We all lnow that the teabaggers are angry. But what are real people angry about?

http://bit.ly/5K4TIZ

(satire)

How can there be an unborn child? Everytime someone suggests here that there is such a thing as an unborn child and that abortion kills an unborn baby, the liberals have a fit and there are usually 75 or 80 posts on the subject.

The nature of political discourse, particularly regarding health care, has degenerated thanks to the teabag supporters. It’s ironic that the same people who insisted on the carefully scripted “town halls” of the Bush years are intent on disrupting any discussion of topics they oppose. But I guess if you have nothing to contribute to the subject, your inclination is to stifle discussion in any way possible.

How is insisting that your voice be heard and that the town halls are not simply a platform for gasbag politicians stifling discussion? For years liberals have been for free speech as long as they were the only ones speaking. The days of a free ride for liberals are over.

Fred wrote: “How is insisting that your voice be heard…”

If you read the post, you would have understood that “Midge Hough was heckled by anti-reform crowd members.” Heckling, shouting down and otherwise disrupting these town halls do not contribute to constructive dialog. Neither the poster nor I object to anyone’s voice being heard, and we encourage rational dialog. The purpose of heckling is to prevent other people’s voices from being heard, and it has become a favorite tactic of the teabagging crowd.

Look, Lou Fr*d, I now this may be hard for you to understand, but different words have different meanings. For example, a “child” refers to direct descendants generally, and thus can label an organism that has not yet been born, while a “baby” refers to a young offspring who has been born, and thus “unborn baby” is an oxymoron. Welcome to the English language! Those of us here use different words to mean different things. What do they do where you come from?

I think the tea-baggers really are the lowest of the low. Horribly disgusting and I would think somehow someone could lay charges of harrassment of some sort.

At the same time, anyone pro-abortion can not call the end of the unborn child a death without showing the greatest of hypocrisy. Either it is a living creature prior to birth or it is not. It is not a living being in one instance and a non-living being in the next.

Re: Big U

The question is not whether a fetus is living but whether it is a human. The two are different (at least to me).

I think it telling that in the face of this level of disgusting, inhuman behavior the conservatives on this site want to talk about the alleged hypocrisy of liberals on abortion. It’s like they think they have a magic get out of being human card called abortion that they play whenever presented with the inhuman behavior of their allies or their positions.

And for the record, not one of you know whether or not the lady in question was pro-life or pro-choice. All you know is that she expressed grief at the loss. And yet you dismiss that grief and the horrible way she was treated because you assume she had to be pro-choice because she wants people to not die to save a corporation’s profits.

BU, you’ve been around here quite long enough to have seen this before.

Of course unborn children are alive. The question “When does life begin?” has been thoroughly answered: About 3.5 billion years ago. Of course the unborn children of humans are humans, if by “human”, you mean homo sapiens. Of course the biomass of offspring organisms can be distinguished from the biomass of the mother by their genetics. And for the most part they can’t be distinguished by physical location, nutrient supply, endocrine state, or independent survival of trauma. Of course abortion kills a biomass that can be called a separate organism that is of the species homo sapiens. So what? What’s that tell us about whether it kills a person and what human or legal rights must be considered?

The rate at which you repeat questions that have been thoroughly addressed speaks poorly to your arguing in good faith.

Nice dancing, libs. No matter how he wants to slice it, Kevin called an unborn child an unborn child. Be a man and admit you made an “error.”

As for Dan M., your tortured explanation of how only libs have command of the English language is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

Lou, my hope is that – should such a place exist – there is a special place in hell for you. You sicken me.

“Nice dancing, libs. No matter how he wants to slice it, Kevin called an unborn child an unborn child. Be a man and admit you made an “error.””

Fred, you are an idiot. The unborn child line was in the quoited article. Be a man — at long last — and admit your error.

And, again: have you no soul, no deceny, that you would excuse this disgusting behavior?
Kevin´s last blog ..Christmas Lyric of The Day

Other than the fact that some of you conflated the author of the story’s use of the phrase “child [that died]” with “baby” or “person,”I don’t really see what bearing abortion has on the issue at hand, i.e. the one raised by the woman/story in question. And, then attributed that still false conclusion to Kevin.

In a civilized society, a pregnant woman is afforded the right to adequate pre-natal care regardless of her finanical situation. The fact that in our society, that woman is also afforded the right to terminate that pregnancy (under a specific set of circumstances) is an entirely different issue. And, for the record, yes, the biomass inside mommy’s tummy is alive. And, after an abortion, it is no longer so. That does not mean that she killed a baby, or a person. However, if she had intended to carry this fetus to term and deliver a baby, her lack of healthcare may have precluded that. Her choice of whether the biomass inside her tummy would eventually become a baby, and then a person, was taken away from her because of inadequate healthcare. I know this is really difficult for some of you at the kiddie table to understand, but what the clump of cells in the woman’s stomach ultimately represented is largely determined by her intent.

