Israel Asserts Liberal Values Against Religious Extremism »« Egypt Joins the 14th Century

Dumbass Quote of the Day

From Michele Bachmann, telling Personhood USA that she would literally die in order to eliminate reproductive rights for other women and make sure that they will die from botched back alley abortions rather than having them performed in a safe environment:

I want everyone to know that I recognize and respect the dignity of every human life from conception until natural death. This is not a check the box thing for me; this is the core of my conviction, this is what I would literally die for. We have a moral obligation to defend other people and the reason for that is because each human being is made in the image of likeness of a holy God.

Unless they’re gay, of course. Then they’re evil and must be forced to pray until it goes away. She also said that “we know that President Obama has a war on the family.” Wrong. The only one declaring war on families here is Bachmann, who wants to deny equal rights and equal protection to the families of gay people.

Comments

  1. davidct says

    It is amazing that many of the people that value the sanctity of life have no problem with the death penalty or the idea of bombing Iran.

  2. Michael Heath says

    davidct writes:

    It is amazing that many of the people that value the sanctity of life have no problem with the death penalty or the idea of bombing Iran.

    I’ve got a hunch you regret how you worded this and would like a do-over.

  3. anandine says

    The greatest thing we can do for our country is to encourage a stable family life. We apparently do that by prohibiting gays from engaging in it.

  4. Gregory says

    “I recognize and respect the dignity of every human life from conception until natural death.”

    With “natural death” being defined as being put to death by the state and being blown to smithereens by US bombs dropped onto civilians, not to mention dying from preventable disease because you cannot afford health insurance, dying from exposure because you are homeless and starving to death because you cannot afford anything resembling nutritious food.

    Why do these self-described pro-lifers have such an extremely narrow view of what human life actually is?

  5. lynxreign says

    I want everyone to know that I recognize and respect the dignity of every human life from conception until natural death.

    Except for pregnant women, who don’t really count. Bleeding to death in an ally is “natural”, right? Or dying during childbirth? Totally natural!

  6. says

    By offering her life she is guaranteeing future martyr status so that after she croaks a statue of her will be erected somewhere in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area.

    And by mentioning a ‘holy’ god… does she imply that there are others?

  7. wpjoe says

    @5
    “With “natural death” being defined as … dying from preventable disease because you cannot afford health insurance”
    Don’t forget dying from cervical cancer because the HPV vaccine is evil and will make girls promiscuous and brain damaged.

  8. d cwilson says

    Natural death also defined as any one of a number of life-threatening complications that can arise from pregnancy and could result in the mother’s death if the fetus is not aborted.

    One thing progressives really need to do is reclaim the word “family” from the wingnuts. Being pro-family shouldn’t be defined as hating gays and abortion and cheering when someone dies because they didn’t have health insurance. It should be about promoting social policies that actually strengthen families. We’re the only industrialized nation where middle class families are all one catastrophic illness away from bankruptcy.

    It seems to me that if you wanted to be “pro-family” that would be a nice place to start. But apparently in wingnut world, being “pro-family” means the freedom to die in the street so that insurance executives can have private jets.

  9. sceptinurse says

    –I want everyone to know that I recognize and respect the dignity of every human life from conception until natural death.–

    Does this mean no intervention when someone has a heart attack, a car accident, a stroke? After all this would be her gods plan for that person’s end. Who are we to interfere in it?

  10. organon says

    “It is amazing that many of the people that value the sanctity of life have no problem with the death penalty or the idea of bombing Iran.”

    Well, the lord (through them) giveth, and the lord (through them) taketh away. It’s a lot of power for whoever wins position as spokesperson for lord. It seems that they care only about forcing that a life be brought into the world. Once here, too damned bad for whoever. Pro-life and pro-choice are, unfortunately, horrible labels for the positions on this issue. Much like “patriot” act. Speaking of which, the WH petition for vetoing the 2012 NDAA has disappeared. It was at close to 20,000 signatures from what I remember. It is difficult for me to understand how it is that 25,000 citizens didn’t come forward to sign it. Out of the millions affected, how could there not have been 25,000 to come forward and sign the petition. There were the numerous constitutional attorneys who spoke out against it. There was the ACLU. The Boston Bar. And various commentators from across the political spectrum. Some even warned how using the military to detain citizens would allow keeping it out of the courts, and thus keeping the courts from being able to hear or rule on its constitutionality. It is an issue of who would have “standing” in order for the courts to be able to hear it at all. Well over 40,000 have signed the petition for the veto of SOPA. 25,000 of them couldn’t have signed the NDAA one? There are a couple of others for NDAA, but they have so few signatures they don’t stand a chance. Now we can only hope the president does the right thing: veto it. If he doesn’t, that stuff will be law, for any president in the future to abuse at will. Yes, it’s on my mind. That’s an enormous amount of power for anyone who finds themself in the position of POTUS. From what I understand, the current president has until January 3 to either sign it or veto it. Citizens can still call the White House to voice concern. Up until he either signs or veto’s.

  11. dan4 says

    Uh, what plausible scenario exists where a person would literally be killed for opposing abortion rights (I’ll be charitable to Bachmann, and define “plausible scenario” as one not involving illegal behavior of some sort)?

  12. organon says

    Mr. Greenwald actually takes a more moderate position on this than most, including a number of constitutional attorneys and other experts out there. But even this more moderate view makes clear…this thing is bad news.

  13. Aquaria says

    I want everyone to know that I recognize and respect the dignity of every human life from conception until natural death.

    Unless they’re female and pregnant and need an abortion.

    This is not a check the box thing for me; this is the core of my conviction, this is what I would literally die for.

    If you were 20 years younger, Michelle, you might die for it, anyway. How convenient that you’re at an age when pregnancy is no longer a concern and can force other women to die for it, even if they don’t want to.

    We have a moral obligation to defend other people and the reason for that is because each human being is made in the image of likeness of a holy God.

    Unless she’s female and pregnant and needs an abortion.

  14. Aquaria says

    davidct writes:

    It is amazing that many of the people that value the sanctity of life have no problem with the death penalty or the idea of bombing Iran.

    I’ve got a hunch you regret how you worded this and would like a do-over.

    LOL, wut?

    Maybe you need to read it again, because the anti-abortion misogyny crowd has massive parallels to the pro-death penalty and pro-killing brown people crowds.

  15. says

    We have a moral obligation to defend other people and the reason for that is because each human being is made in the image of likeness of a holy God.

    Except for that “Original Sin” thing, of course; not sure how being born in need of redemption works with that holy image. Oh, and if you’re taught the wrong religion in childhood, you’re probably fucked.

  16. organon says

    @#16

    It might give the impression, as quoted, that davidct wrote the part “I’ve got a hunch you regret how you worded this and would like a do-over.” Just wanted to note for anyone who might misunderstand that davidct wrote only the part “It is amazing that many of the people that value the sanctity of life have no problem with the death penalty or the idea of bombing Iran.” I too found the statement from davidct quite clear and did not undertand the comment that followed from someone else: “I’ve got a hunch you regret how you worded this and would like a do-over.” For whatever worth…

  17. bobcarroll says

    Seems to me that davidct’s comment was perfectly understandable ‘as is.’ Michael may have meant that it would be an improvement if it read “… who claim to value…” but to me this spoils the faux innocence of the original snark.

  18. Francisco Bacopa says

    I don’t thing our society offers a lot of opportunities to to die fighting against abortion.

    You’d have to make the opportunity. Perhaps by announcing to the police that you intended to kill abortion clinic escorts several times to get large numbers of cops to show up and then get there yourself and shoot at the cops so they’d shoot back.

    Why has Michelle Bachmann not done this yet?

  19. dingojack says

    Hopefully, in Francisco Bacopa’s scenario above, Michele will be wrestled to the ground before she’s shot.
    I’m she would love idea of smugly declaring what a martyr she is before the lethal cocktail is pumped into her vein. [/snark]
    Dingo

  20. Michael Heath says

    davidct writes:

    It is amazing that many of the people that value the sanctity of life have no problem with the death penalty or the idea of bombing Iran.

    I responded:

    I’ve got a hunch you regret how you worded this and would like a do-over.

    Aquaria responds to my response:

    LOL, wut?

    Maybe you need to read it again, because the anti-abortion misogyny crowd has massive parallels to the pro-death penalty and pro-killing brown people crowds.

    I know, which is precisely why I argued davidct might want to re-read his post. That’s because he’s describing the anti-abortion rights groups as, “[valuing] the sanctity of life, when in fact we know they don’t value the sanctity of life as illustrated at the end of his sentence.

    This is why I refuse to call these groups “pro-life” but instead refer to them as anti-abortion rights groups or preface their preferred label with “so-called”.

  21. organon says

    Good points. I often use “claim to.” That they: claim to value the constitution. Claim to value the ideas of the founders. Claim to value freedom. And on and on. When I read davidct’s post, it seems my brain automatically tacked on an implied “claim to” between “that” and “value,” which it would seem got me to the intended meaning, but true, the phrasing is such that someone else could read it as implicitly acknowledging that group as indeed being valuers of life. Although the second part of the sentence seems to make clear that the group does not. But, I do see the point regarding more precise phrasing.

Leave a Reply