delaying childbearing? How convenient. The new birth control. Yes, I can see that PP, by getting rid of unwanted pregnancies/inconveniences is akin to a “social service.” More like social control. It’s okay, though, in your book, that they also make a tidy profit on the side too. No shame there.

    And I have no use for those who would use the heavy hand of the state to force women to give birth when they manifestly do not wish to do so.

    Are we quite clear?

    I have no use for men like yourself who find unwanted pregnancies to be either burdens, inconveniences, and the like. How is the “state” forcing women to give birth when they give them all the options out there. Let’s see, counseling, pregnancy centers, adoption. No, no, let’s abort the kid because it’s not wanted in the first place.

    Are we clear?

    I think it highly presumptious of you to call me sister, since, I neither have a brother nor would I want to be related with someone who wantonly enjoys the practice of abortion.

    I’ll leave you to your empty black hole of a life, thanks.

19. #219
    On June 5th, 2008 at 1:48 am, alaskangrizzly said:

    Yes. Any law which denies women the autonomy to decide for themselves when to bear children deserves to be broken, and broken proudly.

    Force and violence only become involved if someone tries to stop me via force and violence. I’d rather it not come to that, but individual autonomy is a principle worth fighting for.

    Heh, if that day should ever come enjoy the handcuffs and the state-funded prison cell.

20. #220
    On June 5th, 2008 at 1:52 am, emjem24 said:

    dakine said:

    emjem, my point is that you’re generally overwrought and emotional in almost an unhinged way just about every time you post. The words are different, but you come off like the hysterical lefties you hate so much. And, btw, Steve just kicked your hind parts in his last post.

    Yes, let’s be clinical like you Dakine. Do you know anybody who has ever had an abortion and regreted it? Do you care? Or does empathy for those who will always suffer from the regrets/trauma of an abortion not enter into your world, Dakine?

    No, I don’t think you would know what unhinged and hysterical are given what I feel on a vast range of issues. You have the emotional capacity of a teacup, Dakine, so I’ll take this commentary with a grain of salt.

    You have to have a heart to feel Dakine, and you’ve demonstrated on quite a regular basis how little respect you have for women. Either you’re a man who’s never had a female relative go through this or you’re not even remotely involved. You support abortion from a distance, yet its personal consequences cannot be denied.

    Since you make regular forays to the left, Dakine, you have a long ways to go before you’ll ever be able to consider how any woman in her right mind wouldn’t be “overwrought” and “emotional” about such a personal choice as abortion.

    Oops…then again, uncaring men not touched by abortion yet want it preserved just in case they should someday be troubled with the icky consequences of an accidental pregnancy need not worry. You’ll be there, reminding us all that having a conscience, morals, values, and a respect for life are worthless to unfeeling robots like yourself.

21. #221
    On June 5th, 2008 at 2:21 am, Christian Soldier said:

    A question I ask the pro-abortion aquaintances that I meet:

    What if you were the one that your mother decided was inconvenient and had aborted?

    How would you feel?

22. #222
    On June 5th, 2008 at 2:35 am, Christian Soldier said:

    You’re correct;You would be dead.

23. #223
    On June 5th, 2008 at 2:41 am, emjem24 said:

    Steve456 said:
    I wonder if emjem24 is related somehow to post-abortion “counseling” groups. The tone of her rhetoric is strikingly similar to those who seek to guilt-trip women into believing that they have “murdered” their children.

    Actually, I’m not related to any post-abortion counseling groups. A fetus is still a living “thing,” and aborting it is killing it… not matter how simplistic you make it sound, Steve. So I guess your pro-abortion spiel is not rhetoric, though, right?

    I work for free, and on my own time, sister. I’m afraid I’m not a very good capitalist.

    Spoken like a true, rabid abortion supporter. There are some other people, working with PP, who looked the other way, or fudged the age of the abortion recipient to wrack up another abortion in their tally, don’t really care how old the “woman” is as long as another woman’s “rights” have been protected.

