Quantcast

«

»

Dec 17 2013

Logic is Not Steve Deace’s Strong Suit

Steve Deace, one of the nearly countless number of little mini-Limbaughs around the country, spoke to a conference put on by Lutherans for Life recently and used this staggeringly stupid analogy for why women should be forced to give birth to their rapist’s child.

“And might I tell you if you listen to nothing else I say today, there is no such thing as pro-life with exceptions,” he said last month in Iowa at the Lutherans For Life National Conference. “It doesn’t exist. If you’re pro-life with exceptions you’re just pro-choice with fewer choices.”

“That’s really what that is,” Deace continued. “And if you think I’m wrong – OK — how about we put forth a pro-life bill that will save every kid but those born to Muslims? They are only 0.7 percent of the population. In fact, there are more kids conceived in rape or incest in America – about one percent – than the total population of Muslims in America.”

“So we make rape and incest exceptions all the time and say those things don’t matter, so why don’t we just put forth pro-life bills that say, ‘Hey, if you’re a Muslim you can abort your kid if you want, we will let you kill it.’ Why wouldn’t we do that? Why isn’t that the same thing?”

Really, Steve? You can’t conceive of why those two things are entirely different? Clearly rationality lies well beyond your grasp.

28 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    keithb

    His audience would likely see them as the same, and possibly a good idea.

  2. 2
    eamick

    His audience would likely see them as the same, and possibly a good idea.

    Maybe. Having been raised a Lutheran, I can assure you most Lutherans would find his ideas repulsive.

  3. 3
    democommie

    If logic was a suit, Steve Deace would be wearin’ a thong.

  4. 4
    Crimson Clupeidae

    Oh demo…I’m going to need some industrial strength brain bleach now.

    Hrm, does douchy support capital punishment?

  5. 5
    robb

    his math is bad.

    he is comparing a rate, 1% of kids conceive by rape or incest, to an amount, 0.7% of the population is Muslim. it’s like comparing speed and distance. 55 miles is not the same as 55 mph.

    unless he means 1% of all the kids in the USA were conceived by rape or incest. children are about 25% of the population. 1% of 25% is 0.0025. that makes Muslims 280 times more common than children born from rape or incest. so the two population are *not* the same.

    his math is bad.

  6. 6
    scienceavenger

    One must always remember when reading pro-lifer comments that they believe every fertilized egg is a child, same as a 1-year-old. So what he’s getting at here isn’t that rapists are equivalent to Muslims, but that whether you allow an abortion because the “child” was conceived out of rape, or Muslimness, you are still allowing a child to be murdered. Thus if minimizing murder is your agenda, then you should be more opposed to the rape exception than the Muslim exception, since there are more of them.

    Frankly, I think the major contradiction in his statement is that there are 1% rape-conceived kids in america. I thought women’s bodies shut that thing down!

  7. 7
    Modusoperandi

    SURE IM PROLIFE BUT DOESNT HE UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED AN EXCEPTION? HES WORKING RIGHT IN TO THEIR HANDS! THE ONLY THING STANDING BETWEEN A WOMEN AND HER DOCTOR IS THE AMERICAN FLAG AND FREEDOM! AMERICAN PATRIOT WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO GIVE “BIRTH” TO MUSLIN TERROR BABIES!

  8. 8
    Abby Normal

    One must always remember when reading pro-lifer comments that they believe every fertilized egg is a child, same as a 1-year-old.

    Just one of the many reasons I support abortion through the 7th trimester.

  9. 9
    Gvlgeologist, FCD

    Modus, that doesn’t make any sense at all…
    Oh, wait…

  10. 10
    Jordan Genso

    “And might I tell you if you listen to nothing else I say today, there is no such thing as pro-life with exceptions,” he said last month in Iowa at the Lutherans For Life National Conference. “It doesn’t exist. If you’re pro-life with exceptions you’re just pro-choice with fewer choices.”

    I actually find that statement to be correct, and it is one that I think liberals should be pushing. Because once those individuals realize they are “pro-choice with fewer choices”, then they have to justify why it should be a choice in one scenario, but not another.

    The only way that abortion should be illegal is if it is murder. Once you allow for exceptions to the ‘no-abortion’ ideology, then you are admitting it’s not murder (unless the only exception you allow for is if the mother’s life is at risk). The “pro-choice with fewer choices” person simply doesn’t like abortion and wants to prevent women from having the choice in most scenarios, but clearly if it was actually murder the state couldn’t allow them that choice just because the child was conceived through rape or incest. And so if abortion isn’t murder, then they have no grounds to stand on when preventing women from having the freedom to make their own health decisions. If it’s not murder, then they can’t take away a woman’s freedom and control over her own body just because they “don’t like” the decisions she may make.

    I’m completely in favor of those “pro-choice with fewer choices” individuals having to face the inconsistency of their position.

  11. 11
    dugglebogey

    Oh that Steve Deace, always knocking em dead with those muslim rape jokes.

  12. 12
    meg

    I’m not sure if it’s the fact that I’m a little tired this morning, or that I’ve done something to my wrist that’s causing a fair amount of pain, but that made absolutely no sense.

    I’m off for more caffeine . . .

  13. 13
    Artor

    Thank you Modus! I was wondering what I was going to give my niece. I have some scraps of muslin handy, so I’m going to make her a terror baby out of it. Maybe I can out a voice recorder in it and have it spout Steve Deace quotes?

  14. 14
    Crimson Clupeidae

    Abby Normal: go big or go home. I support it up until their 18th birthday….. ;)

  15. 15
    Pen

    Hey, if you’re a Muslim you can abort your kid if you want, we will let you kill it.

    I don’t know what he’s talking about. Is he saying what if we reserve the right to reproductive choice to Muslims? I can’t think of a better way to get people to convert to Islam. Although, if Muslims, why not atheists? After all, we’re the ones who don’t believe his silly theories about how the soul exists in a single fertilised cell, or whatever his anti-choice rationalisation is.

  16. 16
    Chiroptera

    I’m more and more convinced that the religious right really doesn’t understand the concepts of morality and ethics.

  17. 17
    Teve Tory

    I do think he’s right about one thing:

    ““It doesn’t exist. If you’re pro-life with exceptions you’re just pro-choice with fewer choices.””

    I don’t think pro-life with exceptions for rape is a coherent position. If it’s murder, it isn’t right because the victim’s dad is a criminal. I’m pro-choice because I don’t think it’s murder–I don’t think a glop of cells is equal to a person. (and plenty of burning building thought experiments show many ‘pro-lifers’ don’t really either.)

  18. 18
    Abby Normal

    I don’t agree one must think abortion is murder to believe that it is morally wrong. I know there are plenty pro-lifers who throw that phrase around and I’m sure a fair number even believe it. But it’s not a requirement. There are folks who say fur is murder. I scoff at that but still condemn the fur industry and consumption.

  19. 19
    Jordan Genso

    @10 Abby

    I agree people can be morally opposed to abortion even if they don’t think it is murder, but they have no legitimate justification for demanding the government restrict the woman’s freedom if it’s not murder. I don’t care if someone is morally opposed to vasectomies, that doesn’t mean the government can take away a man’s right to choose to get one done if wanted. I don’t care if someone is morally opposed to the use of contraception, the government is not allowed to outlaw the use.

    If abortion is not murder, then no one is being harmed by the process, and so the government has no say in the matter.

  20. 20
    lofgren

    Wait.

    I see the difference between Muslims and rape, obviously, but in the context of his point: “If you’re pro-life with exceptions you’re just pro-choice with fewer choices,” I’m not sure the differences matter. His point is that if we allow exceptions for rape then we’re still pro-choice for a segment of the population. Whether you’re pro-choice for rape victims or pro-choice for Muslims, you’re still pro-choice, just in a more limited way.

  21. 21
    democommie

    When I was a kid I used to sit in the living room, after I had lied about finishing my homework, reading or fantasizing about something. My dad would be sawin’ logs in the comfy chair and the teevee would be on whatever station he had been watching the news on, two hours previous.

    I or one of my siblings, wanting to watch “Combat” or “Wanted Dead or Alive” or “Petticoat Junction” (just for Uncle Joe’s homespun humor–not the hotties) would begin to TURN THE ROTARY SELECTOR–and the old man would intone, without opening his eyes, “Leave it there, I’m watching that!”.

    It strikes me that for a lot of the KKKristianist ReiKKKwing, it’s pretty much the same thing when anything they don’t like might be about to happen. No reasoned process, just their antediluvian male patriarchal mindset in action.

  22. 22
    unbound

    …there is no such thing as pro-life with exceptions…

    Since none of the christian churches are willing to sacrifice their profits to end childhood hunger, the vast majority in the US are not willing to support universal healthcare, and there are still 153 million orphans worldwide that the good christians aren’t adopting to feed and take care of, this statement would seem to mean that they are not actually pro-life either. I’m glad he cleared that up.

  23. 23
    Abby Normal

    Jordan Genso @19

    If abortion is not murder, then no one is being harmed by the process, and so the government has no say in the matter.

    No person is harmed, just like dog fighting and other forms of animal cruelty. I tend to agree with you that legislating morality is a bad idea. But there are few who agree us and fewer still who will stick by that conviction when it results in something they hate. Most people seem to think that if an act is sufficiently heinous then it should be outlawed, even if no person is harmed.

  24. 24
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @robb #5

    I knew something was bothering me, beyond the racism and obvious illogic. Thanks, eloquently explained.

  25. 25
    freehand

    robb@5 – yup, his math is bad. Their math is bad. Their science is non-existent, they have no grasp of logic, and they make a mess out of any analogy they try. Their ethics is their most advanced tool in their rhetorical toolkit, and it’s at the toddler level. (“Daddy doesn’t want us to do this, so it’s bad.”)

    They’re like children playing house, and thinking they’re good enough to fool grownups. If they were five years old, it still wouldn’t be cute, because it’s so mean-spirited.

  26. 26
    Raging Bee

    “And might I tell you if you listen to nothing else I say today, there is no such thing as pro-life with exceptions,” he said last month…

    …except for the life of the woman bearing the fetus. That life doesn’t matter.

  27. 27
    Raging Bee

    I actually find that statement to be correct, and it is one that I think liberals should be pushing. Because once those individuals realize they are “pro-choice with fewer choices”, then they have to justify why it should be a choice in one scenario, but not another.

    Are you fucking kidding me?! That’s how we got in the position we’re in now.

    Be careful demanding consistency from the loony right — you might get it.

  28. 28
    dingojack

    Abby – if ‘no person is harmed’ how is it ‘heinous’, exactly?
    Dingo

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site