Anti-Abortion Group Produces Ad Featuring Obama As the Angel of Death

WingnutsOctober 2010 • Views: 5,593

Anti-choice fanatic right wingers in Colorado are promoting the bizarre misogynistic “personhood” bill that would grant full human rights to zygotes. They see it as the first step to complete criminalization of abortion in the United States.

Here’s the latest video ad produced by these throwbacks, full of lies and fear mongering, and featuring Barack Obama as the Angel of Death.

Yes, really.

Youtube Video

(Hat tip: darthstar.)

Jump to bottom

128 comments

darthstar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:15:36pm

I’d rather be known for finding something more positive than this…the ad makes me ill.

philosophus invidius Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:18:27pm

Jefferson: “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”

What a commie.

HappyWarrior Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:19:07pm

re: #1 darthstar

I’d rather be known for finding something more positive than this…the ad makes me ill.

Somehow had to find it man. Seriously, that was sickening. And it’s why while I may personally lean anti abortion I hate the anti abortion political movement with a heated passion.

Political Atheist Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:19:13pm

re: #1 darthstar

I’d rather be known for finding something more positive than this…the ad makes me ill.

Don’t be sorry, it’s an excellent call out, I’m glad CJ made a topic of it. We are all better known for our posts than hat tips.

darthstar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:21:04pm

re: #3 HappyWarrior

Somehow had to find it man. Seriously, that was sickening. And it’s why while I may personally lean anti abortion I hate the anti abortion political movement with a heated passion.

It never ceases to amaze me how hateful they can be.

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:21:13pm

“In Washington DC, Men in black robes plotted. They hated American values, especially life and liberty and legislated their corrupt ideas from the bench.”

Yes, the judicial branch of the Federal Government, one third of our system of checks and balances, established in Article III of the Constitution, is nothing more than a shadow cabal dedicated to the destruction of all America.

Good to know.

webevintage Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:23:39pm

hahahahahahaha

The mix of Death morphing into Obama, Nixon and the ugly baby doing power to the BAH-BAYS at the end had me laughing so hard I could not breathe.

(Yes it is offensive too)

HappyWarrior Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:23:55pm

re: #5 darthstar

It never ceases to amaze me how hateful they can be.

It doesn’t shock me honestly. I know how hateful the movement is. I’ve said many times now but I can not and will not judge a woman who goes through with a difficult decision that is abortion.

Stanley Sea Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:24:31pm

The President of the United States as the Angel of Death?

Insane. Creepy. WTF?

reine.de.tout Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:25:01pm

Ugh.
I’m no fan of abortion, and wish no one ever chose that particular option, but that ad is awful! I have to think that its appeal will be very limited; it’s just way over the top.

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:25:01pm

Oh, and they have the Obama/Joker image too. They’re so hip and trendy.

jamesfirecat Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:25:52pm

I wonder if LK will be back to tell us all about how its wrong for humans to cause death to other humans through action or inaction, but its okay for him to not donate his spare Kidney because now that dialysis machines exists nobody has ever died for want of a kidney….

scienceisreal Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:25:59pm

Does anyone else find it odd the the anti-abortion groups frequently want to get rid of SCHIP? So, they’ll do everything to protect you, up until you’re actually born.

jamesfirecat Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:27:36pm

re: #9 Stanley Sea

The President of the United States as the Angel of Death?

Insane. Creepy. WTF?

///They’re not calling him Satan anymore he’s only one of the four horsemen, so they’re toning down their rhetoric!

HappyWarrior Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:27:47pm

re: #13 scienceisreal

Does anyone else find it odd the the anti-abortion groups frequently want to get rid of SCHIP? So, they’ll do everything to protect you, up until you’re actually born.

IT’s why I don’t respect the political movement at all frankly. They talk about “protect life” but if you suggest we help these children and mothers too after they’re born you get screams of socialism and blah blah.

researchok Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:28:19pm

re: #10 reine.de.tout

Ugh.
I’m no fan of abortion, and wish no one ever chose that particular option, but that ad is awful! I have to think that its appeal will be very limited; it’s just way over the top.

This is what 3 guys, a computer and lunacy will get you.

darthstar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:28:40pm

re: #10 reine.de.tout

Ugh.
I’m no fan of abortion, and wish no one ever chose that particular option, but that ad is awful! I have to think that its appeal will be very limited; it’s just way over the top.

The kind of people it appeals to are people like Scott Roeder (the guy who shot Dr. Tiller in his church). In other words, this ad inspires the kinds of people who would try a 2nd Amendment solution to the SCOTUS and POTUS.

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:28:46pm

So if a zygote is granted personhood, doesn’t that mean I’m contributing to genocide if I jerk off since I’m destroying the chance for millions of sperm to achieve zygote-hood?

reine.de.tout Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:29:18pm

re: #17 darthstar

The kind of people it appeals to are people like Scott Roeder (the guy who shot Dr. Tiller in his church). In other words, this ad inspires the kinds of people who would try a 2nd Amendment solution to the SCOTUS and POTUS.

You are probably correct.

elizajane Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:29:23pm

I can’t get the sound, but the pregnant woman with her little girl’s mouth taped shut was very, er, telling.
And an industry that makes billions by killing innocent children? Wasn’t that supposed to be the military-industrial complex? or don’t post-birth children count?

jaunte Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:29:25pm

“Men in black robes” plotting.

Uh, that’s the judicial branch you’re talking about. An equal branch to the executive and legislative. So much respect these fanatics show to the United States’ system of government.

webevintage Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:30:04pm

re: #14 jamesfirecat

///They’re not calling him Satan anymore he’s only one of the four horsemen, so they’re toning down their rhetoric!

But he does get to ride a horse named Binky now….

darthstar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:30:04pm

re: #19 reine.de.tout

You are probably correct.

I hope to hell I’m wrong.

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:30:26pm

re: #21 jaunte

“Men in black robes” plotting.

Uh, that’s the judicial branch you’re talking about. An equal branch to the executive and legislative. So much respect these fanatics show to the United States’ system of government.

A SHADOW CABAL! THEY’RE WEARING ROBES!!!

Max Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:30:33pm

Billions to the “abortion industry?”

Umm, what about the oil lobby, the coal lobby, and worst of all, the fundy lobby?

They all seem much more powerful and wealthier than this “abortion lobby.”

iossarian Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:31:53pm

re: #18 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

So if a zygote is granted personhood, doesn’t that mean I’m contributing to genocide if I jerk off since I’m destroying the chance for millions of sperm to achieve zygote-hood?

I AM BECOME DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS!!!

wrenchwench Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:33:10pm

re: #21 jaunte

“Men in black robes” plotting.

Uh, that’s the judicial branch you’re talking about. An equal branch to the executive and legislative. So much respect these fanatics show to the United States’ system of government.

I wonder how they feel about the three women we now have in black robes on the top bench.

Actually, I don’t think I need to wonder.

webevintage Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:33:17pm

re: #20 elizajane

I can’t get the sound, but the pregnant woman with her little girl’s mouth taped shut was very, er, telling.
/blockquote>

That’s too bad, because the music is what really makes it….

goddamnedfrank Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:33:36pm

re: #25 Max D. Reinhardt

Billions to the “abortion industry?”

Umm, what about the oil lobby, the coal lobby, and worst of all, the fundy lobby?

They all seem much more powerful and wealthier than this “abortion lobby.”

Another shill in the pocket of Big Vagina.

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:34:04pm

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the same groups who are anti-abortion are usually pro death penalty and don’t blink an eye if someone says we should just shoot illegals or engage in “auxiliary law enforcement” against “undesirable elements”?

McSpiff Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:34:43pm

Way too much reading for their supporters. Also Nixon is under the bus apparently.

Shiplord Kirel Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:34:55pm

“The people tried to fight them…”
“Never under-estimate the American people….”

Note how these freaks conflate their own movement with “the people.” This is yet another moth-eaten Marxist rhetorical trick they have stolen from the left. With one of their TP candidates wanting to model border security on communist East Germany, there seems to be a trend developing. They like to accuse Obama of being a Marxist, but one wonders why they would have a problem with that.

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:34:56pm

re: #26 iossarian

I AM BECOME DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS!!!

“What are you doing in there, son?”

“EXTERMINATUS!!!”

wrenchwench Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:35:33pm

re: #31 McSpiff

Way too much reading for their supporters. Also Nixon is under the bus apparently.

I was wondering if they used him just for the creepy factor.

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:35:34pm

re: #31 McSpiff

Way too much reading for their supporters. Also Nixon is under the bus apparently.

Commie Pinko, what with the EPA and that leftist shit he peddled.
/

HappyWarrior Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:36:37pm

re: #30 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the same groups who are anti-abortion are usually pro death penalty and don’t blink an eye if someone says we should just shoot illegals or engage in “auxiliary law enforcement” against “undesirable elements”?

Of course. Again the most vocal anti abortion people I’ve known over the years are some of the same people who not only support the death penalty but want more of it.

iossarian Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:36:43pm

re: #30 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the same groups who are anti-abortion are usually pro death penalty and don’t blink an eye if someone says we should just shoot illegals or engage in “auxiliary law enforcement” against “undesirable elements”?

Plus, if the parents are unemployed and the kids have no health care, that’s just too bad. And social services are an intolerable invasion of the sanctity of the home (or something).

So the parents can’t decide to have an early term abortion, but once the baby’s out, they can basically do what they want in terms of neglect. It makes no sense at all.

jaunte Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:37:37pm

re: #31 McSpiff

Way too much reading for their supporters. Also Nixon is under the bus apparently.

He must have been seen in a robe.

wrenchwench Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:37:52pm

re: #29 goddamnedfrank

Another shill in the pocket of Big Vagina.

Say, Killgore, if you’re reading, could you repost that music vid with the woman singing about her giant vagina? It’s no fun at all trying to search for it….

McSpiff Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:37:57pm

re: #35 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Commie Pinko, what with the EPA and that leftist shit he peddled.
/

I’m waiting for Kissinger to get labeled a RINO. I say that day calls for an LGF meetup.

Shiplord Kirel Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:38:14pm

re: #29 goddamnedfrank

Another shill in the pocket of Big Vagina.

Ah, you were relating your adventures with Angle earlier today. Pray, continue.

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:39:33pm

re: #40 McSpiff

I’m waiting for Kissinger to get labeled a RINO. I say that day calls for an LGF meetup.

It will never get aired. You know how those Jews run the media.
/

Ojoe Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:39:49pm

Choice? The right person is never asked.

At least don’t call it choice.

Gus Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:40:13pm

Of course the Jefferson quote is completely out of context.