And, Fred, in the case you actually don’t understand the difference between (the expiration of) an “unborn child” and a “dead baby,” here’s a quick tutorial. A dead bady, that’s self explanatory. Unborn children, that’s what I stained the throw pillow on your sofa with when your wife ducked.

Oh, and one more thing. To those of you who feel it’s your place (based on an inability to process the notion of semantic nuances) to claim that us pro-choicers do not have the right to feel sympathy or outrage for what happened to this woman’s unborn child, or are hypocritical in doing so, don’t worry. When one of your nephews comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag, I’ll be right here to remind you that you aren’t allowed to feel sadness, and that you should be happy because by virtue of supporting the war, you don’t care when soldiers die.

/fulla mutha effin holiday cheer, biyatch.

reCAPTCHA: example Hebrew. …your guess is as good as mine.

Sorry, I fucked up the first para of my comment when trying to edit. Basically, the summary is that Fred and crew misinterpretted the meaning of “unborn child” and conflated it with dead baby. Perhaps that is just too difficult a feat of semantics, so that might be something more worthy of pity than scorn. But, then, as if that wasn’t enough, they then attributed that false equivalency to Kevin, and used it as the basis of charging hypocrisy. …Despite the fact that Kevin was mentioning this story as it pertains to lack of adequate healthcare, i.e., even if we didn’t give a flying fuck about the unborn child aspect of the story, it would still be quite fucked up.

Argh. I can’t believe I’m even explaining this. I know some of you might feel my previous comment was disrespectful, in the face of the abject disingenousness and stupidity, I think I actually give far too much respect to the many of the “arguments” we have to deal with here.

Kevin: “How do you not feel any sympathy for this woman? How do you get to a place where your soul has shriveled so much, where all the milk of human kindness has drained from your body, that you would mock a woman whose CHILD has just died?” That is a quote by you, not someone you are quoting. What child died?

And you have a lot of gall to lie about how I feel about something I haven’t even posted about. Quit making up stuff. I love it with liberals get hoisted on their own pitards.

On top of being vile and stupidly smug, you also lost your train of argument. The CHILD being referred to was this woman’s pregnant daughter who died, you idiot.

And typical of Fr@d, he tries, often successfully, to hijack the thread.
The subject of the thread is the the outrageous behavior of the teabaggers, particularly at town halls. But Fr@d uses it as a pulpit for his favorite subject. Maybe, for once, he should try to stay on topic…

Digg, don’t use the F word; it gets you in the moderation queue. Which is as it should be.

Oh, and as usual, we’re sharing a brain on this one.

And you have a lot of gall to lie about how I feel about something I haven’t even posted about.

…Didn’t stop you from proclaiming how Kevin was supposed to feel.

Nokilissa – It’s funny because I had to read over the post a couple of times to see where somebody might have been led to think that Kevin was saying anything about the status of the unborn child. After about three or four reads, it hit me. He thinks Kevin is referencing the unborn grandchild when he is clearly referencing her daughter — mommy of the biomass. It’s a legitimately difficult thought experiment to try to make yourself that stupid.

Dan I’ll try to refrain. I do wish there was a way to just allow certain IPs to bypass the moderation limbo. And, if I gotta share a brain with somebody, I’m honored it’s you.

“The CHILD being referred to was this woman’s pregnant daughter who died, you idiot.”

The young woman was not the woman’s daughter. She was her daughter-in-law.

Who were the two people she had lost? Her daughter-in-law and her daughter-in-law’s unborn child.

Wow. You almost leave me speechless with your argument, with your having chosen to dig your heels in to this particular read on vile human behavior, and with your odd self satisfaction at having apparently ‘won’ some argument that only you yourself were having.

It is very clear to everyone else here that Kevin was in no way referring to the unborn baby (yeah, I’ll call it an ‘unborn baby’ because that is how I see it, given the obvious INTENT of this family and this woman, and given how I see my own pregnancies) but was referring to the daughter-in-law, whom she likely considered to be a daughter. This is common enough, and a beautiful thing when families are as close. Doesn’t always happen, but it certainly can and does.

And again, only you are equating Kevin’s read of this sick story to some derivation of false liberal hypocrisy. It was not about abortion and said nothing about abortion. A ‘loss’ was felt due to this woman FEELING she had lost a daughter and a future grandchild. In what way is it not possible for Kevin and others, myself included, who support a woman’s right to an abortion, to profoundly feel this loss for her?

Nokilissa,

As a LL vet, I urge you, just don’t bother.

Don’t take my example as I indulge all too frequently, but totally ignoring him much improves your LL experience.

You can certainly talk around him, and make references to his stupidity as a means of bonding with the other regulars; that’s actually encouraged. But, engaging him directly is like attempting to discuss metaphysics with a county fair dunking booth clown, albeit one with less integrity and conviction.

“given the obvious INTENT of this family and this woman, and given how I see my own pregnancies”

So the INTENT of the mother determines whether it is a child before birth? If you want the baby, it’s a baby. If you don’t, it’s a subject for abortion and not a child. You libs are so morally bankrupt.

Thanks Digg. I needed that.