I'm not done with the New York Times yet. I want to look at a couple letters they published today. They're about abortion, so you know they're going to be entertaining.
Letter Number One:
To the Editor:To say, as you do, that the administration's defense of its "partial birth" abortion ban and the new "unborn victims" law have a common theme — profound disrespect for women (editorial, April 5) — is to understate the seriousness of the issue.
I love the scare quotes. Really. I "love" them. They're "brilliant" and "original." Not to mention "necessary."
The Bush administration is determined to overturn Roe v. Wade, in whatever ways it can, and foist its religious beliefs on the country at large.
I'm about ready to explode after reading that statement. You don't have to be religious in order to realize that MURDERING CHILDREN IS EVIL. Selfish freaks.
It is using Congress and the law to do it.
*GASP!* How American of them!
It has many very capable allies, like the American Center for Law and Justice.
Because we all know how horrible law and justice are.
Those of us who cherish our freedoms and appreciate the value of separation of church and state would do well not to underestimate this administration or its followers.
How can they publish this crap? How deluded must you be to think that abortion is a religious issue? I can understand people making that mistake with things like same-sex marriage, but abortion? Do they not realize what they're arguing for?
Disgusting. Let's move on to Letter Number Two:
To the Editor:I hope that your April 5 editorial "Reproductive Rights Assaulted" puts the Bush administration on notice that its cynical tactics of shock and fearmongering to pillory women and intimidate doctors will not be tolerated.
I wonder what they're referring to. Is it a bad thing that people should be afraid of murdering innocent children? That's news to me.
The new "unborn victims" law in fact victimizes women and cripples the medical community responsible for ensuring their health.
How is it victimizing women by making it a more serious crime to deny them the chance to do what only women are capable of doing (as argued in another letter on the linked page)?
The agenda to control women's bodies has a long and sorry history...
Yeah. It's all their fault. After all, they're just randomly sticking babies into the wombs of poor, defenseless women. Personal responsibility can go f**k itself, right?
...and, sadly, still makes de facto slaves of women in many parts of the world.
Interesting. I always thought abortion was more analogous to slavery. The pro-death people are the ones who are always trying to dehumanize babies.
But surely in this country we will not stand to have women's rights to make decisions about their health and well-being eroded by right-wing politicians who appear to hold them in contempt.
What a horrific distortion of the issue. What about all the little girls who will never even get to breathe their own air because they were aborted? What about all the women who were forced to have abortions after they changed their minds, sometimes resulting in permanent damage to their reproductive systems? What about the message that people need to make a choice about pregnancy before they have sex?
But no, it's all because the right hates women.
You people make me want to vomit.
Posted by CD on April 12, 2004 01:02 AMMaybe they do realize what they're arguing for, and just happen to disagree with your opinion. Making fun of them because they don't believe as you do doesn't make them any more wrong or you any more right.
I think partial-birth abortions are wrong. But I also think early-term abortion and under other certain circumstances it should be the woman's call.
Posted by: Ted at April 12, 2004 08:56 AMWho's making fun? I'm just amazed that some people try to act like being pro-life is the same as being anti-women. The whole reason I have a blog is so I can criticize people I disagree with while making a point for my side.
I don't get it.
Posted by: CD at April 12, 2004 11:20 AMCome on, CD. Don't you know that conservatives are anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-poor, anti-freedom, anti-job, anti-progress, anti-earth and anti-peace? Not to mention anti-Castro and anti-Mumia? Get with it.
Posted by: BD at April 12, 2004 06:10 PMHey Ted, so I should respect your belief that it is ok to kill babies...do you also respect Hitler? After all, he similarly decided that some lives were unworthy of life and he decided it was his call to kill all Jewish people..
just like it should be every woman's call to kill preborn babies...
nice, next on the list..newborn babies..first we dehumanize them, then we define them as non-persons, then we kill some of them...followed by the mentally disabled, the senile, and the mentally retarded...
Posted by: Sarah at April 12, 2004 06:27 PMGeez, I've gotta start paying closer attention to the VRWC newsletter.
Posted by: CD at April 12, 2004 06:27 PMNo Sarah, I don't expect that from you at all. You obviously have no tolerance for anyone who doesn't share your point of view about anything. So why bother wasting time discussing it with you, when anything I have to say will just go unheard as you launch an attack that compares me to the Nazis.
Wow, what a concept. Someone acting like a Nazi accusing me of being a Nazi.
