Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Wimmins beware!

I can't really call this gloating, because I'm fucking pissed.*

But for what it's worth, I called it.

* Symbolically. I won't pretend to understand the medical mechanics of this particular procedure, which admittedly sounds pretty nasty -- although I did see someone on another blog remark that pretty much every woman who does this, does it because her doctor informs her she needs to for her health, and many (most?) of these women wanted the babies, and some would like an intact corpse to say goodbye to (in addition to the fact that it appears this procedure is sometimes safer for women than the alternatives). Interesting perspective. Anyway, putting all that aside, I've come to the conclusion that the primary reason for this legislation was to chip away at women's rights. And I am simply NOT okay with that, for reasons that ought to be more obvious than the sun.

Labels: ,

39 Comments:

At April 18, 2007 at 7:37 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

Sure, it's chipping away at rights. Late term abortions should be illegal. This way the law will be more consistant and will reflect less emotinal thought.

 
At April 18, 2007 at 9:09 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

knights, we'll see how you feel when the aliens start implanting butt babies into men's bodies.

Notice how easy it is for you to sit there as a man and not care at all that they're chipping away at WOMEN'S rights. I'm sure there's absolutely no emotion on your part, whatsoever, affecting that.

/sarcasm

 
At April 19, 2007 at 12:41 AM, Blogger Gino said...

i support all womens rights, from conception to death.

 
At April 19, 2007 at 7:23 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

gino, when exactly does it become a "woman"?

 
At April 19, 2007 at 10:11 AM, Blogger Gino said...

at conception.

most importantly, it is human.
and it is alive.
it is human life.

and you know it.

 
At April 19, 2007 at 12:54 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

gino, the linguistic theatrics are really unnecessary.

You're free to your beliefs, but they're as unprovable as the existence of God (whom I believe in, by the way). It's a matter of faith, not knowledge.

 
At April 19, 2007 at 1:06 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

" It's a matter of faith, not knowledge. "

Care to elaborate? As a law person yourself, you know that it is an exception to women when it comes to aborting a baby. It's a green ticket to murder. Murder is illegal the last time I checked so why there is an exception to aborting a baby?

"knights, we'll see how you feel when the aliens start implanting butt babies into men's bodies."

They'll risk their life but they can try.

"Notice how easy it is for you to sit there as a man and not care at all that they're chipping away at WOMEN'S rights."

I don't really care who's rights. Murder is illegal or leagal? Make up your minds because I should use my gun on anyone if I pleased. I have the right to choose.

 
At April 19, 2007 at 1:43 PM, Blogger Sarah said...

Ooh, trolls!

Knights - yeah, it's plenty "emotional" when a woman who has carried a fetus for eight months finds out that the fetus is dead, or that it is not viable. Why shouldn't the woman have a choice as to how the fetus is removed? We're not usually talking about healthy "murdered babies" when we're talking late-term abortion.

Gino - You obviously don't support ALL "womens rights."

 
At April 19, 2007 at 2:41 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"Ooh, trolls! "

Ooh, throwing stones from a glass house aren't we?

"Why shouldn't the woman have a choice as to how the fetus is removed"

Because she is not a doctor? I wouldn't be making decisions on how the baby is removed. We are talking about healthy babies being removed.

 
At April 19, 2007 at 5:08 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

"Because she is not a doctor?"

knights, if you'd bothered reading the decision (or any of the blogs discussing it), you'd see that it removes any discretion from the woman AND HER DOCTOR. You'd see that Congress and, later, the Supreme Court, completely ignored scores of evidence from medical professionals against the statute. Doctors, in general, are AGAINST this law. It removes discretion from THEM. Wanna guess how many of the people who helped pass this law are doctors?

When you pretend that this issue doesn't implicate women's rights AT ALL you dehumanize women, which is beyond rude and insulting. Frankly, I'm tempted to delete your arrogant and infuriating remarks.

And if you're going to insist on calling abortion "murder" there's really no point to this discussion. You've locked your knees and dug in your heels, so there's no point in trying to engage you.

 
At April 19, 2007 at 6:23 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"When you pretend that this issue doesn't implicate women's rights AT ALL you dehumanize women, which is beyond rude and insulting. Frankly, I'm tempted to delete your arrogant and infuriating remarks."

I clearley stated that it sure does chip away at women's rights. If you find anything that I say insulting then there is nothing you can do to change my opinion. It's my opinion that doesn't do a whole lot in your life anyway. Frankly, I would expect a lot more calm and less emotional backlash from a woman with a law degree.

"And if you're going to insist on calling abortion "murder" there's really no point to this discussion. You've locked your knees and dug in your heels, so there's no point in trying to engage you. "

Yes, I have chosen my postion.

 
At April 20, 2007 at 8:22 AM, Blogger Gino said...

now you know why i generally avoid this topic. discussion is impossible when two sides are arguing for two different irreconcilable ends.

i prefer to discuss the humanity, or lack of, the unborn, for therein lies the rub.


from a perspcetive of human rights and liberties, if an unborn child is not a human being, no excuse for abortion in any form is necessary.
if it is, no excuse will do, barring a real and imminent threat to the mother's life.

 
At April 20, 2007 at 10:21 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

gino, I appreciate the thoughtful response. I think our disagreement lies, not in the characterization of the fetus (I'm not one hundred percent convinced of any argument in that respect, to be honest), but in this:

"if it is, no excuse will do, barring a real and imminent threat to the mother's life."

As I think about it, I'm not convinced that one person's life trumps another person's bodily integrity. It's a tricky issue, but I'm not willing to say that women should have no choice but to have their bodies put into the service of, essentially, a sort of parasite (in colloquial terms; your beer buddy could be a parasite if he's in some sense "feeding" off of you -- a fetus most definitely feeds off the woman's energy, life-force, food supply, etc.), just because they've done a normal human thing and chosen to express themselves sexually (which men can do with no even remotely comparable consequences -- thus, frankly, it troubles me on a level I can't describe when men pretend this doesn't implicate women's rights in any relevant way, which, despite his protestions to the contrary, knights does in an incredibly offensive manner).

In other words, I do not accept the argument that if you have sex you're somehow assenting to have your entire body to be put to the service, however painful, demanding, or physically harmful, of another -- human or whatever. Frankly, it is this sort of reasoning that used to be utilized to carve out an exception to rape laws where the victim and rapist were married.

Now, to be clear, I understand that this legislation only banned one particular procedure that some people find particularly troubling (even many pro-choicers). I'm not a doctor and don't purport to understand the procedure, or why it might be used (other than what I've skimmed in the apparently volumes of evidence ignored by Congress and SCOTUS). But that's just the point: neither are most of the Congresspersons who voted for this bill (all of the sponsors of which, if I'm not mistaken, are men who are not limiting THEIR medical options but only women's, and yes, that is relevant -- the same way it would be relevant if a bunch of white people voted to limit black people's access to their doctors), and neither are any of the Supreme Court Justices who upheld it. I saw a comic somewhere this week that had a woman and her doctor discussing whether or not she should seek a certain medical treatment, and the doctor has to pause their conversation to call his lawyer to make sure he can give her the best treatment for her situation.

Now, I'm pretty smart, and I'll never deny that I'm qualified to do an awful lot of things. But, really -- if a doctor needs to treat her patient and provide services in her patient's best interests, *I* am not the one she should have to call to make sure she can do it.

 
At April 20, 2007 at 10:33 AM, Blogger Sarah said...

knights, I'm not sure how your "glass house" argument works, as I am not going to anti-choice blogs and leaving rude and condescending notes about my pro-choice opinion. You, however...

 
At April 20, 2007 at 12:45 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"if a doctor needs to treat her patient and provide services in her patient's best interests, *I* am not the one she should have to call to make sure she can do it."

And if the patient's interest is to abort a healthy baby? Where are the baby's interests?

"knights, I'm not sure how your "glass house" argument works, as I am not going to anti-choice blogs and leaving rude and condescending notes about my pro-choice opinion. You, however..."

With choice comes responsibility. You don't go around destroying stuff just because you have the choice. Of course the glass house argument works. I find your pro choice opinion offensive too. On top, I didn't call you a troll.

 
At April 20, 2007 at 4:48 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

"I find your pro choice opinion offensive too."

I don't, knights, and this is my blog. I think that was Sarah's point.

 
At April 20, 2007 at 5:58 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"I don't, knights, and this is my blog. I think that was Sarah's point. "

Oh so in your blog only like minded people can comment?

My point is: you can't call someone a troll just because their view is different. By default you are assuming you are right and entitled to something greater than your opposing view. Just initself you are trolling.

I should go like my alias.

 
At April 20, 2007 at 11:31 PM, Blogger Gino said...

that damn LawFairy just has to go and stir up stink everywhere doesnt she?
even on her own blog.

now, if i may, my dear lady, defend you here, as i have 'there'.

knights:
lawfairy and i agree on NOTHING.
and i've never felt unwelcome to comment here.
that statement of yours suggesting otherwise is patently false, and unfair.


LawFairy:
i'm not clear on what you mean by 'one person's bodily integrity'.
in my view, there are two bodies involved, both with integrity.
and parasitehood doesnt end at birth.

but, since you belive that doing a normal human thing shouldnt have long or far reaching physical consequences: how about a man forced to labor 18yrs to pay for it?

equality goes both ways.
isnt that what equal rights means?

 
At April 21, 2007 at 12:21 PM, Blogger Cara said...

Looks like you've got yourself some trolls, LF! I'm always curious as to why some people have nothing better to do than seek out the blogs of people they disagree with and then harass them for it.

 
At April 22, 2007 at 10:12 AM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"Looks like you've got yourself some trolls, LF! I'm always curious as to why some people have nothing better to do than seek out the blogs of people they disagree with and then harass them for it. "

Another hollier than thou person. We are not harassing LF.

Maybe we seek out her blog because she is interesting and cute. hmm?

"how about a man forced to labor 18yrs to pay for it?"

It doesn't sound fair. This person shouldn't pay and that person shouldn't pay then who IS going to pay for the baby?

 
At April 22, 2007 at 11:38 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

"Maybe we seek out her blog because she is interesting and cute."

Just "interesting" isn't enough?

gino, as to the equality thing, I absolutely do believe that if a man doesn't want a kid, he shouldn't be forced to have one any more than a woman. He should be allowed to sever paternity rights in exchange for not being liable for child support. I also think that where mothers are unfit, fathers should be allowed to seek sole custody and seek child support from the mothers (again, if the mothers want the kids, but they can sever maternity rights if they don't want to be moms).

So, even if you disagree with me, you have to grant I'm consistent :)

I also think this is another reason why people shouldn't be so narcissistic-ly insistent about spawning their own genetic children, as I've touched on before. There are gazillions of kids out there who need homes, and if you really want to be a parent, there's no reason not to adopt.

 
At April 22, 2007 at 11:59 AM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"I also think this is another reason why people shouldn't be so narcissistic-ly insistent about spawning their own genetic children, as I've touched on before."

You are not narcissistic by wanting your own children. That is natural and the survival of the species depends on it. If everyone was not "selfish" like you and adopted kids then there would be no kids to adopt. People that want their own kids are not narcissists. They are far from it. Plus, you are butting in line of other people that want to adopt and have been misfortunate in having their own kids.

"Just "interesting" isn't enough?"

No.

 
At April 22, 2007 at 12:36 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

knights, stop being an asshole.

 
At April 22, 2007 at 11:50 PM, Blogger Gino said...

well, then...
you and i do agree on at least a peripheral point.

ideally, i favor where abortion is illegal,
and fathers must pay.

but, in the current system, where women can decide to reject parenthood, it is only fair that a man be permitted the same.

 
At April 23, 2007 at 5:48 PM, Anonymous Roy said...

This way the law will be more consistant and will reflect less emotinal thought.

That's weird. It sure looks to me like the call was made based almost solely on emotion- "We find this sort of gross, so we're going to uphold the ban."

And consistent? I don't know... I didn't study law like LF, but I've never heard of a law that would permit me to, say, demand the use of another person's body for nine months.

I'm always torn on the issue of child support. In cases where the father has made it very clear that he does not want children and wants nothing to do with them if there is an accidental pregnancy, I think that it sort of makes sense to allow him to opt out. In other cases, it's a little more complicated.

Abortion is permisable because the woman's right to control what happens with her body outweighs the fetus' alledged right to life (if it, indeed, has one). Once the fetus is born, though, there's a compelling state interest in ensuring that the fetus has at least a minimally decent standard of living. Child support is for the benefit of the child, not for the benefit of the mother.

It's a topic that is sadly under-discussed, because the only time it tends to get brought up, as far as I've seen, is as an attempt at a "gotcha!" during abortion debates. I'd like to see more people actively discussing it on its own, outside of the abortion debate.

