Yes

The right to control your ..._1249168296113

We know… we know.

21 Responses to “Yes”


  1. 1 Audrey II Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    Stop using Jesus as an excuse for being a narrow minded, bigoted, misogynist asshole. Oh, and stop simply assuming highly dubious premises as a way of avoiding the intellectual heavy lifting of actually arguing them.

    I never get tired of saying either of those things in response to tripe like SUZY ALL CAPS’ above nonsense.

    What an ironically appropriate illustration of the root for the term “twitter”.

  2. 2 J. A. Baker Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Holy fuckbeans… SHE is on Twitter?!

  3. 3 miohippus Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    Aren’t you clever…now, how many unwanted children have you adopted?

    If your answer is less than one, you should bluntly ignored.

    I’ll never get sick of asking that!

  4. 4 harpervalley Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    miohippus? or is that miohypocritus? how about a link to your blog? hey, nice grammar too! i simply don’t get sick, why turn that inhumane ‘murder’ line b.s. inward? hey, how about capital punishment, are ya for it or against? say, what about all those christian pedophiles…great record the churches have. yup, i simply don’t get sick. i choose instead to heed to Creator and he/she doesn’t have much to say for the dogmatics.

  5. 5 JJ Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    hi scout!

    I think miohippus is on our side 😉 He/she sounds like she’s directing those words to SUZANNE’s tweet message (I never get tired of asking them that either!) But good rant nonetheless, just misdirected.

  6. 6 fern hill Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    And this is one of the many anti-choice bloggers/activists/nutbars who protest that they have NOTHING to do with the enablement and entitlement of domestic terrorists.

  7. 7 JJ Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    AudreyII – You can’t say “Twitter” without “twit” 😉

  8. 8 JJ Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 8:11 pm

    miohippus – Hahaha, they hate that question.

    A couple of years ago one of the Christofascist groups (focus on the family or some such bunch of fruitcakes) started a campaign that was actively encouraging anti-choicers to adopt, so even they recognized the hypocrisy. (That little project faded away pretty quick, though… I wonder why.)

  9. 9 JJ Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    fern hill – “License to kill” — incendiary? Nahhh. Especially not when you never get tired of saying it (over & over & over…)

  10. 10 brebis noire Monday, August 3, 2009 at 3:19 am

    Twitter is perfect for SUZANNE. Her blogposts can always be easily reduced to 20 or so words that repeat themselves over, and over and over again. This will liberate a lot of bandwidth.

  11. 11 Audrey II Monday, August 3, 2009 at 3:47 am

    If SUZY thinks that women who have abortions and the doctors who provide them really are “killers”, then what would she have as an appropriate legal response? Jail or worse? If so, then the difference between her and Tiller’s killer is just a matter of will to act on that insane conviction. If not and she’d let “killers” literally get away with murder, then she doesn’t believe her own rhetoric and has disingenuously adopted it for shock value.

    I never get tired of pointing that out.

  12. 12 hemmingforddogblog Monday, August 3, 2009 at 4:30 am

    Wait until misogynist “Ken” shows up. Talk about lowering the level of discourse…

  13. 13 JJ Monday, August 3, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    brebis – Haha, Twitter is great for SUZANNE. If you took out all the repetitive “That’s feminist supremacy, folks” and “But Joyce Arthur said the fetus isn’t important” etc, you’d end up with 140 word posts every time.

  14. 14 JJ Monday, August 3, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    AudreyII – The question I like even better is, if they really think abortion is murder, then why would they feel it necessary to “denounce” the killing of an abortion doctor?

    If I knew someone was killing 5-year-old kids down the street, and one of my neighbours took the law into his own hands and shot the asshole, I wouldn’t denounce him at all. I’d say “Give him a medal”. Other than the vigilantism aspect of things, I wouldn’t see any reason to denounce him at all.

    That’s how you know that in their heart of hearts, they don’t think abortion is murder, and they don’t think an embryo is the same as a full grown person.

  15. 15 JJ Monday, August 3, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    SQ – Ken is a pure Idiot. I love how he always interjects with something about gay pride parades. Is he a little obsessed or what???

  16. 16 Calgal Tuesday, August 4, 2009 at 8:31 am

    I have noticed that the word vigilantism is getting used a lot when speak of anti-abortion violence. But vigilantes take the law into their own hands because they believe police are doing an inadequate job of enforcing it. However, abortion isn’t illegal, so what they are doing is using violence to express their ideological differences with the law. This makes them terrorists, or domestic terrorists as some people prefer to classify them (a term that also diminishes the act, I believe, somewhat the same situation as honour killing – domestic violence).

  17. 17 deBeauxOs Tuesday, August 4, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    “That’s how you know that in their heart of hearts, they don’t think abortion is murder, and they don’t think an embryo is the same as a full grown person.”

    Nope, I think that’s exactly what abortion criminalizers believe, only they know that the vast majority of people think that belief is crazy zealotry so they mouth their denouncements to control the PR spin.

  18. 18 mouthyorange Tuesday, August 4, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    dBO + JJ — I think both are true. In different parts of their mind.

  19. 19 JJ Tuesday, August 4, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    Calgal – I agree; I don’t think of anti-choice violence as vigilantism at all. The people who do it are NEVER lone wolf types — they’re part of the movement, they go to the protests, their minds are twisted by the rhetoric. It’s a systemic problem, not an anomaly.

    But in all their lame denouncements about Dr. Tiller’s murder, they were quite pointed about the “vigilante” aspect of the killing, which is just to cover their own asses and guilty consciences.

    Also, and why my analogy is a little off, is the fact that abortion is legal — killing kids is not. Which just makes the anti-choice position that much weaker.

  20. 20 JJ Tuesday, August 4, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    dBO – But why then do they feel the need to be so defensive about denouncing guys like Roeder? I can’t believe they’d react that way if they really, really thought abortion was murder — I think they would be more proud of their position. Anti-choicers often talk about slavery having been legal but that didn’t make it right — not that their movement is in any way like the abolitionist movement, but I’m sure the people who led the abolitionist movement didn’t make excuses for what they did towards ending legal slavery.

  21. 21 JJ Tuesday, August 4, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    orange – Yes, it probably is: being anti-choice means living with contradictions.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 630,935
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: