Chuckling at Chuckles

Today, Chuckles the Tadpole Queen is in high dudgeon over Rick Santorum noting a certain inconsistency in Chuckles’ god king Ogabe’s rhetoric, saying the following:

“The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution?” he said. “And Barack Obama says no.

That’s putting it mildly, Rick. On one of the very few occasions when our Fearless Leader could actually be convinced to vote anything other than “present” during his sinecure as an Illinois lawmaker, he actually voted against prohibiting abortion doctors from “correcting their mistakes” by letting live born, viable babies die from neglect in trash bins.

But at least he didn’t vote in favor of the Gosnell Procedure™ of cutting their spinal cords with scissors to expedite the process.

Well, if that human life is not a person, then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”

Which is a good point. Once you start drawing the line on who are and who aren’t “people” entitled to the full protections of the Constitution, you need to be very damn careful about where you draw it.

We’re constantly lectured on the “three-fifths of a person” rule in antebellum America and how inhumane it was (ignoring the irony of the fact that that very rule was put in place by damnyankees worried that the slaves, were they counted as full persons, would give the South “too much” representation in Congress) and we positively agree that calling some people more people than other people is against everything that our nation supposedly stands for, but how is that worse than declaring a person “not a person at all?”

All that Santorum is doing is pointing out that:

For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution.

Would somebody please point out to us where the logical disconnect making this an unreasonable point is, because we sure as hell don’t see it. Haven’t we for decades been told that fetuses are nothing more than “clumps of tissue” to be disposed of at will? How is this not considering said fetus the property of somebody else and less than human?

We don’t claim to have The Ultimate Answer™ to the question of abortion. People close to us have undergone the agony of being faced with no good options and being forced to pick the one that seemed the least horrible of them all, but we do believe that it’s a perfectly legitimate question to ask.

But in Chuckles’ sadly Thorazine-deprived “mind”, for lack of a better word, that’s tantamount to saying that anybody even considering having one is a mass murdering psychopath. Which is why we love making fun of him so much. If he didn’t already exist, we’d have to bloody well make him up for our personal amusement.

Thatisall.

9 comments

  1. 1
    LC hilljohnny, possom poker growls and barks:

    speaking of Mr. Obama here is some fresh Birther Bait . the new governor of Hawaii vowed to end the debate but can’t seem to be able to find the birth certificate. :em99:

  2. 2
    Shaitana growls and barks:

    The abortion survivors were the thing that no matter what else I could not and would not vote for him. (irrelevant that I hated most of his policies as well) The horrible irony? A ‘friend’ that decided I couldn’t BE her friend (who is an ardent democrat) got tipped over the edge because of my views on Obamacare, where she blames not having it for… her other friend LOSING a baby prematurely because supposedly she did not have access to labor preventing drugs because her insurance medicaid) would not cover it.

    The hypocrisy knows no bounds.

  3. 3
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    Abortion is a thorny problem. I don’t know the ultimate solution to it, either.

    However, I do believe the Constitution specifically designates all powers NOT mentioned within it… to the states, local governments and the people.

    Last I checked, it didn’t say a damned thing about abortion. So, overturn Roe vs Wade and send the question back to the states.

  4. 4

    Waaaay off topic, but wanted to give y’all an update on our friend, LOBO:

    He is doing well at Victory House. He has dedicated his life to The Lord, and is now sober, and hoping and praying for us Rotties. His addy is as follows:

    Edward Brandon
    c/o Victory House
    2526 Columbus Avenue
    Ft. Worth, TX 76164

    He would LOVE to hear from Rotties, and thanks everyone for their prayers and support.

  5. 5
    LC Anniee451 growls and barks:

    I think this is probably the only sane place on the entire internet. I don’t have the ultimate answer either. I know what I believe personally but I don’t know what to believe about legality for sure, though I AM sure such things shouldn’t be funded by the government. But then most things the gov’t funds are things it shouldn’t. What I also know is that right now in the wake of the butcher case, the feminists are out in full force blaming…conservatives for it! Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives’ fault that these women didn’t have easy access to “safe, affordable, legal late-term abortions.” Why it’s our job to provide everyone with “safe, affordable, legal late-term abortion” I couldn’t tell you. I mean, buy a fucking rubber (or pick up a free one, they’re everywhere); those are cheaper than an abortion or a baby. So’s aborting a baby at two months instead of seven. Idiots. They are also all mentioning only the 8 murder cases and completely ignoring the 33 counts of illegal late-term abortion, in order to maintain the myth (that they’re creating) that this “doctor” wasn’t performing abortions. They’re also ignoring the fact that other abortionists purposely were *referring* late-term women to this doctor because they knew it was illegal and they weren’t going to risk it themselves. They’re also ignoring the fact that every department who was supposed to be a watchdog for such butchery wasn’t doing their job because they didn’t want to stir up the pro-”choice” hornet’s nest. They’re also claiming it’s our fault these women were supposedly all poor and couldn’t afford the “medical care” they “needed” (because so many people NEED an abortion at 7 months. Or something.) Even the mucky-mucks are claiming this isn’t an abortion issue but a poverty issue. Uh-huh. A poverty issue ABOUT ABORTION.

    All part of keeping abortion safe, legal, and rarely mentioned in a negative headline, right?

    Now I have a question. Was that the only purpose of the 3/5 rule? Because I’m pretty sure it was Laura Ingraham who was talking about it a year or so ago, and she said that part of the purpose of that 3/5 thing was to pave the way for eventual abolition. I mean, I’m not sure how that was supposed to work, but it made sense at the time. Was it really only to keep the south from having too much representation?

    O/T but what the HELL have I been reading – that the Republicans want a health care bill too, they just want a different one than the Dims do? As in, their own bill? Why the fuck do we need a health care bill at all? Why aren’t they just going to LEAVE IT ALONE? Is this what we fought for for two years? To overturn congress so we can get a slightly different version of Ogabecare?? Wasn’t the point to get them to STOP passing law after law??? To STOP mucking with things and leave us ALONE? To get government OUT of businesses instead of deeper IN? Why are Republicans talking about wanting a different bill once they manage to repeal or defund the one we just got? How about get rid of it and then stfu? I really, REALLY hope I’ve been reading this wrong, because if they’re just going to go and pass something else, then we did all this for NOTHING. Unless their new bill involves scaling BACK government involvement/interference in the medical business, then we REALLY wasted the entire Tea Party movement.

    And what’s this Tea Party “Express” thing I’m reading about that’s supposedly some co-opted version of our grassroots movement funded by old-boy establishment GOP for profit? Between these two things I’m getting some really dire signals here, and it’s scary as hell. You guys were in at the ground floor; I know because I was here. Anyone got more info on all this??

  6. 6
    LC Anniee451 growls and barks:

    LC Aggie – dropping LOBO a line today, I don’t know him but I’m happy to hear he’s doing well. I know how much letters can mean to someone who is going through tough times, so anyway like I say; it’ll go out today.

  7. 7
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    LC Anniee451 says:

    Now I have a question. Was that the only purpose of the 3/5 rule? Because I’m pretty sure it was Laura Ingraham who was talking about it a year or so ago, and she said that part of the purpose of that 3/5 thing was to pave the way for eventual abolition. I mean, I’m not sure how that was supposed to work, but it made sense at the time. Was it really only to keep the south from having too much representation?

    The two issues can’t be separated. Abolition as a legal act obviously couldn’t pass without abolitionist (as in non-slave) states sitting on a solid majority of representation, and cutting the census number of slave states by declaring blacks 3/5 people was quite helpful in that and, considering what they were trying to accomplish, one of the very, VERY few cases where I do tend to agree that “the end justifies the means.” The obvious downside being, of course, that it also helped the North keep the South down on numerous other legislative issues having nothing to do with slavery. But, all in all, it was an attempt to end a horrid, barbaric, inhumane practice in a peaceful way and that has to count for something.

    Unfortunately it didn’t work in time for us to avoid the Civil War.

    Anyway: The bottom line is that the “3/5″ rule wasn’t, as liberals like to imply, some Neanderthal, Evil Plot by Southern White Supremacists to keep the Black Man Down™.

  8. 8
    VonZorch Imperial Researcher growls and barks:

    LC Anniee451 says:

    Why are Republicans talking about wanting a different bill once they manage to repeal or defund the one we just got? How about get rid of it and then stfu?

    It’s very simple, the damned Resluglicans :em72: are every bit as statist as the fucked up Democraps :em72:
    :em98: :em98: :em98: :em96:

  9. 9
    fporretto growls and barks:

    I’ve written extensively about the Gosnell matter, these past three days. Not the immediate horror of the thing — anyone can understand that without having it explained to him — but that we’re looking at the logical consequences of legalized abortion, which were predicted back in the Fifties and Sixties when the pro-abortion forces massed for their big push.

    Few persons remember those debates…and our comtemporary media have no interest in resurrecting them.