 
At April 23, 2007 at 8:54 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"And consistent? I don't know... I didn't study law like LF, but I've never heard of a law that would permit me to, say, demand the use of another person's body for nine months. "

gino just gave an example where another person's body has to go through 18 YEARS of labour. That is a demand of the use of another person's body.

"Abortion is permisable because the woman's right to control what happens with her body outweighs the fetus' alledged right to life (if it, indeed, has one). "

Space is space and if the fetus didn't invade the mother's womb then we call that murder. Now, early abortions where the brain has not developed are of no importance to me because the fetus won't feel any pain or isn't defined as a human. Late abortions are clearly murder. By law, murder is illegal.

 
At April 23, 2007 at 9:20 PM, Anonymous stella said...

how does he know if you're cute? the internet's creepy.

that being said, i think it does get sticky when talking about terminating parental rights/financial support. i agree with the concept that if it was already established that he did not and does not want children, that that's a different case than quitting paying child support when the kid's five because 'labouring' to write those checks became too much.
ultimately, the ban that this original post was about does no good for anybody. and i think part of the reason we haven't been having the conversation about a man's ability to 'abort' parental obligations is because we keep having to have the conversation about a woman's right to her own autonomy.

 
At April 24, 2007 at 1:43 AM, Blogger Michele said...

There are so many issues here that it's tough to know which to comment on.

While I agree that this is a women's right issue, I also agree that the issue should ultimately have been left up to the medical field, as well. Not only can the woman not make a decision about her own body (sometimes, maybe often, even with or after discussion with the male involved), she can't even consult a doctor for his opinion.

The discussion about when a fetus becomes a life is always so tricky and emotion always gets in the way. I am the mother of three children and can't imagine the thought of aborting any fetus. That being said, I am currently waiting for news about a woman I know who had to deliver a baby without a brain yesterday; I can't imagine that, either. This problem wasn't found until later in the pregnancy. Who am I to say that she had to go through that trauma?

While laws can't be made to suit every person and every circumstance, I think we have to assume that this type of thing will not be abused and allow for women, with their partners if appropriate, to make the best decision they can along with a doctor's supervision.

 
At April 24, 2007 at 3:21 AM, Anonymous Roy said...

gino just gave an example where another person's body has to go through 18 YEARS of labour. That is a demand of the use of another person's body.

I'm sorry, but the last time I checked, a checkbook was not a part of your body. Child support is, as I noted, an important topic that gets precious little conversation, but it's not the same as carrying a child. That is a financial burden, not a physical burden.

Space is space and if the fetus didn't invade the mother's womb then we call that murder.

What does that mean? "Space is space"? If I find a hundred dollar bill on the sidewalk, I can pick it up and keep it. If I find a hundred dollar bill on the floor in your house and I try to keep it, that's stealing.
If I find a strange person walking around a park, they're fine. If I find a strange person walking around my apartment, that's breaking and entering and/or trespassing. Location does matter.

Now, early abortions where the brain has not developed are of no importance to me because the fetus won't feel any pain or isn't defined as a human. Late abortions are clearly murder. By law, murder is illegal.

What makes them "clearly murder"? Because you don't like them? Because the fetus can feel pain? Do you make exceptions for the mother's life? For her health? For rape and incest? For fetuses with major developmental problems like spinal bifida? What makes killing the fetus unjustified, and do you think that all human beings have a similar right to life? Should I have the right to demand organs from healthy people? Should I have the right to demand blood? What if someone is the cause of my need, should I have rights upon that person?

It's hard to know how to respond when you give precious little information on what, exactly, your position is, and why you hold it.

 
At April 24, 2007 at 7:47 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

gino, I'm not in family law, so I'm not one hundred percent clear on the law... but I think there ARE circumstances where the father can reject parenthood. It's relatively rare, but I'm PRETTY sure it can be done in some circumstances.

stella, well, unfortunately, on the internets there's no such thing as true anonymity. If knights was dead-set on finding out who I was IRL, and if he spent enough time on it, he could probably figure it out. And there are a few pictures of me out there on the interweb. Obviously, I think it's gross that anyone would use my physical attractiveness as a reason to read my blog. I've certainly never stopped reading a blog just because I was not physically attracted to the author.

roy, I want to hug you. I always love what you have to say -- it's so nice to talk to guys who "get" it.

michele, my heart goes out to your friend. Decisions like the one she had to make are heartbreaking enough without snatching an important medical option off the table, out of the reach of women and their doctors alike.

