Friday, December 19, 2014

Pro-life hypocrisy

I should make the caveat that as a man, I am highly unlikely to ever have an abortion.

However, since I like to live by the golden rule, I would not like to preclude a woman from having an abortion.

In other words, as the bumpersticker says, "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament".

"If you don't like abortion, don't have one."

In my case, it is highly improbable that I would have an abortion.  So, whether or not I would have one is a highly moot point.

In fact, if anything, this is a subject which really is not of my concern, which I guess is why I would call myself in the pro-choice camp, which is a good thing.

Since if we were going to make other's reproductive decisions for them, there are a lot of you I wouldn't have ever allowed to have breed.

But, there are two issues here:
  1. does someone who is alive have a right to live their life free from the fear that it will be easily taken from them without legal process?
  2. does someone have the right to choose whether or not they should have a child?
The problem is that some people would like to impose upon the personal decision whether or not to have a child (2).  If we are going to go down that path, should government impose how many children should be in a family?

Additionally, I have noticed that this debate is often guided by one's religious beliefs, which facially means that any attempt by government to impose any regulation of family planning is a violation of the First Amendment.  In other words, if your decision to intrude on another's choice whether or not to have a family is based upon your views as a Christian, then it is a violation of the First Amendment to have government impose that on another.

I would also add that this is a government intrusion into medical decisions, which if you don't like it coming from "Obamacare", then you shouldn't want it coming from anyone else.

So, since it is not my decision to make, but one to be made by a woman with the advice of her doctor--it's best I keep my opinion to myself.

Which clearly makes me pro-choice.

Unless, you like other people telling you how many children you should have, you should mind your own business about this as well.

Otherwise, you are probably one of the people I wouldn't have allowed to have had children.


  1. So, Laci, is "hypocracy" some kind of British spelling, or are you looking particularly silly, even by your standards, as you pompously try to claim to have vastly more intelligence than the people with whom you disagree?

    1. Laci has more than demonstrated the superiority of both his intellect and his education over folks like you Kurt '.045superidiot' Hofman.

      While that was probably just a typo, it IS in fact a variant spelling that can be found in the OED, and in the English lit of various periods with which Laci is familiar.

      And having received his education in the UK public schools, which frequently still teach greek as a requisite, along with logic and rhetoric, I have no doubt he is familiar with the greek origins of the term:


      c.1200, ipocrisie, from Old French ypocrisie, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis "acting on the stage, pretense," from hypokrinesthai "play a part, pretend," also "answer," from hypo- "under" (see sub- ) + middle voice of krinein "to sift, decide" (see crisis ). The sense evolution in Attic Greek is from "separate gradually" to "answer" to "answer a fellow actor on stage" to "play a part." The h- was restored in English 16c. "

      Thanks for the opportunity for another laugh at your expense; perhaps later I'll indulge in a holiday cup of hippocras - something I know Laci is also familiar with, as distinct from hypocrisy. Or maybe metheglin would be preferable; I haven't had either for a while......quite enjoyable in front of a blazing fire on a cold evening.

      Go look it up.

    2. Pooch is a puffed-up pompous ass who is trying to pass off 'kindergardener' logic as brilliance. To top it off, DG is so besotted by this charlatan that she has abandoned her own brains.

      orlin sellers

    3. Laci's sock puppet stops by again to stroke his ego, extol his intelligence, and give a big non-sequitur about education, etymology, and mixology.

      Sorry, dog gone, the ability to copy and paste out of a dictionary and to talk about lesser known ancient varieties of mulled wine do not impress us that you or Laci are our betters--especially after all the evidence to the contrary.

    4. An elitist Ahole defending a elitist Ahole imagine that

    5. That's your intellectual comment Kurt, spelling error?

    6. Please provide proof of this being an acceptable variant spelling--this spelling doesn't appear in any dictionary I've checked, and it'd be niche to know you're not just talking out of your ass, dg. As for "English lit of various periods"--you know, or should if you're as educated as you claim, that spelling was not broadly standardized for a long time, so you can find all sorts of spellings that would be incorrect to use now.