    No man or woman has the right to lead his or her daughter into any decision she does not wish to undertake. You may rest assured that my daughter will be informed of every possible option. I trust her to make the decision with which she is most comfortable.

    I find it really odd how many parents “trust” their teenagers or any decisions they make. As a former secondary teacher, I’ve seen teenagers outright lie to their parents about everything from their grades to where they were a certain day they didn’t make up an exam. There’s also studies out there by developmental pyschologists who say that teenagers lack the maturity to make such choices regarding issues like abortion. Do you also think your daughter is mature enough to have sex too? I’ve found that the same teenagers who lack the commitment to stick out things like their education, don’t batt an eyelash over such deeper things as sex, drugs, or drinking. How well do you know your daughter? Or do you know her at all? Do you ask questions or assume things that may or may not actually be the case? Your take is wishful thinking, that of a permissive/trusting parent, or both.

    You fail to understand. There is no pregnancy I find to be unwanted or burdensome, because it is not my decision to make. Only the woman who must bear the child has the right to decide whether to have the child. The difference between you and me, sister, is that I want to preserve that right, while you so fervently wish to take it away.

    When was abortion a right? Because it was constitutionally supported? Where does it say in the Constitution that women are entitled to an abortion? The practice of abortion should be limited to those women whose lives are in danger. Abortion on demand has become more of a birth control device than a condom or the pill.

    We are all brothers and sisters. Only degrees separate us. If you are a Christian, and I suspect you are, then you must believe that our blood springs from a common source. We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, are we not?

    I may be a Christian but not to the same lackluster, born-again, self-righteous degree as you. I know very few Christians, in my acquaintance, both on this blog, and off, who support abortion. I’m not your sister, you’re not my brother, not in the biblical sense, and definitely not in the biological one. We are all human beings… it’s the shades of humanity or lack thereof that actually separate us, not your assertion of blood ties, Christian heritage, or the like.

24. #224
    On June 5th, 2008 at 5:59 am, Donut44 said:

    Only the woman who must bear the child has the right to decide whether to have the child.

    And this really is the crux of the debate isn’t it?

25. #225
    On June 5th, 2008 at 7:06 am, conservativesRus said:

    By some of the twisted logic I see presented here – if I don’t seem ready or willing to care for those in society not able to take care of themselves (ie welfare people etc), I should be proud to drive them to the executioners.

    Steve456 said so himself.

    Steve456: When you stand before GOD Almighty, I’m quite sure your puny prideful “macho-man” won’t be quite so convincing. Go ahead and hold your fist toward GOD. GOD wins, you lose.
    Thing is, GOD is a loving GOD and has offered a plan to let you win too. Every day though you hold your fist in his face, is a day you are not on the winning team.

26. #226
    On June 5th, 2008 at 8:15 am, martin.musculus said:

    
    #203
    On June 4th, 2008 at 11:48 pm, Steve456 said:
    …
    Before you answer, consider that I sometimes volunteer as an escort (read: bouncer) for medical clinics that perform abortions. And consider that nothing pleases me more then when I get to use reasonable force against demonstrators who attempt to prevent women from accessing these clinics.
    

    Well, I don’t usually protest at clinics. But, Smiley, after reading your bragadoccio[sp?] I found myself wondering: what if it was a group wheelchair-bound people.

    After talking to a few I know, I could put together a group of 7 or 8, more on a weekend.

    Seeing as we have a right to protest your activities, would your “bravery” extend to us.

    There will be at least 1 videocam/protester, (non-protesting spouses…). I’d love to bring a suit against a man who’s “bravery” — like the majority of those on the left — extends to beating up servicemen & women(who’ve been ordered not to stand their ground), hurting pacifistic protesters and killing unborn children. With the right jury, it will cost you a bundle.

    And, if you should “accidently” increase a disability due to your treatment of a protester, we could be looking at a lifetime payout…

    Just wondering… you’ll probably ignore this post, though…

    How’s the weather where you are? What city do you frequent again?