 
At April 24, 2007 at 9:31 AM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"how does he know if you're cute? the internet's creepy."

It was a cheap shot at cara. I don't know if she is cute or not. But, you are creepy for assuming things.

"I'm sorry, but the last time I checked, a checkbook was not a part of your body. Child support is, as I noted, an important topic that gets precious little conversation, but it's not the same as carrying a child. That is a financial burden, not a physical burden. "

Oh but it might just be even more than just carrying a child. Sure, it's a financial burden. To make money most of us have to do "real" work because money represents "real" goods a lot of the time. To shape these goods into our desired needs and wants we put in a lot of hard work and skill into them. Eighteen years of labour is a huge physical burden.

"If I find a hundred dollar bill on the sidewalk, I can pick it up and keep it. If I find a hundred dollar bill on the floor in your house and I try to keep it, that's stealing. "

The hundred dollar bill doesn't belong to you because you haven't worked for it. Now, because it's not a lot of money and it would be difficult to tell the right owner you can keep it. Non the less, that is not your money.

"If I find a strange person walking around a park, they're fine. If I find a strange person walking around my apartment, that's breaking and entering and/or trespassing. Location does matter. "

Hence I stated INVADE previously. If you welcomed the sex that you liked and then didn't want to bare the consequences; take some responsibility.

"What makes them "clearly murder"? Because you don't like them? Because the fetus can feel pain?"

Why shouldn't I kill you? Because you feel pain?

"It's hard to know how to respond when you give precious little information on what, exactly, your position is, and why you hold it. "

Simple, Do on to others as you would have them do onto you.

" roy, I want to hug you. I always love what you have to say -- it's so nice to talk to guys who "get" it."

Oh yeah, he gets it alright.

 
At April 24, 2007 at 10:15 AM, Anonymous Roy said...

It was a cheap shot at cara.

So you weren't being creepy, just an asshole?
Well, I guess that's a slight improvement?

Oh but it might just be even more than just carrying a child.
Sure, it's a financial burden... ...Eighteen years of labour is a huge physical burden.


And, for the third time, child support is a perfectly valid topic of conversation. It's not the same as a conversation about abortion, though, and it's intellectually dishonest to try to compare or conflate the two. It's a distraction technique, not a criticism of abortion.

The hundred dollar bill doesn't belong to you because you haven't worked for it.

I don't even want to get into a debate about whether people have to have worked for things in order to have a claim to them. Legally, that's nonsense. We could go around in circles about the moral or ethical claim, but the law doesn't state that you have to work for things to claim them. People are given, find, and inherit things all the time.

Hence I stated INVADE previously. If you welcomed the sex that you liked and then didn't want to bare the consequences; take some responsibility.

I like my house. I like my sliding glass door. I like that I can leave it open in the summer and get a nice breeze. If somebody walks through it into my house uninvited, the fact that I enjoy the breeze coming through the open door is irrelevent. That person has still invaded my house. Likewise, many women enjoy sex. It's fun. The fact that they're having sex no more means that they want a child than my having a sliding glass door means I want every Tom, Dick, and Harry to come in off the street and invade my home. By virtue of being unwanted, an unwanted fetus is invading. That's, you know, kind of the point of calling it "unwanted."

Further: How consistantly do you hold that position, anyway? I drive to work every morning. I know that one of the risks of driving is that I could be hit by another driver- a drunk driver, a trucker who falls asleep, or just some other careless driver. That's a risk of being on the road. Does the fact that I knowingly take the risk to drive to work mean that I should be denied medical treatment in the case that a drunk driver hits me? After all, shouldn't I "bare" (sic) the responsibility for my actions- I knew that I risked injury by driving.

Abortion is one way of taking repsonsibility for your actions. Taking responsibility means dealing with the consequences. Pregnancy is an unfortunate risk we take when we choose to engage is sex. We can take precautions, but sometimes those precautions fail, or we make a mistake, or whatever. Dealing with an unwanted pregnancy means deciding whether to keep or abort the fetus. It means deciding, if you decide not to abort, whether you're going to give it up for adoption, or take care of it yourself. It means dealing with the physical and emotional fallout of whichever choice you make.

