Exactly! That is where Radley’s argument ends up, if he pursues it consistently. But as far as I can tell, Radly is not an anarchist. So he needs to come up with better arguments.

When you handcuff a person without their consent, that person is your kidnap victim until proven otherwise, despite your stupid costume.

The “Fat Lazy Cop” deserves to be indentified, prosecuted, vilified and persecuted. The Tampa Bay Times did the right thing by identifying him by name at the same time they identified his victim.

That fat lazy stupid evil cop is Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Daniel Cole:
http://tinyurl.com/8xflpxn

I suspect most of the men who are vehemently anti-abortion are probably well enough off to support a child they don’t plan on having, like Santorum, or are just too repulsive or old to achieve sexual relations with women, like the Pope (cheap shot, but grain of truth I think)
As a new parent I cannot think of any other choice in my life that has had so much impact on who I am emotionally or financially, and I resent those would dictate to us how we grow our family. Those that would make sacrifices or flat out suffer to support an unplanned child are to be commended if they chose to do so, but doesn’t give them a moral superiority to dictate how others plan their families. Some children are unplanned, but others are truly unwanted, and I see that as a far more terrible situation than an abortion. Also more terrible than an abortion is a woman who is forced to hurt herself because she has no way out of an unwanted pregnancy, and thank you Debi for that story you told which is a glimpse of what is to come if the anti-abortion zealots get their way.
For those who wish to compromise on the issue, why not make the debate about how to get the number of abortions down while keeping it completely legal? If that was the goal then we would have comprehensive sex ed and coverage for birth-control, fewer abortions, fewer unwanted children, stronger families, less crime, reduced population growth etc…

It’s really bizarre when commenters like Brandon make comparisons to Skiing as if a portion of my insurance premiums wouldn’t go to covering his broken bones were he to have an accident. I could be wrong, I’m not an actuary, but wouldn’t abortions and birth-control keep medical costs down overall as child birth is extremely expensive?

Again, thanks Debi.

Except it has darling, look at the facist family courts and how they treat fathers/husbands.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-23/facebook-apology-divorce-jail/53221786/1

Lets say I agree with your views on abortion completely. Why should I have to pay for your birth control or abortions or births of your kids if I didn’t sire them? I don’t ask you to buy my rubbers, viagra or a vasectomy. If guys should keep their zippers shut, women should keep that aspirin between the knees. Instead we demonize men and venerate single mothers.

Here's some reading I was doing earlier that I'm considering the full implications of:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/14/what-do-artificial-wombs-mean-women

H. Rearden – How about you talk to me about a woman who you've met who wanted an abortion at 8 months, and what her reasoning was. I'm tired of these hypotheticals.

Here's what I encounter in my every day life as a mom to young chldren:
Women who are 8 months pregnant are, by that point, sick and tired of being pregnant. They want it OVER! Like, yesterday. It's hard to walk, harder to sleep, nothing fits, you're too hot or too cold, you're cranky, Braxton-Hicks contractions are annoying as all hell, and you've run out of things to do to prepare for the baby. Those little kicks and hiccups that were once so sweet and endearing are now leaving you bruised, you always feel like you need to pee, and people won't stop calling you! You're already looking into natural ways to induce to just get it over with already. You're HUGE so you start to worry about it being too big to get out. And, if you're going to an OB/GYN, you've already started hearing about plans to induce if you don't go into labor soon (especially if you're due near a holiday, when they're going on vacation, or when they have a golf game planned – and this is one reason why I recommend hiring midwives instead.)

What do I do? I listen. I commiserate. I suggest ways to become more comfortable. I tell them how beautiful they look and how wonderfully they'll do in labor. I ask how I can help. I suggest using up some of that anxious time to prep some meals for the freezer, and get some extra rest or read that book she won't have time for later. If she's really considering induction, I talk to her about the importance of the last few weeks of pregnancy, and how inductions often lead to unnecessary c-sections which will put her in more pain than she's in now.

What don't I do? I don't call CPS on her if she decides to induce. I don't ostracize her for making different choices than I made. I don't attack her or call her selfish or evil. I don't lecture her on her decision. I support her as a mother, as best as I can.

It's really hard to have something growing in your body, changing what you can and can't do. It's especially hard if you don't want it there. But, even if you welcome it, it is challenging – especially at the end. If you haven't been through it, you really can't conceive of what it's like. I'm not going to attack anyone for wanting her body back.

I think I'm done with this conversation. Same thing, over and over. Thousands of years of women being treated like chattel – it isn't going to change in just a few decades. I just have to be patient, and we'll get there eventually.

I love the part where he’s a “role model”. I hope he was “devastated” – that’s the appropriate response. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mitigate the damage.

A parade of relatives, cops and former judges spoke out today in support of a Chicago police officer convicted of DUI in a hit-and-run crash that killed a boy riding a bike.

More than a dozen witnesses urged leniency for Richard Bolling, describing the veteran narcotics officer as a dedicated family man, friend, neighbor and role model who has been devastated by the May 2009 crash that killed Trenton Booker, 13.

So, it’s starting…and that parade is VERY standard protocol. I guess you have to admire their commitment. I still have no takers on the “over” for sentencing–which has been pushed to March 6.