TO THE REPUBLICAN CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND, ASSEMBLED AT HAGERSTOWN ON THE 6TH INSTANT

MONTICELLO, March 31, 1809

The affectionate sentiments you express on my retirement from the high office conferred upon me by my country, are gratefully received and acknowledged with thankfulness. Your approbation of various measures which have been pursued cannot but be highly consolatory to myself, and encouraging to future functionaries, who will see that their honest endeavor for the public good will receive due credit with their constituents. That the great and leading measure respecting our foreign intercourse was the most salutary alternative, and preferable to the submission of our rights as a free and independent republic, or to war at that period, cannot be doubted by candid minds. Great and good effects have certainly flowed from it, and greater would have been produced, had they not been in some degree, frustrated by unfaithful citizens.

If, in my retirement to the humble station of a private citizen, I am accompanied with the esteem and approbation of my fellow citizens, trophies obtained by the bloodstained steel, or the tattered flags of the tented field, will never be envied. The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.

I salute you, fellow citizens, with every wish for your welfare and the perpetual duration of our government in all the purity of its republican principles.

Image 1
Image 2

wrenchwench Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:41:16pm

re: #43 Ojoe

Choice? The right person is never asked.

At least don’t call it choice.

There’s only one person to ask. It’s her choice. Sorry if you don’t want it to be that way.

McSpiff Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:41:36pm

re: #43 Ojoe

Choice? The right person is never asked.

At least don’t call it choice.

Its true, these people never seemed concerned with what a women wants to do with her own body. That’s what you meant, right?

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:42:38pm

Gardner, Maes, Tancredo Stand With Personhood Amendment

The ranks of the Personhood 33, as I’ve been calling the top 33 Colorado candidates who’ve endorsed the Personhood Initiative, are diminishing.

First, as you know, Ken Buck un-endorsed the measure, though he still supports personhood “as a concept,” leaving me and others wondering what’s changed. His hard-line abortion stance still puts him in opposition to common forms of birth control and abortion even in the case of rape and incest.

Still, I’ve been wondering if the other 32 members of the Personhood 33 will follow Buck’s cue. (See list here.)

So this week, I phoned up some more of them, after determining previously that Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo were standing with the Amendment.

Colorado Senate (SD 16) candidate Tim Leonard, who—like Buck—believes that life begins at conception, told me he never endorsed the Personhood measure, and the Christian Family Alliance website erred in listing him as an endorser.

“I’ve taken no position on any citizens initiative or anything that’s on the ballot that doesn’t have to do with me,” he said, adding that activists were asking him about it during the primary but he never took a position.

Colorado House (HD 35) candidate Edgar Antillon also told me he shouldn’t be on endorser list anymore, having un-endorsed the Initiative during the GOP primary before Buck did.

“Obviously, I don’t get attention like Ken Buck does, but my stance changed on that,” he told me, primarily because he supports abortion to save a women’s life, putting the life of the mother first.

goddamnedfrank Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:42:57pm

re: #41 Shiplord Kirel

Ah, you were relating your adventures with Angle earlier today. Pray, continue.

Things got litigious so most of the rest of the story is enjoined by several non-disclosure agreements. However it’s public knowledge that everyone involved has been banned from Sea World for life.

jamesfirecat Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:45:58pm

re: #43 Ojoe

Choice? The right person is never asked.

At least don’t call it choice.

So the right person isn’t the person whose organs are being parasitically sapped for 3/4ths of a year without their permission?

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:46:00pm

You know “Black Robed Shadow Cabal” would be a pretty good name for a college band.

Stanley Sea Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:54:34pm

Jeffrey Goldberg linked you Charles

theatlantic.com

Lidane Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:57:15pm

Ugh. This is why I will always consider myself pro-choice. The political pro-life people are batshit loony.

What a disgusting ad.

Lidane Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:59:20pm

re: #49 jamesfirecat

So the right person isn’t the person whose organs are being parasitically sapped for 3/4ths of a year without their permission?

Of course not. She’s just a woman. Didn’t you know that she loses all of her rights and claims to her own body, not to mention her moral agency, the moment she becomes pregnant?

///

3eff Jeff Mon, Oct 18, 2010 2:59:52pm

I’m just going to leave this here: imvotingteaparty.com

philosophus invidius Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:01:31pm

re: #51 Stanley Sea

OT (sorry):
Any advice for how to look for a vacation rental in Oceanside/Carlsbad? (I gathered from a previous post that you are familiar with the area.)

RogueOne Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:01:46pm

re: #51 Stanley Sea

“It is of course comforting to know that Geller is ecumenical in her racism: She fears bloodthirsty Muslims and savage blacks in equal measure.”

Good line.

Killgore Trout Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:03:40pm

re: #51 Stanley Sea

Jeffrey Goldberg linked you Charles

[Link: www.theatlantic.com…]

Nice. He posted the video of the EDL attack too. It’s nice to see that getting some exposure.

jamesfirecat Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:04:38pm

re: #53 Lidane

Of course not. She’s just a woman. Didn’t you know that she loses all of her rights and claims to her own body, not to mention her moral agency, the moment she becomes pregnant?

///

///I believe you mean the moment she consented to have sex regardless of if the fetus takes or not, because you know, you can’t agree to have co-sensual sex without agreeing to carry the child who might resulted from it to term!

Stanley Sea Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:06:06pm

re: #55 philosophus invidius

OT (sorry):
Any advice for how to look for a vacation rental in Oceanside/Carlsbad? (I gathered from a previous post that you are familiar with the area.)

One of my client’s owns some vacation rentals (La Jolla) but he lists on HomeAway.com

Smooth transactions and there’s a lot to see on that site. Hope that helps!

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:06:46pm

re: #58 jamesfirecat

///I believe you mean the moment she consented to have sex regardless of if the fetus takes or not, because you know, you can’t agree to have co-sensual sex without agreeing to carry the child who might resulted from it to term!

