Skip to main content

Margaret Cho

"Hey Shorty" This post by blogger Jon Carlson is terrific. Since it quotes Margaret Cho at length, it is coarse and filled with swears. Read it anyway. It paints a chilling picture of a procedure that is not the squeaky clean "right" its advocates claim. Cho is trying to make the case the abortion should be a choice, despite how much it hurt her both physically and emotionally. She saw pro lifers outside the clinic as condemnatory rather than sympathetic, something everyone who is pro life must be wary of becoming. The other critical bits are that Cho opposes the death penalty because taking innocent life is wrong and there is always the chance of a legal error. That's a fair and logical position, one I have some sympathy for, even if not 100%. But how does she square that opinion with this: "I just killed my fetus. How you like me now! Hooo. Hey Shorty - it's NOT your birthday, it's NOT your birthday…. Hooo…." Wow. At a minimum she recognizes that the baby was alive. The "hey shorty" thing may or may not mean she recognizes that it was human life. She blames the physical pain on the doctors, not her choice to undergo the procedure, and completely fails to recognize that the whole problem has its ultimate origin in her decision to have sex with some guy "she didn't even like." Margaret needs to look in the mirror and start taking some responsibility for her actions and stop expecting the rest of us to develop better rubbers and more painless procedures so that she can go on living her ideology. It's the ideology that needs fixing, not the laws of physics and biology. All the rest of us can do is try to make this world as welcoming as possible for children who are unplanned and the parents who must deal with them in as humane a manner as possible.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect
Post a Comment
Read more

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you
Post a Comment
Read more

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi
Post a Comment
Read more