Or, I was meeting with my banker about something. =P
Elbows, seriously, find data. Bricker just pwned you, as the kids say.
I haven’t been a primary contributor to this thread, though I have been dutifully following along. You’re right though, I found myself disagreeing with elbows but I didn’t step in. In my case, I personally have not been involved with adoption and I felt ill-prepared to argue with her.
Also, as someone who is sort of on the other side of the camp, I found your story of the girl, and the abortion protesters who adopted her baby, to be heartwarming.
:smack:Ah, got it. Actually, now I think that’s pretty funny.
Aww, I see someone has gone back to the ‘no vulgarities, just thinly veiled insults’ school of debate. What’s the matter, did calling someone else a bitch get you all upset?
p.s. The expression is ‘holier-than-thou’.
Generally I’d agree with you, and you know I’m philosophically pro-life and also adopted. However, I’ve been following along a bit on this thread, and I didn’t jump in to point out the obvious flaws in the logic for a different reason. I’m pro-adoption, and I’ll argue with Annie-Xmas and ZPG Zealot about their fucked-up statements about adoption all the live long day, but I’m very sensitive towards people who had bad experiences surrendering a child, that’s a tragic thing, and I don’t see the purpose in arguing with someone whose POV stems from a deeply personal and hurtful experience. Making a point just isn’t worth it to me.
Honestly and with respect, elbow, what’s bothering me about your posts is that they’re identical to the arguments that anti-abortion proponents make regarding how allegedly universal the trauma is for women who’ve had abortions… all because their various blogs and online communities are chock-full of women who were traumatized by their abortions.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no doubt that many are strongly affected by their abortions. But just as I refute the universality of their experiences, I refute it for those who make the same claims regarding women who give up their baby for adoption (or “surrendering” – which makes it sound as if there’s a cop with a court order demanding the kid).
So in short, I agree with Bricker, despite being opposed to him and on your side of the abortion debate. Go figure.
Edited to add: dayum, I took too long to compose this and now I’ve been ninjaed.
NO NO NO! I am a HATEFUL ARROGANT CONDESCENDING BITCH. Not just your regular run of the mill bitch.
AND a piece of shit!
Can you acknowledge that for some people adoption is a good alternative, and can be very positive?
I didn’t feel like associating the word holy with her dimwit.
P.S you’re pretentious.
There …doesn’t owning it feel like a burden has been lifted ;)
But–was there any illegal activity?
It’s CONDESCENDING BITCH SEASON {trumpet call}
Ever so much! 
I’m not making fun of people with Down’s. I’m making fun of you.
Although I guess it was kind of a cunt thing of me to do to make that implicit equation between you and them. For them, I mean.
So I hereby pre-emptively apologize to Down’s Dopers, or Dopers who have friends/family/lovers who suffer from Down’s, if they were in any way offended.
Apology accepted, Kobal2, I wasn’t offended in the least !
[QUOTE=classylady]
Oh gosh not the stupid serial killers thing again?
[/QUOTE]
And why not ? I had no idea this was a thing, but I’m searching for some consistency here.
Before you spout that hobgoblin quote at me, Emerson was talking about not being afraid of voicing a new opinion today just because you had another yesterday. That has nothing to do with having a single, disjointed and incoherent opinion.
If you deem that one thing should be considered the same as another because it has the implicit potential to become that second thing, then it should follow that each thing should be judged on what potential things it might become*.
If so, a baby shouldn’t have an implicit “right to be born” since it has the potential to become a wholly nefarious entity and we tend to put these down.
In my limited experience, the grand majority of babies end up becoming snivelling, self-absorbed entitled fuckwads. On the basis of that potential, and if I were following your reasoning, I should be advocating for the death of them all. Which makes little sense.
I kinda do, actually, but that’s just because babies and children annoy the piss out of me, albeit generally less than their parents.
What’s your specific objection to this reasoning ?
- unless of course this particular thing is a unique and special case in your opinion. If so, why ?
Well then use a different expression. How about Ms. High-And-Mighty? And why are you insulting her dimwit? What did that guy ever do to deserve it? 
For correcting your wrong expression, or for making fun of you for so completely abandoning your “swearing is bad mmm-kay” stance? I don’t really care either way, I’d just like to know.
Not to speak for elbows, but I didn’t read her point as “adoption is always evil”. “Adoption is always difficult and traumatic”, perhaps, but none of the birth-mothers I’ve known (even those who were happy overall with giving up their baby) would disagree with that.
I thought she was backing up Annie-Xmas’s point that the anti-abortion movement (in general) refuses to acknowledge that adoption isn’t always a great thing that would solve the whole problem if those evil/lazy/selfish/whatever women would just take that option rather than abortion.
For instance, Bricker’s statement: “adoption is generally positive and almost certainly a better choice than abortion”. While I would agree with the first half of this statement, the second half is blatantly untrue for many people.
Of course, that whole sidetrack has gone completely overblown and polarized, leading to ever more exaggerated and hostile comments. Imagine that.
It’s C**T season! {trumpet call} ;)
I think the point is not just the legality of their actions*, it’s the fact that the same behaviours would not be tolerated from protesters on any other topic. For instance, it’s been mentioned several times about various protests that have been required to move completely away from the business they were protesting. Why aren’t anti-abortion picketers required to do that?
*Yes, a number of the activities mentioned were illegal. Look up “assault” sometime.
I’d agree that the statement by Bricker , has no realistic basis as factual Which Bricker hasn’t really commented on.
Yeah, Meyer, and you talk all faggoty and shit!
But moooom, I like that word !
Actually, I like how it’s punctuation in England and the VERY WORST FORBIDDEN WORD in America.
And I love that since I’m neither, I can pretend I’m on either side of that linguistic divide depending on who I’m talking to :p. In this here case for example, I was innocently trying to offend the everliving fuck out of classyladyhp. But had she made a fuss about it, I would have put my British English credentials forward.
Shit, that’s another sneaky ploy ruined. WHY THANK **YOU ***ASSHOLE *! 