    – martin.musculus

27. #227
    On June 5th, 2008 at 8:18 am, abstractmind said:

    On June 4th, 2008 at 11:48 pm, Steve456 said:

    Other than some of the more interesting posts here, yours seems like you’re just itching for someone to start a fight with you, just so you can say you had a just reason for having to utilize whatever skills you may (or believe) you have…

    I would use the law to deal with you, and that’s basically it. If you break the law, i’ll let the police and the judge deal with you. I wouldnt have to lift a finger.

    But this bravado you run in here with, as if anyone else gives a crap, was more entertaining than anything else, so i’ll give you credit for that. So you’re a “escort”. Grats. I have bouncers for students in the martial arts school I attend (and volunteer as an assistant instructor). They come to learn how to defend themselves and perform their job duties more effectively, not so they can get on someone’s blog and make claims about being tough and how they can beat up republicans (or, for your case, old ladies or quadrapalegics, because they put up the least amount of struggle for you violent types, right?).

    Before you answer, consider that I sometimes volunteer as an escort (read: bouncer) for medical clinics that perform abortions. And consider that nothing pleases me more then when I get to use reasonable force against demonstrators who attempt to prevent women from accessing these clinics. You’d be surprised how easy it is to subdue your sort. I’ll give Eric Rudolph this, at least he wasn’t a wimp.

    And you would be surprised at how many of “your type” I can subdue through nonviolent discourse. Go ahead and keep acting tough. It shows the latent fear that lies beneath the surface.

    And some of us will not be subdued, not nearly as easily as you claim (if at all), in any sense of the word. Read into that what you like. But leave the bravado at the door. It just makes you look foolish.

28. #228
    On June 5th, 2008 at 8:22 am, abstractmind said:

    ROFL, looks like me and martin were right on target with the wheelchair comments, posting at the same times nice shot.

    Rus…do we REALLY have to make this about religion? *sigh* Doing so doesnt really help the discussion.

29. #229
    On June 5th, 2008 at 8:56 am, martin.musculus said:

    
    #233
    On June 5th, 2008 at 8:22 am, abstractmind said:

    Hi, Abstract!, ya, it sure does…

    I’ve delt with Lefty’s of his stripe before… As my wife says: I’ve never been able to resist the compulsion to don my armour, mount my white charger, and tilt at windmills.

    What would worry me is if I was actually damaged, my wife would interveine. She’s dangerous.

    [an ASIDE]
    As people who’ve noticed when I’ve typed abt her before, her job is a USAF surgeon. Her love is full-contact martial-arts. At 4’10″, I once saw her, in a tournement, swarm up a huge 7′-er like he was a tree and bring him down. That was when I decided to limit windmill tilting — you know, for the sake of family harmony

    – martin.musculus

30. #230
    On June 5th, 2008 at 9:02 am, abstractmind said:

    ROFL, very nice!

    its always the little ones you have to watch, i’m telling you! we’ve got a woman in our class that’s 25, sounds about the same as your wife. girl has a left cross that’ll knock the daylights out of you if you’re not careful…not that i…err, ya know, ever got clocked by her in class because I wasn’t paying attention….but yeah LOL.

31. #231
    On June 5th, 2008 at 9:15 am, conservativesRus said:

    Go ahead and be offended at the mention of GOD.
    I was only trying to show how puny macho-man really is.

32. #232
    On June 5th, 2008 at 9:15 am, abstractmind said:

    As Dr. Grant would say, “Life finds a way”…such as this.

    In the interest of being fair, the story has the following:

    “I was on the (birth control pill) when I became pregnant,” Percival, 25, said. “Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible but I couldn’t cope with the anguish of losing another baby.“

    As Barry pointed out before, and on this one i agree…this wouldnt be a time i’d say this was ok. isnt she technically losing another one anyway by doing this?

33. #233
    On June 5th, 2008 at 9:15 am, martin.musculus said:

    Abstract:

    Sounds great! And I’m sure it wasn’t *you* that was clocked!