Right wing moonbats = left wing moonbats.
Posted by: Ted at April 13, 2004 08:30 AMCan we not have a flamewar here, please? I'm too busy to deal with this crap right now.
Posted by: CD at April 13, 2004 11:33 AMCD, when you post clearly inflamatory remarks you should expect a flame-war.
I came here from Ted's place. I have lots of things I would like to say on this subject but since nobody would listen anyway, so as to waste as little time as possible, I'll just say I mostly agree with Ted.
One more thing I do have to say... There's no such thing as "partial birth abortion." It's a made up term and has nothing to do with killing living and viable unborn children. Do some research!
Posted by: Lynn S at April 14, 2004 08:30 AMSorry, I could have worded that last a little better. There is no such thing as "partial birth abortion." It's a made-up term for a NON-elective medical proceedure that has nothing to do with killing living and viable unborn children. Do some research!
Posted by: Lynn S at April 14, 2004 08:32 AMWhat do you call this?
I've done my research. I don't rant without qualification. I've got more resources if you want 'em, too. Like descriptions of children being purposely drowned because the doctor didn't know what to do with them.
Do some research of your own. I'm still too busy to deal with this.
Posted by: CD at April 14, 2004 09:45 AMWe could throw links at each other all day and we would both claim that the other's sources are dishonest so there's really not much point in this.
http://www.abortionaccess.org/AAP/publica_resources/fact_sheets/partialbirth.htm
http://www.rcrc.org/
Actually, I think one of those sources you just linked proves my points (D&X is indeed a real procedure), and I don't know why you included the other one, but I really don't want to take the time to do this right now.
Posted by: CD at April 14, 2004 04:38 PMI'd look at this, too, if I were you.
Posted by: CD at April 14, 2004 05:16 PMInteresting Tim, you had no argument to make except for the usual ad hominem and personal attack. I substantiated my points, you did not.
'Wow, what a concept. Someone acting like a Nazi accusing me of being a Nazi.'
lol...It looks like I have to believe in baby killing to be a good little girl. I'd like for you to seriously substantiate this claim, Tim..
1. How am I behaving like a Nazi?
2. Substantiate that with a REAL example of what the Nazis did.
3. Explain why this is exclusively a Nazi strategy (or at least totalitarian).
I did all those things with you. (I read my post over again just to be sure. It's not my style though to say things like that without substantiating it). Can you do it for me? Oh, and before you bring it up, do not say it is because I supposedly want to 'control women', you will then have to prove to me that embryos and fetuses are not children (i.e. immature human beings who have not reached the stage of adulthood). Or failing that, you will have to rationally explain to me why laws regarding a parent's obligation to take care of their children are mysteriously descriminatory against the unborn child.
'Right wing moonbats = left wing moonbats.'
This gets funnier by the minute.
Lynn, 'partial birth' is descriptive of the 'procedure' itself. You deliver a baby, then you stab it in the back of the head before it is fully born, and you suck out it's brains. Unborn children are alive..all of them whether they are able to survive outside of the womb or not. Sheesh, that is *BASIC* biology.
'NON-elective medical proceedure'
In fact, many of these babies can be delivered alive and taken to neonatal intensive care (D and X can be and has been done post-viability)..the earliest preemie I know of to survive was born in the sixth month. Lynn, have a heart..give a baby a chance!
Viability is such an arbitrary point. None of us are able to survive in some environments (like the Antarctic), it doesn't mean we are less valuable as human beings. Heck, even infants are dependent on other human beings...you try leaving a baby in a dumpster expecting it to survive on it's own..would you go to jail for it?
CD, keep it up...I'll consider linking you to my blog as soon as I snoop around the rest of your site here.
Oh and CD, one hint..link to government, medical (reputable), or University websites..they cannot spit on the source if you do so. I do it a lot when I am seriously trying to 'debate' abortion supporters. We have science and truth on our side. When confronted with the facts they will have to choose between:
1. Remaining in Denial (much the same way that most pro-abortionists operate anyways)
2. Grand Conspiracy Theories
3. Ad Hominem
4. To Concur that they really do believe that some human beings should be allowed to be killed...Peter Singer does, so it's not like they would be alone in that view.
5. Change Their Mind
My favorite artist is Renior,how about you?
