Utterly demented


Now Ted Cruz is calling the Planned Parenthood killer a transgendered leftist activist, parroting far right-wing blogs. Can the Republican party get any more delusional? I fear they can.

Comments

  1. numerobis says

    But back on schedule: I saw the WHTM post and wondered why he was bothering with such obviously delusional rantings rather than the normal hate speech he focuses on.

    Now I know.

  2. ursamajor says

    I made the mistake of reading the Gateway Pundit article and the comments left me speechless. The strange claim that violent equals liberal by their definition, the source article used for the trans-gender claim has a disclaimer not to trust the site (“Use This website at your own risk”), and the comments, did I mention the comments?

    One random yet typical one includes “From that picture above, the guy appears to be cookoo for cocoa puffs. His unkempt, disheveled look has all the earmarkings of a dumpster diving libturd. No doubt he’s just another lefty trying to get out of the cold by getting himself sent up sh*t’s creek without a paddle.”

  3. says

    No doubt he’s just another lefty trying to get out of the cold by getting himself sent up sh*t’s creek without a paddle.”

    Was that one of Richard Dawkins’?

  4. gmacs says

    Well, I’ve been misidentified as female on plenty of official forms, and received letters addressing me as “Ms”. I suppose that makes me a “transgender activist”. Well, I am for transgender rights.

  5. Becca Stareyes says

    You know, I recall Melissa over on Shakesville describing a phenomenon where people try to persuade others that an act is anything but ’caused by sexism’, and calling it ‘Occam’s Big Paisley Tie’. If Occam’s Razor is ‘the simplest explanation should be considered first for truth’, ‘Occam’s Big Paisley Tie’ is ‘any explanation that requires I challenge my worldview cannot be considered until I eliminate all alternatives’.

    Cruz refuses to consider ‘the combination of easy access to guns and rhetoric that describes Planned Parenthood as morally equivalent to Nazis means that some people will lash out violently in the name of ‘protecting the unborn’. Therefore it’s far easier to pretend that what is most likely a typo* is a sign that Dear is trangender, and therefore a leftist plant.

    * Or even if Dear was transgender, that wouldn’t change the fact that a Planned Parenthood was targeted under ‘no more baby parts’. Or that Dear still shows no signs of being left-wing — as Caitlyn Jenner has shown, trans doesn’t mean auto-left-wing.

  6. says

    Relevant paragraph from the link:

    None of the people interviewed about Dear had anything to say about his gender identity. Nothing about his appearance nor any past reports of his identity suggests that he identifies as a woman. The voter registration form identifying him as female is the only discrepancy, making it most likely a typo and nothing more.

    Cruz is off the rails.

  7. throwaway, butcher of tongues, mauler of metaphor says

    I may be interpreting this the wrong way, but it doesn’t sound like Cruz is calling Dear a transgender leftist activist. Cruz is saying that the reports about Dear stating anything about his motive being about “baby parts” are as silly as the idea that his violence was due to being a transgender leftist activist.

    This does not mean Cruz isn’t still full of shit when he says that. But that seems to be closer to what he actually said.

  8. throwaway, butcher of tongues, mauler of metaphor says

    I think what he’s actually saying is a lot of bullshit.

    Quote: “It’s also been reported that he was registered as an independent and a woman and a transgendered leftist activist. If that’s what he is, I don’t think it’s fair to blame on the rhetoric on the left. This is a murderer.”

    Totally ignores stochastic terrorism while stating that his anti-abortion views wouldn’t be able to be pinned on the recent spates of trumped up videos, admired and parroted and even lied about by the right, borne together with the frothing frenzy of a revivalist sermon on Capitol Hill in a pseudo-trial attack on planned parenthood….

    But we can’t blame the right wing because it would be unfair to blame the left wing…

    Total non-sequitur.

  9. idahogie says

    #12 throwaway is right. Cruz is not making that claim. We shouldn’t exaggerate his failures — there are enough as it is.

  10. Al Dente says

    I have no doubt that Cruz knows he’s peddling bullshit. The problem is that people are buying it.

  11. grendelsfather says

    As a Harvard-trained lawyer, Ted is just following the old dictum about pounding the facts when they are on your side, and pounding the table when they are not.

  12. woozy says

    @12

    Ted Cruz, disingenuous asshole, was responding to a question that his “baby parts” speech motivated Dear. He dismissed this by comparing it to , to his claim equally ridiculous, idea that Dare was a transgenedered leftist, thus dismissing Cruz’ culpability while planting a stupid diversion into peoples’ minds.

  13. treefrogdundee says

    Sadly – since the troglodytes who vote for people like Cruz are illiterates who have never read anything in their lives – they can make any claim they care to confident in the knowledge that their idiot supporters are unwilling or unable to check it for themselves. Cruz could have claimed he was a “radical secular Muslim evolutionist with homosexual tendencies” and nobody who pays attention to Cruz would know any better.

  14. treefrogdundee says

    P.S. Whether Cruz was merely trying to say that we cannot take the shooter’s word for why he did it – as some here have suggested – while quite possible, is beside the point. Cruz’s brain-dead supporters will only hear the literal meaning of what comes out of his word-hole (see my above post about their reasoning abilities) and then it will be open season on the transgendered. It is just more rhetoric, blame, and bile being fed to the masses by someone who is disgusting yet smart enough to phrase his words with some plausible deniability.

  15. idahogie says

    Done, Pierce. Thanks.

    (I no longer read Hemant regularly, or at all really. Can’t remember what he did to piss me off.)

  16. woozy says

    @20 and 21

    The article PZ cited didn’t have the end of Cruz’s quote: ” …if that’ (unregistered transgendered leftist)s what he is. I don’t think it’s fair to blame on the rhetoric on the left. This is a murderer.”

    Cruz is being disingenuous. On the one hand he is saying “Well, the reports that he was anti-abortion motivated by the ‘baby parts’ video are unfounded. Other sites claim equally invalidly that he was a transgendered leftist”. But then he refuses to dismiss it as ludicrous and plants into his followers who never would have heard of this that this is a reasonable and possible idea.

  17. treefrogdundee says

    @ 23:

    Bingo. That is my point… trying to dissect what Cruz really “meant” is pointless. He only concern was to throw out a few catch words that can be twisted either way. He gets to claim innocence in front of the cameras while the rabble that support him have another group to beat up on (unfortunately, literally in too many cases). Fortunately, the nomination will be over soon enough and that scumbag can crawl back under his rock.

  18. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Pierce R. Butler, #19:

    Tell it to Hemant Mehta.

    I already did. I was the very first commenter on that post, and I instantly said exactly what was going on: Yes, Cruz is attempting to absolve the theocratic forced-birthers of any blame for inspiring the crime by “magnanimously” granting that if it turns out that Dear is a transgender woman it still wouldn’t make the Left to blame…therefore don’t blame the Right.

    He is not asserting Dear is transgender. He’s asserting an “even if Dear is transgender” argument. Mehta got it wrong, but Mehta has already been corrected – at least if he bothered to read the first comment on his post.

    I’m with Idahogie:

    We shouldn’t exaggerate his failures — there are enough as it is.

  19. Akira MacKenzie says

    What…The…FUCK?!?!

    There are moments when you realize that our sad, stupid species is beyond all hope. That we will never climb out of the gutter of its own bigotry, greed, and willful ignorance and you hope that our merciful extinction is nigh.

    This is one of those moments.

  20. Nick Gotts says

    Akira Mackenzie@26,

    I am well aware there are moments you hope that, and for that, you have my sympathy. But do not presume to speak for anyone else.

  21. unclefrogy says

    my only hope is that 65% of the people can see by their words and the company they keep that the current conservative politicians are really a bunch of ignorant, hate filled greedy ass-holes and vote against them.
    Until then I will have to be content with a nice cup of coffee and some biscotti
    uncle frogy

  22. Dunc says

    Becca Stareyes @10: I love “Occam’s Big Paisley Tie”. Thank you for introducing me to it.