    I need to go, but I wanted to apologize for not thanking you for your compliment…

    In my own defense, I will say that my “damn macaw”, Simon Bird Sinister was trying to eat my PDA right out of my hand. That was because I’d forgotten to put her brazilnuts in her toy. She’s well aware it annoys me to try to take the PDA out of my hands while I’m working, so the behaviour is simply pay-back.

    I enjoy your posts, and look forward to seeing them again. You’ve been the cause of my AROTFL (Almost Rolling On The Floor Laughing…) — but then, I’ve got a stunted sense of humor..,

    Have to take Sinister in for his “well bird” checkup. If we’re, we’ll have to wait all day for a “sandwich-in” appt.

    Cheery-bye

    – martin.musculus

34. #234
    On June 5th, 2008 at 9:17 am, abstractmind said:

    On June 5th, 2008 at 9:15 am, conservativesRus said:

    I didn’t claim offense. Had i said i was offended, i’d have just come out and said that directly. I just said it wasnt really helping the discussion, and wasnt the topic, that’s all.

    Macho man there is showing how puny he is with his own statements…we just happen to have the ability to point it out

35. #235
    On June 5th, 2008 at 9:19 am, abstractmind said:

    martin,

    Of course not, it wasnt me! It was the one armed man! It’s not like i was checking her out while we were training and i let my guard down…it was all him LOL!

    A bird named Sinister…i LOVE it!

    glad i can make someone’s day a bit brighter…take care, chat at ya soon!

36. #236
    On June 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am, Rusty said:

    If only heterosexual men are allowed to be Scoutmasters, the problem is obviated, whether it is predatory homosexual men or heterosexual women.

    Um, heterosexual men can be pedophiles too. Pedophiles pray on whomever is easiest to prey on. That’s why heterosexuality and homosexuality have nothing to do with it.

    And, Steve, don’t worry about transporting minors across state lines. In 1986 the Mann Act was amended to bar “any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.” So, prostitution and statutory rape. So you’re in the clear!

    If abortion were outlawed in my home jurisdictions of DC and MA (not bloody likely), I would also offer to take people across state lines to a friendlier jurisdiction to obtain an abortion.

    My grandparents made the same offer to my mother back in the early-70s when abortion was illegal in MA and I would do the same.

37. #237
    On June 5th, 2008 at 10:09 am, abstractmind said:

    And, Steve, don’t worry about transporting minors across state lines. In 1986 the Mann Act was amended to bar “any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.” So, prostitution and statutory rape. So you’re in the clear!

    That’s sad, Rusty, even for you sir.

38. #238
    On June 5th, 2008 at 10:17 am, alaskangrizzly said:

    I don’t put anything past DP anymore, if I heard he was the next Lee Malvo it would not shock me anymore.

39. #239
    On June 5th, 2008 at 10:38 am, alaskangrizzly said:

    On a much better note, and I think someone already mentioned this news article, there was much to rejoice about in the news today due to this miracle.

    Baby Miraculously Survives Abortion, Expected to Live ‘Normal’ Life

    but doctors told the couple the baby was likely to survive, so they decided he deserved another chance at life.

    In November, Finley was born three weeks premature. He had minor kidney damage but is expected to lead a normal life.

    You survived against all odds from your attempted murder. I hope you have a wonderful life Finley. God Bless.

40. #240
    On June 5th, 2008 at 11:24 am, SHoward said:

    And, Steve, don’t worry about transporting minors across state lines. In 1986 the Mann Act was amended to bar “any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.” So, prostitution and statutory rape. So you’re in the clear!
    That’s sad, Rusty, even for you sir.

    Actually, that sounds a bit like sarcasm to me. Rusty, I didn’t know you had it in ya.

    Now for Steve456,

    I understand your position, and I sure hope your not one of those keyboard warriors. The thing is, your original post did sound a bit arrogant in that vein.