So what happens between now and March 6? My guess is that the judge gets peppered by “people with access” (cops) to go 12-months probation and zero jail time. The judge has probably already agreed to that and the mayor and PR folks are figuring out how to handle the outcry.

Oh, and the cops are hardening their whompin-sticks so they can crack heads when the peasants get uppity about the probation.

The cop got convicted. The public also wants jail time? Barbarians.

Florida Department of Law Enforcement spokesperson, “the trooper’s actions were legal and within the scope of his duties.”

Forgot this part. This is FL DoLE explaining that it is completely legal and part of the job description for cops to be “fat, lazy, stupid, and evil”. Like we needed that explained.

So, if you allow a handcuffed person who is drunk (one of the reasons you handcuffed her) to run off you are responsible for them running off.

People can usually run for about 50 yards (not far). Plus, there’s a good chance the woman would be on nearby soft grass in about 3 seconds. Plus, she’s handcuffed and you know her identity. Let’s not forget that.

Fat Lazy Cop is guilty of the following (after a strenuous review of policy by the People’s Union):
1. Being too fat to do his job.
2. Being too lazy to ensure the safety of the public
3. Being too stupid to handle the responsibility of a handcuffed person
4. Being too evil and escalating a minor situation by using deadly force

In review: He’s fat, lazy, stupid, and evil…and wholly responsible for putting a healthy, young woman into a life-long coma (effectively killing her).

That’s how I see it and it is time more people see it this way.

What I don’t get in this debate is what’s so special about birth. Seriously. If you’re willing to stick scissors in the head of an 8 or 9 month old baby and suck his or her brain out (which is what “D & X” really is) then I’m not sure why you would treat the same person any differently a few days later when they’re born naturally.

All of the selfish arguments about “*my* body” seem quite usable to me when the child is a year or two old. I mean, if we’re willing to induce birth on an 8 month old and see if he lives, why not take your 2 year old out in the woods and see if he lives out there without you? They still depend on you at that age, they’re even more difficult to deal with, so what’s the difference? I’m serious when I ask this.

If it helps you any, Deb, I’ve been “snipped”. And if you want to play the victim game, I had it done with only local anesthetic which didn’t seem to be working that day.

Plenty of women induce at that point – with their doctor’s “encouragement” – and deal with all the health implications that come with it.

Do you really think that doctors encourage inducement when it would have negative effects on the health of both the mother and infant? And I think that you argue that such decisions are irresponsible, yet you use this non-existent anecdote to justify a women’s right for a non-health related decision to induce.

I’m strongly against infanticide.

Yet assault on a newborn, which is what a medically unnecessary induction of a pregnancy at 8 months is, you’re perfectly OK with.

I think you’re purposely misdirecting the conversation and misunderstanding my posts.

Enough of the victimization, already. I get it. When it comes to your perceived right of a woman to not be pregnant, there is no conceivable restriction of this ‘right’ and any consequences of the expression of this right are not to be borne by those that use it.

How absurd. If you don’t eat for long enough, you’ll die. If you hold your head underwater for long enough, you’ll die. If you roll a fair die, you have no control over the outcome. These facts make you no less free because freedom is a concept limited to interactions between humans. If I threaten to punch you if you say something, then I have limited your freedom by attaching artificial consequences to your actions. Pregnancy is a natural consequence of heterosexual sex. The various contraceptive methods are simply measures that reduce the probability of that occurrence – in most cases dramatically so – but you are never free of the risk unless you never have sex.

In fact, an integral part of freedom is taking responsibility for the natural consequences of your actions. There is a class of people for whom we try to limit this responsibility; they’re called children. Somehow I don’t think being treated like a child is what you want.

Oh bullshit. All freedom is freedom from some possible “consequences of your actions”. Come on, people.

Do you realize how those two sentences contradict each other?

“…a government powerful enough to forbid murder and rape is a government powerful enough to commit murder and rape.”

Hence, anarchism.

Given that you believe in responsibility, I encourage you to practice it in your own life rather than insisting that your all-powerful friends in government practice it for you and, as it so happens, the rest of us.

The problems with this approach are that it would be incredibly complicated, and that it would be argued that our government representatives are already doing this job by fighting for what their constituents want to support, and voting against what we don’t. (I think our representatives are fighting for what corporations are paying them to support, and no longer care about their individual constituents, but whatever.) Oh, one last problem? The Hyde Amendment could get in the way when it comes to federal funds

I know a lot of water has passed under the bridge since you wrote this Debi, but the idea would be to embrace their point about paying for things against one’s conscious and take it to the logical conclusion. We no longer need the Hyde Amendment, because only tax payers who choose to do so would be supporting abortions. And, while certainly very complicated, it might place some countervailing pressure on our corporate bought representatives. There would have to be some way of tying tax rates to what one chooses to support, but perhaps that would make the budget situation clearer. Ie: people would see cutting foreign aid is not going to balance the budget.

Could end up as an absolute nightmare, but then we could at least say, we tried the conscious thing. It didn’t work. So we’re going to need to find a compromise that we can all live with.

-Bruce