Edward hopper paintings
Mary Cassatt paintings
gustav klimt paintings
oil painting reproduction
Oil Painting
handmade Oil Painting
mark rothko paintings
Old Master Oil Paintings
Nude Oil Paintings
dropship oil paintings
Mediterranean paintings
Oil Painting Gallery
Alfred Gockel paintings
Alexei Alexeivich Harlamoff paintings
Aubrey Beardsley paintings
Andrea del Sarto paintings
Alexandre Cabanel paintings
Anders Zorn paintings
Anne-Francois-Louis Janmot paintings
Allan R.Banks paintings
Andrea Mantegna paintings
Arthur Hughes paintings
Albert Bierstadt paintings
Andreas Achenbach paintings
Alphonse Maria Mucha paintings
Benjamin Williams Leader paintings
Bartolome Esteban Murillo paintings
Berthe Morisot paintings
Cheri Blum paintings
Camille Pissarro paintings
Carl Fredrik Aagard paintings
Caravaggio paintings
Claude Lorrain paintings
Claude Monet paintings
Charles Chaplin paintings
Diane Romanello paintings
Diego Rivera paintings
Don Li-Leger paintings
David Hardy paintings
Dirck Bouts paintings
Dante Gabriel Rossetti paintings
Daniel Ridgway Knight paintings
Edmund Blair Leighton paintings
Eugene de Blaas paintings
Eduard Manet paintings
Edwin Austin Abbey paintings
Edward Hopper paintings
Edgar Degas paintings
Emile Munier paintings
Edwin Lord Weeks paintings
Fabian Perez paintings
Francois Boucher paintings
Frank Dicksee paintings
Ford Madox Brown paintings
Federico Andreotti paintings
Fra Angelico paintings
Frederic Edwin Church paintings
Frederic Remington paintings
Francisco de Goya paintings
Filippino Lippi paintings
Francisco de Zurbaran paintings
Gustav Klimt paintings
Georgia O'Keeffe paintings
Gustave Clarence Rodolphe Boulanger paintings
Guillaume Seignac paintings
George Owen Wynne Apperley paintings
Gustave Courbet paintings
Guido Reni paintings
George Inness paintings
George Frederick Watts paintings
Guercino paintings
Howard Behrens paintings
Henri Fantin-Latour paintings
Horace Vernet paintings
Ivan Constantinovich Aivazovsky paintings
Il'ya Repin paintings
Igor V.Babailov paintings
Juarez Machado paintings
Joan Miro paintings
Jean-Honore Fragonard paintings
Jehan Georges Vibert paintings
Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot paintings
James Childs paintings
John Singleton Copley paintings
Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida paintings
Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida paintings
Joseph Mallord William Turner paintings
Julien Dupre paintings
Julius LeBlanc Stewart paintings
Jeffrey T.Larson paintings
Jean-Paul Laurens paintings
Jules Breton paintings
Johannes Vermeer paintings
Jacques-Louis David paintings
John Everett Millais paintings
James Jacques Joseph Tissot paintings
Jules Joseph Lefebvre paintings
Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres paintings
John William Godward paintings
John William Waterhouse paintings
John Singer Sargent paintings
Jean-Leon Gerome paintings
Lorenzo Lotto paintings
Louis Aston Knight paintings
Leon Bazile Perrault paintings
Leon-Augustin L'hermitte paintings
Lady Laura Teresa Alma-Tadema paintings
Louise Abbema paintings
Leonardo da Vinci paintings
Lord Frederick Leighton paintings
Mark Rothko paintings
Montague Dawson paintings
Mary Cassatt paintings
Maxfield Parrish paintings
Martin Johnson Heade paintings
Nancy O'Toole paintings
Philip Craig paintings
Paul McCormack paintings
Patrick Devonas paintings
Peder Mork Monsted paintings
Pierre Auguste Renoir paintings
Peder Severin Kroyer paintings
Pieter de Hooch paintings
Pietro Perugino paintings
Peter Paul Rubens paintings
Rudolf Ernst paintings
Robert Campin paintings
Rembrandt paintings
Raphael paintings
Salvador Dali paintings
Stephen Gjertson paintings
Sir Henry Raeburn paintings
Thomas Cole paintings
Theodore Robinson paintings
Titian paintings
Theodore Chasseriau paintings
Ted Seth Jacobs paintings
Vincent van Gogh paintings
Vittore Carpaccio paintings
Warren Kimble paintings
Wassily Kandinsky paintings
William Etty paintings
William Merritt Chase paintings
William Blake paintings
Winslow Homer paintings
William Bouguereau paintings