    But come on, man, Pain is just weakness leaving th body? I’ve heard that drivel for years and could probably come up with a dozen slogans just like it that sound equally tough but mean equally nothing.

    The crux of the debate from your perspective is you believe abortion is purely a choice for the expectant mother and no one else. Apparently, if the state outlaws abortion you are willing to break said law and help her acquire one anyway.

    Firstly, the choice is in having sex, and it is one both parties usually make. What about the responsibility the man has in the equation? What about the fact that pregnancy is a consequence of a choice, not the choice itself?

    In the legal aspect, are you saying you are willing to excercise force against a law enforcement officer who is doing his job? You would be the one restrained and subdued in that case, my friend. I hope your skills are up to it.

    I must say that I share your sense of doing what’s right even if the state is doing what’s wrong, but this issue is not one I would stand my ground over given the dubious moral character of terminating a pregnancy for convenience sake.

41. #241
    On June 5th, 2008 at 11:29 am, atheling said:

    And Steve, in all his machismo, would have helped to kill that baby.

    What a “man”.

    Steve, you’re the lowest of the low. I’ve known puppies braver than you.

42. #242
    On June 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am, jim m said:

    Steve, I think you’re a hero. These people think that it’s appropriate and legal to block clinics. It’s not under federal law. They are not merely peacefully protesting.

    For those of you who think a jury will support you, remember that usually it takes a unanimous verdict in criminal trials and a majority in civil trials (most cases are settled before trial, though). In a matter as divisive as abortion in the US, most DAs won’t want to take criminal cases to trial because they know that they’ll be at least several people who’ll vote for acquital.

43. #243
    On June 5th, 2008 at 12:10 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

    These people think that it’s appropriate and legal to block clinics. It’s not under federal law. They are not merely peacefully protesting.

    I think Pharisee Jim is confusing Code Pink with pro-life protestors. When was the last abortion clinic bombing again? What percentage of the millions who protested abortion clinics over the last several decades have ever been violent and been arrested? Oh wait, you mean it’s less than .00001% of the protestors? Golly gee Mr. Pharisee Jim, that is a whole lot of violence going on.

    In the day and age of the video camera on every cell phone it is more than easy enough to see when people are peacefully protesting and when they are breaking the law by actually impeding entrance to a clinic (or military recruitment center in the case of Code Pink, that actually did break the law to no consequence I might add). Just as it is easy to see (via video evidence) if people like Steve step over the line from veiled threats to actually assaulting a protestor who is just protesting peacefully.

44. #244
    On June 5th, 2008 at 12:12 pm, Rusty said:

    Actually, Jim M, that’s a great point. Abortion will always be legal in some states since a Constitutional amendment will never, ever happen. The best bet for pro-lifers is overturning Roe and going on a state-by-state basis.

    Bit it would remain completely legal for people like Steve to drive people across can’t be legally prevented.state lines to a pro-choice state. That can’t be prevented because the Supreme Court has ruled that there’s a Constitutional right to freedom of movement between states.

    And even in cases that went to trial in pro-life states, jury nullification would be the elephant in the room. There are so many people who are passionately pro-choice, many jury trials would end up hung.

    There is no legal way to end abortion. The the pro-life movement can do is change hearts and minds. And that won’t happen as long as people are spreading lies about abortion causing breast cancer and other such nonsense.

45. #245
    On June 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm, Rusty said:

    AK, you won’t get any argument about the illegality of some of Code Pink’s protests from me. Blocking recruitment centers is terrible.

46. #246
    On June 5th, 2008 at 2:10 pm, abstractmind said:

    On June 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am, jim m said:
    Steve, I think you’re a hero. These people think that it’s appropriate and legal to block clinics. It’s not under federal law. They are not merely peacefully protesting.

    I would just say, be careful who you lump into a group as “these people”. I’m all for peaceful demonstrations. Blocking the doors and being an @$$hat…not so much. Just saying.

