kwall

the point is screw MM but the Republicans have done this shit for years and about 1000 more times than the Dems but somehow when a Dem does it you post some crap right wing site and we all hear about it. BOO HOO!!

i didn't post it. i just responded to it. just as you did.

Yeah, that

The minute I saw this on Olbermann I knew that every Republican without a sense of humor would be all over this.

it's fricking hilarious, but not because it was a good joke. i'm laughing because i love to see the libs continuing this notion that god is a democrat and that he has blessed us with obama. awesome.

This is bad but when the preacher says Katrina was a payback for all the homosexuals, that makes sense.

no, that doesn't make sense.

We entered college during the Clinton administration with promises of butterflies and daffodil fields.

you libs are always falling for the promises of butterflies and daffodil fields.

Every Friday a group of antique men gather to harass anyone going in to Planned Parenthood in my town. I've asked them if they personally were willing to adopt adopt my unborn child. No takers.

i love this argument. if someone is trying to convince you to take responsibility for your actions, then they have to be willing to do it FOR you in order to be considered valid.

How about this. A couple agrees to engage in potentially baby-making activities. Baby making indeed takes place. She doesn't want it.

i'm as big a fan of potentially baby-making activities as anyone, but you have to accept the fact that it is indeed potentially baby-making. this is where your choice is made. you may not want it, but you got it - as a result of your choice. now, you want to be absolved of the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of your choice. that's not a persuasive argument for me.

He does. So, assuming she's extraordinarily altruistic and decides to carry it to term, go through labor, recovery, etc. she gives said baby to him, washes her hands of it. On top of it being a highly unlikely scenario, how likely is it that a dude will be willing to raise an infant entirely by himself? Hard for me to imagine a guy willing to make the sacrifices necessary to handle the 24/7 relentless parenting of an infant. Women do it all the time of course, but I personally don't know of a single case where a guy has done it.

yes, i know, there are millions of irresponsible, selfish guys out there.

No government is going to tell me I have to have a baby.

before roe v. wade, the government didn't tell you you had to have a baby. it told you that once you had it, you weren't allowed to kill it.

i know, i know - by "have", you mean, give birth. you don't want any government to tell you to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions. again, not persuasive for me.

Obama on Immigration? Whatcha think?

i'm not familiar with his position on immigration. can you educate me?

... this very personal choice should be up to the individual and not legislated by any level or branch of government, period.

legislated doesn't necessarily mean outlawed. it may mean legalized. it's the legislature's job to decide what is legal and what isn't.

currently, it has been "legislated" by the judicial branch of government. so i guess we agree there. it shouldn't be.

If you don't want one, don't have one, and if you don't want to listen to Wilco, don't, as I always tell my father-in-law, who at 70+ is hip and a helleva skier, but who hates Wilco .

hating wilco is unconstitutional.

uh, i made no such ridiculous claim. quite the opposite. read it again.

oh, i see. i'm sorry i misread you. you're right.

whether a fetus is a baby and whether "killling" is the honest term is something you and i will never agree on.

i'll hold out hope that someday you'll agree with me.

no, the father doesn't have this "right," because It's Not His Body that the "pro-lifers" want to control. "sorry." maybe you'll get that someday, i don't know.

i was being facetious about the father's "right".

the pro-lifers don't want to control anyone's body. they want to save babies' lives. they believe there are two bodies in a pregnant woman. i could just as easily make the argument that the pro-choicers want to control the child's body, by doing away with it.

I respect your opinion on that, but I think the anti-abortion crowd should leave those who don't agree with them alone, to live and die with the choices they made for themselves in their lives on this issue.

i do leave them alone. i'm just talking here.

There are very complicated situations out there, and some people don't think that aborting a fetus after a few months is the same as killing a baby.

some people are wrong.

Reversing Row vs. Wade will be about as successful as Prohibition.

i don't have any predictions about "success". all i have to say about roe v. wade is that, in it, the court saw something in the constitution that isn't there and thereby, overnight, fabricated this "right". the legislature (ideally, the state legislatures) should address it.

desperate very young women will still end up in desperate situations trying to have an abortion.

desperate very young people will always exist and will be contemplating/doing dangerous, immoral things.

yes, and i would add that the decision to take part in the act that leads to insemination is hardly the decision of one person in most cases.

most cases of sexual intercourse are rape? i'm going to need to see some support for this claim.

why is kwall taking into account only the woman's responsibility? the guy takes part in the decision and in the act. if he isn't a part of the consequences, there's a serious imbalance there that needs righting.

he is part of the consequences, whether he chooses to acknowledge it or not. i agree with you there. if he disappears, that's a serious imbalance, yes. i'm all for righting it.

so far there's only one way to right it -- the woman has the choice.

oh, by "righting" it, you meant killing the baby. sorry. does that mean the father should also have this "right"?

I hold at as a human right, beyond the U.S. Constitution.

we're in agreement there. it's beyond the u.s. constitution.

There are a lot of coercive situations, based mainly on economics and power, which put women in situations where they have children they don't want to have.

agreed. coerced pregnancy is wrong.

And what about the consequences to the inseminator? There are no natural things that happen to a man after he knocks up a woman. Man can get up from bed, put his pants back on - or not - walk outside, cross the street to get the mail and be hit by a bus.

agreed. it's not fair.

That baby is still coming.

agreed.

So, the final decision to have the baby should lie with the person whose birth it ultimately and irrevocably - the mother.

here's where we differ. killing the baby is not an option in my opinion.

but, in any case, we've agreed that this is not in the constitution, so i think that means that roe v. wade is not valid. you'll need to get an amendment for this.

Agreed, but unfortunately there are alot of creationists out there who do believe they are mutually exclusive.

well, yeah, there's a whole spectrum of beliefs out there. some people believe the earth is flat and point to bible verses that describe the "four corners of the earth". my point was that you shouldn't dismiss someone's willingness to acknowledge the existence of science just because you heard they believe in a creator.

Women can't be free unless they have control over their reproductive systems.

a women has control over her uterus (excepting the case of rape or incest for the moment) by allowing or disallowing herself to be inseminated. what you are really talking about is her "right" to escape the natural consequences of her actions. the constitution describes no such right, regardless of what the supreme court "found" in it.

I do, however, hope they ask her if she believes in evolution at the debates. We need an administration that acknowledges the existence of science.

A belief in evolution and the science behind it and a belief in a creator are not mutually exclusive. Evolution does not explain how life began.

Why is the uterus special? We don't have a Constitutional right to control (or lose control of) our nervous systems. Would you vote for a candidate that's in favor of keeping LSD illegal?

a uterus can punish you with a baby.