A Note to the Fanatics Who Sent Me Photos of Dead Babies This Morning

Wingnuts • Views: 3,505

Note to the religious fanatics who decided it would be a good idea to respond to my post about extremist GOP anti-abortion positions by emailing me several photos of dead babies, with notes telling me that you’re praying for me — if you think this kind of tactic is going to change my mind, you couldn’t be more mistaken.

When you do this kind of thing, all you do is harden my resolve to stand against your Dark Ages insanity — and intensify my disgust for you and your fellow travelers. What kind of sick person keeps a library of dead baby pictures, and mails them out to strangers? Hatred is all you have left; hatred of women, hatred of minorities, and hatred of everyone who doesn’t follow your twisted nightmare of a religion.

You’re going to lose this battle, and every time you email a picture of a dead baby to someone, you take another step toward the final defeat of your deranged authoritarian belief system.

Jump to bottom

213 comments
1 122 Year Old Obama  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:08:54am

How sickening.

2 wrenchwench  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:10:10am

{Charles}

3 jamesfirecat  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:10:28am

You know what’s even worse than dead babies?

Pictures of what women look like who try to give themselves abortions because they can’t find a legal way to get the operation.

Live by the argument from emotion, die by it is what I say….

4 Radicchio ad Absurdum  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:10:43am

Its like a sick fetish

5 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:11:37am

I think Charles is pissed

6 Soap_Man  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:11:37am

Smack-down!

7 bratwurst  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:14:03am

Would I be wrong to suggest that anyone who spends their time collecting pictures of dead babies to email and make signs with spend AT LEAST as much time supporting adoption programs and otherwise taking care of live babies in serious need of help?

8 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:14:24am

Abortion is and always will be a matter of individual conscience. Any attempt to intrude on that process will be rejected by the American people.

9 Soap_Man  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:16:13am

I always felt the “I’ll pray for you” comment can be one of the most insulting things someone can say.

I’m not talking about the honest, honorable and genuine who pray for others, for their safety or health or well-being or whatever. (Hoops, for example.)

But those who use it as a condescending “You are a disgusting sinner and I am better than you, so I’ll pray for you as a not-so-subtle slap in the face” need to knock that shit off. It’s not gesture of help, but one of judgment. Which any good Christian should know, is the responsibility of one’s God, not man.

10 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:16:58am

I just launched Tweetdeck, and sure enough, the sickos were also posting their crap on Twitter.

twitter.com

11 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:17:01am

HEAR HEAR!!

12 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:17:14am

Excellent!

13 jaunte  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:20:46am

re: #7 bratwurst
Given the large number of extreme pro-life people out there, with deep feelings about the subject, it shows a certain lack of follow-through that so many children are still waiting to be adopted.
adoptuskids.org

14 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:26:17am

re: #13 jaunte

And that so many of them support the death penalty. If you support the death penalty, you don’t get to call yourself pro-life. Fuck that.

15 webevintage  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:28:48am

re: #13 jaunte

Given the large number of extreme pro-life people out there, with deep feelings about the subject, it shows a certain lack of follow-through that so many children are still waiting to be adopted.
[Link: www.adoptuskids.org…]

These would also be the folks who make sure that gays are not allowed to foster or adopt kids who need homes.

These are the people who only care about the pre-born child and seem to forget that one of the ways you drop the number of abortions is to make sure that single mothers and families have the support needed to raise a child, but that requires things like “entitlements” and “social justice”.

16 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:29:06am

re: #14 Fozzie Bear

And that so many of them support the death penalty. If you support the death penalty, you don’t get to call yourself pro-life. Fuck that.

I do…what you think makes no difference, seems to me the term applies to abortion matters, not the death penalty

17 Flounder  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:29:40am

I’m surprised the abortion nazis still send out dead baby pics, haven’t they figured out it just undermines their credibility?

18 Stonemason  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:29:49am

re: #14 Fozzie Bear

And that so many of them support the death penalty. If you support the death penalty, you don’t get to call yourself pro-life. Fuck that.

and so many pro-choicers support letting serial killers and serial rapists live out thier lives. Fuck that.

for further clarification, I support both the death penalty and the right of a woman to choose how to deal with a pregnancy.

19 eneri  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:29:57am

OMG!!! How can you stand it? How awful.

20 CarleeCork  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:30:49am

Where do they get these pictures? How do they know these pictures they post everywhere are the result of abortions and not miscarriages?

21 jamesfirecat  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:31:02am

re: #14 Fozzie Bear

And that so many of them support the death penalty. If you support the death penalty, you don’t get to call yourself pro-life. Fuck that.

Meh, I can understand that contradiction as people would argue that a criminal who has been found guilty of some horrific crime has given up their right to life, while a fetus is innocent and thus should be given a chance.

A much more damming difference lays in how people who are deeply interested in seeing those children born, and shy away from wanting to do anything to make sure that they can lead a happy and productive life from womb to tomb….

22 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:31:06am

pro life
pro choice
pro death penalty
I don’t go around labeling people with chants

23 jamesfirecat  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:32:14am

re: #22 albusteve

pro life
pro choice
pro death penalty
I don’t go around labeling people with chants

///No but it sounds like we’ve got an interesting chart in the making, maybe a Venn Diagram?

24 RadicalModerate  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:32:21am

One other thing that needs to be mentioned about these anti-abortion fanatics. They have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about telling baldfaced lies to deceive people regarding reproductive rights.
Two specifics:
First, the use of scare tactics and junk science: ie women who get abortions will be at greater risk on subsequent pregnancies and are also at a higher risk for breast cancer - both are completely false.
Second, the so-called “crisis pregnancy clinics” that were set up by these groups, to lure in women, just to have the women evangelized to about how evil they were to consider pregnancy termination. The deceptiveness of these were so bad that legislation was passed that required them to specifically state that they were not abortion providers.

25 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:32:23am

I think the far right has already lost this battle. Just too stupid or self-deluded (or “principled”, as they would say) to know it.

26 CarleeCork  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:32:43am

re: #21 jamesfirecat

Meh, I can understand that contradiction as people would argue that a criminal who has been found guilty of some horrific crime has given up their right to life, while a fetus is innocent and thus should be given a chance.

A much more damming difference lays in how people who are deeply interested in seeing those children born, and shy away from wanting to do anything to make sure that they can lead a happy and productive life from womb to tomb…


Some people found guilty are later found to be innocent. That’s what concerns me.

27 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:33:46am

re: #23 jamesfirecat

///No but it sounds like we’ve got an interesting chart in the making, maybe a Venn Diagram?

working up a rally poster….of course for brainless droolers it won’t make any sense…but hey, touche

28 Four More Tears  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:34:45am

re: #26 CarleeCork

Some people found guilty are later found to be innocent. That’s what concerns me.

Amen to that.

29 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:34:53am

re: #27 albusteve

It’s worth a try, but I doubt people who would email dead baby pics to make a point can understand venn diagrams.

30 Four More Tears  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:35:06am

re: #27 albusteve

working up a rally poster…of course for brainless droolers it won’t make any sense…but hey, touche

Again with the drooling?

31 wrenchwench  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:35:20am
It’s a family affair.

I got that for a rotating title on this post, and it prompts me to write this:

On an earlier thread, amid the discussion over abortion, some posted the need for parental notification. Keep in mind that one of the tyrannies promoted by theocrats is the tyranny of the family, meaning the father, although they’ve gotten good at saying “father and mother” on some of their websites. The tyranny of the father, if it were supported by the government, could include any kind of abuse without legal recourse.

If you want to be notified in the case that a daughter of yours wants an abortion, you should maintain the kind of relationship that allows for that communication from her. Maybe it doesn’t always work that way, but the alternative could be much worse.

32 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:35:34am

re: #25 palomino

I think the far right has already lost this battle. Just too stupid or self-deluded (or “principled”, as they would say) to know it.

The battle was lost long ago, no politician has been able to (or really have tried to) change anything. But, it is a useful position to attract support and voters, and that’s the only reason it exists in platforms and statement from the GOP. It’s a colorful banner to way to get people to huddle around your camp.

And that’s coming from one of “those guys.”

33 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:35:38am

re: #26 CarleeCork

Some people found guilty are later found to be innocent. That’s what concerns me.

circumstantial evidence cannot always require a death sentence…but the guy with a smoking pistol, standing over his victims is toast

34 Radicchio ad Absurdum  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:35:39am

re: #26 CarleeCork

Some people found guilty are later found to be innocent. That’s what concerns me.

My concern as well.

35 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:36:04am

re: #30 JasonA

Again with the drooling?

pro life droolers…you know the type

36 jamesfirecat  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:36:37am

re: #26 CarleeCork

Some people found guilty are later found to be innocent. That’s what concerns me.

And that is a worthy concern that I share, but I’m just saying there’s no inherent contradiction in the belief that all people come into this world innocent with a right to life and that said right to life can be taken away by the government after a fair trial by a jury of your peers if they find you guilty.

So yeah, I’d prefer if we can keep the capital punishment debate separate from the abortion debate….

37 Radicchio ad Absurdum  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:36:44am

re: #35 albusteve

pro life droolers…you know the type

Sounds like a hygiene issue to me.

38 Locker  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:37:13am

With regard to Charles’ comments on this incident I say:

HELL YES! PREACH ON BROTHER!

39 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:37:13am

re: #29 Fozzie Bear

It’s worth a try, but I doubt people who would email dead baby pics to make a point can understand venn diagrams.

outside their field of relentless, absurd focus

40 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:37:16am

re: #33 albusteve

circumstantial evidence cannot always require a death sentence…but the guy with a smoking pistol, standing over his victims is toast

In a perfect world I would agree. But you can’t devise a law that says “only in really super duper obvious cases”, because it will be mis-applied.

41 Four More Tears  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:38:47am

re: #40 Fozzie Bear

In a perfect world I would agree. But you can’t devise a law that says “only in really super duper obvious cases”, because it will be mis-applied.

Well, we would have to examine the definition of “obvious,” not to mention “super” and “duper.”

42 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:38:48am

And the latest sick blog post being circulated by conservatives on Twitter this morning: Mom of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up.

43 Locker  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:39:09am

re: #16 albusteve

I do…what you think makes no difference, seems to me the term applies to abortion matters, not the death penalty

Seems to me if you call yourself pro-life then you should respect life or you sound like a dumb ass.

44 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:39:24am

re: #40 Fozzie Bear

In a perfect world I would agree. But you can’t devise a law that says “only in really super duper obvious cases”, because it will be mis-applied.

that’s a role for appeals courts

45 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:39:59am

re: #43 Locker

Seems to me if you call yourself pro-life then you should respect life or you sound like a dumb ass.

Well, Steve is pro-choice I believe, so he’s not a flaming hypocrite on this one.

46 Four More Tears  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:40:21am

re: #42 Charles

And the latest sick blog post being circulated by conservatives on Twitter this morning: Mom of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up.

wtf

They’re using The Globe as a source…

47 CarleeCork  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:40:59am

re: #42 Charles

And the latest sick blog post being circulated by conservatives on Twitter this morning: Mom of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up.


Is there no end to the insanity?

48 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:41:04am

re: #43 Locker

Seems to me if you call yourself pro-life then you should respect life or you sound like a dumb ass.

pro life is a label…be careful or it’s you that will sound like your own dumb ass label

49 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:42:12am

re: #42 Charles

And the latest sick blog post being circulated by conservatives on Twitter this morning: Mom of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up.

That story is an amazing convergence of several different delusions, all wrapped into one page.

They may have well have just said Obama is the bat-boy, and be done with it.

50 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:42:43am

re: #32 Walter L. Newton

The battle was lost long ago, no politician has been able to (or really have tried to) change anything. But, it is a useful position to attract support and voters, and that’s the only reason it exists in platforms and statement from the GOP. It’s a colorful banner to way to get people to huddle around your camp.

And that’s coming from one of “those guys.”

Yes, though there are some absurd restrictions at the state level, seen as victories by the far right. But that’s mostly small potatoes. And the ultimate goal of overturning Roe (even though it’s not a great piece of jurisprudence) is a far right fantasy. Rhetoric on both sides is pretty much bloody raw meat for the base.

I never said “those guys” were bad guys, necessarily. Some of my best friends and family members are “those guys.”

51 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:44:01am

re: #45 Fozzie Bear

Well, Steve is pro-choice I believe, so he’s not a flaming hypocrite on this one.

I am absolutely pro choice, but would like to see fewer abortions….beyond that, it’s none of my business

52 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:44:37am

re: #42 Charles

And the latest sick blog post being circulated by conservatives on Twitter this morning: Mom of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up.

Note that the ignorami refer to Jeremiah Wright as “Jeremy Wright.”

53 Stonemason  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:44:40am

re: #40 Fozzie Bear

In a perfect world I would agree. But you can’t devise a law that says “only in really super duper obvious cases”, because it will be mis-applied.

That is just so much bullshit

and, besides, the point, which you so obviously ignored, is that the two issues are separate.

One chooses to break a law of society, the other is a fetus. You stated:

And that so many of them support the death penalty. If you support the death penalty, you don’t get to call yourself pro-life

and were told you were wrong, with good arguments. here is another one:

Pro-lifers are usually religious people, they believe in the sanctity of life, and if one takes a life, they have forfeited their own by their own choice. Religious people believe in punishment less than rehab. This is how they justify the pro-life moniker.

The two issues are not equal, and if they were, one could just as easily argue the other side…but they are not equal so I will not do that.

54 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:45:01am

re: #51 albusteve

I am absolutely pro choice, but would like to see fewer abortions…beyond that, it’s none of my business

As they say, “safe, legal, rare”.

55 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:45:55am

re: #40 Fozzie Bear

In a perfect world I would agree. But you can’t devise a law that says “only in really super duper obvious cases”, because it will be mis-applied.

I actually agree with Obama on this (if you can imagine that.) Death penalty should be reserved for terrorists and mass murderers. Often in those cases there is NO doubt.

56 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:46:39am

re: #53 Stonemason

You can’t prove an opinion wrong, dumbass. Just disagree, or don’t.

57 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:47:01am

re: #42 Charles

And the latest sick blog post being circulated by conservatives on Twitter this morning: Mom of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up.

Obama really is just like Bill Clinton. He has all his political baggage murdered.///

58 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:47:19am

re: #55 palomino

I actually agree with Obama on this (if you can imagine that.) Death penalty should be reserved for terrorists and mass murderers. Often in those cases there is NO doubt.

so one persons life is worth less than several collectively?…that’s absurd

59 RadicalModerate  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:47:48am

re: #46 JasonA

wtf

They’re using The Globe as a source…

Worse.

They’re using nutball Larry Sinclair as a source.

Obama Accuser Larry Sinclair Holds Stupefying Press Conference

And pay Sinclair did — for the venue and its microphone, as well as for a kilted lawyer (with a suspended license) named Montgomery Blair Sibley, who informed those assembled that his preferences in dress were arrived at as a way to secure comfort for his unusually large sexual organs. “I don’t know why men wear pants,” he said with a poker face. “It’s a function of male genitalia. If you’re size normal or smaller, you’re probably comfortable with [pants]. … Those at the other end of the spectrum find them quite confining.”

“I asked him to wear a suit and tie,” Mr. Sinclair said ruefully. Then, he admitted to suffering from a brain tumor.

60 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:50:33am

re: #58 albusteve

so one persons life is worth less than several collectively?…that’s absurd

yeah, killing 3000 people is a more heinous crime than killing one.

and the reason for the distinction is that in single victim killings, mistaken ID is MUCH more common than with mass murder or terrorism.

61 Stonemason  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:50:53am

re: #56 Fozzie Bear

LOL

62 pharmmajor  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:51:31am

The downfall of these religious freaks can’t come soon enough.

63 fantasmaguero  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:52:28am

In early 2008, when I was living in Omaha, an Air Force buddy and I decided to attend a rally for then-Democratic Primary candidate Barack Obama. Neither of us are particularly partisan, and we couldn’t pass on the chance to see a rising political star just fifteen minutes from the airbase. It was a cool experience, and gave us an in-person peek at just how much momentum Obama had started to build by that point.

During the long wait to enter the auditorium, a billboard-carrying truck drove laps around the block. On each side of the billboard was a massive dead baby photograph. My buddy and I - as was the case with most of the people crowded outside that day - were outraged. At the time, I was still a doubting Catholic. Today, having since realized I lack belief in any god, it is curious to look back and note that the greatest fissures in my faith had begun to open when I took a long look at the tactics employed by so many “true believers,” and realized just how overwhelmingly macabre and terrifying are the images - literal and figurative - that fundamentalists of any Christian stripe employ in selling their worldview.

From the posters held by protesters outside the Planned Parenthood near my high school as a teenage, to similar posters held by protesters outside a clinic in Old Town Bellevue, NE as young children walked by, the drumbeat was always the same. The repeated meme of the reactionary anti-abortion crowd is one of blood fetish and gore porn. Lost in this, I think, is the fact that here we have people claiming to defend and protect children, while exposing every single young eye that glances their way to images that children could not legally see in a cinema.

I am delighted that Charles chose to condemn this “twisted nightmare” for what it truly is.

64 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:52:31am

re: #60 palomino

yeah, killing 3000 people is a more heinous crime than killing one.

and the reason for the distinction is that in single victim killings, mistaken ID is MUCH more common than with mass murder or terrorism.

how many lives is a mass of lives?

65 Four More Tears  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:52:43am

re: #59 RadicalModerate

I so cannot wait to see Sinclair’s “Whitey Tape.” Aaany day now…

66 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:54:58am

re: #59 RadicalModerate

And pay Sinclair did — for the venue and its microphone, as well as for a kilted lawyer (with a suspended license) named Montgomery Blair Sibley, who informed those assembled that his preferences in dress were arrived at as a way to secure comfort for his unusually large sexual organs. “I don’t know why men wear pants,” he said with a poker face. “It’s a function of male genitalia. If you’re size normal or smaller, you’re probably comfortable with [pants]. … Those at the other end of the spectrum find them quite confining.”

So, as a sideshow to the main event, which consists of insane allegations against the President by a man wanted for fraud in Colorado, and who has 13 aliases in that state alone, is a phony lawyer in a “Biggus Dickus” kilt?

And poor old H.L. Mencken had to miss this. I may just dig him up and show it to him, so he can die again of laughter.

67 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:55:32am

re: #64 albusteve

how many lives is a mass of lives?

only the experts can answer that, which is why we have legislators to give us a different answer in every jurisdiction.

of course not an exact science…it’s like the SC justice said about porn: “i can’t define it, but i know it when i see it.”

68 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:57:13am

re: #67 palomino

only the experts can answer that, which is why we have legislators to give us a different answer in every jurisdiction.

of course not an exact science…it’s like the SC justice said about porn: “i can’t define it, but i know it when i see it.”

you are using the term mass murderer, and now you don’t know what that is?…and I already commented about mistaken ID…still, BOs (and yours) notion is absurd

69 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:57:40am

re: #61 Stonemason

Yeah, it’s hilarious.

Here is why I oppose the death penalty. There are many people on death row who have later been exonerated. The legal system isn’t perfect, and you cannot roll back an execution. You can free someone who is kept imprisoned.

Check out the innocence project, too. It’s a great resource for learning about how flawed our system really is. This is not to say that there is a better system, but rather that even the best system is imperfect. It is better to lock a man up for half his life in error than it is to kill a man in error.

70 Four More Tears  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:58:37am

OT: Francis Laskowski Arrested After Mentioning Workplace Massacre, Saying He Understood Killer’s Mindset

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Connecticut police say they arrested a man at a management company after he mentioned the shooting rampage across the state that killed nine people and said he understood the killer’s mindset.

We’re arresting people for this now?

71 RadicalModerate  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:59:22am

re: #66 Cato the Elder

So, as a sideshow to the main event, which consists of insane allegations against the President by a man wanted for fraud in Colorado, and who has 13 aliases in that state alone, is a phony lawyer in a “Biggus Dickus” kilt?

And poor old H.L. Mencken had to miss this. I may just dig him up and show it to him, so he can die again of laughter.

Maybe Andrew Breitbart should give Mr. Sibley a call. I understand that he had a position come available that this guy would appear to be imminently qualified for.

72 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:59:23am

re: #70 JasonA

OT: Francis Laskowski Arrested After Mentioning Workplace Massacre, Saying He Understood Killer’s Mindset

We’re arresting people for this now?

Thoughtcrime. Facecrime. Thought Police.

73 General Nimrod Bodfish  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:59:37am

I’m not exactly speechless, but what I want to say about this would involve a string of expletives and, really, I value my account here too much for that. I don’t understand how some people can be so, I don’t know, callous, for a lack of a better or more appropriate term, about gathering such disgusting images and sending them to their “opponents”.

Morally, I’m against abortion, but there’s no way in Hell I would want to take away someone’s right to do to their bodies what they want, as long as it doesn’t adversely affect others. If a pregnant woman wants to terminate the pregnancy, she should do so without intimidation. It’s legal under the law of the United States, and it will always remain legal. It’s a Hell of a lot better than some woman killing herself trying to end her pregnancy herself outside of a safe medical environment.

We have came too far from the Dark Ages period to turn around and, quite frankly, fuck everything up just because of religious fanatics who are no worse than the Muslim ones that we are engaged in overseas. The best way to fight these people is to bring their vile ideas out into the open and show the public what they really are, Christian versions of the Mullahs/Taliban.

The America they want is not America as what the Founding Fathers envisioned, I believe. Their America is one where women and minorities would be treated as property; science treated as black magic with public executions of such “witches and wizards”; one Church as approved by these Christian Talibans, with the other religions persecuted because they don’t following the “official” Church.

Fuck that. Give me freedom, give me the right to choose what I want to do to my body without harming others, give me the right to choose any faith, or none at all, to follow.

Keep exposing these people, Charles. You know you’re over the target when you’re receiving flak, as the saying goes.

74 rwdflynavy  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:00:29am

re: #67 palomino

only the experts can answer that, which is why we have legislators to give us a different answer in every jurisdiction.

of course not an exact science…it’s like the SC justice said about porn: “i can’t define it, but i know it when i see it.”

Did you just use Experts and Legislators in the same sentence?!

75 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:01:13am

re: #68 albusteve

you are using the term mass murderer, and now you don’t know what that is?…and I already commented about mistaken ID…still, BOs (and yours) notion is absurd

guy walks into an office and shoots co-workers. he’s on 10 video cameras with 25 eyewitnesses. not much chance of mistaken ID there.

If you want absolute bright lines without ambiguity, it’s pretty absurd to expect that from the law.

76 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:01:29am

re: #63 fantasmaguero

I happen to know that one of the more popular images in these horror shows is actually a coroner’s photograph of a plane crash victim and not an aborted fetus at all.
These people are depraved.

77 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:02:33am

re: #74 rwdflynavy

Did you just use Experts and Legislators in the same sentence?!

my comments dripping with sarcasm, isn’t that apparent?

78 darthstar  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:03:20am

I find it disturbing that those fanatics actually collect photos of dead babies…their mailing them to you as some form of argument just shows their pathological side.

79 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:03:40am

re: #75 palomino

Good luck defining a criterion for sharply delineating the line between that and “regular” murder. That’s the problem. If it can’t be defined in abstract, nonspecific terms, it won’t make a good law.

80 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:04:05am

re: #75 palomino

guy walks into an office and shoots co-workers. he’s on 10 video cameras with 25 eyewitnesses. not much chance of mistaken ID there.

If you want absolute bright lines without ambiguity, it’s pretty absurd to expect that from the law.

I have no clue what any of this means

81 sattv4u2  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:04:17am

re: #72 Walter L. Newton

Thoughtcrime. Facecrime. Thought Police.

I won’t say what I think about it!!

:)

82 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:04:51am

re: #77 palomino

my comments dripping with sarcasm, isn’t that apparent?

no, not to me

83 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:05:05am

re: #81 sattv4u2

I won’t say what I think about it!!

:)

You don’t have to. I can tell that you want to commit a crime just by looking at your face.

FaceCrime.

84 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:05:10am

re: #78 darthstar

I find it disturbing that those fanatics actually collect photos of dead babies…their mailing them to you as some form of argument just shows their pathological side.

We used to have trucks driving around LA with huge photos of aborted fetuses on the side. I guess this was to wake people up to the horrors of abortion, but it mainly just pissed people off at the activists.

85 jaunte  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:05:44am

re: #79 Fozzie Bear

The FBI has a definition:

Generally, mass murder was described as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders. These events typically involved a single location, where the killer murdered a number of victims in an ongoing incident (e.g. the 1984 San Ysidro McDonalds incident in San Diego, California; the 1991 Luby’s Restaurant massacre in Killeen, Texas; and the 2007 Virginia Tech murders in Blacksburg, Virginia).fbi.gov
86 CarleeCork  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:06:04am

re: #76 Shiplord Kirel

I happen to know that one of the more popular images in these horror shows is actually a coroner’s photograph of a plane crash victim and not an aborted fetus at all.
These people are depraved.


That’s what I asked earlier. How do you know that photograph came from a plane crash? I’d like to have that source available to show others.

87 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:06:05am

re: #72 Walter L. Newton

Thoughtcrime. Facecrime. Thought Police.

breach of peace….here it comes

88 sattv4u2  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:06:09am

re: #83 Walter L. Newton

You don’t have to. I can tell that you want to commit a crime just by looking at your face.

FaceCrime.

dammit ,,
I KNEW I should have worn the Darth Vadar mask today!

89 General Nimrod Bodfish  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:07:05am

re: #70 JasonA

It’s a knee-jerk reaction to the shooting that took place in CT. Everyone would be on edge and, probably, someone felt threatened by the man’s comments and thought it would be better to call it in than risk having another massacre. Probably not the best reaction, but it’s understandable.

True story. When I was in elementary school, I was, to put it frankly, a f—-ing asshole. One day I popped off about shooting some people and I got hauled into court for it after several kids reported it to their parents, who then reported it to the school, who then pressed charges against me for the threats. This happened not long after Columbine, so obviously they were taking any threats seriously. Long story short, I entered a guilty plea (I can’t remember the exact charge) in juvenile court and got probation, thankfully. Since I was a minor at that time, my criminal record has been expunged now that I’m an adult, but I still remember how close I was to fucking up my whole life. Not that anyone would know I was a nasty child, as I am a pretty friendly person.

90 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:07:08am

re: #84 palomino

We used to have trucks driving around LA with huge photos of aborted fetuses on the side. I guess this was to wake people up to the horrors of abortion, but it mainly just pissed people off at the activists.

“Just” No, I don’t think so, considering there are people who are anti-choice, I suspect the images pissed off some activist too. A lot of them, many, many of them… they are called Pro-Life.

91 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:07:12am

re: #88 sattv4u2

Sorry sir, that’s a maskcrime. Please turn yourself in at the nearest happy fun time center.

92 tnguitarist  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:07:16am

I guess I’m not as optimistic as some of you that think this is a decided issue and that they are fighting a losing battle. Pro-lifers have been trying to stack the courts for years. To a lot of people, especially where I live, this is the only issue that matters to them. They may give other issues a few sentences, but they start breathing fire when the subject changes to abortion. If reproductive rights were to come before the supreme court right now, I would be pretty concerned.

93 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:07:46am

re: #85 jaunte

The FBI has a definition:

by this definition, the Boston Strangler was not a mass murderer….whatever

94 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:08:03am

re: #80 albusteve

I have no clue what any of this means

the law makes distinctions about what’s capital murder and what’s not—kill a cop or elected official, kill a whole bunch of people, etc.—usually called “special circumstances” and thus eligible for death penalty

the law is far from an exact science…we do the best we can separating the bad from the worse

95 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:08:14am

re: #66 Cato the Elder


And poor old H.L. Mencken had to miss this. I may just dig him up and show it to him, so he can die again of laughter.

Rotating title nomination!!!

96 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:08:18am

re: #91 Fozzie Bear

Sorry sir, that’s a maskcrime. Please turn yourself in at the nearest happy fun time center.

It’s a facecrime… “Facecrime, a “Newspeak” term coined in George Orwell’s novel 1984, is the crime of exhibiting an improper facial expression. …”

97 jamesfirecat  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:08:34am

re: #70 JasonA

OT: Francis Laskowski Arrested After Mentioning Workplace Massacre, Saying He Understood Killer’s Mindset

We’re arresting people for this now?

Didn’t Scott Brown say something similar about the guy who flew a plane into the IRS building, or was that another GOP Senator?

98 jaunte  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:08:41am

re: #93 albusteve

The FBI would call him a serial killer. The two sets overlap.

99 pharmmajor  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:08:52am

re: #72 Walter L. Newton

Thoughtcrime. Facecrime. Thought Police.

Big Brother making another strike against our freedoms.

100 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:09:03am

re: #93 albusteve

by this definition, the Boston Strangler was not a mass murderer…whatever

Serial killer and mass murderer are two different things.

101 Four More Tears  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:09:10am

re: #97 jamesfirecat

Didn’t Scott Brown say something similar about the guy who flew a plane into the IRS building, or was that another GOP Senator?

Can’t say I remember that.

102 darthstar  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:10:19am

re: #59 RadicalModerate

Larry Sinclaire was arrested after that press conference for being a fugitive with outstanding warrants.

103 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:10:23am

re: #93 albusteve

by this definition, the Boston Strangler was not a mass murderer…whatever

Correct. The Boston Strangler was a serial killer. There are a number of differences if you care to actually look into it.

104 tnguitarist  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:10:31am

re: #97 jamesfirecat

Didn’t Scott Brown say something similar about the guy who flew a plane into the IRS building, or was that another GOP Senator?

I think it was Steve King.

105 darthstar  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:11:00am

re: #83 Walter L. Newton

You don’t have to. I can tell that you want to commit a crime just by looking at your face.

FaceCrime.

Isn’t that a new app on the iPhone 4?

106 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:11:13am

re: #90 Walter L. Newton

“Just” No, I don’t think so, considering there are people who are anti-choice, I suspect the images pissed off some activist too. A lot of them, many, many of them… they are called Pro-Life.

huh?

107 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:11:15am

re: #94 palomino

the law makes distinctions about what’s capital murder and what’s not—kill a cop or elected official, kill a whole bunch of people, etc.—usually called “special circumstances” and thus eligible for death penalty

the law is far from an exact science…we do the best we can separating the bad from the worse

still, a single murder will not require the death penalty, but a ‘mass’ murderer will…that is BOs and yours too….it’s an absurd notion, and all the pedaling does not change my mind

108 avanti  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:11:47am

re: #42 Charles

And the latest sick blog post being circulated by conservatives on Twitter this morning: Mom of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up.

Help me keep up with this. We have a gay, Muslim, Commie, Chicago gangster POTUS that was born in Kenya, but is actually Satan/ ??

109 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:11:57am

re: #99 pharmmajor

Big Brother making another strike against our freedoms.

“It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself — anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.
— George Orwell, 1984”

“We’re teaching the computers to be more like human beings,” said Dave Schrader, an engineer with Teradata, a division of automatic teller machine manufacturer NCR. In an attempt to give consumers a better banking experience, Schrader is teaching ATMs to discern emotions. How many times have you answered security questions at an airport and wondered, “Why in the world would a terrorist answer them truthfully?” Schrader said the emotion-scanning technology could act like an instant lie detector, tracking whether people become nervous or afraid as they answer the questions.
“Identifying people’s reactions when they’re asked questions — their nonverbal clues that skilled detectives might pick up on — we can train the computer to pick up on those, too,” Schrader said.”

cryptogon.com

Coming to a neighborhood near you.

110 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:12:21am

re: #100 Cato the Elder

Serial killer and mass murderer are two different things.

apparently so…I submit

111 jamesfirecat  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:12:50am

re: #89 commadore183

It’s a knee-jerk reaction to the shooting that took place in CT. Everyone would be on edge and, probably, someone felt threatened by the man’s comments and thought it would be better to call it in than risk having another massacre. Probably not the best reaction, but it’s understandable.

True story. When I was in elementary school, I was, to put it frankly, a f—-ing asshole. One day I popped off about shooting some people and I got hauled into court for it after several kids reported it to their parents, who then reported it to the school, who then pressed charges against me for the threats. This happened not long after Columbine, so obviously they were taking any threats seriously. Long story short, I entered a guilty plea (I can’t remember the exact charge) in juvenile court and got probation, thankfully. Since I was a minor at that time, my criminal record has been expunged now that I’m an adult, but I still remember how close I was to fucking up my whole life. Not that anyone would know I was a nasty child, as I am a pretty friendly person.

Around the same time period I think I got called into the Vice Principles office and my parents got called because I’d been writing poetry for a class about videogames like Silent Scope and Time Crisis.

Not anywhere near the same league as your story, but… well yeah that was an eye opener to say the least….

112 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:13:30am

re: #86 CarleeCork

That’s what I asked earlier. How do you know that photograph came from a plane crash? I’d like to have that source available to show others.

Unfortunately I can’t provide a usable source in this case. A medical examiner, someone I know well and would literally trust with my life, pointed out the photo to me and said it had been discussed at an ME conference during a session on maintaining privacy.
Beyond that, I’ve seen quite a few crash victims over the years and this had all the indications to my non-medical eye. I would think that quite a few MEs have spotted these fakes and some may have spoken out publicly about it but I have never seen that. Naturally, it isn’t a pleasant subject, but there would probably be a discussion on the net somewhere.

113 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:13:38am

re: #111 jamesfirecat

Around the same time period I think I got called into the Vice Principles office and my parents got called because I’d been writing poetry for a class about videogames like Silent Scope and Time Crisis.

Not anywhere near the same league as your story, but… well yeah that was an eye opener to say the least…

But now you understand why you shouldn’t have been writing those poems? Right?

114 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:14:11am

re: #107 albusteve

still, a single murder will not require the death penalty, but a ‘mass’ murderer will…that is BOs and yours too…it’s an absurd notion, and all the pedaling does not change my mind

limiting the death penalty to certain types of murder has a point—to reduce the chance of executing innocent people. if you find that absurd, so be it.

115 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:14:27am

re: #109 Walter L. Newton

“It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself — anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.
— George Orwell, 1984”

“We’re teaching the computers to be more like human beings,” said Dave Schrader, an engineer with Teradata, a division of automatic teller machine manufacturer NCR. In an attempt to give consumers a better banking experience, Schrader is teaching ATMs to discern emotions. How many times have you answered security questions at an airport and wondered, “Why in the world would a terrorist answer them truthfully?” Schrader said the emotion-scanning technology could act like an instant lie detector, tracking whether people become nervous or afraid as they answer the questions.
“Identifying people’s reactions when they’re asked questions — their nonverbal clues that skilled detectives might pick up on — we can train the computer to pick up on those, too,” Schrader said.”

[Link: cryptogon.com…]

Coming to a neighborhood near you.

any robot that comes to my house will be blown to bits…except a friendly Roomba of course

116 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:15:27am

re: #114 palomino

limiting the death penalty to certain types of murder has a point--to reduce the chance of executing innocent people. if you find that absurd, so be it.

you just refuse to get it

117 Lidane  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:15:32am

re: #93 albusteve

by this definition, the Boston Strangler was not a mass murderer…whatever

The definition exists for a reason. Mass murderers will have that freakout moment, like the Columbine kids, or Andrea Yates, or the disgruntled employee who goes back to his former employer and shoots up the place.
Serial killers, on the other hand, will plot and plan and stretch their string of murders out over several years, like Dahmer, Gacy, and Bundy.

118 subsailor68  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:15:32am

re: #100 Cato the Elder

Serial killer and mass murderer are two different things.

Hi Cato! Yep. Here’s a link to Michigan State’s Criminal Justice Resources on the subject:

Serial Killer vs Mass Murderer

(Also covers “spree killer”)

119 jamesfirecat  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:16:37am

re: #113 Walter L. Newton

But now you understand why you shouldn’t have been writing those poems? Right?

Yep, its the same reason why when I look back at my Passport which was issued three years ago I wonder why the f*** I hadn’t bothered to shave my beard beforehand.

120 darthstar  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:16:41am

re: #108 avanti

Help me keep up with this. We have a gay, Muslim, Commie, Chicago gangster POTUS that was born in Kenya, but is actually Satan/ ??

No, we have a golfing gay Muslim Commie Chicago gangster who was born in Kenya but is actually Satan and wants to kill grandma.

121 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:16:46am

re: #114 palomino

I’d rather just indefinitely incarcerate murderers of all kinds. It’s ultimately cheaper, and you can release those later exonerated.

But that’s a judgment, an opinion. Ultimately you can’t “prove” this kind of thing.

122 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:16:48am

re: #116 albusteve

you just refuse to get it

no, i’m an it-getter. you haven’t clearly delineated “it”, thus it can’t be gotten.

123 webevintage  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:17:02am

re: #97 jamesfirecat

Didn’t Scott Brown say something similar about the guy who flew a plane into the IRS building, or was that another GOP Senator?

Yep, Brown
blog.seattlepi.com

and then that nut case Steve King from Iowa.
Michelle Bachman thinks he should be President…I bet that pisses off President Palin.

124 SpaceJesus  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:17:39am

life is sacred, let’s go shoot a doctor in the head inside a church

125 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:18:46am

re: #122 palomino

no, i’m an it-getter. you haven’t clearly delineated “it”, thus it can’t be gotten.

my very first post made that exception

126 tnguitarist  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:19:09am

re: #120 darthstar

No, we have a golfing gay Muslim Commie Chicago gangster who was born in Kenya but is actually Satan and wants to kill grandma.