Why shouldn't I kill you? Because you feel pain?

Um, no, actually. That I can or can't feel pain has nothing to do with whether killing me is murder. If I'm in a coma, or asleep, or can't feel anything because my nerves are completely damaged, or if you choose to kill me through some painless method, is it less murder?

Simple, Do on to others as you would have them do onto you.

You're avoiding my question. I want people to respect my bodily automony, so I respect theirs. I don't think that someone should have the right to force me to allow another being to use my organs or my blood without my consent, so I don't think women should be forced to allow another being to use their womb.

 
At April 24, 2007 at 11:18 AM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"Abortion is one way of taking repsonsibility for your actions. Taking responsibility means dealing with the consequences."

You are an idiot. I'll get back to your comments after work. You are just rambling around. pick a topic and discuss it.

"So you weren't being creepy, just an asshole? "

You are just gay and later tonight check on to see how silly you are.

 
At April 24, 2007 at 12:14 PM, Anonymous Roy said...

You are just gay

I'm sorry, what if I am? What would my sexuality have to do with anything?

Ooooh, wait. I see. You think you're insulting me by calling me gay! I get it, now. Homophobic... duly noted.

I should apologize, LF. All I've done is feed your troll. The whole consistency thing always gets me. It's that whole logic thing. Sorry about that.

 
At April 24, 2007 at 1:17 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"I don't even want to get into a debate about whether people have to have worked for things in order to have a claim to them. Legally, that's nonsense. We could go around in circles about the moral or ethical claim, but the law doesn't state that you have to work for things to claim them. People are given, find, and inherit things all the time. "

Yes, people have to have worked for what they have. You are comparing finding a 100 dollar bill and someone giving it to you. They are two different things. If someone gave it to you then it does belong to you. If you found it then it is not technically yours because the one who wroked for it didn't give it to you.

"By virtue of being unwanted, an unwanted fetus is invading. That's, you know, kind of the point of calling it "unwanted.""

If it wasn't wanted than why did you let it into your house. You knew it was coming in and said go ahead and then I'll kill you once you are in.

" I knew that I risked injury by driving. "

Yes, I never have the intention of killing someone when I drive.

"If I'm in a coma, or asleep, or can't feel anything because my nerves are completely damaged, or if you choose to kill me through some painless method, is it less murder? "

It's still murder. If you think it's less painful dying slow than you haven't actually had the feeling of dying.

"You're avoiding my question. I want people to respect my bodily automony, so I respect theirs. "

That's the babies position too.

 
At April 24, 2007 at 3:03 PM, Blogger Cara said...

Ooooohhh, roymac, he called you GAY. Damn. He got you GOOD. I guess you better just take your GIRLY logic and go away now before he says something really mean-- he might even accuse you of having a vagina.

I think he's clearly made his point, anyway, that if sluts keep insisting on having sex, they better accept their place in the world. Taking control of your own body just isn't RESPONSIBLE, and what's wrong with these women anyway for not caring about the cute little itty witty baby inside of them? If all the men in congress can understand that all those itty witty little baby cells are precious, why can't these stupid little girls, with all their natural nurturing instinct?

Yup. It's official. You're gay, so you lose.

/snark

 
At April 24, 2007 at 3:20 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"I think he's clearly made his point, anyway, that if sluts keep insisting on having sex, they better accept their place in the world."

Yeah, my mom is a slut too right? If you're gonna have sex then use condoms and birth control pills. If you didn't use them and got pregnant and still didn't do anything in the early stages then it is unfair to kill a baby. It is sick actually.

" Taking control of your own body just isn't RESPONSIBLE"

You don't really own your body. Death makes sure of that. Are you going to be mad if I pissed on your grave while your conscince was allowed to watch?

"Yup. It's official. You're gay, so you lose."

Hey, don't call people names and expect me to kiss your ass. Go suck a banana.

 
At April 24, 2007 at 4:38 PM, Blogger Cara said...

Go suck a banana? Wow, you just don't stop with those witty comebacks, do you?

Sorry, LF, I'll stop littering your blog with troll food :)

 
At April 24, 2007 at 5:01 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"Go suck a banana? Wow, you just don't stop with those witty comebacks, do you?"

All I have seen from you is name calling. Your first sentence included troll. You keep saying troll and think you have enlightened us with something.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home