Fuck the debate, and here’s why

If anyone still wonders why pro-choicers are so reluctant to “engage” in any kind of “debate” about abortion, look no further than the combox at yesterday’s NatPo piece by Colby Cosh.

It started heating up as soon as the word “abortion” rippled its way through the Canadian internets, causing spastic twitching and jerking in the collective anti-choice lizard brain.  The first commenter screeched in, spraying virtual gravel and firing off the opening shots in the “debate” — “infanticide” and “murder”:


Child, embryo, fetus — the word is CHILD, motherfuckers!  Say it! (And while you’re at it, say “MERRY CHRISTMAS“!!)

Along those same semantic lines, the clearly off-his-meds “rightiscorrect” chimes in:


“Tiller the Killer”!  Now that’s what I call thoughtful, reasoned debate.

This guy makes an early prediction:np6

And “Claymore” is quick to live up to it, thoughtfully copy-pasting a huge rambling article full of half-truths, lies and other gibberish about death, breast cancer and insanity from some anti-abortion website.


He then follows up with responses to other commenters:


Stop killing BABIES!!!  Way to contribute to the “debate” there, “Claymore”.

Then, right on schedule, “Saint Nobody” (aka SUZANNE) weighs in and, enraged by a comment from Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition, goes full-metal batshit:


Ouch, Joyce! Feminist empowerment!  Teh Feminists = >than others! It’s  notable that Cosh’s article made no mention of feminism or anything even remotely resembling it, yet in SUZANNE’s rat’s nest of a mind that’s where all abortion-related discussions begin and end.  Just add it to the mounting pile of evidence that SUZANNE’s real reason for hating feminists is their part in achieving abortion rights.

Lastly, the good reverend Spitz shows up to spit this out this hunk of phlegm:


Ahh… yeah.  It’s exactly like that, you fucking douchebag.  Now let’s see how quickly the “pro-lifers” jump in to disown this scumsucking piece of shit.

There were a few commenters who didn’t sound as if they were posting to pass the time while they waited for Nurse Ratched to show up with their Thorazine, but sadly, hardly any of them were anti-choice.  As in, maybe one.

And people wonder why we don’t want a “debate” with these idiots?

29 Responses to “Fuck the debate, and here’s why”

  1. 1 April Reign Friday, January 2, 2009 at 9:13 am

    Now let’s see how quickly the “pro-lifers” jump in to disown this scumsucking piece of shit.

    I suggest we lay in provisions for that wait time.

  2. 2 JJ Friday, January 2, 2009 at 9:15 am

    So far… *crickets*

    “Pro-life” my ass.

  3. 3 Robert McClelland Friday, January 2, 2009 at 9:16 am

    We should have the debate but it shouldn’t be the debate the fetus fetishists want. The debate we should be having is whether or not to enshrine women’s reproductive rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

  4. 4 JJ Friday, January 2, 2009 at 9:21 am

    Robert – Right on! That’s one debate I hope we can have very soon, with the outcome of having reproductive rights protected in a way that’s untouchable.

  5. 5 Dr. Prole Friday, January 2, 2009 at 9:34 am

    There is no debate. It’s a private family and medical matter that the government has absolutely no business in.

  6. 6 JJ Friday, January 2, 2009 at 9:39 am

    Dr. Prole – Of course! There’s that, above all. But apart from that, yet another reason why we can’t have this “debate” is because you can’t debate with ideologues and extremists who are screaming about “baby killers”. In short, because they’re IDIOTS!

  7. 7 Dr. Prole Friday, January 2, 2009 at 9:52 am

    JJ – yep. It’s like “debating” a religious brick wall.

  8. 8 deBeauxOs Friday, January 2, 2009 at 11:20 am

    There’s the reason why they’re called zygote zealots – it’s not just for the sake of alliteration.

  9. 9 JJ Friday, January 2, 2009 at 11:25 am

    April Reign could be right. 3 1/2 hours later, nobody has stepped up to the plate to disown Rev. Spitz.

    Things that make you go “hmmmm”…

  10. 10 Reality Bites Friday, January 2, 2009 at 12:40 pm

    Robert, since there is no chance of opening up the Charter to enshrine women’s reproductive rights (or anything else), the debate would only serve to be framed around why women should or shouldn’t have reproductive rights. And there is no debate on that subject.

    My stance on the idea of debating abortion is the same as my stance was on marriage – my (or women’s, in this case) rights are NOT up for debate. No we will NOT respectfully disagree. You are not only wrong, you are evil, and there is no room for compromise with people like you. None at all. Your opinion that my (women’s) rights are for YOU to decide on is not up for discussion. You are bigoted scum and to debate you is to give you far more respect than you could ever possibly deserve – and more than you are giving me just in suggesting you have the right to decide how I live my own life.

    Debating such issues can be the only option before rights are secured. Once they are, however, one does not debate with those who would take them away. They used to have debates on the abolition of slavery. They used to have debates on school segregation. Hell, on lunch counter segregation. Can anyone SERIOUSLY suggest that just because a sizable minority regrets that these things were abolished, African-Americans should have to put up with the gross insult to their dignity that such debates carry with them?

  11. 11 Reality Bites Friday, January 2, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    Just to clarify, the “you” in my post is of course, not Robert, but a personification of those opposed to women’s reproductive rights.

  12. 12 JJ Friday, January 2, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    RB – Wow. You’re articulate on a bad day, but that was outstanding. Well said.

  13. 13 RossK Friday, January 2, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Clearly, based on the evidence provided by JJ and others, it would appear that the time has come to institute the full blown use of the ‘Gilliard Doctrine’ on this matter:

    “There’s a tendency for liberals to try and be fair, to consider other viewpoints, so we get baited by them in debates on terms that they set. I’m going to act on the following: I don’t care what conservatives think……..