Sounds exhausting. Where does he find the time?

127 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:19:12am

re: #121 Fozzie Bear

I’d rather just indefinitely incarcerate murderers of all kinds. It’s ultimately cheaper, and you can release those later exonerated.

But that’s a judgment, an opinion. Ultimately you can’t “prove” this kind of thing.

I’m OK with that, and you’re right: it is more consistent.

But in cases of mass murder/terrorism, there’s often no doubt as to accused’s guilt, and though it may sound retributive, society has an interest in seeing the killer die. McVeigh, for example.

128 Four More Tears  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:19:43am

re: #123 webevintage

Yep, Brown
[Link: blog.seattlepi.com…]

and then that nut case Steve King from Iowa.
Michelle Bachman thinks he should be President…I bet that pisses off President Palin.

Thanks. I had forgotten about that.

129 Stonemason  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:20:20am

re: #124 SpaceJesus

life is sacred, let’s go shoot a doctor in the head inside a church

Now that is an apt comparison because the doctor had committed no crimes, therefore should not have been punished.

The shooter however, death penalty for him.

130 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:20:46am

re: #121 Fozzie Bear

I’d rather just indefinitely incarcerate murderers of all kinds. It’s ultimately cheaper, and you can release those later exonerated.

But that’s a judgment, an opinion. Ultimately you can’t “prove” this kind of thing.

it should be cheaper…there is no excuse to keep killers on death row for 30 years if they did it…if there is circumstantial doubt, they never should have been given the death penalty in the first place

131 wrenchwench  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:20:52am

re: #92 tnguitarist

I guess I’m not as optimistic as some of you that think this is a decided issue and that they are fighting a losing battle. Pro-lifers have been trying to stack the courts for years. To a lot of people, especially where I live, this is the only issue that matters to them. They may give other issues a few sentences, but they start breathing fire when the subject changes to abortion. If reproductive rights were to come before the supreme court right now, I would be pretty concerned.

Not just the courts. State legislatures have been churning out some awful bills.

I used to think it was a settled issue, and something that couldn’t go back to the old way. One thing that gave me some complacency was knowing there were many tactics against abortion being made unavailable, like RU-486 and Menstrual Extraction. Then I read the Oklahoma law (that was struck down, I hope I remember correctly) and it included Menstrual Extraction as one of the things being made illegal. Woke me up some more.

132 webevintage  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:21:02am

Just watching Twitter and man, Rush has been a really bad boy this week.
What a tool.

133 CarleeCork  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:21:36am

re: #112 Shiplord Kirel
Thanks for the response.

134 What, me worry?  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:24:20am

Here in Miami, some fundamental group (I don’t know who) have those dead baby pics blown up and put on the side of trailers. Then they drive around with the pictures hitched to the back of the car. Like a billboard, but huge. I was behind them once on 95 and you can’t really look away. I got off at another exhibit because I couldn’t take it. I can’t imagine such a distraction is legal altho I haven’t seen them around lately.

I also can’t imagine why they think this will change the minds of those who believe women should be in control of their reproductive system. Charles, keep doing your good work for standing up for what is right.

135 palomino  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:24:38am

re: #125 albusteve

my very first post made that exception

the role of appellate courts is not to re-try a case factually, but rather to insure that the defendant got a fair trial in procedurally. they can’t be a bulwark against mistakes made by prosecutors, juries, cops, defense attorneys, etc.

best solution, if you wanna keep death penalty at all, is to limit it statutorily to a narrow range of murders that are unlikely to be wrongly decided due to human error.

136 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:25:35am

re: #130 albusteve

it should be cheaper…there is no excuse to keep killers on death row for 30 years if they did it…if there is circumstantial doubt, they never should have been given the death penalty in the first place

In the interests of not executing innocent people, it is crucial that there be an automatic appeals process for capital cases. That’s why it can take so long. The alternative is worse, imo.

It’s a case of what you are comparing to what. Sure it’s better to execute a definitely guilty person. But, the system we have doesn’t avoid all error. It’s only right most of the time.

137 webevintage  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:25:38am

re: #131 wrenchwench


I used to think it was a settled issue, and something that couldn’t go back to the old way. One thing that gave me some complacency was knowing there were many tactics against abortion being made unavailable, like RU-486 and Menstrual Extraction. Then I read the Oklahoma law (that was struck down, I hope I remember correctly) and it included Menstrual Extraction as one of the things being made illegal. Woke me up some more.

Menstrual Extraction…..I had no idea (and really why not, why not get it all out at once? sorry guys)
I guess the folks in Oklahoma would rather women only use knitting needles and stuff like that if they are thinking of a DIY abortion.

138 webevintage  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:31:33am

re: #134 marjoriemoon

Here in Miami, some fundamental group (I don’t know who) have those dead baby pics blown up and put on the side of trailers. Then they drive around with the pictures hitched to the back of the car. Like a billboard, but huge. I was behind them once on 95 and you can’t really look away. I got off at another exhibit because I couldn’t take it. I can’t imagine such a distraction is legal altho I haven’t seen them around lately.

A friend of mine has a shop which is on a street corner and has large glass windows and the local pro-life nutters parked on the street next to her shop one day while they went and protested on the traffic median and she got to look at that picture for about an hour before they left.
Luckily her 6 year old was not at the shop with her that day.
Yeah, no customers came in during that hour either.

139 wrenchwench  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:33:04am

re: #137 webevintage

Menstrual Extraction…I had no idea (and really why not, why not get it all out at once? sorry guys)
I guess the folks in Oklahoma would rather women only use knitting needles and stuff like that if they are thinking of a DIY abortion.

Heaven forbid (sorry) that women should be self-reliant.

I knew one of the “inventors” of Menstrual Extraction. I used to drive her daughter home from school. The thought back then was that it would take the politics out of abortion once and for all.

Dreamers.

140 albusteve  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:33:41am

re: #136 Fozzie Bear

In the interests of not executing innocent people, it is crucial that there be an automatic appeals process for capital cases. That’s why it can take so long. The alternative is worse, imo.

It’s a case of what you are comparing to what. Sure it’s better to execute a definitely guilty person. But, the system we have doesn’t avoid all error. It’s only right most of the time.

yes, I am aware of that, thanks…none of which addresses the point that one life is just as worthy as many…it is unjust for a killer of one to not expect the same penalty as a killer of four

141 What, me worry?  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:33:51am

re: #138 webevintage

A friend of mine has a shop which is on a street corner and has large glass windows and the local pro-life nutters parked on the street next to her shop one day while they went and protested on the traffic median and she got to look at that picture for about an hour before they left.
Luckily her 6 year old was not at the shop with her that day.
Yeah, no customers came in during that hour either.

I can’t imagine it’s legal. I haven’t seen one of them in a long while. I want to say at least a year. It shouldn’t even be legal to send them e-mail!

142 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:35:47am

If you talk to the real fanatics, they will cheerfully admit to being completely obnoxious but will claim that the extreme urgency of their cause justifies this behavior.
Having known some of them for years, I think it is the other way around: They are pre-disposed to fanaticism and obnoxious behavior and they latch onto this cause because it gives them a rationale for expressing that impulse publicly.
Morality has nothing to do with it. Any one of them would probably come out in favor of incest, cannibalism, or human sacrifice if those things had the same scope for justifying public assholery.

143 Mich-again  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 11:16:24am

Agreed that it is sick and ghoulish to keep and distribute pictures of dead babies. It reminds me of the Green Helmet guy from Lebanon parading around with the dead child as a prop for the camermen, using her to make a political statment. Utterly revolting.

144 fantasmaguero  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 11:30:59am

re: #76 Shiplord Kirel

Even the legitimate photos of aborted fetuses are primarily from partial birth abortions - a visual straw man, since this practice is illegal in the United States. That prohibition was upheld by a 2007 Supreme Court decision.

145 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 11:42:11am

Tell it, brother!

146 wrenchwench  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 11:45:53am

Twice-banned ex-lizard thoughtfully provides Rotating Title in whiny post about this article.

….He goes to the ever reliable and warn out “hate” card. I guess Charles does not understand the history of authoritarianism because those who aspire to have total control over our lives also seek to devalue human life so that women, minorities and anyone they do not like can be made to disappear. I guess he would not be moved by pictures of dead Jews or other human beings in similar states of dismemberment. Ironic given that he support President Obama and the Democrats, people who advocate for eugenics, euthanasia and the right to kill those the deem to have “life unworthy of life”.

/did he recently send an email..?

147 Yashmak  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 11:53:11am

Sending pics like that has nothing to do with changing anyone’s mind, in my opinion. . .and it never has. It’s all about them making themselves feel better by calling you a murderer Charles…nothing deeper.

148 Dancing along the light of day  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 12:26:10pm

{Charles}

149 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 12:43:15pm

re: #26 CarleeCork

Some people found guilty are later found to be innocent. That’s what concerns me.

Also minorities are over-represented on Death Row. Last time I looked blacks and hispanics made up slightly less than half the population of Death Row when they made up about 15% of the population at large.

150 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 12:46:41pm

re: #42 Charles

And the latest sick blog post being circulated by conservatives on Twitter this morning: Mom of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up.

Followed the link. Man, those people really need to brush up on their photoshopping skillz.

151 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 12:49:41pm

re: #134 marjoriemoon

Here in Miami, some fundamental group (I don’t know who) have those dead baby pics blown up and put on the side of trailers. Then they drive around with the pictures hitched to the back of the car. Like a billboard, but huge. I was behind them once on 95 and you can’t really look away. I got off at another exhibit because I couldn’t take it. I can’t imagine such a distraction is legal altho I haven’t seen them around lately.

I also can’t imagine why they think this will change the minds of those who believe women should be in control of their reproductive system. Charles, keep doing your good work for standing up for what is right.

It’s an ego boost for them. They’re advertising how much better people they are than those morally deficient ‘others’ around them.

152 boxhead  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 1:13:17pm

re: #18 Stonemason

and so many pro-choicers support letting serial killers and serial rapists live out thier lives. Fuck that.

for further clarification, I support both the death penalty and the right of a woman to choose how to deal with a pregnancy.

Supporting the death penalty when we know innocent people have been convicted of murder seems heartless. If there is any chance that an innocent person can be put to death, we should not allow the death penalty. That is reason enough. I have not even brought up the subjects of expense, moral issues, etc.

153 Amory Blaine  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 1:18:33pm

re: #152 boxhead

Supporting the death penalty when we know innocent people have been convicted of murder seems heartless. If there is any chance that an innocent person can be put to death, we should not allow the death penalty. That is reason enough. I have not even brought up the subjects of expense, moral issues, etc.

Many people only care about the appearance of justice when it strokes their ego and soothes their prejudices.

154 CuriousLurker  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 2:16:54pm

Charles, I know I’m late to this thread, but I just wanted to say I’m sorry (though not surprised) that you have to deal with this.

You think, reason, and adjust your choices as situations change, therefore you’re constantly evolving. That’s the best any of us can do. Let the others stubbornly ignore all nuance and exceptions as they cling to their comfortingly static and self-righteous certainties. No amount of reasoning will penetrate the ramparts they’ve built to keep the intrinsic uncertainty & complexity of existence at bay.

155 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 2:30:46pm

I suppose they are spreading love to you?

You know you are over the target when you are taking flak.

156 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 2:31:02pm

And bravo Charles for your response.

157 Larry A. Herzberg  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 3:21:17pm
When you do this kind of thing, all you do is harden my resolve to stand against your Dark Ages insanity — and intensify my disgust for you and your fellow travelers. What kind of sick person keeps a library of dead baby pictures, and mails them out to strangers? Hatred is all you have left; hatred of women, hatred of minorities, and hatred of everyone who doesn’t follow your twisted nightmare of a religion.

Gee Charles, why don’t just come out and say what you mean? ;-)

158 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 8:47:54pm

Hmm…some “dead baby” jokes would seem to fit here…

Q: What is blue and sits in the corner?
A: A baby in a plastic bag!

Q: What is green and sits in the corner?
A: The same baby two weeks later!

Q: How do you fit a baby in a shoe box?
A: Use a food processor!

Q: What’s funnier than a dead baby?
A: A dead baby in a clown costume!

Q: Why is there always hot water at childbirth?
A: In case of a stillbirth, soup.

Q: Why did the baby cross the road?
A: It was stapled to the chicken.


/eventually maybe they will realize that they have completely worn out the shock value of those photos and are only making most people even more jaded about the issue.

159 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 12:22:06am

I’m not sure I get this. Showing people pictures of dead babies is sick and horrible, but killing the same babies in the first place isn’t?

160 Tweety  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:37:07am

It’s always a complex and emotional debate. It could be said that the pro-lifers trumped it years ago by pointing out the many pro-choice people who campaign against the death penalty for hardened murderers and yet have no qualms about killing the unborn.

And there is something a bit too convenient about the insistence on the abortion “rights” of women. Society at large also has rights in this debate since it is the obliteration of future generations we are talking about. And with the term at which abortions are allowed always on the upward curve, how far are we from killing infants at birth if they are found “undesirable” for whatever reason?

And with the struggle to make euthanasia acceptable, how far are we from an unthinkable result of these two trends from opposite ends of the spectrum of life meeting in the middle?

But requiring a rape or incest victim to carry her pregnancy to term is a step way too far. I could be wrong here (and not keen on Googling at the moment) but I believe even the Calvinist apartheid regime in SA made an exception in cases like that and in cases of mentally-handicapped rape victims and allowed abortion.

One may disagree with the extreme beliefs and tactics of some of the pro-lifers, but there should be a degree of understanding for their repugnance of abortion.

Kahlil Gibran, the great Lebanese-Christian poet had this to add to the debate, though the subject was not specifically abortion:

Your children are not your children; they are the sons and daughters of life’s longing for itself.

161 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 5:34:33am

re: #160 Tweety

Society at large also has rights in this debate since it is the obliteration of future generations we are talking about.

No it’s not. Not anymore than naturally occurring miscarriage is.

And with the term at which abortions are allowed always on the upward curve, how far are we from killing infants at birth if they are found “undesirable” for whatever reason?

Oh, we’re not as far down as that slippery slope fallacy as you think.

162 Tweety  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 8:42:21am

161 obdicut,

True, “obliteration” is way too strong a word. However, my point is that any decision on ending unborn life should not rest with the mother alone. I don’t see it simply as a matter of individual rights.

Well, at least you acknowledge we are on that slope. And I didn’t say how far down it I thought we were. But with the current “liberal” trend to always take the line of least resistance, we’re in real trouble.

163 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 8:47:12am

re: #162 Tweety

However, my point is that any decision on ending unborn life should not rest with the mother alone.

This makes no sense. You have to contort yourself to create a false category— ‘unborn life’— to make the sentence work on any level. And you need to name the woman a mother, though she is not—a mother is someone who has born a child, not someone who has suffered a miscarriage— or has had a zygote aborted.

Your semantics are flawed.


Well, at least you acknowledge we are on that slope.

No, my usage of ‘slippery slope fallacy’ should have indicated to you that I was saying you are using the slippery slope fallacy.

164 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 10:14:56am

As usual, here they come once the thread scrolls down off the top of the page. Happens every time, without fail.

165 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 10:23:32am

re: #160 Tweety

And with the term at which abortions are allowed always on the upward curve, how far are we from killing infants at birth if they are found “undesirable” for whatever reason?

Very, very far. In fact, this is a silly fear-mongering argument. Your horror scenario is ridiculous, and it will never happen, and you probably know it.

166 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 10:24:06am

re: #159 Nebulous

I’m not sure I get this. Showing people pictures of dead babies is sick and horrible, but killing the same babies in the first place isn’t?

You registered just to support sending out pictures of dead babies?

167 Tweety  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 10:38:49am

Obdicut,

OK I didn’t read that sentence properly but yes, I do know what “fallacy” means.

I’m not into semantics, especially in a serious discussion like this, but I can tell you that your statement doesn’t make sense as it stands, so you are partly to blame at least for me getting it wrong:

Oh, we’re not as far down as that slippery slope fallacy as you think.

If the slippery slope is a fallacy, then we can’t be down it to any extent, when you think about it.

Now you’re quibbling about the use of the word “mother” and you’re accusing me of semantics?

Charles, there is no design behind when I post or don’t post, only free time. This is a fast -moving blog and I’m slow.

168 Tweety  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 11:01:37am

Charles,

Very, very far. In fact, this is a silly fear-mongering argument. Your horror scenario is ridiculous, and it will never happen, and you probably know it.

I’m not into instilling fear in anyone and yes, it probably wont happen in the lifetime of anyone here. I try not to post dishonestly. Aldous Huxley, I’m sure you know, posed a similar scenario in Brave New World - with the women all on contraception and babies produced on conveyor belts in factories. Here’s part of the blurb to the paperback:

….this warned against the dehumanising aspects of scientific and material ‘progress’.

It was published in 1932 and I guess if Huxley really thought we were moving in that direction he would be surprised at the lack of progress by 2010, the vast majority of people still preferring the standard method of procreation practised by the “barbarians” in his novel.

So yes, we are a long way away from the nightmare scenario I posed but we are still edging in that direction with abortions at later term and euthanasia gradually being introduced at the other end of life.

So while I don’t agree with the rhetoric and methods of some of the pro-lifers, I can understand where they are coming from.

169 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 11:05:31am

re: #167 Tweety

I’m not into semantics, especially in a serious discussion like this,

Your entire argument is fucking around with semantics. You don’t actually have an argument.


Now you’re quibbling about the use of the word “mother” and you’re accusing me of semantics?

I’m pointing out your use of the word ‘mother’ is your attempt to win the argument on semantic grounds.

170 Tweety  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 11:19:14am

169 Obdicut,

Your entire argument is fucking around with semantics. You don’t actually have an argument.

Evidence, evidence. Bald statements without it are unimpressive.

I’m pointing out your use of the word ‘mother’ is your attempt to win the argument on semantic grounds.

Ther was no design behind my use of the word ‘mother’, and I wasn’t conscious of using it in any emotional sense to try and win the argument. You are reading into it something that wasn’t there.

Now if you have a point to make rather than trying to discredit me, let’s have it.

171 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 11:30:35am

re: #168 Tweety

Newsflash: “Brave New World” was not a documentary. It was fiction.

172 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 11:45:12am

re: #170 Tweety

Evidence, evidence. Bald statements without it are unimpressive.

Which I already gave, and you ignored. Calling pregnant women who choose to abort ‘mothers’ makes no sense. Nor does referring to ‘unborn life’.


Ther was no design behind my use of the word ‘mother’, and I wasn’t conscious of using it in any emotional sense to try and win the argument. You are reading into it something that wasn’t there.

I fully believe that your semantic argument is not one you created yourself, but that you’re repeating what you’ve learned.

That doesn’t make it a semantic argument, nor does it mean it’s not correct.

Here’s a good test: Please detail the difference between a zygote and the placenta. In what manner is a zygote different?

173 Tweety  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 1:01:47pm

171. Charles,

Granted, but Huxley simply projected what he felt was a likely scenario, at least in the Western world, exaggerated and dramatised for the purpose of fiction. I believe he saw himself as an educator.

172. Obdicut,

It only makes no sense if you believe life begins at birth, rather than conception. I suppose if we want to nitpick to extremes we can talk of “mother-to-be.”

I’ve never been comfortable with the idea that from conception through to just before birth there is simply a collection of cells which is only regarded as human when it draws the first breath outside the womb.

I’m not repeating what I’ve learned and this isn’t a classroom. I’m expressing my misgivings about abortion.

I’m not the student and you are not the lecturer. Why don’t you just come out and express your point of view instead of jumping to confusions about me?

174 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 1:21:37pm

re: #166 Charles

I’ve actually been a long term reader and fan of LGF, it is one of the two blogs I always look at. I am just puzzled by the distaste that picture of dead babies can invoke, but not the killing thereof. Is the distaste because these are dead people? If so , then surely we are much more concerned about the death itself?

175 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 1:36:11pm

re: #173 Tweety

It only makes no sense if you believe life begins at birth, rather than conception. I suppose if we want to nitpick to extremes we can talk of “mother-to-be.”

That’s not at all a nitpick, though. That you think it is speaks volumes. You don’t tell someone who’s pregnant “you’re the mother of a child”. The Jewish saying “mazel tov” isn’t said to pregnant women, just to those who have given birth— because it means “congratulations” and until the child is born, there is no child.


I’ve never been comfortable with the idea that from conception through to just before birth there is simply a collection of cells which is only regarded as human when it draws the first breath outside the womb.

Good thing nobody is talking about that conception, then. But feel free to erect as many strawmen as you want— it makes your argument only appear weaker.


I’m not repeating what I’ve learned and this isn’t a classroom. I’m expressing my misgivings about abortion.

You are not willing to defend your statements at all, even with the simplest of questions, so I am unwilling to grant them the least bit of respect or credence.


I’m not the student and you are not the lecturer. Why don’t you just come out and express your point of view instead of jumping to confusions about me?

Hilarious.

176 wrenchwench  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 1:37:43pm

re: #174 Nebulous

I’ve actually been a long term reader and fan of LGF, it is one of the two blogs I always look at. I am just puzzled by the distaste that picture of dead babies can invoke, but not the killing thereof. Is the distaste because these are dead people? If so , then surely we are much more concerned about the death itself?


If we should be more concerned about the death itself, perhaps those who tote or send the photos should also carry the autopsy report, or some form of authentication so we know exactly what happened.

177 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 1:46:14pm

re: #176 wrenchwench

We obviously know nothing about the particular pictures in question. I think the salient point is that there are millions of aborted babies each year of which pictures could be taken. We all feel a natural revolution at such images. Why? Are they just surgically removed extraneous pieces of flesh, like, say, warts? I don’t think that would upset anyone very much. No, the reason is that they are babies, just like when my wife and I saw our 12 week old via an ultra sound - we got excited because this was the first glimpse of our baby. This response is natural and real, and the response to seeing dead babies, killed by whatever means, is just as natural and real, and I think a portion of Charles’ distaste for the pictures he received was this natural reaction in play - we are revolted by the sight of people who have been killed, by whatever means.

178 wrenchwench  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 1:56:25pm

re: #177 Nebulous

Nonsense. A bloody pile of anything is disgusting, whether it involves anyone’s death or not. If you want to focus on the fact that abortion involves blood and death, go right ahead. If you want to accuse those who are disgusted by people who send bloody photos as a political act of not being sensitive enough about “the babies”, then you are off base.

179 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:03:40pm

re: #178 wrenchwench

I’m not trying to do either here. I am just pointing out that the revolution we all feel about such pictures is not just of the “bloody mess ” type - it is deeper. In fact I am commenting on the fact that those who are disgusted by the sending of such photos are being sensitive humans, and we should take note of this, and follow it to its logical conclusion. We feel such a strong reaction because we instinctively recognize these babies as exactly that. Not just extraneous flesh cut, but people.

180 wrenchwench  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:22:38pm

re: #179 Nebulous

I’m not trying to do either here. I am just pointing out that the revolution we all feel about such pictures is not just of the “bloody mess ” type - it is deeper. In fact I am commenting on the fact that those who are disgusted by the sending of such photos are being sensitive humans, and we should take note of this, and follow it to its logical conclusion. We feel such a strong reaction because we instinctively recognize these babies as exactly that. Not just extraneous flesh cut, but people.

I disagree. You want to read into it. Your “logical conclusion” is pulled from thin air.

My guess is that you are not “pro-choice”, and you think that’s somehow the “logical” and “instinctive” position to hold. I disagree.

181 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:30:19pm

re: #179 Nebulous

You would have the same reaction to the dead fetus of an orangutang.

182 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:33:22pm

re: #177 Nebulous

a natural revolution, huh? :D


You dead thread guys are so funny

183 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:38:44pm

re: #180 wrenchwench

You are of course welcome to disagree, I respect that, and also the lack of invective and abuse which sometimes gets hurled when disagreement occurs.

On the “logical conclusion” point, I stand by my observation that aborted babies invoke much greater revulsion and shock than, say, wart removal. This requires explanation. I have observed people become physically ill when shown pictures of aborted babies. They were very clear why - they saw the bodies as being those of people. I think the vast majority of us feel the same, and it is only by a conscious training of the mind that we can overcome this natural response. I don’t think we should attempt to do that. The natural emotion reveals the natural reality. Unborn babies are people.

184 jamesfirecat  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:39:56pm

re: #159 Nebulous

I’m not sure I get this. Showing people pictures of dead babies is sick and horrible, but killing the same babies in the first place isn’t?


Okay lets do this Nebulous any one else still here.

You people believe that abortion is wrong because it’s murdering fetuses that should have the same rights as any living human being, right?

Would you be willing to listen if I put forward an argument for why even if we give a fetus the same rights as a human being abortion wouldn’t be murder?

185 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:40:26pm

re: #181 Obdicut

No. Saw a dead cow fetus recently. Mild sadness, no revulsion and distress.

186 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:42:15pm

re: #182 WindUpBird

Point taken. Mildly pedantic, but I guess valid.

187 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:45:01pm

re: #184 jamesfirecat

Always open to hearing an argument, though I would also like to stay with my original point - we all feel a natural revulsion to seeing aborted babies because we see them instinctively as people, and killing innocent people is wrong.

188 Tweety  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:46:59pm

There are many women who bitterly regret their abortions. Yet I’ve heard people speak of abortion as a “progressive” and “liberal” or “liberating” act. This is bizarre. What could be more regressive than the killing of the unborn - i.e. the denial of the natural progression of life? And how do you “liberate” yourself by destroying another human being in the making?

I’m concerned about the easy road to abortion in many countries in today’s world. (And yes, I know the argument about the dangers of back-street abortions.) But abortion is not the same as having a tooth pulled and it should not be regarded in the same light.


175. Obdicut,

Again, you’re picking away at my comments but you have little or nothing to say about your own take on abortion. Let’s see if you can produce more than one sentence here about abortion without playing amateur psychologist and instantly judging people you know nothing about. In sport, what you are doing is called “playing the man and not the ball.” I switch off the TV when I see too much of that.

189 jamesfirecat  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:48:34pm

re: #187 Nebulous

Always open to hearing an argument, though I would also like to stay with my original point - we all feel a natural revulsion to seeing aborted babies because we see them instinctively as people, and killing innocent people is wrong.

Killing innocent people is “wrong” yes.

But is killing innocent people “illegal”, that is the question that I put to you?

For example consider this, a person comes to your door and tells you that their kidneys are failing and if they don’t get a transplant then they will die. The hospital has checked and you have two good kidneys that are a match for his body. You are the only person in the nearby area who is a match for him…

No, it would be a very nice and morally good thing for you to give him one of your kidneys… but even though you are condemning this person to die by refusing him access to your organs…. should it be illegal for you to refuse his request?

190 jamesfirecat  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:51:14pm

re: #188 Tweety

There are many women who bitterly regret their abortions. Yet I’ve heard people speak of abortion as a “progressive” and “liberal” or “liberating” act. This is bizarre. What could be more regressive than the killing of the unborn - i.e. the denial of the natural progression of life? And how do you “liberate” yourself by destroying another human being in the making?

I’m concerned about the easy road to abortion in many countries in today’s world. (And yes, I know the argument about the dangers of back-street abortions.) But abortion is not the same as having a tooth pulled and it should not be regarded in the same light.

175. Obdicut,

Again, you’re picking away at my comments but you have little or nothing to say about your own take on abortion. Let’s see if you can produce more than one sentence here about abortion without playing amateur psychologist and instantly judging people you know nothing about. In sport, what you are doing is called “playing the man and not the ball.” I switch off the TV when I see too much of that.

Tweety you want some of this?

Would you like to hear my argument for why even if we consider a fetus to have all the same rights as a human being, abortion should still be legal and not consdiered murder?

191 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:53:37pm

re: #188 Tweety

Again, you’re picking away at my comments but you have little or nothing to say about your own take on abortion.

I’m male. Abortion is really none of my business. Insofar as it’s a legal matter, it should be safe and legal and available to all women who want one. It is not anyone else’s decision other than the woman and her doctor.

A zygote, a fetus, before it develops the brain, is not what we would in any way recognize as a human and treating it as one is just as insane as treating Terry Schiavo as though she was sentient and conscious.

You are unable to defend your views.

There are many women who bitterly regret their abortions. Yet I’ve heard people speak of abortion as a “progressive” and “liberal” or “liberating” act.

hare many women who bitterly regret their pregnancies, even as they love the child that was the result. Such is life.

And thanks for hauling out yet another strawman to expose yourself. It’s really, really telling about you when you do.

192 Tweety  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:56:59pm

189. jamesfirecat,

You are mixing up two distinct moral issues. Not prolonging life by withholding a kidney is quite different from taking a life on its way to becoming fully functioning.

Now I don’t know if I can say this has been fun, but I gotta go.

193 jamesfirecat  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:00:18pm

re: #192 Tweety

189. jamesfirecat,

You are mixing up two distinct moral issues. Not prolonging life by withholding a kidney is quite different from taking a life on its way to becoming fully functioning.

Now I don’t know if I can say this has been fun, but I gotta go.

No it isn’t.

It’s all about the sanctity of a human beings organs.

We don’t kill the child by cutting if off from its mother organs during the first few months, the child’s inability to properly process oxygen/run its body ends up killing it, the same way a man with two bad livers dies do to his bodies inability to process certain chemicals that build up in all of our bodies.

I’ll be willing to give you no partial birth abortions by the way, the mother should have the right to have the child removed at any time in a timely and quickly manner at a sanitary facility, but the child should at the governments expense be given every chance/aid to survive before being sent to a foster home with other children put up for adoption.

194 jamesfirecat  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:00:43pm

Damn it dinner time, I’ll be back!

195 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:02:54pm

re: #189 jamesfirecat

In the case you raise you are not “condemning him to die”, neither are you in any way responsible for his plight. It is easy to think up many situations where we could intervene, with varying degrees of cost to ourselves to save the lives of people around the world. For example, If I sold all my possessions (and maybe even my kidneys :-) )and used the proceeds to support any of a number of projects in the third world - clean water, malaria prevention, lives would be saved. This would be noble, but not compulsory in any way.

However, If I bring a person into being, I do have a deep and overarching responsibility to them, and killing them would be very wrong. My responsibility does, of course extend beyond birth. A parent who simply deprived his or her new born of liquids to the point of death would be convicted of murder. Whereas someone who refused a strangers request for a cup of tea would not - the issue is responsibility.

196 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:08:59pm

re: #185 Nebulous

No. Saw a dead cow fetus recently. Mild sadness, no revulsion and distress.

Do you think ‘orangutan’ and ‘cow’ are synonyms for some bizarre reason?

197 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:09:55pm

re: #194 jamesfirecat

Sadly I won’t for a while, its midnight here, and I must hit the sack. I’ll check in tomorrow.

198 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:10:15pm

re: #195 Nebulous

However, If I bring a person into being, I do have a deep and overarching responsibility to them, and killing them would be very wrong.

Obvious logical mistakes in this sentence:

1) The agency of it being ‘you’ bringing the fetus into existence, rather than a biological process.

2) “person”— a zygote is not a person, demonstrably.

199 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:12:59pm

re: #196 Obdicut

Not many orangutans where I live! Cow is the nearest I can get.

However, my guess is that my response to any non-human mammal fetus would be similar, primate or not. The distress is directly linked to the fact this is not any old animal, but is actually a person.

200 wrenchwench  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:15:06pm

re: #199 Nebulous

Not many orangutans where I live! Cow is the nearest I can get.

However, my guess is that my response to any non-human mammal fetus would be similar, primate or not. The distress is directly linked to the fact this is not any old animal, but is actually a person.

What if you didn’t know the species? What if someone told you it was human, but it was not?

201 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:16:34pm

re: #198 Obdicut

1) Don’t see the logical mistake here, the “you” was the casual agent - it didn’t happen of its own accord last time I checked.

2) Leaving a zygote to one side for the moment, would you say the same of a 20 week old baby? Demonstrably not a person?

202 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:20:38pm

re: #200 wrenchwench

I’m not sure this is relevant. If someone tricked you into believing a murder had taken place you would be horrified. If you became aware of the deception you would relax. Same here.

The point remains: we have a valid and real reaction to dead people (babies included) that we don’t have to animals.

203 wrenchwench  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:24:54pm

re: #202 Nebulous

I’m not sure this is relevant. If someone tricked you into believing a murder had taken place you would be horrified. If you became aware of the deception you would relax. Same here.

The point remains: we have a valid and real reaction to dead people (babies included) that we don’t have to animals.

I am sure it is relevant. Your initial claim was this:

I’m not sure I get this. Showing people pictures of dead babies is sick and horrible, but killing the same babies in the first place isn’t?

You don’t know who or what was in the photos, yet you assert that one should be repulsed by the act that YOU suppose had to precede the photos. It’s all in your head.The link I gave you in #176 told you that you had been tricked. Why aren’t you now relaxed about it?

204 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:25:36pm

Sorry, really must hit the sack. I would be happy to continue the discussion later, particularly is we can keep insult and invective out of it. My old school teacher always said the first to resort to that automatically lost the argument…

205 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:27:41pm

re: #199 Nebulous


However, my guess is that my response to any non-human mammal fetus would be similar, primate or not. The distress is directly linked to the fact this is not any old animal, but is actually a person.

Heh. How inhuman of you.

This is a good example that your position is based on ignorance of biology.

However, I’m glad that in your view, abortion before the fetus distinctly resembles a human is evidently a-ok.

I really don’t get you people who try to make biological arguments. Your view is mystical. That’s fine, in so far as it goes. Make it from those mystical grounds, don’t try to claim science.

206 Nebulous  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:31:59pm

re: #203 wrenchwench

Ok, last one, really.

I think you might have missed my post number 177. I explicitly said the salient point was not whether these pictures were real of faked (I have no way of knowing). The point is the real reaction to real aborted babies. I got the feeling that Charles was so angry, at least in part, because the content disgusted him - as indeed it should.

This is my point, such content should disgust, the main reason for which is that we instinctively recognize aborted babies as people, and we have a strong moral reaction to killing people.

nearly asleep….

207 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:32:26pm

re: #201 Nebulous

1) Don’t see the logical mistake here, the “you” was the casual agent - it didn’t happen of its own accord last time I checked.

Really? So it requires someone wanting to become pregnant to get pregnant?

That’s like saying that someone is the causal agent for catching a cold because they kiss someone with a cold.


2) Leaving a zygote to one side for the moment, would you say the same of a 20 week old baby? Demonstrably not a person?

I’m glad you admit you have no argument when it comes to a zygote.

At 20 weeks the nervous center is barely developed. No, not a person, but as the brain develops from there on in, it becomes a gray area.

You know there isn’t like some bright shining line, right? And that this effort to say that it’s a ‘person’ and base this on some form of personal rights is transparent?

208 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:34:16pm

re: #206 Nebulous

If you could really look at the pictures of aborted chimpanzees and not suffer qualms, you’re kind of a monster, dude.

209 wrenchwench  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:38:17pm

re: #206 Nebulous

I think you missed everything I wrote…

210 jamesfirecat  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 3:54:12pm

re: #195 Nebulous

In the case you raise you are not “condemning him to die”, neither are you in any way responsible for his plight. It is easy to think up many situations where we could intervene, with varying degrees of cost to ourselves to save the lives of people around the world. For example, If I sold all my possessions (and maybe even my kidneys :-) )and used the proceeds to support any of a number of projects in the third world - clean water, malaria prevention, lives would be saved. This would be noble, but not compulsory in any way.

However, If I bring a person into being, I do have a deep and overarching responsibility to them, and killing them would be very wrong. My responsibility does, of course extend beyond birth. A parent who simply deprived his or her new born of liquids to the point of death would be convicted of murder. Whereas someone who refused a strangers request for a cup of tea would not - the issue is responsibility.

Why must a parent be legally beholden to their children to such a great degree, when putting a child up for adoption is not a crime?

The mother has done nothing to want to have this child, because consent to have sex is not the same as consent to carry a child, and so it would be silly to say that from a legal perspective the mother is in automatically beholden to the child.

If she refuses to take care of the child when they have promised to by giving birth to it and not putting it up for adoption and then proceed to give it any liquids so it dies, then yes that is murder because they are going back on a promise that they have made both to the child and to society at large.

What promise has the mother made to a child they find themselves pregnant with against their will?

211 allbusiness  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 6:29:29pm

When I was 19 years old I was dating a less-than-reputable girl who told me, after she suspected she was pregnant, that if her test was positive that she would have her friends beat her and kick her in the stomach until she had a miscarriage. (She couldn’t afford an abortion)

Needless to say we broke up soon after (she wasn’t pregnant) but it got me thinking, if someone intentionally causes themselves to miscarry, is it the same as getting an abortion?

212 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 7, 2010 9:12:54pm

re: #206 Nebulous

Disgusting. I’m so completely fed up with you anti-choice fanatics and your sick mind games — as if it isn’t perfectly clear to everyone what you’re doing. Just go away.

213 Yashmak  Mon, Aug 9, 2010 8:53:04am
There are many women who bitterly regret their abortions. Yet I’ve heard people speak of abortion as a “progressive” and “liberal” or “liberating” act.

- Tweety

There are also many women who DON’T bitterly regret their abortions. You must hang out with some truly bizaare folks, if they refer to abortion in those terms.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ...
teleskiguy
2 weeks ago
Views: 704 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0