  23. Gregory Greenwood says

    Now Ted Cruz is calling the Planned Parenthood killer a “transgendered leftist activist”, parroting far right-wing blogs. Can the Republican party get any more delusional? I fear they can.

    I fear it is worse than this. Cruz isn’t ‘demented’; he is a calculating far right hate monger who knows exactly what he is doing. As noted by other commenters on the thread, he has taken the flimsiest of grounds to concoct the whole transgender leftist activist thing and held that up as a ridiculous basis on which to judge the motivation for this attack so that he can draw a false equivalency between that clearly bogus claim and the entirely legitimate argument that flailing, hysterical right wing rhetoric that talks about PP selling human body parts – complete with ludicrously hyperbolic comparisons to the nazis – might incite an already hostile forced birther to violence.

    Cruz and others like him lit the fuse on this issue in the full knowledge that someone like Dear might react in this fashion. This is the outcome they wanted all along, and they were clever and ruthless enough that the means they used to get it came with built in plausible deniability. This latest bit of cynical wordplay on Cruz’s part is just intended to reinforce that deniability and get in a swipe at the Left at the same time. He threw in the transphobia for free; just a little more ‘collateral damage’ to go with the three dead bodies (I’m betting Cruz only cares about the one with the badge, and probably considers that a small price to pay).

    It seems that it isn’t just Islamic State and other jihadi organisations that are in the business of using the media to radicalize vulnerable persons to act as their proxies…

  24. Rob R says

    If they’re going to use random pieces of mail that misidentify your name or gender as proof that you’re transgender, then going by that definition they’re also not going to be able to write off transgenderism as applying to a tiny minority that can be safely ignored anymore.

  25. Rob R says

    LIBERAL TERRORIST IDENTIFICATION CHECKLIST FOR CONSERVATIVE MEDIA
    If any of the following are true, a mass shooter or bomber can be positively identified as a liberal:
    – Is under 30
    – Is unemployed
    – Is unkempt
    – Has ever smoked pot at any point
    – Is not white AND/OR has a not-white-sounding name
    – At least one victim is white, or if not white, is Christian (note, non-whites can be considered Christians for the purpose of this list ONLY)
    – Does not attend a sufficiently conservative church on a sufficiently regular basis
    *NEW* Has ever received mail addressed to the opposite gender, indicating a likely transgender activist
    IMPORTANT NOTE: A shooter’s actual political philosophy is irrelevant in determining the political motives for the shooting. Unless their politics are actually liberal. Then they’re obviously a liberally politically motivated.

  26. birgerjohansson says

    The shooter’s ex-wife has now spoken to media and described him as being conservative and anti-abortion. Thus confirming Ted Cruz is a very big idiot.

  27. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    I see Cruzzer as using overloaded hyperbole: saying that to ascribe “Xian Terrorist” label to Dear based on him saying ‘no more baby parts’, is equivalent ot calling him a transgender liberal anarchist just because his voter reg has him as [F] + [Independent].
    IE flimsy evidence in both cases. Just call him murderer, cuz he is.
    which tries to deflect, totally, blame from all the anti-PP rhetoric he and all the other GOPpers are throwin’ around.
    Reiterating a phrase I just recently encountered: stochastic terrorism. meaning no planning involved, just expectations of random events to consolidate on inflicting damage to “make a point”. Trying to use “plausible deniability” to walk away scot free.
    If asked to point a finger at the cause of this atrocity: I’ll point at Carly, recently booted from HP. (who appears to not be backing away from the lies she threw out at the debates, even when shown how false that video was.)

  28. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    re 33
    yet she also said he read the bible cover to cover but was not obsessed with it
    which sounds to me, self-contradictory.

  29. says

    Regarding Ted Cruz’s recent lame attempts to distance himself and rightwing politicians in general from the shooting in Colorado, we should remember that Cruz was very happy to be endorsed by Troy Newman who does support killing abortionists.

    I am grateful to receive the endorsement of Troy Newman. He has served as a voice for the unborn for over 25 years, and works tirelessly every day for the pro-life cause. We need leaders like Troy Newman in this country who will stand up for those who do not have a voice.

    Link to tedcruz.org

    […] Cruz touted the endorsement from an activist who has called for the “execution” of abortion providers. In his 2003 book, Troy Newman said the entire country was “blood-guilty” for their failure to kill “abortionists.”

    In addition to our personal guilt in abortion, the United States government has abrogated its responsibility to properly deal with the blood-guilty. This responsibility rightly involves executing convicted murderers, including abortionists, for their crimes in order to expunge bloodguilt from the land and people. Instead, the act of abortion has been elevated to a “God-given right” and the abortionists canonized as saints. Consequently, the entire nation has the blood-red stain of the lives of the innocent upon its head.

    Rejecting that innocent blood is to reject the only standard that is effective against innocent bloodshed, excluding the lawful execution of the murderers, which is commanded by God in Scripture.

    Newman, currently the president of the far-right anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, argues that his book was just a “theological study” and that his writing does not constitute “advocating violence.” […]

    Think Progress link

  30. says

    Can the Republican party get any more delusional? I fear they can.

    Brainwashed Orwellian style (“the chocolate rations were increased from 30 to 20 grams”) would be more like it. The facts are quite plain to even some of the most rabid right wingers, but the wilfully deluded will immediately start believing and parroting “transgender activist” lie.

    It’s happened many times before with other fictions (“Iraq and 9/11!”, “Iraq has nukes!”, “Iran wants nukes!”, “greeted as liberators!”, etc.). It doesn’t even require right wing extremism or ideology for the masses to swallow the lie (re: propaganda after the US bombed the MSF hospital in Kunduz).

  31. says

    Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association took Ted Cruz seriously. He tweeted: “CO shooter not a Republican, registered to vote as a female.”

    Only Ted Cruz has, so far added “leftist” to the description of the shooter.

    Link

    Other right-wingers taking Ted Cruz seriously include: The Gateway Pundit, Young Conservatives and WorldNetDaily.

    Cruz’s campaign spokesman cited a blog post on The Right Scoop.

  32. says

    Ted Cruz is also fighting on another fantasy front, the war on Christmas. To do so he is offering the world’s ugliest christmas sweater. You have to see it to believe it.

    Set an example for the “tolerant left,” and while wearing your festive Cruz for President gear, or any gear for that matter, make sure to say Merry Christmas every chance you get!

    Right Wing Watch link

  33. says

    Ted Cruz said some more stupid stuff.

    He indulged in some fear mongering about the Supreme Court:

    One more liberal justice and our right to keep and bear arms is taken away from us by an activist court. One more liberal justice and they begin sandblasting and bulldozing veterans memorials throughout this country. One more liberal justice and we lose our sovereignty to the United Nations and the World Court.

    Des Moines Register link

  34. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    re Ted Cruz said, quoted@42:
    One more liberal justice and they begin sandblasting and bulldozing veterans memorials […]

    Wonder where he gets that non sequitur.
    I guess I missed all the controv about memorials being sandblasted {perhaps he refers to Confederacy Memorials. oops, my bad}.

  35. Usernames! (╯°□°)╯︵ ʎuʎbosıɯ says

    The strange claim that violent equals liberal by their definition,
    — ursamajor (#6)

    This is a common wingnut tactic (see also: Teabaggers calling black people “racist”).

    I haven’t decided if they are projecting or if they are trying to throw a red herring by accusing the other side of the stuff ‘Baggers know they’re guilty of.

  36. says

    Ted Cruz showed up as the worst of the worst in a recent evaluation of presidential candidates’ knowledge of climate change:

    The Associated Press invited eight climate and biological scientists to grade the scientific accuracy of candidates in both parties. The material included debates, published interviews and tweets. The candidates’ names were not known to the reviewers. As an added protection against bias, the scientists were selected by professional scientific societies.

    The grades, which ran from 0 to 100, were mostly abysmal. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was the strongest and the wrongest, receiving a grade of 6 points for accuracy. All eight evaluators placed Cruz dead last. Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University meteorology professor, wrote of Cruz’s statements: “This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner.”

    MSNBC link

  37. says

    This is a followup to comment 46.

    At the opposite end of the graph from Ted Cruz were Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, and Bernie Sanders. All three Democratic candidates came in above the 90th percentile, with Clinton slightly outscoring Sanders and O’Malley.

  38. arminius008 says

    Nice to read at least some of PZ’s commenters who did some independent research and could figure out what Ted was actually trying to say (i.e. he was simply saying that the left/media are wrong to blame the shootings on pro-lifers and that “if” the shooter turns out to be a transgendered leftist activist, the attacks should NOT be blamed on the left.)

    I know it can be hard for you left-wing types to follow an analogy, but try to keep up.

    Also, #43, Lynna — that artcle from the Daily Kos is terrible — it doesn’t prove anything it claims and quite frankly the CMP videos have helped many Americans understand just how evil what Planned Parenthood is all about. Those of us on the pro-life side already knew that, but it is nice to see and hear Planned Parenthood’s leaders condemn themselves in their own words:

    “My aim is usually to get the specimens out pretty intact,” Dermish said. “Especially the 20-weekers are a lot harder versus the 18-weekers, so at that point I’ll switch to breech.”

    [Federal law states that “no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purpose of obtaining the tissue.”]

    “I try to always keep the trunk [lower half of the body] intact just by function of always trying to aim for the spine to try and bring it down,” she said. “I haven’t been able to do that [extract an intact brain] yet… This will give me something to strive for!”

  39. octopod says

    I think you’ll find, arminius008, that the number of people here who give a damn about any of that is startlingly smaller than you’re supposing.

  40. consciousness razor says

    Nice to read at least some of PZ’s commenters who did some independent research and could figure out what Ted was actually trying to say (i.e. he was simply saying that the left/media are wrong to blame the shootings on pro-lifers and that “if” the shooter turns out to be a transgendered leftist activist, the attacks should NOT be blamed on the left.)

    I know it can be hard for you left-wing types to follow an analogy, but try to keep up.

    ↑ Doesn’t get what a motive is, nor what an analogy is.

    No telling what sort of compliment (or contempt?) us types would get, if we hadn’t bothered to figure out what his confused rambling supposedly meant. But it is commendable of us, that we try so very hard to understand the precise nature of his inscrutable drivel.

  41. treefrogdundee says

    @48,

    “he was simply saying that the left/media are wrong to blame the shootings on pro-lifers”

    Uh-huh. If you honestly think anyone believes this shooting was caused by ANYTHING other than the rhetoric being thrown against abortion and abortion providers then I simply can’t help you, you sad little child. Go sell that crap on Yahoo News where, incidentally, the anti-abortion crowd is all but dancing in the street. Scumbag.

  42. Vivec says

    Frankly, I wouldn’t give a shit even if PP changed its name to “Fetus Parts R Us”, started offering a two-for-one fetal brain deal on weekends and offered a cash voucher for first-time patients.

    If someone’s aborting a fetus, what’s left is just biomedical waste as far as I’m concerned. If there’s anything useful that can be gathered from said waste, it’s ridiculous not to use it. It’s the same reason I want every inch of useful matter extracted from me after I die, because I’m sure as hell not going to be using any of my organs or tendons after that. Much of my family has

    More on topic, it’s ludicrous to believe that no one could be influenced to commit violence by rhetoric that frames abortion providers as legalized serial killers.

  43. woozy says

    *IF* the attacker turns out to be a unicorn wearing a reality-mundane filter and an Arcturian Dragon activist responding to Arcturian Dragon rhetoric then the shooting *SHOULD* be blamed on an Arcturian Dragon activist.

    And if Dear turns out to be a transgendered leftist activist killing for leftist activist causes then a leftist activist *SHOULD* be blamed for the shooting.

    But as those two possibilities are both utterly absurd and simply not possible in the known reality we can neither blame Arcturian Dragon nor the left on the shooting.

    However Dear *was* an anti-abortion conservative who did the shootings to attack planned parenthood and who declared “no more baby parts for profit” afterward. The shootings *were* caused by conservative anti-abortionist and, by god, I *am* going to blame Dear for the shootings.

    And fuck Cruz for saying I shouldn’t or that anti-abortionism might not be to blame and and implying transgendered leftist activists *might* be.

  44. ck, the Irate Lump says

    The obvious meaning Ted was going for was certainly the message throwaway and others noted, and this is certainly the message he would wish that moderate voters would hear. It muddies the waters and deflects all blame from himself and his buddies. It also plays nicely into the “both sides do it” fallacy that Republicans (and entertainment news media) love so much.

    However, I don’t think it’s wrong to assume this is a kind of dog whistle, either. The message Liberals have their “facts” that imply he’s a pro-lifer, but my facts say he’s a transsexual liberal activist cop killer! isn’t at all an unreasonable reading of what he said, given plenty of the other things that come out of his mouth.

  45. arminius008 says

    So you all blame the Southern Poverty Law Center for the time Floyd Corkins walked into the Family Research Council and started shooting up the place — given that he explicitly cited the SPLC for listing the Family Research Council on their website? That’s what woozy claims — lay the blame on the group ‘inciting’ the shooter, no matter how tenuous the connection or silly it is to claim that political activists who want to change laws and/or society are responsible for mentally deranged individuals.

  46. consciousness razor says

    The SPLC listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, which is accurate, and they weren’t inciting or condoning violence, nor is there any pattern of them looking the other way when their supporters do so. There’s no reason to believe Corkins, considering himself a target of FRC’s hate, was “mentally deranged.” If Dear had been a target of a hate campaign promulgated by Planned Parenthood, you would have a genuinely analogous situation to talk about, but that isn’t what happened. PP is itself the target of hate groups (including an entire major political party, it goes without saying), using extremely inflammatory rhetoric and routinely looking the other way when some of their supporters reveal their violent tendencies. That is what being totally irresponsible looks like, and in fact the SPLC doesn’t look a fucking thing like that.

  47. F.O. says

    @arminius008

    So you all

    No we don’t all.
    If you have any genuine interest in discussing with the people on this thread, start assuming that we are independent people with different ideas who often and enthusiastically argue among themselves (and with PZ).

    If you start with the assumption that we are all brainwashed sheeple you just demonstrate (once more) that you consider us less than human, and will be treated like the petty asshole that you seem to be.

  48. arminius008 says

    #57 – You don’t even recognize your own biases, do you? Calling the FRC a “hate group” is indeed inflammatory and not at all accurate, unless we all agree on what constitutes a “hate group” — which we don’t (that’s why we have different political opinions in this country and different political philosophies.)

    The pro-life movement in this country rejects violence to achieve their aims, routinely condemns violence when it occurs against their opponents, and even steps up to protect their opponents from violence — like Garrett Swasey, the pro-life pastor who was killed trying to stop Deal on his murderous rampage.

    Stop pretending that “hate” is equivalent to political disagreements or disagreements about basic morality.

    #58 — Good point and I’ll do better to direct my comments to their source.

  49. Saad says

    arminius008, #59

    The pro-life movement in this country rejects violence to achieve their aims

    That’s the nicest and most innocent sounding way I’ve ever heard someone speak about it. Disgusting. Just what are these “aims”?

    The pro-life* movement is violence against women.

    Call it what it is. It’s anti-choice. The pro-life movement mandates that women hand over control of their bodies.

  50. consciousness razor says

    #57 – You don’t even recognize your own biases, do you?

    Do you recognize yours? Does anyone recognize their own biases? What are you saying mine are?

    Calling the FRC a “hate group” is indeed inflammatory and not at all accurate, unless we all agree on what constitutes a “hate group” — which we don’t (that’s why we have different political opinions in this country and different political philosophies.)

    It’s inaccurate, unless we all agree? No, that’s not how it actually works. If you hate gays, you hate gays, simple as that. If you’re also a fucking liar, or you’re incapable of recognizing your biases perhaps, then merely denying it doesn’t actually make it an inaccurate assessment.

    The pro-life movement in this country rejects violence to achieve their aims, routinely condemns violence when it occurs against their opponents, and even steps up to protect their opponents from violence — like Garrett Swasey, the pro-life pastor who was killed trying to stop Deal on his murderous rampage.

    Really? How often does violence occur against its opponents? And how often does violence occur against the FRC or other similar hate groups? Is it something that anybody should have noticed as a significant pattern, which needs to be seriously addressed and not merely condemned after it’s happened? Where are all of these leftists committing violence somewhere and somehow, for which we ought to be held responsible?

  51. Saad says

    arminius008, #59

    Calling the FRC a “hate group” is indeed inflammatory and not at all accurate, unless we all agree on what constitutes a “hate group” — which we don’t (that’s why we have different political opinions in this country and different political philosophies.)

    I’m pretty sure the FRC was/is against same-sex marriage.

    If a group was advocating against equal rights for black people, wouldn’t it be appropriate to call them a hate group?

  52. arminius008 says

    Saad,

    The pro-life movement wants women to stop killing the growing lives inside their wombs. Yes, that means they can no longer make the decision to murder — too bad.

    Also, equating opposition to redefining marriage (which is what so-called “same-sex marriage” is) and advocating “against equal rights for black people” is just silly. Try harder.

    razor,

    Except for fringe crazies, those of us who think homosexual acts are sinful do not “hate gays.” We hate all sin — we think adultery is sinful but we don’t hate adulterers, we think masturbation is sinful but we don’t hate those who masturbate, etc., etc. Get a grip.

  53. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The pro-life movement wants women to stop killing the growing lives inside their wombs. Yes, that means they can no longer make the decision to murder — too bad.

    Except it isn’t YOUR decision, unless you are the one pregnant. Show me the birth certificate of the fetus.

    lso, equating opposition to redefining marriage (which is what so-called “same-sex marriage” is) and advocating “against equal rights for black people” is just silly.

    Hate groups want, for any reason, to treat people unequally. If LGBT can’t marry, they are being treated as second class citizens. Same as Jim Crow laws. You lose again.

    Except for fringe crazies, those of us who think homosexual acts are sinful do not “hate gay

    Sinful implies religious belief, as there is no secular sin. Where do you get the right to impose your religious beliefs upon anybody other than your family and church. If you try to go outside those confines, that is bigotry.

  54. says

    In an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Monday, the Texas senator said that “the simple and undeniable fact is the overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats.”

    Politico link

    So that’s a little summary of how Cruz’s mind works.

    Now for a more thorough look at how the violent fringe of the anti-abortion movement works: Maddow Show link

    Facts and context are provided, beginning in 1994. Please note that near the end of this segment, Maddow says that she does NOT make a cause/effect connection between anti-abortion rhetoric and the violent fringe that includes sniper attacks on doctors. If you want to argue against this presentation, you will have to disregard the police reports.

    A summary of Ted Cruz’s cozy connections to people who have justified violent attacks in the past, and an unedited presentation of what Cruz said begin at about the 13:00 minute mark.

  55. chigau (違う) says

    No one who relies on some variation of TheBible™ for information about the real world should be telling anyone else to “Get a grip.”

  56. says

    http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/political-fallout-of-planned-parenthood-attack-576791107709
    This segment begins with Mike Huckabee’s comments.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/us/anti-abortion-violence/

    Between 1973, when the Supreme Court decided abortion should be legal throughout the United States, and 2003, abortion providers have been the targets of more than 300 acts of extreme violence, including arson, bombings, murders and butyric acid attacks. […]

    […] more than 16,000 reported cases of hate mail or harassing phone calls, over 1,500 acts of vandalism and 400 death threats.

    There have been more than 200 bombings and arson attacks at facilities that offer abortion services […]

    Interview with Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.

  57. consciousness razor says

    Except for fringe crazies, those of us who think homosexual acts are sinful do not “hate gays.” We hate all sin —

    Okay then. So all of you are hateful … that’s what you’re saying. You hate gay people being gay and doing the gay things gays do. That’s more than enough hate to make a hate group a hate group, and your asshole sophistry doesn’t change a substantive fucking thing about that.

    we think adultery is sinful but we don’t hate adulterers, we think masturbation is sinful but we don’t hate those who masturbate, etc., etc. Get a grip.

    You’re the one talking about the “sins” of homosexuality and masturbation. Why don’t you get a fucking grip and wank off to someplace this shit might be taken seriously? A monastery perhaps, where seclusion and a vow of silence might not be such a bad idea. If you have no fucking clue what “basic morality” is about, because you can’t even describe to me what is harmful about an act you’re calling a “sin,” since there isn’t anything harmful to describe, then you haven’t earned a place at the adult’s table. Go away.

  58. Saad says

    arminius008,

    There you go. Took you long enough to admit to being a superstitious religious nut. I like how you had to dress it up as grown up talk at first but it finally came out.

    Good to know even you guys know how increasingly ridiculous your demonstrably wrong ancient mythological horseshit sounds in 2015.

  59. arminius008 says

    #s67 and 68 — Right, as Lynna already pointed out there is a violent fringe that has acted out in terrible ways. Those of us who are serious Christians and take Christian morality serious condemn those violent acts and work through the political process legally to end abortion. As an aside though, I would take everything Cecile Richards says with a grain of salt given that she’s an evil mass murderer and can’t be trusted with telling you the time of day.

    razor continues to confuse his own definition of “hate” with normal political and ethical disagreements between folks in the United States. Grow up and get a grip — lots of normal people think homosexuality is sinful (and it can be shown via natural law that it is contrary to normal morality) so don’t get on your high horse and act like those of us who oppose the normalization of homosexuality (and the broader sexual revolution) are the strange or weird ones, or the ones full of hate toward our fellow man. The true definition of love it to will the good for another — watching your fellow man sin is not wishing them good.

  60. Vivec says

    @63

    The pro-life movement wants women to stop killing the growing lives inside their wombs.

    Yeah, and the anti-vax movement wants parents to stop giving their kids vaccines, and Jehovah’s Witnesses want to keep their kids safe from the horror of life-saving blood transfusions.

    I mean, I could go on if you’d like. Just figured I’d join in while we’re describing inane bullshit with no actual justification.

  61. Saad says

    Vivec, #72

    Yeah, xe just went full wingnut there…

    don’t get on your high horse and act like those of us who oppose the normalization of homosexuality (and the broader sexual revolution) are the strange or weird ones

    You should really take a 30 second break before clicking on “Post Comment”.

  62. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Grow up and get a grip — lots of normal people think homosexuality is sinful

    NO, you grow up and get a grip. Lose the fuckwitted idea that religion excuses bigotry. Sin, a religious idea, doesn’t have a place in secular society.
    Who gives a shit what people think in private? Public policy should be evidenced based, and there is no evidence that homosexuals aren’t full human beings, and have all the rights and privileges you have.

  63. Vivec says

    @70
    I’m absolutely fucking glad to get on my high horse and call you, and everyone that shares your beliefs, a fucking bigoted asshole who values bronze age superstition over the rights and lives of real life people.

    Real talk, why don’t you go join Kevin Swanson and roll around in some cow manure.

  64. consciousness razor says

    As an aside though, I would take everything Cecile Richards says with a grain of salt given that she’s an evil mass murderer and can’t be trusted with telling you the time of day.

    If you believed that, shouldn’t you do something more than distrust her if she told you the time? If she’s an “evil mass murderer” according to your religion, don’t you and your religious allies honestly believe she ought to be punished accordingly? Should she be fined, imprisoned, executed perhaps? Should Planned Parenthoods be destroyed? Are there any consequences at all to being an “evil mass murderer” or part of her organization? Should religious people take the law into their own hands about this sort of thing, if they’re dissatisfied with the government’s position? Do they have a right to do that, because it’s their religious belief, or because “God’s law” is superior to human law? Do you not see where this train of thought is going?

    Grow up and get a grip — lots of normal people think homosexuality is sinful (and it can be shown via natural law that it is contrary to normal morality) so don’t get on your high horse and act like those of us who oppose the normalization of homosexuality (and the broader sexual revolution) are the strange or weird ones, or the ones full of hate toward our fellow man.

    If you want to play that game, then you can stop bluffing. This is the round when you actually show your hand. Show me via natural law how it is contrary to normal morality, whatever the fuck that means to you. Don’t tell me that “it can be shown,” just fucking do it already and explain why anybody should care.

  65. says

    Ted Cruz goes a step further to show his true colors:

    Fresh off announcing endorsements from radical anti-choice and anti-gay activists, Ted Cruz announced his Virginia Leadership Team last week, naming state Sen. Richard “Dick” Black as his state campaign co-chair. […]

    As a state delegate, Black [commented on] marital rape: “I do not know how on earth you could validly get a conviction of a husband-wife rape, where they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie and so forth, there’s no injury, there’s no separation or anything.”

    Black, who wants to ban abortion in all cases and made waves by “passing out plastic fetuses before a crucial abortion vote,” once denounced abortion rights as reminiscent of Nazi Germany and likened abortion clinics to Nazi death camps like Auschwitz.

    He is also an opponent of contraceptives, calling for a law that would outlaw the morning-after pill and referring to emergency contraception as “baby pesticide” and “a toxic method of eliminating a child.”

    No fan of gay rights, Black responded to the Lawrence v. Texas decision overturning state anti-sodomy bans by declaring, “If I’m the last person on the face of this Earth to vote against legalizing sodomy, I’ll do it.”

    He once tried to mandate that adoption agencies inquire whether prospective parents are “known to engage in current voluntary homosexual activity” and attacked a state initiative to make it easier for gay couples, who were not allowed to legally marry at the time, and other unmarried couples to apply for home mortgages by insisting that Virginia “is now spending $90 million to subsidize sodomy and adultery” and having tax dollars go towards “supporting a radical homosexual agenda.” […]

    Link

  66. arminius008 says

    #74 — Lots of public policy has a moral element — morality involved people’s “private beliefs” or at least convincing others of the righteousness of their beliefs.

    #76 — Basic Christian morality 101 — you don’t do evil so that good may come. That means today, in the U.S., the pro-life movement works within the legal framework to make abortion illegal (vigilante action is indeed evil unless there is no lawful government in place) and that means someday people like Cecile and abortion doctors and people who get abortions will be breaking the law and punished via the court system just like we punish murderers today. So no, when there is evil in the world (and it is all over) it doesn’t mean you have the right to take the law into your own hands and punish the wicked.

    As for natural law morality, if you are really interested in learning more, I could suggest a couple of books to you including the excellent “The Last Superstition” by Ed Feser or “What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide” by J. Budziszewski. Those are good places to start. Ed maintains an excellent blog (so does Jay but his is less in-depth) and he has written eloquently about sexuality and the natural law a couple of times:

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/06/love-and-sex-roundup.html

    Everyone should care because you want to live a good life and flourish to your full potential. The natural law helps point the way.

  67. Saad says

    arminius008, #78

    That means today, in the U.S., the pro-life movement works within the legal framework to make abortion illegal (vigilante action is indeed evil unless there is no lawful government in place) and that means someday people like Cecile and abortion doctors and people who get abortions will be breaking the law and punished via the court system just like we punish murderers today.

    Actually, no. Things will move towards equality for women. That’s how these things have been working. It’s painfully slow thanks to people like you but you guys do lose. Christians used your superstitious nonsense to oppose major human rights advancements in America and they lost (slavery, desegregation, interracial marriage, same-sex marriage).

    You’ll be losing your war on women’s healthcare too.

  68. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    That means today, in the U.S., the pro-life movement works within the legal framework to make abortion illegal (

    That means imposing your RELIGION upon everybody. Which is against the constitution, which requires the separation of church and state. Loser argument.

    As for natural law morality, if you are really interested in learning mor

    Natural law is a figment of the imagination for the Religious Right, Sovereign Citizens, and other nut jobs.
    There is no law higher than the constitution. Other, prove with the proper documents that you are right. Or, if you have honesty and integrity, shut the fuck up about natural law.

  69. arminius008 says

    #80 — I never did understand the argument that “abortion = healthcare”; all a woman is doing is killing the growing human life inside her — the exact opposite of worrying about someone’s “healthcare”!!! Also, your history needs some work — you are familiar with the abolitionist movement, with the Southern *Christian* Leadership Conference, etc.?

    #81 — there is nothing in the Constitution that says the source of our morals and ethics must be secular — religion is just as good as anything else; making a law against murder and using the Bible as a basis for that law is just not unconstitutional — you need to brush up on your history and/or constitutional theory if you think so. Indeed, the people can and do impose their morals on others in all sorts of ways for all sorts of reasons — some religious some not so religious. The key question from a constitutional perspective is whether or not the law can have a secular application, as a law against killing a new life in a mother’s womb would obviously have.

  70. Vivec says

    @82
    Yeah, it has the “secular application” of depriving a woman of her right to privacy and bodily autonomy.

    Wow, such a great application. Very moral. Much good.

  71. rq says

    the exact opposite of worrying about someone’s “healthcare”

    Except, you know, where she’s worrying about her own healthcare. You know, because pregnancy is a life-threatening medical condition, with potentially fatal results.

  72. Rowan vet-tech says

    Hey arminius, your bible advocates slavery, and gives rules for how a man can sell his daughter as a sex slave. Your bible also advocates for the rape of captured virgin girls. The bible is a horrible source for ‘morals’. So yeah, no. Religion is NOT a good source for morals, let alone the christian religion (It’s good because God said so, the same God that will light me on fire for eternity if I disobey him!).

    You want me to be to be less than human. We don’t have laws preventing bodily autonomy for those born with typical male anatomy. I do not want to be pregnant, ever. I do not give permission for anything foreign to grow in my body, ever. If something happens and I end up pregnant, I will terminate it. You cannot stop me. Even if it was illegal, you could not stop me. And that’s the reason abortion was legalized in the first place. YOU want thousands and thousands of people with functioning uteruses to once again be willing to risk septicemia and death in order to NOT be pregnant.

    You are NOT pro-life, or you’d be advocating for free access to birth control, proper sex-ed in schools, and greater societal support for parents instead of being against abortion.
    You are pro-forced-birth. Fuck the woman, all that matters is the fetus… until it’s born. Then fuck it, too.

  73. consciousness razor says

    As for natural law morality, if you are really interested in learning more, I could suggest a couple of books to you including the excellent “The Last Superstition” by Ed Feser or “What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide” by J. Budziszewski. Those are good places to start. Ed maintains an excellent blog (so does Jay but his is less in-depth) and he has written eloquently about sexuality and the natural law a couple of times:

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/06/love-and-sex-roundup.html

    Everyone should care because you want to live a good life and flourish to your full potential. The natural law helps point the way.

    Well, that didn’t help. Apparently, I’m supposed to understand that sex is naturally for making babies. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but my parents seem to have had a loving relationship with one another, which was somehow important to them independently of the kind of fucking they engaged in. I’m sorry yours were just a pair of baby-making assholes who happened to fuck each other, but I guess I still don’t get what is supposed to be wrong with gay sex. Presumably, because you’ve got nothing, like every other hateful idiot spewing this crap in the past thousand years.

  74. says

    Rowan:

    I do not want to be pregnant, ever. I do not give permission for anything foreign to grow in my body, ever. If something happens and I end up pregnant, I will terminate it. You cannot stop me. Even if it was illegal, you could not stop me. And that’s the reason abortion was legalized in the first place. YOU want thousands and thousands of people with functioning uteruses to once again be willing to risk septicemia and death in order to NOT be pregnant.

    Sing it! I never, ever wanted to be pregnant. Did get pregnant, had it terminated asap, and started seeking sterilisation immediately. It’s no one else’s fucking business whether I wanted children or not (definitely not), and it’s beyond me why assholes assume it would be a great idea to force me into birthing. Idiots.

  75. Saad says

    arminius008, #82

    I never did understand the argument that “abortion = healthcare”; all a woman is doing is killing the growing human life inside her

    I know you don’t. You’ve made that abundantly clear.

    A pregnant person who goes to a healthcare provider to terminate a pregnancy is a patient seeking healthcare. This is by definition. The healthcare in this case is aimed towards xir goal of no longer being pregnant and of not giving birth. Abortion is the mainstream scientifically and medically established procedure fully supported by the scientific medical community and by OB/GYN associations all over the world that’s used to achieve this goal.

    Your fairy tale beardy dude and made-up ideas of sin are thoroughly irrelevant. I’m giving them as much importance as one would to an extremist Hindu’s justification for arresting people who eat steak.

    Also, your American history sucks. Mainstream Christians were against things like equality for black people, women’s rights, interracial marriage and desegregation. Oh, and same-sex marriage. They really hate that one. Too bad. Deal.

  76. says

    Another Republican official has expressed an opinion about the shooting in Colorado. That opinion is that the Planned Parenthood clinic is to blame.

    Republican Colorado state Rep. JoAnn Windholz on Monday blamed Planned Parenthood for a mass shooting at its Colorado Springs facility that left three people dead, calling the health care provider an “instigator” of violence in a Facebook post. […]

    “Violence is never the answer but we must start pointing out who is the real culprit,” she wrote. “The true instigator of this violence and all violence at any pph facility is pph themselves. Violence begets violence.”

    “So, pph,” she continued, “YOU STOP THE VIOLENCE INSIDE YOUR WALLS.”

    Link

    Another excerpt from the Facebook post:

    When a violent act happens at a Planned Parenthood (pph) facility (most recent in Colorado Springs) the left goes on “auto-pilot” blaming everyone insight when they should be looking in a mirror. Free Speech has brought to light the insidious selling of baby body parts (pph has no shame). These facts and overall mission of the abortion industry would easily send anyone over the hill who wasn’t rational.

    Errors are in the original.

  77. says

    I have two children. I have never had a medical abortion, but I have had a miscarriage. I support the right of any woman to decide for herself if she wants to carry a pregnancy to term or not.

    Abortion is part of reproductive health care.

    The God of arminius008 is the ultimate abortionist. Mother nature, or god, or gods, or whateverfuckingever, spontaneously aborts most pregnancies. About 31% of pregnancies result in live birth. About 70% of all zygotes fail to be carried to term. And that statistic stands as correct in populations where medical abortion is not available.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneous_abortion_in_humans

  78. arminius008 says

    Saad,

    You say, “A pregnant person who goes to a healthcare provider to terminate a pregnancy is a patient seeking healthcare. This is by definition.”

    Huh? What definition? I say a person with a life growing inside her should be interested in nurturing the life — helping it grow, making sure it is healthy, etc. That is healthcare to me (making sure mother and child are healthy.)

    Later Lynna says abortion is part of “reproductive health care” — again, in what universe does it make sense to call killing a baby “healthcare”?! You go to a doctor to make sure your baby is alive and doing well — how can I care for it, how can I stay healthy so he/she stays healthy, how can I make sure he/she is getting all the nutrients he/she needs, etc. Not, “hey, doc, I’d like to know how to kill my unborn child — any advice?” Only in an insane, bizarre world (like the liberal one we live in now) can murder be considered healthcare.

  79. says

    Another Republican elected official has weighed in on the Colorado shooting, and he finds the Planned Parenthood clinic and the gunman equally to blame.

    Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) told The Hill on Tuesday that Planned Parenthood and the gunman who shot and killed three people at its clinic in Colorado have something in common: they both have “no respect for innocent human life.” […]

    “What this person did was evil, and it should remind us all of the common denominator that Planned Parenthood has with individuals like this who have no respect for innocent human life,” Franks said […]

    “It should only increase our commitment to defund organizations … that further this non-ethic of disregarding the sanctity of human life,” he added.

    Link

    All of these public officials blaming the clinic are encouraging others to do what Robert Lewis Dear did. They may think they aren’t doing so, but they are.

  80. says

    The christian terrorist aspect of Robert Lewis Dear is starting to come out.

    One person who spoke with [Dear] extensively about his religious views said Mr. Dear, who is 57, had praised people who attacked abortion providers, saying they were doing “God’s work.” In 2009, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concerns for the privacy of the family, Mr. Dear described as “heroes” members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings.

    NY Times link

  81. Vivec says

    @91
    You lose the right to use the “What kind of a world do we live in” argument when you believe in bronze age fairy tales.

    According to you, we live in a world where men can safely transverse oceans in the bellies of whales and half-god carpenters use their power to smite fig trees.

  82. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I say a person with a life growing inside her

    The word is fetus, and it, like a carcinoma, is human life. Both can be removed as the adult human, which a pregnant woman is, fully human with all rights and priveleges including bodily autonomy, can make a decision to remove the unwanted tissues. You are required to show that the woman what degrades the prenant woman to less than fully human. Do so without misogyny. Do so without looking at the growth. Just look at the woman.

  83. says

    arminius008 @91, you disagree with me, I get that. I planned my family and gave birth to children in a way that was best for me and for the children. You did not have a say in the matter. You do not have a say in the matter now.

  84. Saad says

    arminius008, #91

    You say, “A pregnant person who goes to a healthcare provider to terminate a pregnancy is a patient seeking healthcare. This is by definition.”

    Huh? What definition?

    The definition of a patient, you asshat. Jesus fuck. You can’t be this slow. You know, when a person makes an appointment, pays a copay, waits in a waiting room while FOX News blares loudly on the no name brand television set and then gets examined by a physician. That definition.

    And the abortion isn’t “Hey doc, I need to kill my baby”. Women who get abortions don’t want to kill babies. They wish not to remain pregnant and give birth. Fuck your condescension and acting like somehow you care and know more for what’s happening inside the woman than the woman herself.

    But I know why you’re struggling with this: You don’t want a society where women have full possession of their bodies, every bit as much as men do. It boils down to that. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.

  85. says

    arminius008,

    there is nothing in the Constitution that says the source of our morals and ethics must be secular — religion is just as good as anything else; making a law against murder and using the Bible as a basis for that law is just not unconstitutional — you need to brush up on your history and/or constitutional theory if you think so.

    Wow this is so profoundly wrong on multiple levels.

    First which religion? Why the Bible? Which translation? Who decides and on what basis? Why not Scientology instead (for example)? At least that has the sci fi angle to it not to mention the celebs so that would be way more interesting.

    Second if you insist on basing laws on the Bible then it should probably be legal to kill women and children too since god commands that so indiscriminately throughout the Bible. Also we should be stoning people to death all the damn time.

    “And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.” — Numbers 31:15-17

    “Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” — Hosea 9:16

    “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” — Hosea 13:16

    Huh? What definition?

    The definitions currently accepted by law and by medical science.

    I say a person with a life growing inside her should be interested in nurturing the life

    We say you should be interested in secular values and science as opposed to religion and superstition. Do we get to pass laws that force our expectations on you now?

    killing a baby

    Fetus =/= baby.

  86. treefrogdundee says

    “Except for fringe crazies, those of us who think homosexual acts are sinful”

    Translation: “I think gays are gross but lucky for me, my book of fairy tales has one or two brief mentions frowning on it. So I can parrot these (And ignore everything else in these verses because, dammit, shrimp are tasty!) and the world will call me a conscientious soul instead of a bigoted ass.”

    Nope, you’re still a bigoted ass. And I really don’t care that you claim I’m immoral and sinful because of who I love but yet you still love me. Your condescending feigned care is hollow.

  87. arminius008 says

    #99 – treefrogdundee,

    Actually, the Bible has a very strong and consistent message about human sexuality running through both the Old and the New Testament beginning in Genesis and ending in Paul’s letters. Gays aren’t gross, although gay sex is (fun fact — there is a good chance homosexuality is caused by a virus!) It seems to me that you are bigoted against Christians — how dare you presume to know my inner thoughts and the extent of my knowledge of the Bible and Christian theology.

    #98 — Medical science does define a fertilized egg as a growing human life — because that’s what it is. Do you need me to run through the basics of sex ed?

  88. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Actually, the Bible has a very strong and consistent message about human sexuality running through both the Old and the New Testament beginning in Genesis and ending in Paul’s letters.

    Your diety doesn’t exist, and therefore your babble is a book of myths. Anybody claiming otherwise in a secular society is a delusional fool whose word should be subject to extreme skepticism.

    Medical science does define a fertilized egg as a growing human life

    Nope, not fully human life until it is born. What the fuck is your problem with reality? That’s right, your belief in phantasms…..

  89. Vivec says

    @100
    The bible also has a strong and consistent message about magic bullshit happening to middle-eastern tribespeople.

    Demonstrate your document is at all more real than Lord of the Rings, and maybe we’ll give a shit what it says.

  90. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    So, arminius008, you apparently think that women shouldn’t take antibiotics; after all, in doing so they are putting at risk trillions of living beings. I have to admit I’m mystified as to why you limit this to women; men who take antibiotics take the same risk. But still it makes sense; after all, if there is a god, it’s clearly all about the bacteria.

    Of course you can’t see that. You, suffering from the egotism that christians mistake for humility. You think that your god created all this, all the vast expanse of the universe over billions of years, so that it could obsess over how a nothing species on a nothing planet in a nothing galaxy gets its rocks off. Sorry, but in the vast scheme of things humanity just doesn’t matter. The only entities who care about us are us, so all we can do is try to treat each other with respect and kindness. So if Sally and Mary or Mohammed and Jose want to spend their lives together, if Alison wants to rid herself of a few life-altering or life-threatening cells, who are we to judge?

    You’re nothing, arminius008. There’s no skyfairy watching over you, waiting to torture you with eternal fire or eternal muzak. You’re here for just a blink; when you’re gone you’re gone. So while you’re here you should stop obsessing over how others choose to live their lives and live your own ethically, empathically, and humbly.

  91. treefrogdundee says

    “Medical science does define a fertilized egg as a growing human life”

    Please, continue to enthrall me with your medical knowledge… you had me at “gay virus”. Go back to masturbating with your book of fairy tales.

  92. Vivec says

    Hey, I don’t know, maybe arminius008 has a point.

    I mean, my religion says that it’s my utmost duty to collect skulls and slay indiscriminately so as to adorn my deity’s colossal throne.

    I’ve done a lot of scientific and philosophical research and I’ve determined that spilling vast amounts of blood for the blood god is both moral and natural.

    As such, the US is infringing on the natural, objective law of god by preventing me from collecting skulls and spilling blood. I don’t know why all of you are so bigoted against Khorne worshippers, I’m just trying to bring you all the good word that one must please him with many sacrifices and acts of bloodshed.

  93. chigau (違う) says

    arminius008 #100
    Please note that it is possible to copy/paste the commenter’s nym as well as the comnent number.

    (fun fact — there is a good chance homosexuality is caused by a virus!)
    You will be providing a few citations for this, right?

  94. ck, the Irate Lump says

    Vivec wrote:

    I mean, my religion says that it’s my utmost duty to collect skulls and slay indiscriminately so as to adorn my deity’s colossal throne.

    Well, I suppose I cannot disagree. arminius008 already said that there need not be a secular justification for a law, and that religious morality is just fine, so your skull throne deity is no worse a cause than any secular law. So, let’s abolish the laws against driving on the wrong side of the road and enact one justifying your bloody massacres in your deity’s name. It won’t save you from Sithrak’s wrath or even lessen it, but it’ll at least look cool.

  95. says

    arminius008 @100,

    #98 — Medical science does define a fertilized egg as a growing human life — because that’s what it is. Do you need me to run through the basics of sex ed?

    First and foremost you are shifting the goalposts. The term you used earlier and the term we objected to @98 was “baby” whereas now you’ve shifted to “growing human life.” Seems disingenuous of you.

    Also given that you don’t seem to understand that a fertilized egg is different from a fetus which is different from a baby you’re the one who needs a refresher lesson or three on sex ed. In fact you are embarassing yourself by refusing to make these distinctions.

    Second you ignored practically everything written @98. Care to reply to what was written or are you conceding the points?

  96. Saad says

    treefrogdundee, #104

    Go back to masturbating with your book of fairy tales.

    They can’t.

    arminius008, #63

    we think masturbation is sinful

  97. arminius008 says

    #108 (“We are Plethora…”) — I’m not shifting anything. I use the terms interchangeably because that’s how people use the terms in everyday life. I pregnant mother at six months doesn’t look down at her belly and say, “we decided to name our ‘fetus’ Jane.” She uses the word baby. That doesn’t mean I’m not familiar with the developmental stages of a human life — from zygote at fertilization to the blastocyst, which the zygote becomes as it moves down the fallopian tube and enters the uterus, to implantation when the blastocyst becomes an embryo, and then to the development of the fetus which happens fast (almost all organs are completely formed by about 10 weeks after fertilization.) The entire process beginning at fertilization is the development of a human life — and if a mother is crazy enough to want to destroy that growing human life at any time in this process she is committing murder of her unborn child. Period, end of story.

    As for the rest of the nonsense written by #98 — why bother responding to such drivel? He/she doesn’t know how to read a Bible (certain commands given my God were contextual and the New Testament’s moral law completes the law laid out in the Old) and apparently doesn’t understand how our constitutional democratic republic works (you want me to follow your moral ideas — convince enough voters to enact laws that reflect those ideas!)

  98. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    He/she doesn’t know how to read a Bible

    Unless you provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity, evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Without your deity existing, you babble is nothing but mythology, same as any text about Greek, Roman, or Nordic myths.
    You can’t use your babble in any argument until you demonstrate your deity. Your statement of belief is irrelevant to real evidence.

  99. Vivec says

    @110
    If you want to call aborting a fetus murder, so be it. No one can make you change your terminology.

    Regardless of what you want to call it, I fail to see any problem with it. The right of the mother to control what goes in and comes out of her body trumps the fetus’s life. If you want to call that murder, then I don’t really have a problem with this sort of murder.

  100. says

    arminius008 @110,

    I’m not shifting anything. I use the terms interchangeably because that’s how people use the terms in everyday life.

    Yeah right sure. You are just using the terms fertilized egg fetus and baby interchangeably because that’s how other people use them in “everyday life.” That makes all the sense in the world and is in no way an indication that you (or other folks who use these words interchangeably) are either ignorant or disingenuous. Okay then. /sarcasm

    I pregnant mother at six months doesn’t look down at her belly and say, “we decided to name our ‘fetus’ Jane.”

    But why not? You just said the terms are used interchangably didn’t you? Are you now suggesting that the terms are not really interchangeable? Are you now suggesting they actually have completely different meanings and connotations such that pregnant mothers would find one term appropriate but not the others?

    That doesn’t mean I’m not familiar with the developmental stages of a human life

    It kinda does actually. Or else it implies you are deliberately using the wrong terms in which case that would be dishonesty. Also it’s ironic you would say this given that you asked @100 if you needed to explain the basics of sex ed after we pointed out the terms are not in fact interchangeable.

    the New Testament’s moral law completes the law laid out in the Old

    Yeah right that’s why you Chrtistian’s pay no attention to those 10 Commandments anymore. That’s all OT stuff that has been completed and superceded by the NT. Oh wait… Nope it seems you are either ignorant of or lying about your own religious beliefs now as well. Surprise surprise.

    you want me to follow your moral ideas — convince enough voters to enact laws that reflect those ideas!

    Done. Abortion is legal.

    Apparently that’s not enough to convince you though so here again you are being disingenuous. Despite that laws have already been enacted here you are speaking out against it anyway. So why would you try to pretend that having laws passed is sufficient when each of your comments here proves that to be untrue?

  101. Saad says

    arminius008, #110

    and if a mother is crazy enough to want to destroy that growing human life at any time in this process

    Fuck you and your religion.

  102. CJO, egregious by any standard says

    and if a mother is crazy enough to want to destroy that growing human life at any time in this process she is committing murder of her unborn child. Period, end of story.

    Mmhmm. And I suppose it should be prosecuted as any other murder? And that means that a family planning doctor is operating a criminal conspiracy to commit serial baby murder. Pretty heinous. So I suppose these should be treated as capital murder cases according to you?

    And then we have statistics such as these:

    At least 100,000 Texas women—and as many as 240,000—between the ages of 18 and 49 have attempted to self-induce abortions, according to a report released today by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (TxPEP). The study also found that it is possible that the rate of women attempting to self-induce abortions is rising in Texas as a result of the state’s additional restrictions on abortion care.

    (Statistics, I should note, that illustrate the utterly egregious harm your narrow patriarchal beliefs inflict on women and society.)

    What’s to be done, there? Do you have a plan for prosecuting 200,000 murders in Texas? Jeezus, it’s a murder spree on a scale never before seen! Where should we incarcerate all those women? Concentration camps in West Texas? Or should those be capital cases too? Baby murder, I should think so. So, in your world, tribunals should be operating in Texas around the clock with death camp staff standing by, ready to deposit these murderers’ corpses in mass graves, yes? What a fucking lot of venomous toads you forced-birthers are.

  103. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    arminius008, why are you letting at least 18 people die by not donating all your organs right now? Murder!

    No, but seriously. Are you also in favor of forced organ and blood donation?

  104. says

    and if a mother is crazy enough to want to destroy that growing human life at any time in this process she is committing murder of her unborn child. Period, end of story.

    A woman, also known as a person, is not a mother unless she decides to get pregnant, stay pregnant, give birth, then keep it to raise. Someone who wishes to be a mother can also become one via means other than pregnancy. I was pregnant once. That did not make me a mother. I was a woman who happened to be pregnant, and I sure as hell didn’t stay pregnant, as I had that process terminated as quickly as possible. Not a mother, never.

    You realize, right, that birth is a termination of a pregnancy? Oh, you probably don’t, being a dyed in the wool idiot. Along with birth, other terminations of a pregnancy are spontaneous and require no outside intervention. These would be commonly known as miscarriages. Such terminations can take place anytime during a pregnancy, causes are various, but most are idiopathic, meaning there isn’t any particular cause. Now, you believe in a god, yes? Well, then, look to your psychopathic god for the most abortions, ever. Why don’t you go and have a really, seriously time-consuming chat with it [your god], and leave the rest of us, who have brains we delight in using, alone?

  105. treefrogdundee says

    @ Saad #109:

    Fundie logic 101: It isn’t wrong (masturbation, pillage, rape, assault, murder, et al) if you do it in the name of gawd.

  106. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    [A] pregnant mother at six months doesn’t look down at her belly and say, “we decided to name our ‘fetus’ Jane.”

    yeah. we know, she’ll say we decided to name this baby: ‘Jane’..
    Most rational people will, instead of nerding at her to use the more rigorous word, will accept she is speaking in the future tense, looking at her stomach to note where the baby is is currently being produced.
    .
    reiterating: even if the fetus was a fully adult human that needed to be intravenously attached to another person to stay alive: the host would still have every right to disconnect, and not be brandished “murderer” for doing so. Even your holy truth book says so. Look it up.

  107. arminius008 says

    #115 — If someday pro-life forces are able to once again ban abortions in this country (or ban them in certain states) then obviously I would support the appropriate penalties for doctors/mothers who break the law and kill unborn babies. For the abortion provider, the death penalty might be appropriate — as all capital cases it depends on individual circumstances and the situation. For the mother, I’d want lesser penalties for a variety of reasons, especially because there might be hope in the future that the mother will repent and have children someday in the future that she decides not to murder.

    #116 — non-sequitur and has nothing to do with the abortion discussion.

    #117 — confused about taking an action that kills a growing human life versus what may or may not happen in the course of normal events. And yes, I’m familiar with adoption and cheer husbands and wives who adopt children put up for adoption. But it is not the ideal situation for a child, who should be raised by his/her birth mother and father.

    #118 — Opposed (against the natural law and obviously against my Catholic ethics.)

    #119 — Not quite — the Bible has stories of people doing some intense stuff when ***commanded*** by God. To do the same today one would have to be likewise commanded directly by God. Incidentally, I’m not an inerrantist when it comes to scripture — there are problems with assuming God commanded the murder of innocent life (i.e. it contradicts the 10 commandments which God had already presented the Israeli people.) So I think we have to read the OT very carefully before assuming something crazy about God and what we think about common-sense moral rules.

  108. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Arminius008, liar and bullshitter for your imaginary deity.
    No evidence for your deity, so your babble is off the table.
    No evidence for shown that a woman, who is a full human being with bodily autonomy, loses any of her rights and privileges when pregnant.
    All you have is ravings based on delusion, lies and bullshit.
    You aren’t to be taken seriously until you provide something other than opinion or babble quotes.
    Based on the evidence, you totally fail to provide ANY rational argument.

  109. CJO, egregious by any standard says

    Forced-birther:
    as all capital cases it depends on individual circumstances and the situation

    The situation, if you’ll recall, and if this wasn’t just posturing on your part, is a doctor operating a conspiracy to commit serial baby murder. What “circumstances” could ameliorate the heinousness of that crime? A rape exception, perhaps? How is that not still murder? If a child conceived in rape grows to adulthood and is subsequently killed deliberately with malice, that’s murder, yes? What’s the difference?

    For the mother, I’d want lesser penalties for a variety of reasons, especially because there might be hope in the future that the mother will repent and have children someday in the future that she decides not to murder.

    Right. So not actually murder. Just awful, harmful, but ultimately hollow rhetoric in the service of denying women control of their bodies and the right to direct their own medical care (including, per your #121, availability of contraception). Some ethics you’ve got there, swine.

  110. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    No it’s not a non-sequitur, arminius008. The pregnant woman is expected to donate her body for someone (a fetus, with no thoughts, feelings, history, or anything) to survive. Why shouldn’t others also be expected to donate their bodies so that other people (who are loved, needed, wanted, with thoughts, feelings, histories and connections) can survive?

    That’s about as far from a non-sequitur as you can get. So answer the damn question.

  111. Rowan vet-tech says

    Why should the formerly-pregnant person get a lesser charge than the person providing the abortion? That makes absolutely no sense. If you really believed it was baby murder, then you should want the death penalty for the person with the uterus. Why should they get a chance to repent, but not the doctor?

    You raging hypocrite.

  112. zenlike says

    I think the “hypocrite” part was already firmly established when the so-called “pro-lifer” advocated state-sanctioned murder of full-grown humans.

  113. treefrogdundee says

    @ 121, Your god doesn’t exist any more than does the Loch Ness Monster or Sonic the Hedgehog. Thus, it is impossible that anyone could have been commanded by him to do anything, either in the days of yore or today. Anyone who does “intense stuff” because their invisible friend told them to is either demented or is looking for an excuse. The first earns you a trip to a mental institution and the second earns you life without parole. Show some reproducible evidence that your god does exist – and then demonstrate with certainty that he commanded you to do something – and we can CONSIDER this during your trial. (Though only consider it briefly because it would still amount to little more than the schoolyard excuse of “An older boy told me to do it”) Failing all this, justifying anything on the basis of your sick imagination has no place in society. Go crawl back to the Dark Ages.

  114. ck, the Irate Lump says

    arminius008 wrote:

    I’m not shifting anything. I use the terms interchangeably because that’s how people use the terms in everyday life. I pregnant mother at six months doesn’t look down at her belly and say, “we decided to name our ‘fetus’ Jane.” She uses the word baby.

    You certainly are. The phrase you gave is supposed to indicate that the woman thinks that the fetus is exactly equivalent to a baby, but it is not. The “decided to” is past tense, but it doesn’t indicate action taken, only the decision itself. People decide things based on future potential events all the time. I can decide to bake a cake without calling the flour, egg, sugar, butter and milk a cake before it’s done. I can decide which appliances I want to place in my home before seeking to actually purchase the home itself. I make decisions for events that may or may not happen all the time.

    Let’s try present tense with a more direct verb instead: If a woman told you, “we named our baby Jane” while she was still pregnant, you’d be confused or think she was talking about a prior child. On the other hand, if she told you, “we’re going to name our baby Jane” (i.e. future tense), it makes perfect sense.