    …..I’m not writing to make conservatives happy. I want them to hate my opinions. I’m not interested in debating them.

    I want to stop them.”


    My take on the doctrine of the late, great Steve Gilliard is here for anybody interested.


  14. 14 JJ Friday, January 2, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    RossK – Thanks for the link to Gilliard’s site. OMG, talk about “great minds”… I just re-read his obit on the old News Blog site last night. He was so great, a great fighter.

    Thanks for the link to your post as well, very well done. Gilliard was right — we don’t need to try and make these people see reason, they’re incapable. The best thing is to just ignore them, keep winning, and rub their fucking faces in it.

  15. 15 RossK Friday, January 2, 2009 at 2:09 pm


    Not to go on and on and on and on about it, but here’s how I REALLY felt about Mr. Gilliard.


    One thing I think it is important to remember about Mr. Gilliard’s life and times is the fact that he was doing his best work in those darkest of dark times of Mr. Bush’s America when Propagammon reigned supreme.


  16. 16 Chimera Friday, January 2, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    RB: Uh…don’t sugar-coat it, hon — tell ’em how ya really feel! LOL!

    JJ…*sigh*…when are you going to give up on that Bitchy Blue Windbag and look out for your sanity? Brick-walling your forehead on her attitude is not healthy!

  17. 17 J. A. Baker Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 1:49 am

    “don’t believe in abortion , don’t have one” is that like, don’t believe in shooting babykilling abortionists don’t shoot one?

    That’s the kind of comment that gets clinics bombed…

  18. 18 Mike Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 6:53 am


    To further what Rob said, take it one step further, far enough to make the socons heads explode and drive a wedge between them and the fiscal conservatives:

    Have a debate or propose a motion that introduces private property rights into the Charter (something the Cons seem to want) but ensure that the right to private property is based on the total ownership and control of ones own body, and that bodily integrity is the most paramount of rights. That is we have the right to private property and the most private of property is one’s own body.

    That would support the idea of private property the fiscal conservatives want, strengthen security of the person that pro-choice wants, and generally make socons have a mental break down like those robots on that classic Star Trek episode.

    I have suggested before that SUZANNE owners her own body and – get ready for this – she says she DOESN’T.

    I guess she wants to be a slave…

  19. 19 bcwaterboy Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 6:35 am

    Thought the readership would be interested in this tidbit from the Okanagan-Shuswap MP Colin Mayes (a totally self-serving, lying and completely useless Neo Con MP) Mayes has also done absolutely nothing in regards to the economy. Check out the quote regarding minority gov’t. You can bet your bottom dollar this “debate” will be on the floor of parliament when Harper gets his majority after the spring election.

    Colin Mayes:
    There are also calls from some elements of the Conservative Party to reopen the debate on abortion in Canada. But Mayes is currently not one of them.

    “This is not necessarily the time with a minority (government) situation. We don’t want to be sidetracked from dealing with the challenges of the economy,” he said.

    However, Mayes says the government and country can’t avoid the topic of abortion forever.

    “There hasn’t been a full-fledged debate on the issue,” he said.

  20. 20 Calgal Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 7:44 am

    How many decades does it take to have a full-fledged debate? You would think 20 to thirty years of debate – a new law (1976), a Supreme Court decision to repeal that law (1988), followed by another new law passed in the House (1990) but defeated in the Senate (1991), topped off with a few arsons and shootings (1991-98) might qualify as full-fledged debate. Were these people asleep or what?

    There is no more debate. There is a movement to remove a fundamental human right, sponsored by members of the ruling party. How did we get here?

  21. 21 mouthyorange Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 8:17 am

    They just can’t accept that the debate resolved in the only way it truly can, in a way that acknowledges Divine Maternal Authority as it manifests in each individual woman. That’s what bugs them, and these woman-hating, woman-fearing types will never consider the debate valid unless they are able to override Divine Maternal Authority by imposing laws to restrict it.

    When you truly respect the Mother, you also respect her authority as the Mother and get out of her way. All else is hypocrisy and bullshit.

    Even the argument about a mother’s natural role, when taken to its logical conclusion, supports her freedom of choice. Female animals kill their young when they know that the circumstances surrounding their birth are wrong. A hard truth, but there it is.

  22. 22 mouthyorange Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 8:20 am

    Meant to say “will never consider the outcome of the debate valid unless…”

  23. 23 Reality Bites Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 11:27 am

    Well one can hardly blame them for that. We certainly wouldn’t consider the debate over if we lost. The best we can ever hope to achieve is what we have, namely most people being sick of the debate and unwilling to disturb the status quo.

  24. 24 mouthyorange Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    Er … awful quiet around these parts. Anyone got a clue?

  25. 25 Frank Frink Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    mouthyorange, no clue except that southern BC got hit with yet another blizzard over the past couple days. Could speculate on possible power outage or outages. There have been some in the Lower Mainland and the Sunshine Coast. Not sure about the Island.

  26. 26 mouthyorange Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    Thanks, Frank. I hadn’t checked BC weather lately but I wondered.

    A friend from Toronto tells me southern Ontario’s scheduled to take a major hit Tuesday over Wednesday. But I just looked and the prediction is only for 5 cm. So I don’t know what she’s talking about.

  27. 27 JJ Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    I’m back! Sorry! Things went a little sideways over the last few days and I’ve been extremely distracted dealing with issues in the non-blogging world. Ack! The snow, the fucking snow!!

  28. 28 mouthyorange Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    Glad you’re okay. Or hope that you are!

  29. 29 JJ Monday, January 5, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    Oh, I’m okay. Things just piled up on me, but no problem. Life goes on!

Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change


  • 642,481
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]


%d bloggers like this: