Kelliher endorsed by DFL, faces tough primary

“Anderson Kelliher is an extremist on the issue of abortion,” said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach in a statement. “She has never heard of an abortion she didn’t support or want to force taxpayers to pay for.”

Yeah…unlike the MCCL, which is sooo middle of the road. Gimme a break.

Congrats Maggie!

It is now a done deal…we have our first female Governor. We will have a Gov with a brain, and a heart. As soon as Maggie is in office we can raise the taxes on every one of those crooked Republi-thugs. And if – as all those Republi-thugs are saying – if they decide to leave MN and move to TX, we can say “Good riddance to bad garbage.” Let’s hope they all move away and we can then have a compassionate and caring state again. GO DFL’ers!

Very nice pick.

To keep up with my rep for not going with conventional wisdom, I don’t think the primary is going to be that difficult or that close for Kelliher. It’s good to have a contest to get people to focus, but I don’t see any of the other candidates getting much in the way of traction.

However, if you want to set the expectations very low, by all means go to it. It’ll help come November, for sure.

With respect to T-Paw, I’d prefer to address her as Margaret so as not to get confused by Maggie Gallagher (real name: Margaret Gallagher Srivastav) formerly president of the virulently anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (NOM). This Maggie is truly a maggot …

“Anderson Kelliher is an extremist on the issue of abortion,”

Translation: Cares a lot more about living people than fetuses.

I’m not sure if Lane or T-Paw is right about “Maggie” versus “Margaret”. She’s going by “Margaret” for the campaign, but Republicans are likely to try to turn “Maggie” into a pejorative, but that will be tougher if it’s already a positive.

Then again, I don’t know her, and I’d feel odd addressing her as anything other than “Speaker”.

I’ve always known her as Margaret Anderson Kelliher; she has my utmost respect. To clarify, the maggot reference is to Maggie Gallagher.

It would be sad if the Republicans continue to offer no meaningful alternatives or solutions to pressing issues, that all they could do is persist in distraction of which using Maggie as a perjorative would be one albeit a very childish one at that.

So is Maggie one of those people that gets a kick out of baby death? Hmmmm. Ever notice that if you say the letters D – F – L really fast it sounds like…? Life is full of funny coincidences, isn’t it.

So so I’m clear on your views…you’re pro-life for fetuses but you’re ok with people getting kicked out of the ER onto the street and dying in the gutter if they can’t pay for medical care themselves.

Now my head hurts.

I said “allowed” not “encouraged”. If you understood the difference you would understand the most basic fundamental of the American experiment: Liberty.

Further, an unborn baby is utterly helpless whereas an illegal alien can buy some form of insurance or at least appeal to charity in times of need.

So…liberty for fetuses, but not for women having controling their own bodies.

Got it.

*control over their own bodies, rather.

Liberty for ALL. So we all have control over our own bodies as long we don’t harm or kill others. Is this really that complicated?

So, again, your “disagreement” translates to “I, [insert name of pro-lifer here], believe that my value system trumps your right to own your body.”

Thanks.

Everyone has the right to their own body, born or not yet born. This right is provided by God or Nature (take your pick) and the government may choose to protect that right or not. But the right is there regardless.

“born or not yet born”

It’s just a matter of time before women are told to mourn the day of their period, birth control is outlawed again, while homeless shelters and low income housing are NIMBY’d out of existence. Pro-life, my ass.

Ova have no viability as organisms, just like the million or so swimmers that wash down your shower drain each morning, or perhaps die searching in vain for a genetic target on the surface of your life partner’s fecal matter.

The human zygote OTOH merely needs to be protected and fed, not unlike an infant, and will self-generate into a self-sufficient individual awaiting release from its uterine captivity.

Jimmy, the day you sprout a pair of ovaries and a uterus, then I may take your opinion seriously.

So, in your world the validity of an opinion depends on the reproductive organs of the individual expressing that opinion. That’s explicit sexual discrimination, as well as intellectual cowardess.

But, exploring your emotional approach to political correctness, I’ll grant that a woman with an unplanned pregnacy faces hardship worthy of sympathy. But so does the male counterpart who is faced with 20 years of financial restriction, with or without visitation. Both pale in comparison to the bodily disintegration and deprivation of a lifetime suffered by the aborted baby.

“So, in your world the validity of an opinion depends on the reproductive organs of the individual expressing that opinion. That’s explicit sexual discrimination, as well as intellectual cowardess.”
Well, since men cannot get pregnant, nor can they have an abortion, I doubt it would fall under sexual discrimination. You can have all the opinions you want about abortion, but until you physically have one, you know jack about what it really means to a woman who is faced with that choice.

“But so does the male counterpart who is faced with 20 years of financial restriction, with or without visitation.”

Oh, boo hoo. For every man that is breaking under the yoke of child support, I can guarantee you that there are probably at least 3 pleading “poverty” to shirk their responsibility. A woman’s body, a woman’s decision.

“Both pale in comparison to the bodily disintegration and deprivation of a lifetime suffered by the aborted baby. ”

Talk about an emotional response.

And one more point before I’m done with this pointless argument:

Unlike Jimmy here, most pro-choicers do not pass judgement on the moral question of abortion. Know why? Because it’s none of our business what one woman or the other decides. THAT is the basis of the pro-choice argument, the legal right to make any choice about your body.

That’s tripe. By declaring that a woman has the right to kill her baby you are making a moral judgement. Just a mistaken one. As evidence consider how many women experience depression in the years following the abortion, especially after they allow one to live and they realize just what they have done.

As almost always, it takes two to tango. Jimmy, where is your Sturm und Drang towards the men who either can’t keep their pee-pees zipped in their pants or who won’t use effective birth control or who abandon the women they’ve impregnated along with not making every attempt to make sure their children are provided for? As a man, I think you should re-direct your male chauvinism towards your male peers unless you’ve become pregnant and delivered a baby through your tiny urethra. Sheesh!

I also wonder if the men responsible for seeding fetuses that are aborted ever “experience depression in the years following the abortion, especially after they allow one to live and they realize just what they have done.” Why is it always the woman?

I much prefer medically-based sex education along with self-empowerment and access to birth control so that the need for abortion is reduced and eventually eliminated. People will have sex no matter what the churches and other such meddling busybodies say.

Sheesh!

“As evidence consider how many women experience depression in the years following the abortion, especially after they allow one to live and they realize just what they have done.”

ORLY? As my very last comment, there are just as many women who don’t regret their choice to terminate, just as there are many women who are in despair over their circumstances in raising a unplanned child on their own or in poverty. Try not blanketing all women and their various choices with your own sense of morality, Jimmy.

“or perhaps die searching in vain for a genetic target on the surface of your life partner’s fecal matter.”

…or so says Jimmy.

Conservatives are the only people I know who get fixated on imagining that. I think it’s called projection.

“Mother has a right to kill her baby”? The only people who say that are fetus freaks. Calling a fetus a baby is a perversion of our language, law, and reality, and a crutch for the simple-minded.

As much as I admire the effort, trying to convince someone like Jimmy of anything is a waste of time.

If they were capable of basing their views on evidence and changing to reflect it, they’d just get confused and angry anyway.

No doubt men experience similar despair as women but the man has no rights whatsoever as to whether the child is killed or not. All he can do is ask the mother to abort or not abort.

Fetus freak? I suggest you take a trip to the premee ward of the local hospital as babies born months premature are cared for and many of which survive. I’ll bet you’ll be a fetus freak too after that.

“I suggest you take a trip to the premee ward of the local hospital”

That’s a good example of the phenomenon.

I admit what follows is an ad hominem attack. Dave you are a coward. You’ll keep fooling yourself that abortions are simply the removal of a parasitic glob of cells, worthy of no more consideration than a wart.

But if you had any balls you’d go to the hospital and look at a one and half pound baby human and admit that you advocate putting her into a Cuisinart. Perhaps watching a viable newborn have her body positioned just right so her brain can be mashed to a pulp would cause you to scratch your eyes out and suffocate as your last meal ejects involuntarily due to the horror you’ve witnessed and would likely have made Adolf Hitler himself puke his guts out. If not I have to question whether you are really a human being.

Jimmy, you nonchalantly threw out that “no doubt men experience similar despair as women …” How so?

For future reference, ad hominem attacks is a logically fallacious tactic in that insulting or belittling the opponent has nothing to do with the argument at hand. A person engaging in such loses credibility – and usually becomes disliked, too.

I suspect many women have abortions partially because their male partners encourage them to do so. So, I nonchalantly meant that those male partners may someday have living children and, just like women, realize that they participated in the death of their child.

In other words, Jimmy, you don’t really know what is going on firsthand nor can you cite credible sources to back up your suspicions.

Yeah, I chose not to kill my child so I don’t know what it feels like. But I can certainly cite sources if it amuses me to do so. Be specific, and I’ll consider it.

“But if you had any balls you’d go to the hospital and look at a one and half pound baby human and admit that you advocate putting her into a Cuisinart.”

Except at that point, one would be talking about a baby. Can’t tell the difference between a fetus and a baby = fetus freak.

It is oversimplifying, flippant, obnoxious, etc., to say it that way, but no more so than conflating abortion and murder of a person. A reasonable response to a dishonest argument.

Holding a preemie don’t turn everybody’s brain into mush, fortunately.

“Except at that point, one would be talking about a baby.”

So you arbitrarily declare that if two feti are identical in every way, except one has exited its confinement, she is a human baby and the other is not?

Only a religious notcase would believe such nonsense.

“The human zygote OTOH merely needs to be protected and fed, not unlike an infant”

But a zygote is not a baby. Only nutcases argue otherwise.

“except one has exited its confinement” Interesting choice of words, the mother, a woman, as “confinement” as if that’s all it is, a container.

But still, Can’t tell the difference between a fetus and a baby = fetus freak.

Won’t admit the equality of fetus and baby = baby killer.