2 words.

Butt sex.

Lidane Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:07:30pm

re: #58 jamesfirecat

///I believe you mean the moment she consented to have sex regardless of if the fetus takes or not, because you know, you can’t agree to have co-sensual sex without agreeing to carry the child who might resulted from it to term!

Ah, that’s right. I forgot that all this nonsense stems from the need to punish women for being sexual beings, especially outside of marriage. =P

gehazi Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:09:08pm

re: #54 3eff Jeff

I’m just going to leave this here: [Link: imvotingteaparty.com…]

It’s funny but…

The problem is that there are people who would earnestly and proudly wear some of those t-shirts.

jamesfirecat Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:09:10pm

re: #60 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

2 words.

Butt sex.

///Don’t you know if a man does a woman in her back door it means he’s secretly a queer?

Lidane Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:09:16pm

re: #60 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

That’s apparently very popular among the kids who fall for that creepy True Love Waits campaign, and wear those “purity rings”. If it’s not vaginal sex, she’s unable to get pregnant and is still a virgin. Or something.

Charles Johnson Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:09:26pm

I see that Pamela Geller is loading up her homepage with graphic, gruesome pictures of dead people again, from the Mumbai terror attack.

This is a great technique to instill rage in her audience, and she uses it often. Never fails.

AlexRogan Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:09:34pm

re: #60 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

2 words.

Butt sex.

You asked for it: Tenacious D - Kielbasa

Youtube Video

Warning: slightly NSFW for language

Charles Johnson Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:10:24pm

re: #51 Stanley Sea

Jeffrey Goldberg linked you Charles

[Link: www.theatlantic.com…]

Geller calls Jeffrey Goldberg, who served in the IDF, a “Jewhadi.”

Stanley Sea Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:10:58pm

re: #67 Charles

Geller calls Jeffrey Goldberg, who served in the IDF, a “Jewhadi.”

WOW

3eff Jeff Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:11:36pm

re: #62 gehazi

It’s funny but…

The problem is that there are people who would earnestly and proudly wear some of those t-shirts.

Yes, particularly the fire department shirt. “OBAMA isn’t a MUSCULAR CHRISTIAN. That’s why I’m voting Tea Party.”

Oy.

(Anyway, I have to run, be back later.)

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:11:42pm

re: #67 Charles

Geller calls Jeffrey Goldberg, who served in the IDF, a “Jewhadi.”

Quiet the cunning stunt, that one.

AlexRogan Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:12:45pm

re: #67 Charles

Geller calls Jeffrey Goldberg, who served in the IDF, a “Jewhadi.”

What a fucking devious twit…and when I mean she’s devious, I mean she hits people over the head with her shit like Maxwell’s Silver Hammer.

ARRRRGGGGGHHHH!!

Charles Johnson Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:13:44pm

Check out this post at the shrieking harpy’s hatehole about Jeffrey Goldberg:

atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com

Lidane Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:15:59pm

re: #65 Charles

I used to see people do that a lot. I remember when that film Geert Wilders made was released, it made the rounds of some of the message boards I went to. More often than not, it was posted side by side with the video of Nick Berg being beheaded.

The whole idea was to provoke rage among the viewers, and it would work really well. I used to hate commenting on threads about Islam or terrorism because of it, since folks would point to those videos and make the most outlandish, bigoted statements because they were reacting emotionally.

HappyWarrior Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:16:37pm

re: #67 Charles

Geller calls Jeffrey Goldberg, who served in the IDF, a “Jewhadi.”

She sure is a classy one isn’t she? Seriously what a bitch she is.

Charles Johnson Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:16:51pm

Geller’s hard drive is probably indistinguishable from a jihadi’s hard drive — lots of graphic pictures of murdered people. She must catalog them so that she can pull them out and reuse them at regular intervals.

wrenchwench Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:18:03pm

re: #72 Charles

Check out this post at the shrieking harpy’s hatehole about Jeffrey Goldberg:

[Link: atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com…]

From that:

Jihad Jeff Goldberg, from one Jew to another, go to hell.

Nice. She can do that, because she’s such a staunch defender of her people. Unless they believe in moderate Islam, or good Democrats, or some other heresy.

HappyWarrior Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:18:22pm

Geller really is a hateful person. In a reasonable world, she’d be political poison but instead her and Spencer are taken seriously.

lostlakehiker Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:21:30pm

re: #30 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the same groups who are anti-abortion are usually pro death penalty and don’t blink an eye if someone says we should just shoot illegals or engage in “auxiliary law enforcement” against “undesirable elements”?

No. It’s all of a piece, and rather consistent. The idea is to restore the system as it used to be, top to bottom, head to toe. A system in which the borders were more or less closed to illegal immigration, murderers were put to death, and pregnancy meant a shotgun wedding and then by gum a baby.

Those were the good old days, when unemployment never topped 5 percent, except when it did, when people were healthy, except when a polio epidemic came around, when everyone actually got an education, except, well, you know, those people. When doctors knew how to hold your hand and care (because what else could they do?)

Ah, the good old days. They just keep getting better and better. Edit out the considerable fraction of kids with a gimp leg, the shacks along back roads in TX, AR, and LA the likes of which are hardly to be found nowadays in most of what then was called the third world. Edit out the crashes, panics, recessions, depressions, and wars where we lost more men in a bad day than we lose in a bad year now. Spiff those good old days up, and they really shine.

Killgore Trout Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:21:35pm

I think Pam is just loading up her front page with crap so her bogus Hate Crime post from last night scrolls off the front page. She doesn’t want to delete the post (although she did delete the letter) but she wants it to go away.

Gus Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:22:01pm

The man behind the “I am not a witch ad”, Fred Davis. He’s the nephew of James Inhofe.

Video background.

Official website.

Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:22:25pm

Lovely quote they have there from Jefferson at the beginning.

“The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” —Thomas Jefferson

Of course, they neglect to mention that abortion was largely legal in Jefferson’s time.

Gus Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:22:38pm

re: #80 Gus 802

OT

The man behind the “I am not a witch ad”, Fred Davis. He’s the nephew of James Inhofe.

Video background.

Official website.

Oh, he also did the Demon Sheep, Boxer Blimp, and Obama-Celebrity ads.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:22:48pm

re: #77 HappyWarrior

Geller really is a hateful person. In a reasonable world, she’d be political poison but instead her and Spencer are taken seriously.

America is not a reasonable place :D

AlexRogan Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:24:48pm

In reply to Pamz’ latest post on that thread:

Just for knowing …. this post was linked by a couple of leftard blogs so expect nonsensical, Jew hating (disguised as higher thinking) comments.
TROLL ALERT.
What is so galling is the new anti-semitism is being positioned as “pro-Israel”. Even Orwell couldn’t make this shiz up.

I left this for her:

I’m not going to even attempt to use logic with you, Pam, since your brains have curdled.
I’m just going to say for you and your fellow disinformationists and hate merchants (O HAI, Robert Spencer) to go sit on a short stick.

Whaddya think…too much?

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:25:02pm

re: #43 Ojoe

Choice? The right person is never asked.

At least don’t call it choice.

Not a person! A zygote is not a person. A fetus in a womb without organs is not a person. At all.

In any way.

In any fashion.

If there’s a fully functioning adult inside that womb, I’d like to see that!

Until then, your premise is shit.

jaunte Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:25:33pm

re: #79 Killgore Trout

I thought she might be inclined to hide Danusha in the ‘bottom of the pile.’

Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:25:50pm

Heh. @1:09…

“He took over banks, industry, and finally, our heathcare.”

Gov’t hands off my heathcare now!

researchok Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:27:47pm

Re Geller:

Any psychopathology, left untreated, escalates.

That’s like the Laws of Gravity, Evolution, etc- they cannot be undone.

Lidane Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:28:59pm

re: #78 lostlakehiker

the shacks along back roads in TX, AR, and LA the likes of which are hardly to be found nowadays in most of what then was called the third world.

Oh, those shacks still exist. They’re called colonias:

sos.state.tx.us
hud.gov

Note the statistic in the HUD link— 85% of Colonias residents are U.S. citizens; 97% are Hispanic. We’re not talking about illegals living in Third World conditions, but real Americans. They just happen to be brown, and live on the border, so no one pays attention to them except as political weapons.

Vicious Babushka Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:29:06pm

re: #65 Charles

I see that Pamela Geller is loading up her homepage with graphic, gruesome pictures of dead people again, from the Mumbai terror attack.

This is a great technique to instill rage in her audience, and she uses it often. Never fails.

Well, doesn’t Chabad.org do the same thing to honor their people who died in the Mumbai attacks?

Oh wait, they don’t.

SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:31:07pm

re: #43 Ojoe

Choice? The right person is never asked.

At least don’t call it choice.

What would you call it? And whom else should we ask?

Vicious Babushka Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:31:19pm

re: #76 wrenchwench

From that:

Nice. She can do that, because she’s such a staunch defender of her people. Unless they believe in moderate Islam, or good Democrats, or some other heresy.

Like she speaks for all Jews, supporting the EDL and other nazis.

spit.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:31:49pm

re: #52 Lidane

Ugh. This is why I will always consider myself pro-choice. The political pro-life people are batshit loony.

What a disgusting ad.

of course because it all goes hand in hand with all the other snake-handler social-conservative dominionist America-is-Only-For-Fat-White-People-in-Megachurches rhetoric. Naked tribalism, right there, easy as pie, clear as day

Randall Terry is the perfect example, he’s their hero, the patron saint of white doughy paranoid know-nothings who want to tell you who to fuck, how to fuck, how to live, and who to associate with, they want in your bed, they want between you and your doctor, between you and your hospice nurse.

Real creepy, real scary

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:33:08pm

re: #91 SanFranciscoZionist

What would you call it? And whom else should we ask?

Let’s ask the zygote what it thinks!

And then let’s rattle bones over our heads, scream at the moon and tell the future with chicken parts

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:33:11pm

re: #91 SanFranciscoZionist

What would you call it? And whom else should we ask?

Magic 8 Ball.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:33:43pm

re: #95 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Magic 8 Ball.

Fetus hazy, concentrate on woman and ask again

researchok Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:34:36pm

re: #85 WindUpBird

Not a person! A zygote is not a person. A fetus in a womb without organs is not a person. At all.

In any way.

In any fashion.

If there’s a fully functioning adult inside that womb, I’d like to see that!

Until then, your premise is shit.

On a serious note, I do agree with that for the most part.

I also do believe the issue also takes fetal viability into the equation.

One could argue that unaided viability outside the womb is the benchmark for ‘personhood’. If that is the case, the matter is certainly simple.

However, if we factor in technology, the age of viability has become younger- that is to say, preemies born early now are routinely nurtured to independent existence. Certainly we do provide care for preemies as a matter of course.

