Subject: Jay answers Pam from Pendleton

As a delusional, racist, gay bashing and woman hating fool I applaud your robust defense of abortion.
While holding the opinion that women should just have babies is boorish and ridiculous, it was fairly
impressive on your part to launch a broad-brush attack on all Christians, of which I am one.

Dude, the first step is admitting you have a problem - just kidding.
I know you're answering Pam, but she can't answer so let me try.
I argue abortion different than most liberals.
 

I have never considered myself delusional. I do not believe my wife of 24 years
thinks I hate her and I employee an openly gay man who is a gifted design engineer.

Are you a Bush-loving conservatoive?
I ask because, so far, you sound kind of normal.
 

I would wager you rail against the war and the 2300 plus soldiers who have been killed
in combat, but 2,000,000 defenseless infants killed every year are completely justified.

Would it then follow that you're anti-choice, but FOR those soldiers dying in Iraq?

I believe, at some point, abortion stops a beating heart.
I would trust a doctor, not a priest or a Bible thumper, to tell me when that is.

A woman who gets an abortion to go skiing with her friends is abusing the system, sure.
But we have to have that loophole unless you want to take away the rights of women.

I say abortion is the price we pay for women's freedom.
I think your 2 mil figure is high, but yes, we could save those "lives" if women were denied their rights.

We could save maybe 100,000 more if we outlawed alcohol.
We could save 400,000 if we destroyed all cigarretes.
We could save maybe 20,000 if we outlawed guns.
We could save another 50,000 if we rode bikes instead of cars.
We could save maybe 10,000 if we outlawed swimming - the list goes on and on.
We could save hundreds or thousands more if we made electricity illegal.
See where I'm going?

We could save prevent half the abortions if half the men were castrated at puberty.
See how easy it would be to save "baby" lives, if that was our primary goal?

We could probably reduce crime by 50 % if we executed all suspects.
We could probably reduce crime by another 25 % if we allowed any cops, at any time,
for any reason, to search anything he wanted to for anything he suspects might be illegal.
 

And by any source you research, 98-99% of all abortions are for convenience, simply birth control.

No way that's true, unless every medical problem is considered "an abortion of convenience."
I would guess the opposite is true - I imagine only 10 percent of all abortions are done frivolously,
and yeah, even 10 percent is too many but that's the prioce we pay for making out own decisions.
 

That unborn baby is a human being and he or she is being killed with no consideration.
Jay in Midlothian, Texas
 

That might be true in extreme examples, but I say the woman's life must come first.
If your wife was pregnant and in a car accident - and your doctor said her survival odds would be
better without the pregnancy, would you risk her life for a week-old fetus? A month old fetus?

Would you want Jim Inhofe and Tom Delay to make that decision FOR you?

Or would you like to make decisions with your doctor, without the government interfering.
The other end is the right-to-die.
Do you want Jeb Bush to keep your carcas alive years after your brain shuts off?
Or if you were in extereme pain, would you want Frist to rule, "He's not that bad?"
after watching a videotape with you writhing back and forth in pain on the tape?

Can you make room for the idea that your opponents aren't evil?

I just want "less government," like the GOP claims they want?
Would you join me in a call for "less government" on private, family issues?

Lastly, what if a bunch of old black women in Washington wanted to restrict the rights of men?
Would you take that laying down?
Or would you tell everyone to mind their own damn business?

If you're a man of your word, you could answer these questions.
 

 back to  bartcop.com