      Also, what is Laci's supposed knowledge of Greek and Greek origins of words supposed to add to this? More proof that he should have known that "i" was the correct letter from the Greek to the Latin, and so forth? Or was Laci's knowledge of the original meaning of the word meant to make up for his misspelling of it?

    7. Laci you and dog are nothing but censoring elitist cowards

    8. To top it off, DG is so besotted by this charlatan that she has abandoned her own brains.

      Agreed, Orlin, but in fairness, that particular abandonment doesn't seem to have represented much of a loss for her.

    9. Please provide proof of this being an acceptable variant spelling--this spelling doesn't appear in any dictionary I've checked . . .

      Not to worry, Anon--we're told that it "was probably just a typo." Presumably, those hyper-intellectual keyboards used by geniuses like Laci place the "a" and "i" keys vastly closer together than is the case with the ASCII keyboards we ignorant peasants use.

      At least the "c" and "a" keys are fairly close together, rendering the "typo" notion for that part of the "typo" at least marginally more plausible.

    10. Anonymous: "That's your intellectual comment Kurt, spelling error?"

      It was one of Kurt's most successful diversions.

  2. "If you don't like abortion, don't have one."

    Gee, one could just as easily say "if you don't like guns, don't have one". A little obvious, huh?

    1. Ah, poor TS with your continued failure in you selection of analogy and comparison.

      Abortions are an individual right, a choice about a medical procedure made in cooperation with a licensed medical doctor, which is very brief.

      If you want to limit gun ownership to a clinic setting under the direction and control of medical personnel for a brief period of time, and further regulate it as a public health issue, I'm all for it.

      The only thing obvious is your epic failure in critical thinking, and not for the first time.

    2. That was a fun example of spin, dog gone. As far as critical thinking goes...well, at least it was on par for your league. Maybe if you loosened the straps on your helmet it would allow better blood-flow to the brain.

    3. dog if abortion was illegal which I don't believe it should be, would it be the right thing to do for women and doctors to violate that law as many have in the past based on their understanding that it was their right to make their own decisions. I say yes how about you?

    4. Another intellectual response from anon..

    5. Gun ownership as a surgical procedure? That's the first intelligent suggestion I've seen from the pro-gun side.

      Yes, If someone wants to have a firearm surgically implanted up their rectum, that makes perfect sense.

      Preferably a large calibre weapon.

      Are you volunteering, TS?

    6. And again we see that "pro-choice" means people should only be allowed to make choices that you agree with.

    7. Not spin at al anony-mouse brain; both were legitimate critical responses to particularly stupid comments. You make the trifecta, adding nothing of value and failing to produce anything of substance or reason.

    8. I'm curious, what's the difference between intentionally stopping a beating heart with a bullet or a scalpel?

      orlin sellers

    9. Your standard is that it must be a surgical procedure in order for the choice to be protected? What about reproductive choices when it comes to birth control pills? Are implants the only choice? Can’t people just make a choice to buy a product and use it without you guys interjecting, like pills or guns?

    10. "As far as critical thinking goes...well, at least it was on par for your league. Maybe if you loosened the straps on your helmet it would allow better blood-flow to the brain."

      Bwaahahahahahahaaaaaa. So in addition to the abject failure of intelligent, critical thinking in this comment, we have a failure of education on basic biology.

      Blood flow from the hear proceeds to the brain through the aorta, from the aortic arch, where it branches into the brachiocephalic artery, and the left carotid and left subclavian arteries. The brachiocephalic divides into the right subclavian and the right carotid, respectively. The carotid arteries supply blood to the brain (hint - the cephalic in brachio-cephalic refers to the head) and the respective subclavian arteries (clavian = clavicle, aka collar bone) supply the arms with blood from the heart. They also supply the vertebral arteries, which supply some of the blood to the Circle of Willis, along with the carotid arteries from the brachiocephalic arteries, to the different parts of the brain.

      Perhaps the anonymous commenter should acquaint himself (or herself) with the basic anatomy of the circulatory system before making such an obviously uneducated observation about imaginary helmets and straps......or perhaps he/she wears THEIR helmets strapped tightly around their necks, constricting respectively the carotid and vertebral blood flow. At the same time, obviously, that would be obstructing any oxygen to their lungs, heart, and brain through the constriction of the tracheal air flow.

