Say Anything Blog

Just what we need, more Mississippians.

Jeez you can be a condescending wiener sometimes.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Well, the dictionary says it’s slang for penis.  The “weiner” spelling is wrong, looks like that’s just how some people spell the last name.

I wasn’t sure when I typed it, so I looked it up.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

http://www.getthepill.com/

LOL! You said weiner!

Well, technically I said “wiener,” but yeah.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Well, technically I said “wiener,” but yeah.

Isn’t that the Republic that Hitler supplanted?

LOL!  You said weiner!

Breakin’ my balls, Larry.  I’m like the aborted fetuses, I wasn’t born yesterday.

[...] Mississippi Rejects Abortion Culture By Rob on November 7, 2005 at 11:57 pm [...]

BTW, our baby is beautiful and six months old now.  My wife is healthy again (finally) and net of all of it is that we have three awesome kids, so we are blessed.  But a routine proceedure is never routine and all of the young girls dying of complications from RU-482 or from abortions is something Planned Parenthood sure doesn’t talk about.

Funny, the Dems talk about making Abortion “safe, legal, and rare” and it appears that in Mississippi it is all three.  If there was a huge demand for abortion services, surely some enterprising OBGYNs would be setting up clinics left and right.

My wife recently had a baby and had some post-partum complications that forced her to have a D&C, which is an abortion.  Instead of scraping our child off the wall of her uterus, it was merely placenta that got left behind.  Long story short, the D&C ***DOES HAVE MAJOR RISKS OF COMPLICATIONS*** and in my wife’s case, the surgeon punctured her uterus and they had to do a hysterectomy.

Moral of the story is I was at her side before the D&C and through the recovery.  Imagine if it was my 13 year old daughter getting the proceedure without my knowledge or consent.  Or my wife getting an abortion without telling me.  The net of the medical proceedure for us is my wife will never have children again.  Surely a decision that brings this level of risk should be regulated and parents should be required to consent for a minor to have it done.  The D&C would have cost several hundred dollars, but a 4 day hospital stay, plus meds, plus everything else cost our insurance almost $100,000.  And if my 13 year old daughter gets an abortion and has complications, mommy and daddy get to pay the bill.

Question to those who support “parental consent” for minors seeking an abortion: How would you feel if the situation were reversed--that is, what if the 14-year old wanted to have the pregnancy, but the parents wanted the abortion? Which side wins?

All depends on the state your in and the language of the law, Dave…

But I’d have a hard time imagining grandparents being able to force their daughter to go through with an abortion if she doesn’t want it, legally that is…

Well, no.  Baby’s body, nobody’s “choice”.  Not the parent, and CERTAINLY not the grandparents, see?

But I’d have a hard time imagining grandparents being able to force their daughter to go through with an abortion if she doesn’t want it, legally that is…

Her body, her choice?

Rob, thanks for posting about this. I hope more states will follow Mississippi’s example in this regard. If we’re going to leave abortion as a legal procedure, we should at least discourage it as they have done.

Question to those who support “parental consent” for minors seeking an abortion: How would you feel if the situation were reversed–that is, what if the 14-year old wanted to have the pregnancy, but the parents wanted the abortion? Which side wins?

I tend to think that no doctor would perform a medical proceedure in a situation such as this.  Parental Consent to have an abortion is different from “Parents can force their kids to have an abortion”.  What if a husband wants his wife to have an abortion?  Who wins?

What was your point of throwing out a misleading hypothetical situation?  Is the idea that a 14 year old’s mom and dad may want her to have an abortion and she wouldn’t the reasoning behind why you don’t support parental consent?  If it is, that is really sad for you and your logical capabilities.

have closed. The last abortion clinic, in Jackson, is difficult to access for women outside the capital who do not own a car, who have limited funds for gas or who cannot easily take time off from work or child care responsibilities. As Rob over at sayanythingblog.com rightly points out-- it is obvious that the people of this state do not want abortion, and yet it is (now just in theory) forced on them.  If this isn’t more of an indication that Row vs. Wade should be overturned, I don’t know what is.

What if a husband wants his wife to have an abortion? Who wins?

The wife, because it’s “her body, her choice"… of course, I’m pro-choice. How do pro-lifers deal with that? And will any others tackle the original hypothetical?

Dave said “The wife, because it’s “her body, her choice”… of course, I’m pro-choice. How do pro-lifers deal with that? And will any others tackle the original hypothetical?”

Pro-lifers don’t have to deal with those abortion decisions because a true pro-lifer would never consider an abortion unless there is a life threatening situation for the wife.
To a pro-lifer, abortion under any other consideration is the same as murder.

Several people have addressed your hype Dave, do you have a point to make?

This is a phony question.  The real question is whether the state can usurp the role of parent by facilitating secrecy in the matter of teen pregnancy.  It’s not about parents being able to force a child to have an abortion if she doesn’t want one.  That isn’t even a part of the legislation.  It’s about the responsibility to inform the parents.

Question to those who support “parental consent” for minors seeking an abortion: How would you feel if the situation were reversed–that is, what if the 14-year old wanted to have the pregnancy, but the parents wanted the abortion? Which side wins?

In our current legal environment I have no idea.  This question had actually occurred to me when I wrote the original post.  It would depend on the specific state and the laws applicable therein.  I would hope that the judge would rule according to a strict interpretation of whatever those laws are.

If I had my way, an abortion would even be an option.  Rather, the girl would have her child and, if she didn’t want it, give it up for adoption to one of the many, many couples in this country who are looking for a child.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

And Robert hits the nail on the head.  How do you argue that 14 year olds should be able to terminate a pregnancy without their parent’s consent?  You throw out all kinds of BS that masks your true argument--that the state knows better than parents as to what kids should and shouldn’t do.

My kids can’t take an aspirin at school without my consent and they can’t go and get a drivers license without me signing the forms.  I think the right to drive is more of a right than the right to murder.  My kids can’t sign up for the Army without my consent either.

If you are so pro-choice and 14 year olds should be able to “choose for themselves”, then let them sign up for the military and get drivers licenses without my consent too.  If 14 is old enough to get an abortion, why do we have to protect kids from alcohol until they turn 21?  Why can’t they vote until they are 18.  Why can’t my 14 year old drive, but she can get an abortion without telling mom or dad. 

Because cars and alcohol and voting and the Army hurt people, but abortions are harmless.  Or telling mom and dad you got pregnant might “ruin your life”.  Makes me want to vote for Pelosi or Boxer or Schumer or Kennedy.

My kids can’t take an aspirin at school without my consent and they can’t go and get a drivers license without me signing the forms.

Hell, your kids can’t even get their freaking ears pierced without your permission.

Some of us weep at the lowering value of life in this culture. Others mindlessly chant “pro-choice” while shrugging off the fact that there is no choice for the lives who are selfishly terminated.

Justin B said “but abortions are harmless.” An abortion is a medical procedure which can damage the ‘mother’ both physically and mentally.  Of course, the yet ‘unborn person’ is killed.  The only person that is not harmed an abortion is the physician performing the abortion.

An abortion is a medical procedure which can damage the ‘mother’ both physically and mentally.

Yep, and it’s a procedure that the woman can choose to undergo or not.

If we’re going to leave abortion as a legal procedure, we should at least discourage it as they have done.

But not put unnecesary roadblocks for women who decide to have the procedure.  MS has implemented so many irrelevant regulations, such as the defining the width of the hallways, that it places an undue burden on those seeking an abortion.

Yep, and it’s a procedure that the woman can choose to undergo or not.

Yes. Whether or not to commit murder is always a choice. That fact is kind of a moot point though because it is so obvious.

But not put unnecesary roadblocks for women who decide to have the procedure.

Define “unnecesary”.

MS has implemented so many irrelevant regulations, such as the defining the width of the hallways, that it places an undue burden on those seeking an abortion.

Well imagine that! A liberal who believes that there are too many regulations. I do think we have witnessed a breakthrough of some sort here folks.

likwid wrote:

Some of us weep at the lowering value of life in this culture.

Dave said, What values– that I hate the pointless loss of life?

Don’t bullshit me. You support abortion and euthanasia.

That I’m not a speciesist? Yeah, you’re right.

You believe that the value of a human life is equivalent to an animal life? Wow. I don’t believe you are not a “speciesist” though. You wouldn’t think of eating an “innocent” animal to support your own life, but you think nothing of endorsing abortion and euthanasia for humans. So don’t run that hypocritical jive past me.

But why? Why do you deplore the death of some lives but not others?

I’m sorry Dave. You have to be a normal human being to understand my position. As such, I will not try to explain it to lower life forms such as yourself.

One final question “Dave”; are you really Peter Singer, the professor of “bioethics” at the don’t-call-it-a-liberal-college of Princeton who is quick to deride people who don’t buy into “specisim” while at the same time promoting his view of euthanasia up to age twelve?

Tell me about it.

I was speaking of human life Dave. Not animals.

Your comment tells me a lot about your values.

Your comment tells me a lot about your values.

What values-- that I hate the pointless loss of life? That I’m not a speciesist? Yeah, you’re right.

I think we should all live in a way that involves the least amount of suffering. The people in that thread supported killing animals to piss off vegetarians.

I was speaking of human life Dave. Not animals.

But why? Why do you deplore the death of some lives but not others?

You seriously compared the taking of a human life with that of an animal.  I guess that makes sense when the left can make the analogy of Bush=Hitler.  Using your analogy a the Holocaust is on par with a chicken farm for KFC.  They are morally equivalent.  Saddam’s mass graves are equivalent of a cattle slaughterhouse.

So if we are going to invade Germany or Iraq, how can we not invade every US state that has a slaughterhouse or meat processing plant.  Auschwitz is no worse than what KFC does UNLESS YOU ARE A SPECIEST.

You may be equivalent in brain power and reasoning to a chimp, but that is your problem.  I happen to think that humans are inherently superior to every other animal on the planet and that our lives mean more.  Until you tell me that you grieve over your pet gerbil that died the same way that I grieve over a dead grandmother or grandfather since all life is equivalent, F YOU DAVE!

You can’t explain it, can you?

Explain what? That human beings are more important than animals? You need an explanation of that position?

Sorry, I won’t even try. It is self-evident and not worth my time. I will give you a small tid-bit since you are quite lost on this issue: self preservation of your own species.

All you can do is throw insults at me on unrelated issues.

Insults? What “unrelated issues”?

There’s nothing hypocritical about it. Every action I do and every belief I hold inolves the lowest total amount of suffering.

What does that have to do with my denunciation of your “I’m not a speciesist” claim?

Nothing.

What does that have to do with my denunciation of your “I’m not a speciesist” claim?

Nothing.

I take that back. I don’t agree with your demented logic Dave, but I understand your point.

I’m sorry Dave. You have to be a normal human being to understand my position. As such, I will not try to explain it to lower life forms such as yourself.

You can’t explain it, can you? All you can do is throw insults at me on unrelated issues.

You wouldn’t think of eating an “innocent” animal to support your own life, but you think nothing of endorsing abortion and euthanasia for humans. So don’t run that hypocritical jive past me.

There’s nothing hypocritical about it. Every action I do and every belief I hold inolves the lowest total amount of suffering.

Justin wrote:

You seriously compared the taking of a human life with that of an animal.

When gorillas die, they feel pain--their survivors mourn their deaths. The death of an animal is a tragedy, and we should do everything possible to prevent it from happening. Do you disagree with this?

I happen to think that humans are inherently superior to every other animal on the planet and that our lives mean more.

So that alone gives us permission to kill the “lower species”? Just because we’re “superior” to them? That line of thinking makes no sense. If I had absolutely no taste, I’d throw out a Holocaust reference right now.

Suppose, very hypothetically, that tomorrow a group of extra-terrestrial beings landed on earth tomorrow, beings who are thousands of times more superior than humans due to a faster rate of evolution. According to your logic, they are morally justified to, as it were, kill all humans because they’re “superior” to us?

likwid wrote:

Insults? What “unrelated issues”?

So that alone gives us permission to kill the “lower species”?

I’m looking, but I don’t see where Justin B said that.

That line of thinking makes no sense. If I had absolutely no taste, I’d throw out a Holocaust reference right now.

You just did.

Suppose, very hypothetically, that tomorrow a group of extra-terrestrial beings landed on earth tomorrow, beings who are thousands of times more superior than humans due to a faster rate of evolution. According to your logic, they are morally justified to, as it were, kill all humans because they’re “superior” to us?

Again: I don’t see where Justin B said anything like that.

Friends, what you see from Dave’s rhetoric is relativism, the idea that nothing is better than anything else e.g. the human is at a par with the chipmunk, fire ant or gorilla.  Relativism also has a problem with good and evil believing that it’s totally up to each individual to determine what is best for it.  For my part, I believe that God has given mankind dominion over the world and all the other species of the world.  Granted man has often abused that privilege but it exists nevertheless.  God also expects mankind to be good stewarts using the worlds resources wisely.  As far as good and evil, a society cannot long endure with strict rules of conduct, why God created the 10 commandments.  As far as abortion and euthanasia, the commandment ‘Thou shall not kill’ says it all to me.

When gorillas die, they feel pain–their survivors mourn their deaths. The death of an animal is a tragedy, and we should do everything possible to prevent it from happening. Do you disagree with this?

Dave, listening to you attempt to argue that we should try to do everything to prevent the death of gorillas would be laughable if it weren’t so disturbing, coming from you who wouldn’t be opposed to the murder of 12 year olds...

You have absolutely no standing to condemn death, Dave, while you hold that view. None, absolutely none…

Friends, what you see from Dave’s rhetoric is relativism, the idea that nothing is better than anything else e.g. the human is at a par with the chipmunk, fire ant or gorilla. Relativism also has a problem with good and evil believing that it’s totally up to each individual to determine what is best for it.

Like the distortion of the term “multiculturalism”, this is a simplistic distortion of “relativism.” Might fit on a bumper sticker, but not accurate.

docdave wrote:

Friends, what you see from Dave’s rhetoric is relativism, the idea that nothing is better than anything else e.g. the human is at a par with the chipmunk, fire ant or gorilla.

That’s not anything close to relativism. Take a philosophy class sometime.

Sphagnum wrote:

Dave, listening to you attempt to argue that we should try to do everything to prevent the death of gorillas would be laughable if it weren’t so disturbing, coming from you who wouldn’t be opposed to the murder of 12 year olds…

You have absolutely no standing to condemn death, Dave, while you hold that view. None, absolutely none…

Or perhaps it is you, who participates in the unnecessary killing of 10 billion animals a year because “it tastes good”, who has no standing to condemn my views on killing.

Point blank: Do you regard the slaughter of animals as an act of violence?

On a technical note, I should point out that opposing speciesism does not carry with it the implication, direct or otherwise, that all animals (or even plants!) are equal, morally or otherwise.

And btw, what if I were to say that my lack of hamburgers causes me suffering? That cow dying provides months and months of me not suffereing by enjoying hamburgers, steaks, ribs… Would that be ok by you?

No, because nearly every human on earth has the ability so survive without consuming meat. If you were trapped on a deserted island I wouldn’t have a problem if you ate some fish--but that’s not the situation here. You’re saying it’s okay to kill animals because they taste slightly better than vegetables. That’s beyond barbaric.

Nothing, unless you are so dense as to believe that we are only different from cows in shape and smell…

And btw, what if I were to say that my lack of hamburgers causes me suffering?  That cow dying provides months and months of me not suffereing by enjoying hamburgers, steaks, ribs… Would that be ok by you?

Dave, you are sick… You attempt to compare my liking of hamburgers to your killing of children and the disabled.  What does the death of a cow have to do with the death of a child?  Nothing, unless you are so dense as to believe that we are only different from cows in shape and smell…

And what about the poor, suffering plants that we are supposed to eat?

Dave, you’re an idiot.  You feel so enlightened by advocating the legalization of murder (so long as the child is under 12, I’m sure that makes a huge difference) while at the same time you lecture me about eating animals.  If you don’t see the obvious problem with that logic....

Dave:  Have you read “The Secret Life of Plants”?  Plants feel pain, and even scream inaudibly when harvested.  What are you going to eat now?

Dave:  So, you are insensitive to the feelings of poor vegetables?  How callous you are!  I slaughter animals and vegetables equally, but only if they are tasty.  Lots of sauce, butter, salt and pepper are also good. I’m a big, strong guy because I ate my animals and vegetables growing up.  How about you?

So that’s how you absolve yourself from responsibility, Robert? With lunacy?

Grow up, young man. Look in the mirror and say “I slaughter animals because they taste better than vegetables” and stop this charade.

Grow up, young man.

HAHAHAHA!!! This has got to be one of the STUPIDEST things I have ever heard you say, being rather young and in need of “growing up” yourself....

robert108 wrote

Have you read “The Secret Life of Plants”? Plants feel pain, and even scream inaudibly when harvested. What are you going to eat now?

I guess I’ll just have to starve to death.

Wait a sec. If all humans starve to death, that will dramatically increase the level of suffering in the world. So humans need some kind of food to survive… what should they have?

Animals possess a nervous system; plants do not. On the surface, even if we accepted the claims of that silly book, if we had to choose one thing to eat, we should choose the thing that suffers the least. Due to their lack of a nervous system, that would be plants--that is, vegetables. So vegetarianism wins here.

That’s not good enough? Then let’s see what would happen if we kept eating meat....

Cows need vegetables--plants--to survive. So, if both plants and animals feel pain, would it make any sense to feed vegetables to cows (so THEY get protein) and then kill the cows (so WE get protein)? Why not just skip the middle man, and eat the vegetables ourselves? Especially when meat is such an ineffecient way of obtaining protein (to wit, for every ten units of protein we feed cows, we get ONE unit of protein back--so we’d be killing ten times as many plants, plants who can “feel pain” and everything! And for what? Nothing!)

So, even if the claims in that book WERE true (they’re not), a vegetarian diet would STILL cause, by far, the least suffering.

If all humans starve to death, that will dramatically increase the level of suffering in the world

Actually, death ends suffering so how can it be considered a negative.  If you were dead you wouldn’t have to worry and suffer about all this stuff.

This is a terrible conversation. I think it’s sick that Dave’s so outgoing for the murder of innocent babies. Given everything equal in court children generally children get to go with the mother, so if your going to use that argument, according to Dave’s beliefs, the mother should have the right to murder her children whenever she pleases, your saying the difference is that the heart is beating inside her? Why do you think people that kill Pregnanat mother’s generally get stuck for double murder, because we as human beings generally “care” about one another. What if you found out that your girlfriends mother was raped, and she decided to have her child. Should she have had the right to kill your girlfriend, should she still have the right to KILL your girlfriend? What if Mary feared that she was raped since she suddenly became pregnant, should Jesus been murdered? You should be ashamed of yourself Dave.

d.narloch

You can only kill a women that has been raped if you’re a Moslem man, well at least if you’re the father.  That’s called a honor killing presumably because this brings dishonor on the family.  However, the woman can still be stoned because of sex outside of marriage even when she is raped.  Ironically, it’s also okay to rape women if you’re a Moslem man.

you all disgust me. that you would oppose the right to choice and you call yourselves americans.

what ever happened to "the land of the free"?

RIP USA.

may you have countless babies and have nothing to support them with but empty calories and processed food that causes you all to be obese and sterile.

RIP USA. you dig your own grave.

you should have the right to lead your own life as you see fit. how dare you dicate others. take responsibilty for your own life, lead by the example you want to set, i will commend you for it, but you have no right to tell me what i can and cannot do with my life.

Good God you guys talk too much! But going way back to the question with the 14 year old who wants no abortion and the parents who do, consider this...The parents say “Have an abortion or leave home”. how is a 14 year old going to manage on her own? she has a choice, but if she plans to have the child her survival chances, or at least chances of living outside poverty levels, are slim to none. Most 14 year old girls cannot mentally handle raising a child even with the support of their parents. Without that support would be even more difficult.

To the lady above…

Wow.. your an abortion loving children hating woman if I’ve ever seen one! It’s funny that you say “but you have no right to tell me what i can and cannot do with my life.” when really that’s just a sugar coated way of saying.. you have no right to tell me weither or not I can kill me child. Funny how even though you support abortion so much you still can’t even say what you really mean.. because it’s too ugly!

I’m talking about “Irene” on March 15th.