    On June 5th, 2008 at 11:24 am, SHoward said:

    Based on his normal stance here, i dont believe he’s being sarcastic. I could be wrong. And the “Pain is weakness leaving the body” comment…yeah, thats on the billboard in Smyrna, TN (i think, its down that direction i believe, or was about 4 weeks ago when i was there) as an advertisement for the Marine Corp. So i dont give his little quip about that any more credence than i would any other billboard i’ve ever read.

47. #247
    On June 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm, atheling said:

    So, Steve…

    In your spare time, when you’re not helping women kill their babies, do you drown kittens for those who are too squeamish to do so?

48. #248
    On June 5th, 2008 at 4:53 pm, Rusty said:

    Also, a reminder from our good friends at the Gray Lady about what’s at stake here.

    (h/t my girlfriend)

49. #249
    On June 5th, 2008 at 5:59 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

    I’m sure little Finley is glad he is alive today, maybe when he is a little older we can send him the news link to what his mother attempted to do and then send him a link here to see how the people reacted in the defense of his life and those who wished he had died the first time the abortionists tried.

50. #250
    On June 5th, 2008 at 9:00 pm, Dimsdale said:

    On June 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am, Rusty said:

    If only heterosexual men are allowed to be Scoutmasters, the problem is obviated, whether it is predatory homosexual men or heterosexual women.

    Um, heterosexual men can be pedophiles too. Pedophiles pray on whomever is easiest to prey on. That’s why heterosexuality and homosexuality have nothing to do with it.

    There is just one fatal flaw in your argument: heterosexual men do not find men or boys sexually attractive. It is basic to the definition. Sure, heterosexual men can be pedophiles. To girls. That is why I would recommend against men being girl scoutmasters. Most men are not pedophiles, but you are erring on the side of caution. Yes, feelings will be hurt, but the onus of protection must go to the children.

    Is this really such a difficult concept?

51. #251
    On June 5th, 2008 at 9:13 pm, Dimsdale said:

    On June 5th, 2008 at 1:46 am, Steve456 said:

    (snip)

    Yes. Any law which denies women the autonomy to decide for themselves when to bear children deserves to be broken, and broken proudly.

    Just for the record: the autonomy to decide when to bear children is a different concept from terminating a pregnancy that has already occurred.

    As such, you have hit the crux of most disagreements about abortion: its use as a birth control method vs. a remedy for rape, incest and the health of the mother.

52. #252
    On June 6th, 2008 at 12:54 am, Rusty said:

    heterosexual men do not find men or boys sexually attractive. It is basic to the definition. Sure, heterosexual men can be pedophiles. To girls.

    Oh, you poor thing. You have no idea what pedophilia is. Heterosexual pedophiles prey upon both boys and girls. The attraction isn’t the gender, it’s the age. It’s the vulnerability. It’s attacking the person most avilable to them.

    Your implication is that heterosexual women can’t be good Scoutmasters because they’d be too tempted to attack young men. This is ridiiculous.

53. #253
    On June 6th, 2008 at 10:22 am, Dimsdale said:

    On June 6th, 2008 at 12:54 am, Rusty said:

    heterosexual men do not find men or boys sexually attractive. It is basic to the definition. Sure, heterosexual men can be pedophiles. To girls.

    Oh, you poor thing. You have no idea what pedophilia is. Heterosexual pedophiles prey upon both boys and girls. The attraction isn’t the gender, it’s the age. It’s the vulnerability. It’s attacking the person most avilable to them.

    Your implication is that heterosexual women can’t be good Scoutmasters because they’d be too tempted to attack young men. This is ridiiculous.

    Well, “poor thing” notwithstanding, either you are misrepresenting what I have said or I have not communicated it effectively.

    My statement from post #213:

    Sorry to hear that. I again cite the example of the Catholic priests. Your statement is specious: some homosexuals are absolutely and demonstrably pedophiles (see priests again) and would naturally gravitate to positions where they would have access to young boys. They may be pedophiles, but they aren’t stupid. (your statement, “homosexuals are not pedophiles is an absolute which rarely applies in life and never in biology).

    I think I can safely stand by that statement, but if, as you say, there is absolutely no sexual preference by pedophiles, then I stand partially corrected. I guess that is proof that I am not one, and don’t understand it. Instruct me then: is there a difference between infantophiles (say the 0 to 10 year group) and older minors? Is it not at all possible that heterosexuals and homosexuals of that bent will have a preference (when there is one to be seen)? I completely believe it is possible, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Wouldn’t calling them hetero- or homosexual be incorrect then? For the record, I have never said, nor do I believe, that all homosexuals are pedophiles or child molesters any more than heterosexual males. But similarly, they are not going to be any less, and your argument that there is no sexual orientation to pedophilia supports that.

    Will you agree that there may be a difference between infantophiles and the pedophiles that prey on pubescent and prepubescent minors (hebephiles)?

    Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

    I am talking about minor teens in my cases and their potential abuse. In this case, could it not be possible that an otherwise innocent touch or a look could be misconstrued by a teen if made by a person of the opposite sex or sexual orientation? Could this not open a private organization such as the Boy Scouts to litigation in either direction? We’ve seen what happened in the Catholic church as a result of their lax monitoring. Have we seen similar problems with the more stringent Boy Scouts?

    Most importantly, you have not addressed my primary point that these onmisexual hebephiles (my term) will be attracted to venues, i.e. churches, Boy and Girl Scouts etc., and as such, need special protections (the means, motive, and opportunity argument). That is where you must look for, or look out for, them. The odds will be highest It is the same reason the courts do not allow child molesters to live near schools etc. Some might suggest that a parent of a scout, pressed into service as a Scoutmaster (most are, trust me) is considerably less suspect than an individual (of any sexual orientation) coming out of the blue. You can’t be politically correct here. Not when the safety of children is at risk. Scan, scrutinize and monitor every candidate.

    And it was YOUR implication that women couldn’t be good Scoutmasters, with your story of that woman in Bourne. I never brought up women, except in answer to your example, as they make up an extremely small proportion of pedophiles, and as such, are almost irrelevant.

    So what is your solution? Just let anyone apply for jobs with children and hope for the best? Let them have free access and sort it out later? Can we be proactive at all, or is it discriminatory?

    Maybe we can have everything done in committees of four, composed of a heterosexual male, a heterosexual women and a gay and a lesbian.

54. #254
    On June 6th, 2008 at 10:48 am, Rusty said:

    Haha. I like that suggestion.

    I think women are great Scoutmasters. My mom’s work in the Boy Scouts was great. I’m just saying that there are going to be bad apples in any gender or sexual preference and since Boy Scouts (and the Church for that matter) offer so much opportunity that there may always be a problem.

    Banning a sexual orientation isn’t going to cut it.

    If I have a daughter active in Girl Scouts, I am absolutely going to volunteer my time to her hobby. My status as a straight dude shouldn’t be an issue.

55. #255
    On June 6th, 2008 at 10:51 am, Rusty said:

    And I’m sorry for the glib “you poor thing” remark. It was annoying.

    I get into a lot of debates about homosexuality here and not everyone is as reasonable as you. I assumes and made a jerk of myself.

    So, my apologies.

56. #256
    On June 6th, 2008 at 11:29 am, Dimsdale said:

    Accepted! It is easy to do. No offense taken.

    I am glad we were able to sort out the confusion. One advantage I have is that as a scientist, I must be open to new data. One is never too old to learn.

    I think it all comes down to semantics, and a basic understanding that the problem of pedophilia is not limited to hetero- or homosexuals. Obviously, I agree that these types of organizations will provide opportunities for these predators, and special filtering must be employed to keep them out. Nothing is perfect though.

    And your daughter will be much better served by having you as a Scoutmaster than some stranger, on many different levels, as will the rest of her troop. No doubt I will be doing likewise for my daughter.