Sarah Silverman "Quickie Abortion" Tweet

[GanjaFreebird]

Yes, she is loud, obnoxious, unfunny and insecure. She's a no-talent hack. Her entire career in comedy is due to her using "shock" humor. If it wasn't for that and her trademark long, awkward pauses and smirking, she'd still be begging clubs to let her play.

I did a 180 on her and saw her for what she really is, and this little joke she did confirms it. She's fucked up in the head.

I have to disagree with you on that one.

[GanjaFreebird]

But if she does not, and remember, you said it applies even if she put herself in that situation, she IS obligated to care for that baby. She cannot simply abandon it to fend for itself.

She can give it for adoption any time. There's not reason to abandon anybody with modern technology, just bring the baby to the hospital. But that still doesn't change anything as far as the legal choice for abortion goes.

I have never seen a new mother sign a contract that she will voluntarily submit herself to caring for that child. She is obligated to do so by law, making her a slave.

No, because she can give the child away anytime, the law only makes her responsible if she chooses such responsibility to begin with.

Not so. You are requiring her to take action, namely take the child to a place and make SURE someone takes responsibility to care for it.

You can just bring it to the hospital and leave, actually.

She cannot leave it behind in a crack den, she cannot go on a picnic and just leave it on the ground, she cannot knowingly leave it in the care of an irresponsible party, or face charges. She is obligated by law to care for that child. Like you said, the fact that she did it to herself by bringing the child home means nothing. Face it, the whole slavery thing doesn't fit.

The same laws applies to people who adopt a baby too, it's nothing to do with being forced to use your body to make sure somebody else survives for 9 months, it's about responsibility that people agreed to.

[hadit]

She can give it for adoption any time. There's not reason to abandon anybody with modern technology, just bring the baby to the hospital. But that still doesn't change anything as far as the legal choice for abortion goes.

It does, however, nuke your "slavery" complaint, because once a woman takes a child home, she is responsible to make sure that child is cared for, whether she does it herself the next 18 years or takes affirmative action to place the child with responsible people. She is now obligated by law to care for that child. By your definition, she is now a slave.

No, because she can give the child away anytime, the law only makes her responsible if she chooses such responsibility to begin with.

No, she cannot. As I have already stated, she cannot leave the child behind in a crack den, she cannot give the child to a random 5 year old girl who just wants to play house, she is limited in what she can do, and is thus required to be responsible for the child's wellbeing. Your attitude re the unborn comes into play here. If the child can survive on its own, more power to it, right?

You can just bring it to the hospital and leave, actually.

Likewise, you can carry a child to term and leave it at the hospital. No slavery involved. You're placing a burden on the mother who wants to give up her child by forcing her to pay for her own transportation to a hospital, take time off work, etc. I thought we weren't supposed to do that.

The same laws applies to people who adopt a baby too, it's nothing to do with being forced to use your body to make sure somebody else survives for 9 months, it's about responsibility that people agreed to.

Adoptive parents sign legal documents stating they will be responsible for the child. The birth mother does not, yet is under the same requirements to care for the child, and as you said, it doesn't matter that she chose that course of action.

[GanjaFreebird]

It does, however, nuke your "slavery" complaint, because once a woman takes a child home, she is responsible to make sure that child is cared for, whether she does it herself the next 18 years or takes affirmative action to place the child with responsible people. She is now obligated by law to care for that child. By your definition, she is now a slave.

No, that's not slavery by my definition.

No, she cannot. As I have already stated, she cannot leave the child behind in a crack den, she cannot give the child to a random 5 year old girl who just wants to play house, she is limited in what she can do, and is thus required to be responsible for the child's wellbeing. Your attitude re the unborn comes into play here. If the child can survive on its own, more power to it, right?

If you have legal responsibility for the child, then you do what you have to do, until you decide to give it up. This has nothing to do with forcing women to attach their body to anything they never wanted to be attached to begin with.

Likewise, you can carry a child to term and leave it at the hospital. No slavery involved.

As long as the woman wants to be pregnant for 9 months, and if she doesn't, she has the right to abortion because it's illegal to force anybody to use their body for somebody else' survival.

You're placing a burden on the mother who wants to give up her child by forcing her to pay for her own transportation to a hospital, take time off work, etc. I thought we weren't supposed to do that.

Why not, even if a woman wants abortion, she still has to pay for her transportation to the hospital and take time off work.

Adoptive parents sign legal documents stating they will be responsible for the child. The birth mother does not, yet is under the same requirements to care for the child, and as you said, it doesn't matter that she chose that course of action.

She can give it up as soon as the baby is born if she wants too, that's HARDLY "slavery".

[Truth Teller]

Then argue it and look silly. We're not talking about it.

Wimp.

You ignored the other part of that, which by your definition requires you to defer all matters of child creating and rearing to those of us who have actually done it. You certainly have a lot to say about a subject on which you claim to be deferring to those with experience.

You putting up any number of Solomonic strawmen doesn't change the bottom line: The woman has the fetus attached to her ,so it all stops with her ,so to speak.

I certainly do know what you're referring to, and I'm dealing with it appropriately, because it's stupid. Tell you what, show me a piece of Republican legislation that even FROWNS on contraception

The Obama compromise on birth control is way more than fair.

I'm not a part of any movement baby killer. There is nothing intellectual to be said about a fetus plucked from a womb and then sentenced to death.

Again,what good would criminalizing abortion do?

History has shown that all it does is make a bad situation worse.

I think you're giving her more credit than she deserves.

And I think you're giving her less credit than she deserves.

Poor taste.

All humor involves misfortune,thereby all humor is offensive to someone.

Abortion, whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, isn't something to joke about

It requires a special talent,and I think she has it.

All art is subjective ,especailly humor.

It's like the film Hot Shots Part Duex,either you think Saddamn Hussein wearing a nightgown is funny or you don't.


FWIW,I thnk it's pretty funny.

even if you think you're making some sort of enlightened political statement. Very low class.

Please ,in a world that gave us Andrew Dice Clay(a major self-hating Jew) class is something that went out the window eons ago.

It doesn't "work."

She's got people thinking and talking about the subject,so yes,it does work.

Which is why she's apologizing for it.

I wish she hadn't apologized for it,my guess is she did so only because she might get a sitcom on NBC.

It certainly isn't Sarah Silverman's job to get people talking about it.

I disagree ,art serves many purposes ,and getting people think or talk about issues are amongst those purposes.

It would come up eventually.

It hadn't yet.

Her job is to get up on stage, be unfunny and vulgar, and get paid for it. Sarah Silverman is the last woman I'd ever want to be the spokesman for pro-choice rights.

With all due respect,that makes you sound like rednecks who told The Dixie Chicks "Shut up and sing".

[optimus]

I kinda agree with that though. The Dixie Chicks should've just shut up and sang. Entertainers need to focus on entertaining. Most of the smarts ones get that. Even Elvis was very careful not to talk about his politics. He knew the role of the entertainer.

[optimus]

Please ,in a world that gave us Andrew Dice Clay(a major self-hating Jew) class is something that went out the window eons ago.

I'd just like to add that this is an incredibly silly argument. Because Andrew Fuckin' Dice Clay was a low class degenerate asshole, then it's "Ok" for Sarah Silverman to lack class? That is retarded.

She's got people thinking and talking about the subject,so yes,it does work.

Oh, yes, in that sense it works. I thought you meant the "humor" part, which it failed miserably.

I wish she hadn't apologized for it,my guess is she did so only because she might get a sitcom on NBC.

I think she apologized because she may have realized what she's become...a hideous, unfunny hack. By the way, notice how you never see really attractive women talking like she does? Food for thought...it's just an observation.

[Truth Teller]

I kinda agree with that though. The Dixie Chicks should've just shut up and sang.

And I strongly disagree with you on that.

Even Elvis was very careful not to talk about his politics.

And look at supressing himself did to Elvis personally.

The only performer/public person I know of who could be literally all things to all people (without it adversely affecting him) was Johnny Cash,and I still don't know how he did it.

I'd just like to add that this is an incredibly silly argument.

Not in terms of the culture(which is my point).

Oh, yes, in that sense it works. I thought you meant the "humor" part, which it failed miserably.

"Different strokes for different folks"-Sly Stone.

By the way, notice how you never see really attractive women talking like she does?

I think she's very attractive ,so do do most guys I know(even some conservatives).

[86Dùde]

I've never heard of this chick. Now I'm forced to google.

[86Dùde]

OK, definitely not hot. Too skinny, and not pretty. I like my chicks dark, voluptuous, and even a slight bit over weight. No skinny chicks. Since I and the love of my life have separated it is all good I think. Very confusing.

[GanjaFreebird]

I kinda agree with that though. The Dixie Chicks should've just shut up and sang. Entertainers need to focus on entertaining. Most of the smarts ones get that. Even Elvis was very careful not to talk about his politics. He knew the role of the entertainer.

I REALLY disagree with you on that one.

I think she apologized because she may have realized what she's become...a hideous, unfunny hack. By the way, notice how you never see really attractive women talking like she does? Food for thought...it's just an observation.

I don't care what anybody thinks about her, she's attractive.

[optimus]

I'm just saying there's no real reason for artists to subject their audiences to their politics. Unless their politics are their art, a la RATM, MIA....ok, maybe you guys have a point.

In general though, I think it's best for artists to keep it to themselves for the most part. It seems to help maintain their "mystique."

[hadit]

Wimp.

Jerk. Feel better now?

You putting up any number of Solomonic strawmen doesn't change the bottom line: The woman has the fetus attached to her ,so it all stops with her ,so to speak.

That has nothing to do with your self-imposed restriction on being able to comment on anything you have not directly experienced.

The Obama compromise on birth control is way more than fair.

So you have nothing. That's what I thought.

[hadit]

I'm just saying there's no real reason for artists to subject their audiences to their politics. Unless their politics are their art, a la RATM, MIA....ok, maybe you guys have a point.

In general though, I think it's best for artists to keep it to themselves for the most part. It seems to help maintain their "mystique."

I don't care if an artist wants to get political, they just need to realize there will be a backlash because they will polarize their audience. Avoiding politics allows an artist to appeal to the broadest audience possible.

[302Riz]

If someone can breath they are a person. If they hold their breath they are a suicidal person.

A fetus breathes in amniotic fuid.

[Zordar]

I generally like Sarah Silverman and don't have a problem with abortion humor. My big problem here is with the clumsy, desperate execution, not the joke itself. The tweet and proceeding "apologies" were all just really, really dumb.

[GanjaFreebird]

I'm just saying there's no real reason for artists to subject their audiences to their politics. Unless their politics are their art, a la RATM, MIA....ok, maybe you guys have a point.

In general though, I think it's best for artists to keep it to themselves for the most part. It seems to help maintain their "mystique."

We will have to agree to disagree on that one.

[Truth Teller]

Jerk.

Better than being a wimp.

That has nothing to do with your self-imposed restriction on being able to comment on anything you have not directly experienced.

Spin.

So you have nothing. That's what I thought.

I have the truth.

I don't care if an artist wants to get political, they just need to realize there will be a backlash because they will polarize their audience.

No one knows that more than Sarah Silverman.

Avoiding politics allows an artist to appeal to the broadest audience possible.

That's not what she's about.

Once again,Elvis did do that, and he did get the broadest audience of any performer in all of history as a result.

But ,I don't think it was good for him personally or artistically.

To parpharse Phil Ochs:I'd rather listen to a good song that takes a political viewpoint I disagree with ,then listen to a bad song that takes a political viewpoint I agree with.

Here's someone who did several records that I admire,I don't agree with one word he sings in this song(which baits both Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and my political hero Robert Kennedy) ,but I must admit ,it's a very good song:

[Šñøü†ê®]

I have the truth.

^LOL Alert!

[hadit]

Better than being a wimp.

If calling someone names makes you feel like a big man, have at it. That's why I asked you if it made you feel better. Personally, I really don't care. If you want to argue something noone else is, go for it.

Spin.

You're so cute. You say that every time you don't have a good answer.

I have the truth.

If you do, you haven't posted it here yet. You were caterwaulin' on about the Republicans being anti-contraception and some such nonsense, yet you can't produce a single piece of legislation they created to back it up.

No one knows that more than Sarah Silverman.

As well she should. I think she decided she might as well tick off half the audience in order to get some attention from the other half.