Don’t read too much into my writings. My comment was an off-the-cuff attempt at satire. Satire is taking a position and extending it to ridicules extremes to draw attention to the original. The political video ads were so over-the-top; I had to reach pretty far to ridicule them. The ads are insulting to both conservative and liberal voters in their heavy handed editing and punch in the face propaganda. Most political ads may be pugilistic propaganda, its’ just that, well, they are much more subtle than the producers of Carly Fiorina’s attack ads.

My intent with the sickening image my words portray at #3 was to show the next step Fiorina’s ad producers might take to demonstrate their pure adherence to the Republican’s anti-abortion talking point.

Todd, your sentence structure in the last paragraph makes your point difficult to understand. You wrote:

“One of the most used arguments in favor of abortion is “if men could get pregnant, it would be a sacrament.” Since men, by definition, can’t get pregnant, and women, by definition, can (no offense intended to women who can’t), this means to me that if these women were in charge, abortion would be a sacrament. So your number three is not far off from many liberals opinions.”

Who do you mean by “if these women were in charge”? Are “these women”; women who can get pregnant, women who can’t or someone else entirely?

I find your statement: “So your number three is not far off from many liberals opinions”, not only rude, but, counter productive to the problem at hand; ending or reducing the need for abortion. Both sides of the abortion issue agree abortion should not be a routine means of birth control. Maybe, just maybe, if both sides dialed down the rhetoric and women were certain one of their basic rights would not be deviously taken away if they did not keep a close eye on it; people on all sides of the issue could sit at the table and figure out a way to solve this problem. All the nasty remarks, demonization and misrepresentations has accomplished squat. More of the same will not help.

Todd, what you said about earning ones way and not taking handouts is true, but simplistic. Where does society draw the line? If a child is starving, should we overfed Americans ignore it? If an unconscious person is taken to a hospital with no ID, should they be denied medical treatment because they are unable to prove they can pay? What of a woman who dutifully stays home to raise the children her husband wants her to pop out. If she and her children become destitute because her husband thought he deserved a woman who looked and acted younger, would you deny her a handout? A helping hand? Funds that would keep her family fed and housed leading eventually to productive taxpayers?

We can show others kindness and love our neighbors or we shrug our shoulders, smirk and say: “Sucks being you.”

Thanks for reading this.

2. Your “(gasp!)” suggests that you think giving my money to minorities is a good idea. I think everyone needs to earn the money they need, not get handouts from the government.

3. One of the most used arguments in favor of abortion is “if men could get pregnant, it would be a sacrament.” Since men, by definition, can’t get pregnant, and women, by definition, can (no offense intended to women who can’t), this means to me that if these women were in charge, abortion would be a sacrament. So your number three is not far off from many liberals opinions.