Why oh why oh why oh why do I even bother?
Canadian Cynic: Didn't like my answer the first time
Because you didn't answer the question, Suzie.
Canadian Cynic cherry picks posts to twist my words in order to get me what he wants me to say.
That is a lie, but it's not worth obsessing over so let's move on.
Canadian Cynic issued a challenge: to discuss what laws a pro-life government would introduce if it got a majority.
I put forward my ideas.
But Canadian Cynic is not happy.
And that's because SUZANNE continues to avoid addressing the issue I keep pushing in front of her, as you will see shortly.
Not only that, but shows zero empathy for the children killed by abortion. But hey, "fetuses are not that important" and "fetuses are none of our business." If they have to suffer and die, oh well!
You will not find those quoted passages in any blog post of mine -- Suzie All-Caps has now descended to simply making shit up and attributing to me stuff I've never written. Somehow ironic, wouldn't you say, coming from someone who just accused me of twisting words.
How about it, Suze? Don't you think it would be only civil to either link to those alleged words of mine, or publicly retract your claim that I wrote them? Hmmmmmmm? Yeah, not holding my breath here. Onward.
Canadian Cynic did not like my answer. See he goes fishing for statements made in a comments section on an unrelated manner...and attempts to frame them as my response to his fetal rights law challenge.
How convenient.
How untrue. Onward.
And because he didn't like the fact he didn't get any dirt the first time, he asks:
If you could criminalize abortion and force women to carry unwanted fetuses to term, what would you propose as their precise legal obligations the instant after that child is delivered?
The challenge was:
If you could criminalize abortion and force women to carry unwanted fetuses to term, what would you propose as their precise legal obligations the instant after that child is delivered?
I'm not sure why Suzie the Fetus Mistress felt the need to repeat the challenge twice but -- give her credit -- at least she gets it right. And her response?
I answered that challenge.
Did you? Did you really? And that answer was?
I answered that challenge. I wrote that I would criminalize feticide, i.e. injecting potassium chloride into the hearts of singletons. I wrote that I would re-write legislation to make statistics reflect the actual abortion numbers. I would declare the fetuses and mother are not one, and that fetuses are homo sapiens.
I would not re-write any legislation beyond that.
Which makes it painfully clear that Suzie All-Caps did not, in any way whatsoever, answer that challenge, so I'm going to ask it for perhaps the fourth time, but worded even more simply for Suzie since she seems to have trouble with abstraction, and here's the question, Suze:
If you want to criminalize "feticide" and force unwilling mothers to carry their fetus to term, then the instant that child is delivered in the hospital room, does the new mother have the legal right to say, "Well, it's all yours now, I'm outta here, good luck." Yes or no?
It's a simple question, Suzie, and it's the one you keep tap dancing away from, which is why I've phrased it in the form of a boolean. Really, I can't word it any more simply than that, can I, Suzie? If a woman is required, by your new law(s), to carry an unwanted fetus to term, can she immediately walk away from it after delivery with no further legal obligations? Yes. Or no.
I don't want to know about morality, or growing up, or maturity, or selfishness, or how people can learn to love, or yadda yadda yadda. Legal obligation, Suzie. Yes or no? Or do I have to try to find an even more childish wording of that question suitable for your Sunday school intellectual level?
Oh, and Suzie? An apology for attributing fictitious quotes would be nice as well. Let's see if you have the morality for that.
P.S. There's a certain entertainment value in the fact that Suzie All-Caps is all about rewriting actual legislation, but is utterly incapable of framing her arguments legalistically. When challenged on how she would rewrite the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to very specific questions I've posed, she falls back on tear-jerking inanity regarding morality and so on, none of which has a shred of value from a legal perspective.
I'm guessing that Suzie doesn't understand what it means to propose legislation. She really doesn't. Instead, she genuinely believes that her heart-wrenching, personal biases have the necessary structure to be codified into law.
That's just scary.
13 comments:
"I answered that challenge. I wrote that I would criminalize feticide, i.e. injecting potassium chloride into the hearts of singletons. I wrote that I would re-write legislation to make statistics reflect the actual abortion numbers. I would declare the fetuses and mother are not one, and that fetuses are homo sapiens.
I would not re-write any legislation beyond that."
well, this is at best a fragmentary answer. criminalize abortion, okay, what are the penalties and who is liable to be penalized? is the doctor performing the procedure (assuming a physician would decide to do so after the all-caps laws are in place) face jail time, loss of license, fines or what? that's part of legislating suzie, you want to criminalize, you have to penalize. next, what is the penalty for the woman who is ejecting the unwelcome tenant? off the table and into cuffs for a spell in p4w? how many years does the woman face for what must be something akin to what, murder? manslaughter?
and just for the sake of clarity, what in the sweet fuck is a singleton supposed to be? does this mean it would be acceptable to inject potassium chloride into the hearts of twins, triplets or other multiple spawn? or is this just an attempt to manipulate language for emotional affect?
and what, please, please tell us would be the penalty for publishing statistics that don't meet the stringent new, legal requirements of numerical reflection? please do illuminate this element of the suzie laws. under the new regime, where abortion is illegal there would be no statistics to accurately reflect as there would be no abortions.
given that fetuses are now declared autonomous and separate individuals, why should a woman be required to extend any effort in caring for the stranger who has taken up residence within her? as a unique individual, the fetus should be fending for him or herself. if the woman doesn't want a baby and it is simply a resident she should have no obligation beyond failing to abort the thing. the landlord of my building is in no way responsible for feeding me. how is this any different? after all, you can't legislate care or love or desire.
the fetus that would have been aborted is an unwanted parasitic life form with its own autonomy and personhood. if the woman is forced to endure it up to the moment of delivery, she is acting as host and not as mother. should she have any legislated compulsion to take extraordinary measures to curtail her own freedom to booze it up? avoid high risk sport? suspend her own tragic case of bulimia? or does the little autonomous cell buddy supersede all such rights to autonomy for the period of residence?
and to add to my comment... since our little, autonomous friend is thoroughly imbued with individuality and personhood and not simply a part of the woman, how about we up the ante. sine our pals the christoholics have the absurd notion that the little bugger will enter the world bearing the burden of original sin, how about adding to that and giving the kid the burden of original debt. if the woman doesn't want the kid and in lieu of her right to bodily autonomy and access to safe abortion, she should be within her rights to charge room and board. considering the inconvenience, medical risk, loss of enjoyment etc. i'd say $2,000 per month would be more than reasonable.
with interest of course. that debt can be assumed by the magical adoptive parent or in the case of a troublesome, ie. non-standard, unhealthy or off coloured baby, the debt and accumulating interest would stand until such time as the kid could earn a wage which could then be garnished. that opens up a whole new market for payday loan type businesses or early tax refund joints. sell us the debt and we'll give you x amount up front, real cash, no waiting. after all, conservatives are all about the free market, right?
She's pretty clear in her comment on the post you're referencing here:
"Those would be my plans [the outlawing of one technique] for the first term. I would then reassess for any future endeavours. I believe in the equality of unborn children, but any government must move in a direction that is consonant with what the people are willing to accept. I don't expect that the fight for the rights of unborn children will be a one-step deal. Far from it."
She doesn't care what you have to say (although she should probably stop fabricating...it's so immoral and sinful). This is very long term for her. She is arguing for women to be forced to carry children to term. And in that scenario, who the hell would care whether she gets pregnant or not? Forget abstinence, forget birth control, have sex as much as you want and then walk away from the newborn.
If that situation ever develops, SUZANNE will have no choice but to argue for abortion as a good thing to prevent the births of thoroughly unwanted children.
I'm sure if she tried to challenge that, she'd be arguing for a drastic reduction in the legal rights of women, but we're not there yet. Maybe she'll get to that in another year or so.
Suzanne Fortin...proto- (or crypto-) fascist?
What? You can't just make shit up and put it in quotation marks? Better not tell Patrick Ross that.
Get used to it, CC, because our gal SUZANNE is a pathological liar. Just look at this post where she says:
And Lulu won't confront the issue of late-term abortion. She thinks this baby didn't deserve to live
which appears right above one of her favourite abortion porn pictures.
I dare anyone to search this blog and find any post or comment from me which explicitly states that a fetus "does not deserve to live". Good luck ... because there's nothing there. But try and explain that to ALL CAPS because if I'm pro-choice then, obviously, I believe fetuses do not deserve to live.
It must be nice to lie and make shit up whenever you feel like it.
Quick question. Will inquests be needed for miscarriages?
Ask SUZANNE. She won't tell you.
Will inquests be needed for miscarriages?
It was in Romania under the Ceaucescu regime.
No legal birth control, no legal abortion, surprise gynecological exams in all workplaces, no travel out of the country if pregnant, and investigation of all miscarriages.
Romania under the Ceaucescu regime
Finally -- a reasonable benchmark for the kind of state these right-wing morons are trying to create.
yes, i was going to point out they couldn't really be a socialist communist dictatorship, being so pro-life and all. Just like the National Socialists really were socialists.
They also tracked anyone found to be pregnant in the workplace sweeps. Anyone failing to deliver a kid at the appropriate time was also subject to investigation.
And the Romanians are still living with the ramifications of that disastrous policy.
I wonder if SUZANNE speaks Romanian? It's a bit like French...
There seems to be a continued confusion (because it couldn't possibly be that they know the difference and are just liars right?) about the fact that one can be pro-choice and not be pro-abortion.
... what in the sweet fuck is a singleton supposed to be? does this mean it would be acceptable to inject potassium chloride into the hearts of twins, triplets or other multiple spawn?
Yes. Exactly. If through in-vitro, one is implanted with 9 embryos, some are 'culled'. For some reason, these moonbats don't think 'culling' 5 or 6 of the otherwise precious lives is murder, but if there's only one in there you don't want, well then, too bad bitch.
It's slut-punishing and nothing else.
Post a Comment