Daily Kos

Fisking Sullivan

by drjimcooper

Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 07:05:26 AM PDT

Andrew Sullivan seems to be confused.

Edwards voted to keep the abortion of late-term babies legal - even if it involves the grotesque procedure of crushing a newborn's skull while still in the womb.
Note to Andrew:

If the fetus is still in the womb, it is not a "newborn."

Fucktard.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 19 comments

  •  another level... (4.00 / 7)

    If it's not born, would that make the "baby" a "fetus"?

    and what constitues late term abortion?  with medical technology constantly changing, a "late term" baby can be delivered via csection or induce labor to a viable sustainable lifeform in a neo-natal facility.  I would think a late term abortion would only be performed in emergency situations when the mother's life is in danger and delivery is not an option.  

    I am sick of these guys spending so much of their energy making sure every fetus, embryo and zygote turns into a person without investing any care or energy to make sure that person has a good life or an education or even a HOME.

    and they're so hypocritical about it.  No one is protesting IVF that tosses out hundreds if not thousands of embryos a year but heaven help us if they try and use those embryos to make stem cells that will cure horrible diseases.

    It's enough to make my head explode if I think about it that long.

    ...if it weren't for my horse...

    You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

    by DawnG on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 07:34:54 AM PDT

  •  Ugh (4.00 / 7)

    The thing that drives me crazy when people like Andrew Sullivan comment on abortion issues is: abortions will still happen no matter what someone like John Edwards votes.  The choice is not between abortions happening or not having them happen, the choice is making the procedure as safe and regulated as possible.  Outlawing abortions just makes them that much dangerous for the mother and takes away her rights over her body - it won't prevent any "grotesque practices".  In fact, an illegal back-alley abortion is a far more grotesque practice than anything Sullivan argues against.

    No offence guys - but from all the crap that I've heard men spew at me about what I should and shouldn't do about my body, my children and my future, I've half a mind to agitate for Saudi-style complete segregation of the sexes on this one.  (My favourite was when a Catholic man told me that women weren't "fit" to make the decisions about reproduction because they were too "emotionally volatile".  I wonder how many of our current legislators still believe something as crazy as this.)

    -5.62, -7.54

    by tyelperion on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 07:39:47 AM PDT

    •  Not a problem for some (4.00 / 3)

      Outlawing abortions just makes them that much dangerous for the mother and takes away her rights over her body - it won't prevent any "grotesque practices". In fact, an illegal back-alley abortion is a far more grotesque practice than anything Sullivan argues against.

      And legalities certainly won't prevent rich politicians (i.e. those who incessantly babble about morality) from getting access to abortions. Illegal or not, they will still have access to abortions.  The back alley and "grotesque practices" are reserved, as always, to those who cannot afford the "illegal" procedure.

      Hostage smiles on presidents, freedom scribbled in the subway. It's like night and day. - Joni Mitchell

      by jazzlover on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 07:55:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since the beginning of time. . . (none / 0)

      Men have been trying to control the female reproductive system. I fear nothing will ever curb this obsession.

      Nothing drives men crazier than some medical or technical advance that gives women more control over their bodies -- abortion, the pill, the morning after pill, you name it.

      I don't think we will ever leave you alone.

      The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

      by Lords on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 09:33:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  unborn does not = baby (none / 0)

    I didn't comment on that because I sort of thought it went without saying.  That's also why I didn't get into the right wing calling IDE "partial birth abortion" or any of the other rhetorical nonsense.  

    I thought of this diary as more of an exercise in Sullivan's favorite pastime of "fisking" in which he often disects irrelevant (and carefully selected) rhetorical points without looking at the broader argument (which I would obviously disagree with him on).  More snarking than anything else.  Plus I like using the word "fucktard."

    by drjimcooper on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 07:53:23 AM PDT

  •  As opposed to... (none / 0)

    As opposed to the republicans, who voted to outlaw life-saving abortions - even if it was the only thing that would stop a mother from being torn apart from the inside out.

    Two can play at this game. That's why this issue goes nowhere.

    by chaput on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 07:57:06 AM PDT

  •  "Fisking" (none / 0)

    Am I missing something?

    by joeesha on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 07:58:00 AM PDT

  •  Of course, this comes from Sullivan (none / 0)

    Who is a man and never will have to deal or will intimately know what he's speaking about, and even worse, whose friend never will be in this situation either since he's gay.
    I'll never understand how this guy who's part of one of the most vilified and oppressed group, notably by religious zealots and by conservatives, can promote such points of view that basically vilify and oppress other people. I mean, it's beyond cognitive dissonance, it's just a blatant and sad case of the victim making as his own and replicating the values of the oppressor.

    Americans placed the stamp of approval on the least justifiable military action since Hitler invaded Poland. Paul C. Roberts

    by Clueless Joe on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 08:03:47 AM PDT

    •  FWIW (none / 0)

      At least Sullivan will not be voting for Bush this year.  As much as the guy often infuriates me I do enjoy reading him just to see what the other side is up to.  And he's not nearly as horrendous as most conservative commentators out there.

      by drjimcooper on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 08:06:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink | 19 comments