I do believe that at some point technology will force us to revisit the issue of viability.

I would also say medical ethics has a long way to go vis a vis technology- and that also applies to end of life care.

Lidane Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:35:07pm

re: #95 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Magic 8 Ball.

I prefer the Magic Cheezburger. :D

Kragar Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:35:40pm

re: #94 WindUpBird

Let’s ask the zygote what it thinks!

And then let’s rattle bones over our heads, scream at the moon and tell the future with chicken parts

NO! You can’t use a flightless bird for Orniscopy! What are you, some sort of quack?

100

jamesfirecat Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:35:48pm

re: #97 researchok

On a serious note, I do agree with that for the most part.

I also do believe the issue also takes fetal viability into the equation.

One could argue that unaided viability outside the womb is the benchmark for ‘personhood’. If that is the case, the matter is certainly simple.

However, if we factor in technology, the age of viability has become younger- that is to say, preemies born early now are routinely nurtured to independent existence. Certainly we do provide care for preemies as a matter of course.

I do believe that at some point technology will force us to revisit the issue of viability.

I would also say medical ethics has a long way to go vis a vis technology- and that also applies to end of life care.

My statement remains the same, the woman is a fully formed human being who is having her organs paracitically used against her will.

We don’t allow other humans to do that to each other, so even if we grant the fetus the same rights a human being, abortion is still okay.

101

researchok Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:38:11pm

re: #100 jamesfirecat

My statement remains the same, the woman is a fully formed human being who is having her organs paracitically used against her will.

We don’t allow other humans to do that to each other, so even if we grant the fetus the same rights a human being, abortion is still okay.

Oh, I don’t disagree with abortion rights at all- I’m support choice.

My argument is that I do believe we are fast approaching a point where the abortion period window may have to be revisited (and that has been done before) because of technology.

102

jamesfirecat Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:46:31pm

re: #101 researchok

Oh, I don’t disagree with abortion rights at all- I’m support choice.

My argument is that I do believe we are fast approaching a point where the abortion period window may have to be revisited (and that has been done before) because of technology.

I disagree.

Even if we consider the fetus a fully functioning human being once again I’d argue that it never at any point has a write to make use of the mother’s organs without her permission.

Now granted as tech gets better I suppose one could argue that children who might otherwise be aborted should instead be removed and connected to some kind of mechanical womb, but the fact remains how intelligent the fetus is, doesn’t mater, do we allow fully grown humans to use other humans organs without their consent?

103

researchok Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:54:41pm

re: #102 jamesfirecat

I disagree.

Even if we consider the fetus a fully functioning human being once again I’d argue that it never at any point has a write to make use of the mother’s organs without her permission.

Now granted as tech gets better I suppose one could argue that children who might otherwise be aborted should instead be removed and connected to some kind of mechanical womb, but the fact remains how intelligent the fetus is, doesn’t mater, do we allow fully grown humans to use other humans organs without their consent?

To answer your question- of course not. In fact, that line of reasoning is one of the reasons I support choice.

If we do not force people to give marrow or organs to those who are dying (and will sure die without the donation), we cannot restrict abortion.

Nevertheless, why then are third trimester abortions prohibited (in most cases)?

104

jamesfirecat Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:01:10pm

re: #103 researchok

To answer your question- of course not. In fact, that line of reasoning is one of the reasons I support choice.

If we do not force people to give marrow or organs to those who are dying (and will sure die without the donation), we cannot restrict abortion.

Nevertheless, why then are third trimester abortions prohibited (in most cases)?

Because our laws are not dictated by gold hard reason but rather what the American people are willing to vote for.

Also like I aludded too before, if third trimester children are capable of surviving without use of their mother’s organs then they have a right to survive for as long as they can and be sent into a foster home/orphanage….

105

researchok Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:05:05pm

re: #104 jamesfirecat

Because our laws are not dictated by gold hard reason but rather what the American people are willing to vote for.

Also like I aludded too before, if third trimester children are capable of surviving without use of their mother’s organs then they have a right to survive for as long as they can and be sent into a foster home/orphanage…

Fair enough- though I do believe technology (for better or worse) will impact abortion and what is the age of viability.

As you note, that may not deal with cold hard reason but it is an emotional issue. Ask any couple trying IVF if a frozen egg is ‘tissue’ only.

Ah, we live in a complicated world.

106

Renaissance_Man Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:08:41pm

re: #104 jamesfirecat

Also like I aludded too before, if third trimester children are capable of surviving without use of their mother’s organs then they have a right to survive for as long as they can and be sent into a foster home/orphanage…

All viable third trimester pregnancies (that is, foetuses who do not have abnormalities that make them nonviable) are capable of surviving, as you say, without their mother’s organs. At least, nowadays they are. This means that technically there is no such thing as a ‘medically necessary’ third trimester abortion.

107

jamesfirecat Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:09:38pm

re: #105 researchok

Fair enough- though I do believe technology (for better or worse) will impact abortion and what is the age of viability.

As you note, that may not deal with cold hard reason but it is an emotional issue. Ask any couple trying IVF if a frozen egg is ‘tissue’ only.

Ah, we live in a complicated world.

I’ll agree with you it is an emotional issue for better and worse and I’ll agree with you that increases in tech will doubtlessly affect the abortion debate.

I can’t wait till we have a viable way of transplanting fetuses formed in one woman’s womb to another, that way we can ask anti-abortion women to put their wombs where their mouths are and carry to term the children of other women who want to get abortions.

A little cruel, but hey if they want to take a stand they should prove they’re ready to sacrifice for it, and not by blowing up abortion clinics…..

108

jamesfirecat Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:11:12pm

re: #106 Renaissance_Man

All viable third trimester pregnancies (that is, foetuses who do not have abnormalities that make them nonviable) are capable of surviving, as you say, without their mother’s organs. At least, nowadays they are. This means that technically there is no such thing as a ‘medically necessary’ third trimester abortion.

I believe you mean “no such thing as a ‘medically necessary’ third trimester abortion’ with a normal healthy child.

Because obviously third trimester abortions could be quite medically necessary if upon closer inspection it turns out that the child might do serious damage to the mother in the process of giving birth.

109

researchok Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:14:03pm

re: #107 jamesfirecat

I’ll agree with you it is an emotional issue for better and worse and I’ll agree with you that increases in tech will doubtlessly affect the abortion debate.

I can’t wait till we have a viable way of transplanting fetuses formed in one woman’s womb to another, that way we can ask anti-abortion women to put their wombs where their mouths are and carry to term the children of other women who want to get abortions.

A little cruel, but hey if they want to take a stand they should prove they’re ready to sacrifice for it, and not by blowing up abortion clinics…

Agreed mostly, though not necessarily in the literal sense.

I’d be satisfied if there were a dependable mechanism in place to take care of unwanted babies- and not just a warehouse system.

One of my big beefs is that talk is cheap. Let’s see the money and the commitment to take care of these kids. Until the best interests of the child are a priority, no moral argument the pro lifers make are credible.

110

Renaissance_Man Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:14:13pm

re: #108 jamesfirecat

I believe you mean “no such thing as a ‘medically necessary’ third trimester abortion’ with a normal healthy child.

Because obviously third trimester abortions could be quite medically necessary if upon closer inspection it turns out that the child might do serious damage to the mother in the process of giving birth.

Actually no - by that stage of pregnancy, there is very little mechanical difference between an abortion and a birth. By that stage, that’s a pretty big foetus, and it’s got to come out somehow, viable or not. In fact, in cases where induction is indicated due to nonviability, the induction/abortion is generally more traumatic than a birth would be. By the third trimester, the process of aborting is not safer than birthing.

111

jamesfirecat Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:15:32pm

re: #110 Renaissance_Man

Actually no - by that stage of pregnancy, there is very little mechanical difference between an abortion and a birth. By that stage, that’s a pretty big foetus, and it’s got to come out somehow, viable or not. In fact, in cases where induction is indicated due to nonviability, the induction/abortion is generally more traumatic than a birth would be. By the third trimester, the process of aborting is not safer than birthing.

Then why did George Tiller have so many customers?

112

wrenchwench Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:16:07pm

re: #110 Renaissance_Man

Actually no - by that stage of pregnancy, there is very little mechanical difference between an abortion and a birth. By that stage, that’s a pretty big foetus, and it’s got to come out somehow, viable or not. In fact, in cases where induction is indicated due to nonviability, the induction/abortion is generally more traumatic than a birth would be. By the third trimester, the process of aborting is not safer than birthing.

You have some reading to do.

113

Renaissance_Man Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:18:03pm

re: #112 wrenchwench

You have some reading to do.

In the third trimester, the treatment for eclampsia is not abortion. It’s delivery. The foetus is viable, and the mother cannot tolerate further pregnancy, so we deliver. The same is true of other life-threatening maternal conditions in the third trimester, such as Marfan’s and Eisenmenger’s.

114

Renaissance_Man Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:22:33pm

re: #111 jamesfirecat

Then why did George Tiller have so many customers?

I can’t comment on that, not knowing the practice in question.

My point is solely that in the third trimester, the foetus is viable (assuming it is not nonviable by reason of abnormality). Should it be medically necessary to end a pregnancy at that stage, such as in eclampsia, the treatment is delivery, not abortion. Should a mother not be able to tolerate a birth, the treatment is C-section, because there’s no way of aborting at that stage that is less traumatic than a birth.

115

wrenchwench Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:24:36pm

re: #114 Renaissance_Man

I can’t comment on that, not knowing the practice in question.

My point is solely that in the third trimester, the foetus is viable (assuming it is not nonviable by reason of abnormality). Should it be medically necessary to end a pregnancy at that stage, such as in eclampsia, the treatment is delivery, not abortion. Should a mother not be able to tolerate a birth, the treatment is C-section, because there’s no way of aborting at that stage that is less traumatic than a birth.

Then in cases “in cases where induction is indicated due to nonviability,” and ” the induction/abortion is generally more traumatic than a birth would be” is that when a so-called “partial birth abortion” is indicated?

116

jamesfirecat Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:24:50pm

re: #114 Renaissance_Man

I can’t comment on that, not knowing the practice in question.

My point is solely that in the third trimester, the foetus is viable (assuming it is not nonviable by reason of abnormality). Should it be medically necessary to end a pregnancy at that stage, such as in eclampsia, the treatment is delivery, not abortion. Should a mother not be able to tolerate a birth, the treatment is C-section, because there’s no way of aborting at that stage that is less traumatic than a birth.

If you are correct then I’ll agree with you.

However the fact that George Tiller a man who sepcilized in late term abortions had so many customers when in theory any hospital should have been able to delivery a third trimester baby viable or not is something I consider emperical evidence against your case…..

117

Vicious Babushka Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:25:34pm

re: #114 Renaissance_Man

I can’t comment on that, not knowing the practice in question.