      That hypothesis would explain a lot about the extremely poor quality of the comment. are such consistent failures at thinking, and demonstrate so often a deficient education on topics as varied as the Constitution and basic biology.

    11. Did you seriously just respond to an insult with a scientific break down of why your helmet won't affect the circulation of blood to your brain, dog gone?


      If I had said to pull your head out of your ass so that your anal sphincter stopped cutting off your flow of oxygen would we have then gotten a long dissertation on the flexibility of the human spine, the elasticity of the anus and rectum, the average length of a human head compared to the rectum, etc. in order to prove that it is scientifically impossible for you to have your head physically inside your ass?

      That's the type of response you get from a know it all pre-teen--and all the more embarrassing for coming from a purported adult who should be past that point of development.

    12. "I'm curious, what's the difference between intentionally stopping a beating heart with a bullet or a scalpel?"

      To me, there's a big difference between the heartbeat in a non-viable fetus and that in an adult human being.

      Do you feel that one who opposes abortion must also oppose the death penalty?

    13. MikeB said:"To me, there's a big difference between the heartbeat in a non-viable fetus and that in an adult human being"

      OK, I'll bite, What exactly is this BIG DIFFERENCE in how you stop the beating heart of a living thing?

      orlin sellers.

    14. I didn't say there's a big difference in the way you stop them. I said the heartbeat of a non-viable fetus is not the same as that of an adult human being.

      You didn't answer my question.

    15. Mikeb, go back and read what you wrote. You DID say BIG DIFFERENCE.
      I would argue that that non-viable stuff is bullshit because when that little specimen of life shoots out of the hole, it still isn't viable in the sense of being able to care for itself.

      So, is there a big difference between being dead? Having your life snuffed out at any point. I tend to believe there is only one kind of dead. Maybe you can explain that difference to me too.

      If the question you referring to is the death penalty, I am against it.

      orlin sellers

    16. I'll answer it for you Stupid Orlon.

      A cluster of incompletely differentiated cells is not a human being. It fails to rise to the definition of a living human being that we routinely apply in the U.S. and elsewhere -- a level of neurological activity that is the definition of brain death (or brain life) which refers to the capacity for perception, thought, awareness, etc. consistent with being human.

      You can create an embryo out of a hangnail. It doesn't make it a human being; it's still a hang nail.

    17. Huh? Then explain why a person can be charged with a double murder when he murders a pregnant woman.
      HMMM! Not sure how you got to the brain being the determining factor of human life. Perhaps you suffer from Anencephaly.
      SHREVEPORT, LA (PIX11) — A Louisiana boy born without a brain died last week at the age of 12, according to KSLA.
      I suggest you get on the phone and tell the boys parents he didn't die because he was never alive.

      Anyway, I await your producing a hangnail with a beating heart.

      orlin sellers

  3. And where was the hypocrisy? You pointed to a couple of straw men that you didn't even fully knock down, and then spent the rest of your time hinting how lucky the rest of us were that you didn't want to act on your eugenicist impulses.

    Of course, we could easily have guessed you might get distracted by that potential road.

    As for your comments on the First Amendment, your formulation of its limitations, while commonly stated by pro abortion types like yourself, was actually an overly broad generalization of the law. By your standard, the First Amendment should block this Administration's Immigration and Environmental policies since everyone from Obama to Kerry to lackeys in congress have used their interpretations of Christianity to justify their positions.

    Also, most Christians' opposition to murder is based on the same Christian views that pro-life Christians are basing their position on--does this mean that they need to shut up on that law? Or that their support of it calls its Constitutionality into question?

    Choosing which laws to support the enacting of and which not to often raises moral questions. To demand that all people of all religions shut up about their opinions and allow only secular morality to rule is foolish, impractical, and beyond anything the First Amendment demands. After all, there is large difference between the government enacting laws that the people decide are the right moral thing to do and the government setting up a state religion, theocracy, etc.

    Is there a zone in the middle where you start moving from one to the other and a line needs to be drawn? Sure. Is this where abortion lies? That's something we're still arguing about, and as friendly as the courts have been to abortion, they have yet to decide a case on such grounds. If you want to present an actual rational argument for how abortion limits go too far toward theocracy then, by all means, present your case, but lay off the self righteous pronouncements that all pro-life Christians must shut up or risk violating the First Amendment. Such pronouncements show either what a nincompoop you are when it comes to legal interpretation, or how trifling lazy you are.

    1. There is plenty of hypocrisy in the pro-life position, not the least of which is the murders of doctors who perform the medical procedure.

      The failure of the pro-life position, and the hypocrisy of it, is that an embryo or fetus is not a human being by any consensus of science or medicine, even less so a zygote, morula, blastula, or gastrula.

      Eugenicistic impulses? Hardly. You appear to have a failed understanding of what eugenics is and is not.

      And no, the position of the president, and his use of executive orders in the context of immigration is even further afield from this, and very much NOT based on religion, and his authority to do so is not derived in any sense from the first amendment either.

      Again, the problem with the pro-life crowd is that they seek conformity to their views, which are NOT supported by or reflective of either science or public opinion, for a belief, not for a fact. We don't base our laws on the limited and factually inaccurate beliefs of a small group of largely ignorant people, nor do we force all Americans to conform to that religious minority.

      Those people can believe whatever they like, they can say what they like, within the same restrictions on those rights that we all follow. But the pro-lifers DO NOT stop there, and THAT is the problem that Laci so properly addresses.

    2. Paragraph 1: Yes, that is an example of hypocrisy on the part of those who commit or advocate such murders, not of anyone else. Also, it's not something Laci brought up to back up his claims of hypocrisy.

      Paragraph 2: Again not something Laci brought up. Also, not hypocrisy--all you have done is assert that most scientists do not consider these various stages to be a human being. This lack of agreement by scientists doesn't make those who claim otherwise hypocrites, it just makes them the opposing side of an argument--and a metaphysical one at that. When did Science get into the business of being the final arbiter of metaphysics?

      Paragraph 3: Let's just let this lie so that you don't have to humiliate yourself anymore.

      Paragraph 4: I never broached the issue of the president's authority. I noted that part of the rationale that has been used to sell the immigration action and various others has been religiously motivated and would, therefore, be outside what would be permitted under Laci's formulation of the law. Thank you for proving your inability to follow an argument though.

      Paragraph 5: Your metaphysical proposition cannot be proven by science, so I will pretend that it is opposed by science! And then I will go further and outright state that it is factually inaccurate! And I'll tie all this up in an emotional argument with comments about not forcing conformity to religious minorities! It's the perfect argument! Emotion, invocation of science, and self-righteousness! And all without a single actual premise that can be argued for or against! You must just accept it or be anti-science!

      Final paragraph: Aside from a couple of violent outliers who have been arrested and are being punished, how are pro-lifers going beyond those bounds? They're asking for a law to ban a practice they see as murder. PETA does the same. You guys ask for laws to ban or restrict activities the rest of us value, all based on your own moral judgments.

    3. Para 1.

      It doesn't matter if Laci specified all the applicable hypocrisy; there's plenty on the so-called pro-life (more pro-birth than pro-life) side to go around.

      Para 2
      We don't make law or public policy on the basis of metaphysics, nor is any part of this argument metaphysical. It is largely religious in nature, not metaphysical; apparently you are too ignorant to know what constitutes metaphysics.
      "Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it, although the term is not easily defined. A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist or a metaphysician. The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the origin, fundamental structure, nature, and dynamics of the universe. Some include Epistemology as another central focus of metaphysics, but this can be questioned." Science defines life for purposes of OBJECTIVE discussion; religion does NOT.

      Para 3
      So clearly, you don't understand eugenics any better than you understand metaphysics, which is to say NOT AT ALL. Loser.

      Para 4
      You fail again. You brought up a false argument, and misrepresented the President's position. Loser.

      Para 5
      You still operate under the failure to correctly represent what is metaphysical The pro-life position is antithetical to any findings of science. You continue to lose.

      Final Para -- Again, the position of a large swathe of anti-abortion / pro-lifers amounts to domestic terrorism. A small group of people redefining a practice as murder does not make it so. To define something we need and require more objective definitions, which takes us back to the point about science not supporting the pro-life position.

      And NO, we don't seek laws to ban or restrict activities solely on moral judgements, we do so on the basis of fact and logic, as recommended by the field of public health, and on the basis of success in reducing gun violence demonstrated in other countries with more sane and sensible gun control.

      You continue to lose, and you continue to argue poorly. Go soak your head, and then try to improve your level of education.

  4. Abortion was decided on privacy right, not free speech right. It also includes a compromise of time limit. Something gun loons won't apply to the 2nd amendment they worship.

  5. Who in the hell needs an abortion? Only the most uneducated, ignorant sluts walking the earth. The must have missed sex education day in 4th grade and every women's program pudhed down our throats be nitwit feminists . Really, you have to be one of the stupidest people on earth to get pregnant if you don't wanna have a kid.
    And the 'critical thinkers' here have to be as ignorant as these sluts not realize it.
    Now, you wanna talk about the dumb asses that get AIDS?

    orlin sellers

  6. Abortions: Let's call this the Mikeb One Strike Rule. If you ever have an abortion because you got pregnant and didn't want a kid, you should, immediately after, have your tubes tied into knots. Obviously, you are too fucking stoopid to take care of yourself so there is no way in hell that you should ever, ever be allowed to have a kid, or even be allowed within a thousand feet of a child.

    orlin sellers

    1. ""if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"."

      And surely some blabber-mouth woman would embarrass herself with a comment like that.

    2. Yes, ""if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"." Is an embarrassing and stupid comment.

      orlin sellers

    3. You gun loons are unwilling to support laws that would help stop unnecessary gun shot deaths without infringing on your rights, so you are helping kill innocent life.

    4. Orlon Fluff-for-brains, that's a very famous - and apt - line from 1970's feminism.
      It's famous because it is true.
      Thanks for demonstrating once again how ignorant you are, and therefore worthy of being marginalized, and excluded from serious consideration on pretty much anything.

    5. Anonymi, women have been having abortions for millenia, and will for millenia into the future. In fact some of the earliest abortifaecents worked quite well.

      I can identify some of them, including botanicals in the wild; but of course modern medicine makes that all much safer and more standardized.

      You don't like it -- don't have sex. But stop trying to control other people's reproductive lives, or limiting their choices.

    6. Dog gone, if you don't like guns -- don't get one. But stop trying to control other people's lives, or limiting their self-defense choices.

    7. DG said. "It's famous because it is true."
      That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It is so not right it's not even wrong, it's wronger than wrong.
      I'd like to see you prove that it's true in a court of law. We'll see who they call ignorant and it won't be me you dried-up old misandrist.

      orlin sellers

    8. Not a misandrist and not dried up either, silly lint-brain.

      It has become famous BECAUSE it resonates with both men and women as being consistent with observable patterns of behavior.

      I don't have any reason or need to prove this or anything else in a court of law; it is already established as true in the court of public opinion.

      Further YOU, Orlon fluff-head, have failed to PROVE it is wrong.

      TS - gun control works to reduce violence, intimidation, injury, and death. We as a society establish what is law, and what is and is not a 'right'. That is why what is recognized as our rights changes and evolves over time.

      If we restrict guns, then the need for self-defense choices is also greatly reduced, a desideratum for the well being of everyone.

    9. TS, btw, you are mistaken about me disliking guns. I enjoy firearms, and like Laci and MikeB, etc., am firearms proficient.

      That is not the issue, but it does underline your failures in understanding what IS and is NOT at issue.

    10. Dog Gone dummy, this just gets more fun as we go along.
      Let's review some of your comments:
      "women have been having abortions for millenia, and will for millenia into the future"
      WHat your saying is that women, for thousands of years, who have not wanted children got themselves pregnant. Could it be anymore clear that you are calling women stupid, unteachable and ignorant. Thousands of years making the same idiotic mistake over and over again. Christ you are funny.

      This one surely helps your cause:
      " In fact some of the earliest abortifaecents worked quite well... but of course modern medicine makes that all much safer".

      Really, even though modern medicine has come up with a plethora of ways to prevent women from getting pregnant, these stupid ho's much prefer going through with getting pregnant in the first place so they can get the old, cold, stainless steel salad utensils up the hole to stop that beating heart inside them. You contine to make my case that they are indeed uneducated, ignorant sluts.

      Oh, and this: " ""if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament".
      Well, the silly, old fool that said this sure wanted her fellow silly, old fools to think of a twisted, upside down world to make a point. However, no matter how stupid men may be at times, there is no way in hell that they would get pregnant if they didn't want to have a kid, much less an abortion.
      How completely frickin' stupid, ignorant, larval-brained of a nincompoop would you have to be to compare abortion with Baptism.
      Think about how mentally retarded you have to be to believe you can compare abortion to Baptism. SHEESH!!!!!!
      What was that Twain said about a fool opening their mouth?

      orlin sellers

    11. Dog gone, I know you like your guns. You just don’t like other people’s guns.

      You are about control- which is why I found your line about abortions to be so hypocritical because you framed it about control and choice. You’re not about choice. The only reason you support abortion is because it is a choice you approve of. If you were really about letting people make choices, you would stand back when they make choices you wouldn’t make.

      Dog gone: “If we restrict guns, then the need for self-defense choices is also greatly reduced.”

      Absolutely not. First gun control doesn’t even work at desired goal of preventing bad people from having guns. Even if it did, self-defense is not about only protecting yourself from guns. Your stalker wasn’t threatening you with a gun- but you bought a gun anyway. If you are going to say we need to enact tough national gun control before we see the bad guns not having guns (a line Mike often uses), then why the hell are you trying to restrict self-defense choices now- before the criminals are disarmed?

    12. I'm willing to go through the regulatory process to own guns, and yes, there ARE people who should NOT have guns, or be able to get guns easily. The jerk who shot the two NYC cops is a perfect example.

      I oppose lax regulation of choices that kill, injure or result in the intimidation of a lot of people, where other civilized, developed societies do NOT have a similar problem in comparison and contrast.

      And yes, gun control DOES work, and it CAN limit and reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.

      You are incorrect; my stalker DID carry a gun, and frequently fraudulently represented himself as an officer of the MN HP as well.

      Not restricting guns makes it much harder to disarm criminals -- but it is NOT only criminals who are the problem. You fail to address that.

      A perfect example of that would be the vet with PTSD who just shot and killed six people, injured another, and then committed suicide in PA.

    13. Dog gone: "You are incorrect; my stalker DID carry a gun, and frequently fraudulently represented himself as an officer of the MN HP as well."

      Wow, how many stalkers do you have? I was talking about the woman- ex of your cousin or something.

    14. Let me ask you this: what would happen to abortion rates if there were a national ban in place? Would abortions be pushed underground? Would the abortions still happen, but be more dangerous? That’s a common stance of abortion supporters, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you share those views. Do you agree with that?

    15. The answers TS are in your history books and the reason a majority including conservatives backed Row/Wade. Read up, educate yourself.

    16. You're not following what's going on. The history books do not have any information on Dog gone's opinion, so the only way to "educate myself" on how she feels about this topic is to ask her. She won't answer though, because she knows she's walking into a checkmate.

  7. This goes to the problem with the pro-life position and actions:
    Appeals court strikes down NC abortion provision
    "This compelled speech, even though it is a regulation of the medical profession, is ideological in intent and in kind," the 4th Circuit judges wrote in their 37-page opinion. "The means used by North Carolina extend well beyond those states have customarily employed to effectuate their undeniable interests in ensuring informed consent and in protecting the sanctity of life in all its phases."

    "The First Amendment not only protects against prohibitions of speech, but also against regulations that compel speech," the appellate judges wrote. "A regulation compelling speech is by its very nature content-based, because it requires the speaker to change the content of his speech or even to say something where he would otherwise be silent."

    the above quotes were from the decision language