My point is solely that in the third trimester, the foetus is viable (assuming it is not nonviable by reason of abnormality). Should it be medically necessary to end a pregnancy at that stage, such as in eclampsia, the treatment is delivery, not abortion. Should a mother not be able to tolerate a birth, the treatment is C-section, because there’s no way of aborting at that stage that is less traumatic than a birth.

Where’s Salamantis? Did he flounce/getbanned?

118

wrenchwench Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:28:38pm

re: #117 Alouette

Where’s Salamantis? Did he flounce/getbanned?

He’s not banned. I think he was a “silent flounce”, which I guess is not a flounce at all, he just walked away.

119

Tigger2005 Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:30:04pm

While doing a Google search for something else, I saw a link I didn’t click on. It was an article or essay titled something like “Killing your neighbor should be safe and legal, but rare.” In other words, getting an abortion is JUST LIKE killing Herb Woodley next door in cold blood.

120

Renaissance_Man Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:31:45pm

re: #116 jamesfirecat

If you are correct then I’ll agree with you.

However the fact that George Tiller a man who sepcilized in late term abortions had so many customers when in theory any hospital should have been able to delivery a third trimester baby viable or not is something I consider emperical evidence against your case…

In many states, the legalities of ending pregnancies in the third trimester are very problematic. In the last case I was in, the foetus was nonviable, and this condition was discovered at 28 weeks, the start of the third trimester. The mother needed a couple of weeks to digest this terrible news before deciding that she wanted to go ahead and terminate at that stage. Third trimester abortions are illegal in this state, but because this is no longer a viable foetus, it’s now not an abortion, it is an ‘induction of a nonviable foetus’. Even with that, though, it took a further 4 weeks for all lawyers involved to agree.

121

Renaissance_Man Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:33:40pm

re: #115 wrenchwench

Then in cases “in cases where induction is indicated due to nonviability,” and ” the induction/abortion is generally more traumatic than a birth would be” is that when a so-called “partial birth abortion” is indicated?

‘Partial-birth abortion’ is not a medical term. It’s a political term, and what it means seems to vary somewhat. As such, I wouldn’t consider myself qualified to comment on it.

122

wrenchwench Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:36:00pm

re: #121 Renaissance_Man

‘Partial-birth abortion’ is not a medical term. It’s a political term, and what it means seems to vary somewhat. As such, I wouldn’t consider myself qualified to comment on it.

That’s why I said “so-called”. Could you comment if I called it an intact dilation and extraction?

123

Renaissance_Man Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:41:50pm

re: #122 wrenchwench

That’s why I said “so-called”. Could you comment if I called it an intact dilation and extraction?

What I do know is that in cases where the foetus is nonviable for whatever reason (eg. anencephaly, Potter’s), and this is discovered in the third trimester, generally what is done is not an intact D&E. What we do is an induction, and the induction process is usually done somewhat ungently - the induction drugs are a bit more quick and dirty, which is not comfortable for the mother but makes the process shorter and safer. Given the frailty of the foetus and the prematurity, the nonviable foetus usually does not survive the process, though even if they do they are nonviable anyway and do not make it long outside the womb. I cannot think of any particular medical indication to perform an intact D&E.

124

wrenchwench Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:44:26pm

re: #123 Renaissance_Man

Would it not be easier on the mother? I’ve read also that it’s used to preserve her ability to bear children in the future. Would that not be a medical indication?

125

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:45:14pm

re: #123 Renaissance_Man

There are also occasions when intact D&X is used where the skull of the non-viable fetus is crushed. That is the part that you’re leaving out— and that process is less traumatic than full birth would be, since the diameter of the head is reduced.

They are, thankfully, incredibly rare.

126

Renaissance_Man Mon, Oct 18, 2010 4:48:35pm

re: #124 wrenchwench

Would it not be easier on the mother? I’ve read also that it’s used to preserve her ability to bear children in the future. Would that not be a medical indication?

Easier still would be a regular D&X, where the foetus is removed piecemeal, or as Obdi suggests, by crushing the skull. This is what is done in cases of foetal death in utero, where the POC have to be gotten out somehow. I can’t think of any indication to perform an intact D&X specifically though.

127

Charles Johnson Mon, Oct 18, 2010 5:01:30pm

re: #117 Alouette

Where’s Salamantis? Did he flounce/getbanned?

As smart as Salamantis was about some topics, he turned out to be a dyed in the wool global warming denier, and got very pissed off at me for my posts on the subject.

And so it goes.

128

lostlakehiker Mon, Oct 18, 2010 5:08:41pm

re: #89 Lidane

Oh, those shacks still exist. They’re called colonias:

[Link: www.sos.state.tx.us…]
[Link: www.hud.gov…]

Note the statistic in the HUD link— 85% of Colonias residents are U.S. citizens; 97% are Hispanic. We’re not talking about illegals living in Third World conditions, but real Americans. They just happen to be brown, and live on the border, so no one pays attention to them except as political weapons.

I’m not saying these are good middle class homes. But many have electricity, the more established colonias have water and sewer connections, and the homes are much, much larger and more solidly built than the shacks I was talking about.

Texas has made great strides in bringing services to the colonias, so older links reflect a situation which has since improved. But even before those improvements, the physical structures of a colonia were radically better than those shacks. You had to see them to believe it. The picture included in your link shows a trailer. That’s crappy housing, but there’s crappy and there’s shack. The two are worlds apart. Trust me, today’s crappy housing is a big step up from yesterday’s shacks.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Anti-Abortion Group Produces Ad Featuring Obama As the Angel of Death

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud