A suburban "mother-to-be" has infuriated the right-to-life community in America by admitting a blog she had written for more than two months tracking her pregnancy with a child diagnosed with a terminal disease was nothing more than a fantasy, albeit one that had attracted an online audience of a million or more.
What does it say when the only shining examples of your ideology turn out to be liars and frauds?
That your idealogy is antiquated, and has become the last stand for a demographic that is irrelevant in the modern world.
that you rely on mental exercisers and daydreamers for support, while those you oppose are up to their eyeballs in reality, dealing with issues that affect real womens lives?
Let me see if I understand: Christians are upset that they were misled by a person? So what? They're lied to by the entire institution all the time. Shroud of Turin? Fake. Jesus rising up after 3 days? You must be joking. Condoms don't protect against STDs or unwanted pregnancy? So untrue it makes my blood boil. So now they're indignant that someone made up a story to garner sympathy?
Wow. Yes, it's hard to believe someone would pull the wool over their eyes, cloaked in a blog with Christian music and peppered with biblical quotes when the Church is always so forthright with them.
I'm pro choice and everything... but let's keep the straw men to a minimum. It's not really helping.
Just goes to show you, if you're in a situation like this fake one, you have a choice. You can continue the pregnancy and give birth, or you can terminate the pregnancy. It's no ones business but the people involved and her physician.
So I ask the anti-choice movement to please concentrate on children that are born, and let the women that are pregnant make their own choices.
^^Co-signed.
Fits with the right wingers.
remember the woman with the backwards B carved into her face?
how about that dramatic rescue from the hospital in iraq that never happened?
the iran boating incident?
how about.. if anyone in my administration had anythign to do with the leaking of Valerie plame they would not be in my administration.
or the employee choice act will remove all choice from employees.
how about jeff gannon gay porn star turned WH reporter?
Teh gop have shown time and time and time again, they will lie and tell huge lies and continue to lie to get theri BS passed or to explain some BS they just did.
the Right have become the party of anger and deceit.
Ya JoulesBeef - Liberals never act like this, just Republicans and right-wing fanatics.
Al Sharpton would never go public with a fake story about a black girl with racial slurs carved into her abdoman by a white guy. Hillary Clinton would never tell untrue stories about being fired on by a sniper in Bosnia, Lyndon Johnson would never invent a fake incident in the Gulf of Tonkin in order to ramp up our involvement in Vietnam.
Damn Republicans!
This is par for the course and typical of the whole Anti womans rights movement! There are alternatives to abortion like the one that never really works like abstinence. The others are Sex Education,birth control, Sex Education, Birth control....
reachign all the way back to lyndon johnson.. damn you must be desperate the make a point.
no one claimed the dems dont lie, the gop are just the masters
hey I swim in the summer.. am I comparable to phelps?
the gop are nothing but leis these days in theri desperation for a return to power.
do you have a link to the sharpton story.. ant find it anywhere even his wikipedia page.
We are going to get an animal from the humane society. Change of plan we are going to take this one from Senator Kennedy
We have no intention of running the car industry. Reality we now own GM.
Unemployment rates won't go above 8% if you approve this package. Reality 10%.
We will be transparent and give 5 days for review of all bills. Reality more like 30 hours.
Yes I can see where the Republicans own all the lies.... Barrack has probably broken more campaign promises in 100+ days than most Presidents, although I threw in the dog one for the animal lovers out there.
Joules he is referring to Tawana Brawley. Al Sharpton jumped in and got national media attention for something she apparently made up.
"Barrack has probably broken more campaign promises in 100+ days than most Presidents"
Well, he's only had six months, and so far Obama has kept 30 campaign promises, broken 6, compromised on 8, 11 are stalled (mostly due to lack of movement in congress), 65 are actively in the works, and 395 stll need to be acted upon. Those are actually really good numbers, a promise kept every 4.933 days. That means he needs another 2323.44 days, or 6.36 years to keep, break, or compromise on the rest. At a kept: broken ratio of 5:1, we can expect him to break 88 more promises, and to keep 383 promises.
Compared to the president before him, GHW Bush, Obama is doing very well indeed. According to the Center for American Progress, Bush broke nearly all of his first term campaign promises by the end of 2004, and most of his second term promised by the end of 2006. Of course, he also made fewer promises, so I guess 15 broken promises looks better than 88. 15 broken out of 15 made? I guess he knew better than to promise a lot. Obama has already kept more promises than GHWB ever made.
Barrack has probably broken more campaign promises in 100+ days than most Presidents
He's been president for 6 months, he can't do everything all at once. That's the problem with people these days, they lack patience.
Greg Johnson
You forgot, "I did not have sex with that woman. Miss Lewinski"
Also, the lies of Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" in Roe v Wade. She claimed she was raped and thus needed an abortion.
Her lawyers came up with this story for her to use. The Supreme COurt bought it, and Associate justice Harry Blackmun wrote the most convoluted, illogical decision in the history of the court, finding a "right to privacy that had been unknown in our constitution since 1776.
Thus the entire pro-choice movement is founded upon a lie. Supporting lies include:
1. The developing fetus is not human
2. That it is not alive. And my favorite bit of obfuscation,
3. It is not a person.
Also, the lies of Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" in Roe v Wade. She claimed she was raped and thus needed an abortion.
Good that she lied, if she hadn't then we (women) wouldn't have a choice in what we can and can't do with our bodies. And if she hadn't lied women would still be getting coat hanger abortions, now thanks to Roe v Wade we can go to clinics where it's clean and have licensed doctors.
He's been president for 6 months, he can't do everything all at once. That's the problem with people these days, they lack patience.
5 months (in 3 days). And, yep, he's expected to clean up in 5 months what it took years to screw up. Go figure.
Kinda like the disturbed woman that carved the "B" into her face. Oh man the conservative talk radio loved that story until it proved false. Then they addressed that it was false for about 3 seconds and moved on hoping no one would notice.
I think it is just really sad that so many of you have to politicize the actions of an apparent sick person. It really does not matter what the persons views are or how you want to politicize it, this person is sick and needs to seek aid. I know that it is a comfort to many of you to see monsters in shadows and to seek to twist things so you can prove some fantasy point of view but you are really no better than this sick woman. One should feel pity for her and hope she gets some needed mental health help.
This really has nothing to do with Obama or Bush or anything else other than some woman and her apparent strange fantasy. Let it go.
Sick? She's just a liar. Boy, you bleeding heart conservatives sure love to cover up for liars and criminals.
And just another Notch in the Hypocrite GOP Bed Post as proof of all the unethical, sacrilegious,self righteous,ignorant,moral less,lowlife,incendiary,vile activities they think nothing of committing.
Autuer 1.16
So if someone lies to help the anti-abortion crowd it's a bad thing, but if they lie to help the pro-abortion cause it's a good thing?
It would seem your side's battle cry is "Me! Me! It's all about me!"
jb - Tawana has her own place of honor on Wikipedia
Original Tribune story includes a snapshot of the page from 6/2.
Does anyone know where I can see the picture with the fake baby? I'm really curious. Here's the site for the fake babies, which is a little not-mind-safe because, well, fake babies.
...
NM, found the shot in this video report about Elizabeth Russell, who put Beushausen on blast.
It does look kind of fake but I don't know if I'd call her on it.
What does it say when the only shining examples of your ideology turn out to be liars and frauds?
It say that you are a Christian, Conservitive republican, or both.
So if someone lies to help the anti-abortion crowd it's a bad thing, but if they lie to help the pro-abortion cause it's a good thing?
The people who support abortion respect the reproductive rights of women. The people who are against abortion don't respect the reproductive rights of women. The people who are against abortion are misogynists.
The people who support abortion are either money grubbing opportunists, or fools, blinded by the lies of the former. The people who support abortion are misanthropists.
The people who support abortion are either money grubbing opportunists, or fools, blinded by the lies of the former. The people who support abortion are misanthropists.
Are you kidding, people who are pro-choice believe that a woman should have control over her own reproductive choices, we also believe in privacy. We aren't money grubbing opportunists, or fools, blinded by the lies of the former, but most churches are, although they're the ones providing the lies.
micrometer, no one is forcing you to have an abortion, so if you're against abortion, don't have one.
Most people who support the anti-choice movement want nothing but control over women's sex lives. Shame on a women who has sex, enjoys it, and her birth control fails. I'm not saying that all women or girls who get an abortion it's because of failed birth control. But what about the ones that were responsible, used BC and still got pregnant? What kind of punishment would you like for them?
The people who support abortion are either money grubbing opportunists, or fools, blinded by the lies of the former.
So judging by your logic you think that women are property and that all women are whores, you don't think women should be allowed to use protection - condoms, birth control pills or the morning after pill - because that also equals abortion, you would rather have women die from pregnancy complications, and you either don't believe in rape or believe that women deserve to be raped.
The people who support abortion are misanthropists.
No because abortion does not mean the end of humanity.
Pro-lifers are the ones blinded by lies and are money grubbing opportunists who use misogyny and terrorism to control women and the doctors who help them. Pro-lifers are idiots because they constantly fail to grasp the fact that no one is forcing them to get an abortion and that just because a woman gets an abortion does not mean that she hates children and or never wants children. Pro-lifers are the reason this country is so overcrowded.
Pro-choicers respect and care about women.
Stuff like this is why I'm a dem and a lib.
to me this lessens what women in this situation really go through - the heartache - the sense of loss - this is wretched
Yes, wretched and seriously wrong and sick! Another nut fallen from the (hopefully) nearly dead tree of life and lies.What a sad example! :-(
I hesitate to brand all "shining examples" (whatever that means) of the anti-abortion movement as "liars and frauds," but there is definitely something creepy about the tactics employed by people like this blogger as well as other elements I would generally consider to be right-wing. That isn't to say that people of all stripes haven't lied or resorted to extreme behavior to garner sympathy for their views, but typically when I receive an e-mail that consists of an obviously made-up story with an old-timey message it isn't trying to garner support for the ACLU--it's usually about abortion, Obama being a Muslim, or how everyone on welfare is a lazy racial caricature. If the views these folks espouse are so righteous, you would think they could change people's hearts and minds without lying to them or preying on their emotions, but I guess making @!$%# up is just so much more expedient when you're still engaged in fighting the culture wars of the 1960s.
Sick, sick, sick.
I think that about sums it up.
Lying about something like that is completely disgusting and that's putting it lightly!!
Internet Munchausen-by-Proxy?
Remember the Kaycee Nicole girl who was dying of leukemia? Fraud. Hoax. Done for attention. Same here.
Perfect Analogy, Kim. Voted up!
Let's see, I seem to remember something about bearing false witness....
..hmmm what book was that from?
An Introduction to the Christian Counterculture (By Cowan)
TR
It was from the ten commandments brought down by Moses, a Jewish man. So maybe you should blame them, already.
Micrometer
Let's just take it one step further and blame religion in general. When your whole worldview is based on a bunch of fairytales and bull@!$%#, it's pretty easy to see how you could make up your own fairytales and bull@!$%#.
DanielC78
Religion hjas been a feature of human existance since cave man days. The belief in a superior being is universal. If we did away with religion, what would replace it? Secular Humanism? Obamaism?
The woman in question acted according to her personal beliefs on abortion. Her religious beliefs may or may not have been involved. Very often people act in conflict with their self-identified religion. The jails are full of people of all religious stripes, as well as some who are avowed atheists.
There is a poetic quality to this disclosure. A movement that bases its beliefs on false premisess, distortions of facts, manipulation of emotional issues and fanatical embracing of fundamentalist religious views deserves to have some light shed on its foolery.
There is a poetic quality to this disclosure. A movement that bases its beliefs on false premisess, distortions of facts, manipulation of emotional issues and fanatical embracing of fundamentalist religious views deserves to have some light shed on its foolery.
well said.
estela, This story has made a mockery of the anti-choice movement. It show what a low level these people will stoop to. Pretending to be pregnant...killing abortion doctors, etc. I can't stand these losers. They should just mind their own business. They carry no weight anymore. I am actually glad that this came out so that I can laugh in their faces! The fools. They disgust me.
While I agree that this sham pregnacy sheds a great deal of heat on the issue of abortion, i don't think there's much light coming from it. I feel both repulsed by and sorry for this young woman. She's obviously in an enormous amount of pain. Her attempt to resolve tjat pain was wrong, of course. Yet it is compelling at the same time, as estela points out, for its emotional impact. I also feel for those folks who were taken in by this woman. I fear that this sham will only solidify their beliefs instead.
All I can say is "Wow. Really?"
Any relation to the McCain supporter who carved the BO into her face while looking in a mirror and forgot that mirrors reverse images?
All I can say is "Wow. Really?"
Sham. Wow!!!
This report just underlines the tactics the anti-choice crowd will stoop to. It is frightening because they have no boundaries to their behavior. They believe whatever they do is justified.........even murder. The extreme anti-choice are truly fanatical nutbags that have found an outlet for their craziness.
Wow!! What can you say? I seen a segment regarding this exact story on Good Morning America. Apparently this woman had a miscarriage some time earlier. She decided to blog about her experience as a means of therapy, but with a twist. She claimed that she never thought her blogging would take on the energy that it did. As a result she found herself addicted and continued the blogs.
That being said, it just goes to show you we have all types of nuts in all shapes, forms and fashions. She definitely need help.
I'm afraid I can't find fault to those who believed this woman. If you are anti-choice, pro-life, anti-abortion, of course, you would get on this woman's bandwagon. She, just as easily, could have been in the same situation, decided to abort the pregnancy and the pro-choice folks would have responded accordingly. I believe either side would have felt for this woman, regardless. In a sense this is a non-story. The difference is the pro-choice folks, (me included) would have respected the woman's decision to carry the baby to term. If the woman had decided to abort, I, again, would have respected that decision. The anti-choice would have labeled her a murderer.
The anti-abortion folks would have labeled the doctor as a murderer, and the woman as a co-victim.
If you read the Hippocratic oath, you will find it specifically prohibits abortion. Doctors who get into the abortion business are liars in as much as they know what the oath asks of them before med school.
So all you uptight pro-aborts are subscribing to a lie as well. But lies are another name for politically correct, aren't they?
It also involves swearing oaths to a pantheon of gods. Most American doctors are monotheistic. There are a lot of reasons why we don't use the original form of the Hippocratic oath and you failed to mention that the modern versions do not include a prohibition against abortion.
The Modern Version (that was written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today) says nothing about abortion.
The Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oat...
The Hippocratic Oath: Classical Version. Few medical schools today require students to recite the classical version of the oath.
Then properly speaking, this should be called the Lasagna oath.
The classic version stands!
Since you're against abortion, then sure, you'd call for the classic version to stand. However, that's not the way it is. Sorry
I was about to reply to micrometer that the original oath also denounces the use of the knife, which would mean that doctors are violating it with every surgery they perform.
But Lola has kindly linked the original oath and the modern one for your perusal. I think you will see the difference. No prohibition against abortion but also no prohibition against surgery... oh, yeah, and no pagan oaths to the Ancient Greek Gods. Wow! That's a relief!! Until the 1960's, that 'ol Hippocratic Oath was forcing good monotheists (Jews, Christians, Muslims) to give an oath to pagan deities!!!
Nothing like a OB/GYN surgeon giving an oath to pagan deities before performing a C-section on me to deliver my daughter, right?!?!? LOL
LOL So in addition to being anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-Muslim, yoiu folks are also anti-pagan. What a bunch you are. LOL
anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-Muslim
Who says we're all that?
I find it ironic that the classic oath says to provide no abortion, but you don't have a problem with the oath being sworn to pagan's. Do you worship pagan gods?
I'm sure picking and choosing comes naturally for you though.
Again, they don't need facts. Just primal emotion.
Anyone surprised, please raise his or her hand.
LMAO, when these pro lifers aren't murdering, they are lying.
There are enough people in the world going through real-life heartwrenching decisions and situations to go around... we don't need cons out there playing on the sympathies and kindness of others to get their emotional rocks off.
I feel for all the well-intentioned people who gave emotional support, gifts, and money to this huckster. This is the kind of crap that makes these generous people think twice about giving to others in need. How sad.
One woman lied. Nothing more, Nothing less. To infer anything else, especially about the anti-abortion movement as a whole, is to stereotype, which 90% of you are now guilty of. Regardless of what your stance on abortion is, this woman's behavior should have no impact on that stance.
I'm pro choice and everything... but let's keep the straw men to a minimum. It's not really helping.
Well said.
One woman lied. Nothing more, Nothing less. To infer anything else, especially about the anti-abortion movement as a whole, is to stereotype, which 90% of you are now guilty of.
Using a broad generalization...supported by a completely phony statistic... to allegedly denounce stereotypes...wow!! That's a truly odd strategy??
Well of course I include myself in that 90%, but being a conservative, stereotyping isn't as offensive to me as it is to a liberal :P Irony. Forgive me for overstepping my boundaries.
While I could have counted all the posts that denounce pro-lifers in response to this woman's fault to achieve a true percentage, I thougt the spirit if my post would be attacked, not the mathematically inaccurate statistic. My point still stands; condemn this woman individually, not the movement as a whole, for her trespasses.
I disagree that it there is just one person to be angy with here. The anti-abortion crowd flock to people like this to push their agenda. All of them make me ill.
You think your point stands given that you tried to legitimate it fabricated data? And you expect people to take you seriously?
Truant, although I can't provide proof of this anymore, one very pro-life and well-known website carried a couple of "testimonials" from a woman about the tragedy of her own "abortion" - which were loaded with patently false statements.
I had no idea how long they had been up there, but when I wrote them and called their bluff, the offending lines soon disappeared, but not the letters. The woman had claimed her doctor told her certain things and she also made claims about the appearance of the aborted fetus itself which were both impossible to believe if you know anything at all about science and anatomy.
I was appalled that they kept this false account online, even after I pointed out it's falsity, but I'm sure it was still useful to them in its revised form.
These people are eager to use anything at all - they feel they can do no wrong in their desire to "save lives", even if it means lying and giving out false information, in order to further their hateful "moral" agenda.
Well, this just so happens to be a sterotype that fits pretty damn well: pro-lifers are liars, bat@!$%# crazy, and murdering fascists. Prove me wrong. There is a reason why they are probably one of the most dangerous groups operating inside our borders today. Just because they hide behind a bible doesn't mean it isn't domestic terrorism. Hypocritical @!$%#s.
Courts,
You think your point stands given that you tried to legitimate it fabricated data? And you expect people to take you seriously?
Illegitimate data that I acknowledged and apologized for. If you are suggesting that a generalized statistic is grounds for never being taken serious again, then you are the one who should not be taken seriously. Perhaps you should look up the term "Ad hominem" and get back to me.
YotaJosh,
pro-lifers are liars, bat@!$%# crazy, and murdering fascists. Prove me wrong.
Really? I'd hate to be hypocritical and attack you personally, but after reading your post I'll admit it's quite difficult. I'm not to concerned with "proving you wrong", because the claim that pro-lifers are "murdering fascists" is held by an insignificant minority. Actually, I would appreciate evidence in support of your claim. I neither agree with murder nor fascism and am still pro life.
There is a reason why they are probably one of the most dangerous groups operating inside our borders today.
Welcome to the world of level-jumping and straw men.
they feel they can do no wrong in their desire to "save lives"
that includes supporting capital punishment, gay bashing and murders, killing doctors and family planning workers...I'm really convinced they are "pro-life"
they feel they can do no wrong in their desire to "save lives"
By saving lives does this mean letting the mother/girl die in pregnancy?
If you are suggesting that a generalized statistic is grounds for never being taken serious again
Nope. I'm saying that those who knowingly throw out fabricated evidence as though it was legitimate in order to score a political point and then retracts it only after being called on the deceit should not expect to be trusted or taken seriously.
Nope. I'm saying that those who knowingly throw out fabricated evidence as though it was legitimate in order to score a political point and then retracts it only after being called on the deceit should not expect to be trusted or taken seriously.
Regardless, myself and the claim that one should "condemn this woman individually, not the movement as a whole, for her trespasses." are separate. You've chosen to attack me rather than my view which, as stated earlier, is an Ad hominem.
I couldn't care less whether or not you "trust" me, but I rather do care about your response to my initial claim.
Your initial claim was that 90% of [us] are guilty of stereotyping. My response is that you pulled that out of your ass, dusted it off, tried to represent it as fact, and therefore cannot reasonably expect others to engage you in discourse.
But making up facts the modus operandi of the pro-life movement--construct an ideology based upon fantasized data and when you can't convince people to buy into it, whine about personal attacks, the sanctity of human life, and innocent babies.
Your initial claim was that 90% of [us] are guilty of stereotyping. My response is that you pulled that out of your ass, dusted it off, tried to represent it as fact, and therefore cannot reasonably expect others to engage you in discourse.
Let it go, and stop dodging my question. If that's possible. We're both well aware that the initial claim I was reffering to was the following (it is quite unfortunate that I've posted this two times and still lack a response) : "condemn this woman individually, not the movement as a whole, for her trespasses."
Now, you can choose not to respond on the ridiculous premise that I no longer deserve to be engaged in discussion simply because of a careless remark (a remark that I've retracted no less), or you can choose the appropriate route and respond in an intelligent and mature manner to the claim above.
But making up facts the modus operandi of the pro-life movement--construct an ideology based upon fantasized data and when you can't convince people to buy into it, whine about personal attacks, the sanctity of human life, and innocent babies.
Perhaps, but this fails to address my claim. This is an attack on the position of anti-abortionists, and it does not provide a reason why they should be criticized as a whole because of one woman's actions.
Anti-abortionists are people who choose not to have abortions. Anti-choicers are people who would take that right away from every women, and I, personally, condemn them and the movement, as a whole, purely for their stance. Fraud, murder, terrorism, and misrepresentation are merely gravy. If the anti-choice movement would stop serving the gravy in huge freakin' boats, maybe those of us who are pro-choice might, possibly spare a single moment to consider that the anti-choice movement might, possibly contain one or two reasonable human beings.
The anti-abortionists/anti-choicers have no idea what they're talking about.
Auteur,
The anti-abortionists/anti-choicers have no idea what they're talking about.
Thanks for clearing that up.
And Backseat,
When I said "anti-abortionists", I meant "pro-lifers".
We shouldn't say "pro-lifers", we should just say "pro-annoying" because that's what they are.
We shouldn't say "pro-lifers", we should just say "pro-annoying" because that's what they are.
QUOTED FOR TRUTH.
"condemn this woman individually, not the movement as a whole, for her trespasses."
You seem to be confused. I'm not criticizing the pro-life movement for the actions of one pathological liar.
I condemn the pro-life movement for stripping women of sovereignty over their bodies, for hypocrisy, for inciting its members to violence, and for hiding behind an ideology comprised of fabrications, exaggerations, and righteous indignation.
I applaud you for taking the appropriate route.
You seem to be confused. I'm not criticizing the pro-life movement for the actions of one pathological liar.
That's all I asked for. But trust me (or don't, as I seem to recall you deeming me unworthy of trust), I'm hardly confused.
I condemn the pro-life movement for stripping women of sovereignty over their bodies, for hypocrisy, for inciting its members to violence, and for hiding behind an ideology comprised of fabrications, exaggerations, and righteous indignation.
Well that's great, but it's not the issue at hand. My original post simply called for everyone to hold only this woman responsible for her lies, not the anti abortion movement as a whole. I consciously avoided bringing up the issue of whether or not abortion should be morally permissible. Perhaps you thought I did bring it up.
Or perhaps you were confused.
My original post simply called for everyone to hold only this woman responsible for her lies, not the anti abortion movement as a whole.
But this woman's lies could affect the abortion movement both anti and pro.
Lotta name calling going around...it;s surprising to read so much rhetoric worthy of religious fanaticism from both viewpoints, but even more surprising from the 'pro choice' side, on this thread...the level of heat seems disproportionate to the act of one woman lying to, and conning a gullible bunch of sympathizers?
The duped 'pro life' supporters acted perfectly consistently with their views if they offered the woman support, and especially if they put their money where their mouths were, and offered financial support. The fact that the woman was a lying con artist in no way negates their consistency between actions and ideology.
No matter that many in the 'pro-life' movement are using abortion as a way to hold the fetus hostage to their anti-sex agenda by refusing to advocate for birth control, and holding up instead a puritanical abstinence/chastity that seems to be unachievable, even within the ranks of its loudest advocates (and I know there are many within the 'pro life' movement who don't have this secret agenda; there are also many who do).
It is still shocking to see the 'pro-choice' advocates gloating over the deception by this woman and trying to leverage it into a symbol of...what exactly?
Especially given the ugliness of the exterme position of many within the 'pro-choice' movement that it is the right of the woman under any and all circumstances to have a baby just vacumed out through her vagina as if it were nothing but lint on the carpet, even in the thankfully rare case of a viable fetus (and I know that many who support 'choice' don't support it to an unqualified level; there are also many who do).
I applaud you for taking the appropriate route.
Golly gee. Do you mean it?
My original post simply called for everyone to hold only this woman responsible for her lies, not the anti abortion movement as a whole.
Your original post defended the "movement as a whole" with fabricated information. You forfeited your right to dictate the terms of response the moment you decided that it was appropriate to substantiate your argument with data you knew to be false because you were the one making it up as you went along.
In that sense, both you and the woman in question are representative of the pro-life movement as a whole--a movement that concocts stories about the women who get abortions, the doctors who provide them, and the fetus itself with no regard for facts.
The issue isn't about moral permissibility. It's about lies. The woman in the story lied. You lied. The movement as a whole saturates its ideology and propaganda with lies. And on the basis of those lies, the movement and those of its members that engage in deceit should be condemned.
One woman lied. Nothing more, Nothing less. To infer anything else, especially about the anti-abortion movement as a whole, is to stereotype, which 90% of you are now guilty of. Regardless of what your stance on abortion is, this woman's behavior should have no impact on that stance.
^My original post.
What you have claimed my original post attempted to accomplish:
Your original post defended the "movement as a whole" with fabricated information.
Not once in this post do I see myself defending the views of the pro-life movement, and neither do you. I called on everyone to separate criticism of this woman from criticism of the movement as a whole. Intellectual dishonesty is still in style, I gather.
And the "fabricated information", well, to be honest, you're beginning to sound desperate. But to ease your mind, I've decided to count all previous comments (posts before my original) to achieve a true percentage (oh, and I didn't bother looking at the time of post, only if it appeared spatially before mine).
There are about 57 posts (at the time of my count). I dropped about 4, because they were insufficient to label one way or the other. It turns out that about 83% of people who posted before I did are using this woman to condemn the movement as a whole. And thats not fabricated, it's not a sterotype, its just the truth. I'll post some examples, for your benefit:
Teh gop have shown time and time and time again, they will lie and tell huge lies and continue to lie to get theri BS passed or to explain some BS they just did.
the Right have become the party of anger and deceit.
And just another Notch in the Hypocrite GOP Bed Post as proof of all the unethical, sacrilegious,self righteous,ignorant,moral less,lowlife,incendiary,vile activities they think nothing of committing
I can't stand these losers....I am actually glad that this came out so that I can laugh in their faces! The fools. They disgust me.
LMAO, when these pro lifers aren't murdering, they are lying.
They believe whatever they do is justified.........even murder. The extreme anti-choice are truly fanatical nutbags that have found an outlet for their craziness
Let's just take it one step further and blame religion in general. When your whole worldview is based on a bunch of fairytales and bull@!$%#, it's pretty easy to see how you could make up your own fairytales and #.
Good that she lied, if she hadn't then we (women) wouldn't have a choice in what we can and can't do with our bodies. And if she hadn't lied women would still be getting coat hanger abortions, now thanks to Roe v Wade we can go to clinics where it's clean and have licensed doctors.
Well, this just so happens to be a sterotype that fits pretty damn well: pro-lifers are liars, bat@!$%# crazy, and murdering fascists. Prove me wrong. There is a reason why they are probably one of the most dangerous groups operating inside our borders today. Just because they hide behind a bible doesn't mean it isn't domestic terrorism. Hypocritical @!$%#s.
And I think that will be enough. I've admitted that my stereotype was wrong, retracted it, and then went back and achieved a reasonably accurate statistic. These people are simply stereotyping and spewing hate. After reading the posts above, I'm beginning to feel that my initial sentiment may have been correct.
Thanks for keeping it civil guys.
I've decided to count all previous comments (posts before my original) to achieve a true percentage (oh, and I didn't bother looking at the time of post, only if it appeared spatially before mine).
It's good to know that you acknowledge your sloppy methods after calling your newly concocted information a "true percentage."
For the record, at least four of the examples you cite above were posted AFTER your initial post. So you've tried to legitimate your first fabrication with yet more dishonesty.
(oh, and I didn't bother looking at the time of post, only if it appeared spatially before mine).
If that isn't an analog to the anti-abortion take on the issue of personhood I don't know what is. Well it's really hard to tell when or if a fetus becomes a human being so we won't bother... we'll just say it happens at conception.
There are dates and times right there on the god damned posts Truant. If you can't be bothered to read them then fine, but don't pretend you're being all rigorous and introspective.
Well, this just so happens to be a sterotype that fits pretty damn well: pro-lifers are liars, bat@!$%# crazy, and murdering fascists. Prove me wrong. There is a reason why they are probably one of the most dangerous groups operating inside our borders today. Just because they hide behind a bible doesn't mean it isn't domestic terrorism. Hypocritical @!$%#s.
This was the only one after my initial post, and it was an honest mistake, not a fabrication. One and four are quite different. Are you now creating your own data, a crime that you have accused me of to no end? And looking back, I didn't include this single instance in my statistic, only as an example. Perhaps you are now engaging in dishonesty yourself, or you've failed to understand this statement:
(oh, and I didn't bother looking at the time of post, only if it appeared spatially before mine).
Go ahead and re-read it once more.
It's good to know that you acknowledge your sloppy methods after calling your newly concocted information a "true percentage."
You're welcome, I'm glad you appreciate it.
Nice try. But there were, in fact, at least four in that list that were posted after your initial comment (Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 1:46 PM EDT):
And just another Notch in the Hypocrite GOP Bed Post as proof of all the unethical, sacrilegious,self righteous,ignorant,moral less,lowlife,incendiary,vile activities they think nothing of committing--Thrusday June 18, 2009 12:07 am
Let's just take it one step further and blame religion in general. When your whole worldview is based on a bunch of fairytales and bull@!$%#, it's pretty easy to see how you could make up your own fairytales and #.--Wednesday June 17, 2009 7:44 pm
Good that she lied, if she hadn't then we (women) wouldn't have a choice in what we can and can't do with our bodies. And if she hadn't lied women would still be getting coat hanger abortions, now thanks to Roe v Wade we can go to clinics where it's clean and have licensed doctors.---Wednesday June 17, 2009 6:13 pm
Well, this just so happens to be a sterotype that fits pretty damn well: pro-lifers are liars, bat@!$%# crazy, and murdering fascists. Prove me wrong. There is a reason why they are probably one of the most dangerous groups operating inside our borders today. Just because they hide behind a bible doesn't mean it isn't domestic terrorism. Hypocritical @!$%#s.---Wednesday June 17 3:08 pm.
So we have, yet again, more misdirection on your part.
I'm sure you'll understand if I don't you at your word when you say that you didn't include your "honest mistake" in your calculations. A "true percentage" indeed.
If that isn't an analog to the anti-abortion take on the issue of personhood I don't know what is.
Well it's really hard to tell when or if a fetus becomes a human being so we won't bother... we'll just say it happens at conception.
This really has nothing do with the discussion I'm having with courts. I don't deny that it could be considered "analogous", and if it does happen to be the case, it means little to me, becasuse this:
Well it's really hard to tell when or if a fetus becomes a human being so we won't bother... we'll just say it happens at conception.
May or may not be a valid position (minus the derogatory spin, of course). But thats a separate issue altogether.
There are dates and times right there on the god damned posts Truant. If you can't be bothered to read them then fine, but don't pretend you're being all rigorous and introspective.
Or perhaps I simply don't have the time to sort it out. It really doesn't matter anyways, because how I "come off to you" (rigorous and introspective), has no effect on the validity of my argument. For example, to me, your post came across as nitpicky and petty, attacking me rather than what I had to say, but I won't disregard the content of your post because of this.
So we have, yet again, more misdirection on your part.
Look up the word spatial. I fully understand that some of those comments were posted temporally after mine, but on the web page, they spatially appear before it.
I'll post this a third time, in hopes that you'll finally choose to read it.
(oh, and I didn't bother looking at the time of post, only if it appeared spatially before mine).
Now, if you disagree with me accumulating my examples according to this criteria, then fine, you have the right to. But when you accuse me of misdirection, when I have clearly stated my method of sampling, you are the liar.
You are using posts published AFTER your initial post to come up with your "statistics" and representing them as "all previous comments (posts before my original)." And then you're calling your results a "true percentage."
It's methodologically sloppy and it's dishonest. But if it makes you feel better about your initial judgement, far be it from me to rain on your parade.
And then you're calling your results a "true percentage."
It is a "true percentage" of the posts spatially before mine, as I claimed it was. It may not be the percentage you were looking for, but it is correct nonetheless.
It's methodologically sloppy
It very well might be, and I concede this.
it's dishonest
This it is not.
But if it makes you feel better about your initial judgement, far be it from me to rain on your self-righteous parade.
I apologize for my arrogance, which I won't deny. It's something I've always struggled with. Anyhow, thanks for the lively and interesting debate, but I'm afraid this has devolved into the realm of a battle of egos.
Wow. Whoda thunk that everything on the net wasn't true. Next thing you know, they'll be telling us the Easter Bunny really don't exist. Horrors! I'm devastated.
The second people started sending her money and gifts, she should have come clean. Otherwise, its nothing but a scam.
I absolutely agree.
Tragic Story
The second people started sending her money and gifts, she should have come clean. Otherwise, its nothing but a scam.
and I would think it would open up the possibility of prosecution for mail fraud.
This is so typical of people who believe their agenda is more important than the truth.
um,um,um, what people will do for attention and money. The pro-lifers should be horrified at this woman perpertrating the way she did. I'm a pro-choicer and I believe criminal charges should be brought up on this woman. There are many people seriously passionate about pro-life and pro-choice issue. And what did she do, used this important issue to make no, steal money from innocent people. She's not a pro-lifer or pro-choicer. She's a straight up scam artist thief.
She's an emotional predator.
But the case of Roe v. Wade was justified? She scammed not only the nation, the pro-choice movement, but the entire dang justice system right up to the Supreme Court! But that was ok, b/c it was in accordance with the majority of folks' ideology on here? I'm not following that logic.
What this woman (the one in this article) did is horrible and outrageous; and I think, if she accepted money, then she should be charged. However, this was one lunatic blogger. She wasn't taking her case to federal court. She told a plausible story via a BLOG (which are not known to be pantheons of truth in our culture) and gained a following. She found a sympathetic audiance and used them. Shame on her! But I fail to see how this one woman now represents ALL conservatives, pro-lifers, Christians, etc. For all the talk of how ANYONE who doesn't believe in abortion is a terrorist, murderer, blah blah blah, it sure seems like on here at least, that the real HATE is coming from the other side.
What a sad person that woman is.
Let me guess, it was the liberals that put her up to it and made her do it!
That's on the next Rush Hannity or O'Rielly show.
Why is it that the pro-lifers and Republicans and fanatics always blame the Liberals. "The Liberals did it" or "The Liberals put __— up to it" and or "It's all the Liberals fault". Are you that desparate?
Evil needs a scapegoat that's why!
Because "evil" doesn't know how to take responsibility for itself.
JECD
Evil needs a scapegoat that's why!
Evil AND idoicy, need a scapegoat
Actually, it was George Bush!
No, wait. It was Obama!
No no...wait!
It was the CEO of Enron! No...damn...that's not it either.....
Maybe SHE'S just a freakin' lying scamming piece of @!$%# all on her own.....
And she's ALSO a perfect example of WHY Abortions need to be legal.
The anti-abortion lobby itself is a fraud for the most part. It knows full well that abortions can't always be avoided, including late-stage abortions but the acticvists simply pretend such situations don't exist. The most vocal among them rarely give a hoot about children's lives in general. They don't adopt, they don't send money to child-care organizations. They just rant and rave. Having said that, I have no argument with anyone who respectfully argues against abortion on personal moral grounds. We have a political process for sorting out our differences that doesn't involve raw intimidation, threats and murder.
They're also the same people you see cheering the death penalty.
The most vocal among them rarely give a hoot about children's lives in general. They don't adopt, they don't send money to child-care organizations.
Do you have a source to back that claim up? I don't have any experiences that reflect that claim. I do know people who are "pro-life" who send money to children's charities, adopt (three people in PA alone) and care deeply for for all children. I only seem to "hear" about zealots on blogs (The murderer of Dr. Tiller is the exception). I don't even see it on T.V.
I am on the fence when it comes to abortion. I've had one. I regret it. I get so pissed off at these women who make the CHOICE to have sex and then get indignant about "their body" when it comes to the consequence of their CHOICE to have sex, knowing it could result in a pregnancy. Don't bother bringing up rape victims, they have my support for doing what they need to do. I am not ready to vote against choice, but the "pro-choice" crowd tend to disgust me. The "pro-life" people I've run in to seem to care about the potential human being. Why is that bad?
They're also the same people you see cheering the death penalty.
Ummmm, maybe because one is an innocent while the other has committed a terrible crime.
One of the best ways to show people just how uneducated you are about abortion is to compare it to the death penalty.
rhondamom - yes you have had one - but get indignant over other women wanting the same chance at choice that you had? - i guess we know where that places you - smack dab in the middle of hypocrisy land - DID you have to give anyone, outside who it concerned (meaning family, father), the reason WHY you wanted or needed an abortion? - so why would any other woman have to feel bad because you don't like the reason they have made the choice? so you want to be the one to decide who is allowed abortions or who is not? - how would you have felt IF that was done to you? - someone you don't know - not your doctor - not your family - not anyone you know telling you that YOUR reason for choosing an abortion is WRONG therefore you can't have one
Auteur 1536:
I wasn't comparing it. I was responding to YOUR comment above. I was trying to show why someone could be against abortion and still for the death penalty. My opinion does not speak to my education level, it speaks to my insight.
If you had read my whole post, I stated that I was on the fence. I am not pro-life nor pro-choice. I regret my choice, but am uncomfortable with telling others what they can do. My point was that most abortions are due to irresponsibility. If you CHOOSE to have sex, the consequence could be pregnancy. I just hate that most (note I said most)abortions are due to irresponsibility (as in my own case). If we didn't have the quick fix of abortion, maybe women would be more responsible with their sexuality. Personal responsibility. This is why it pisses me off when women get indignant with "it's my body, I can do with it what I want to". Pro-lifers tend to be arrogant and condescending, they (most) do nothing to bring me to their side. They are usually hysterically righteous, unable to have a calm, rational discussion.
As I stated before, in the case of rape I would never want to interfere with the victims choice.
My point was that most abortions are due to irresponsibility.
In 54% of abortions, the woman was using birth control methods in the month she got pregnant (per Guttmacher).
rhondamom,
If we didn't have the quick fix of abortion, maybe women would be more responsible with their sexuality. Personal responsibility. This is why it pisses me off when women get indignant with "it's my body, I can do with it what I want to".
Okay, where do I start. Believe me, I'm not here to bust your chops.
Number one, abortion is not a quick fix, it's extremely inconvenient and quite uncomfortable, physically and emotionally. However, it is a quicker fix that carrying a pregnancy full term and raising it.
Number two, most women are responsible for their sexuality, and there is no birth control that's 100 %. What bothers me here is, are men responsible with their sexuality? If they were a women would not get pregnant, but no one holds a man accountable or says things like, "If we didn't have the quick fix of abortion maybe men would be more responsible with their sexuality. Personal responsibility." I hate this.
If we were to make abortion less of a quick fix, who will it fix? Oh yea, women! How do we fix the men though? And this way only women would be controlled sexually. Is that right? Or fair? Women and girls for the most part do not use abortion as birth control. However, I'm sure some are careless thinking, "oh, it won't happen to me", and then, "oops!" People make mistakes, it happens, including yourself. Usually after an abortion, the women or girl is very, very, careful not wanting to have another abortion. But again, nothing is 100%, forgetting to take your pill for a day or so, antibiotics, broken condom, or just plain fertile Myrtle, like myself. Neither one of my girls were planned and I was using birth control.
The thing is, a large number of anti-choicers attack the women, but who's attacking the men, who's holding them responsible, it takes two. Women are vilified, called sluts, whores, and told to keep their legs together. I mean, come on! But guys, they can walk away, given a high five and a pat on the back and called a stud. This is wrong!
This is why it pisses me off when women get indignant with "it's my body, I can do with it what I want to"
Men get indignant with "it's my body, I can do with it what I want to", why can't women?
Thanks for not busting my chops :)
I think that the whole "what about the men" argument is mute since they are physically incapable of becoming pregnant. You're right, they get away with ALOT when it comes to responsibility, but since we are the ones that have the "equipment" we carry more responsibility. Not fair, but it is what it is.....
You're right about my "quick fix" comment. It is a painful procedure both mentally and physically. You're also right when you say that carrying the baby for nine months and then childbirth are much more painful (and we didn't even mention the pain (that comes with so much more reward) of being a parent)!
Reward! What reward? I'm still waiting for mine! LOL! Just kidding!
Yes we have the equipment, but it shouldn't lessen the men in having equal responsibility. Both men and women should be responsible for birth control. I always told my girls, no glove, no love, even if you are on the pill. There's much more to catch than pregnancy. But I think if they both take responsibility for birth control, and one fails, hopefully the other one will prevent pregnancy, double armor so to speak. So why isn't anyone calling out the men. Why? Why call women sluts or whores? Is that really necessary? You see, to me, men can be promiscuous, they coined promiscuity. But women, they can't enjoy sex, they don't have needs. Just don't have sex until you're married and ready to have children. But men, we know you have needs, so you go have sex as much as you want. This is not right in my book. It seems to me more of a way to control women.
Again, we have the equipment to incubate the child until it's born. IMO both sexes should have equal footing, you take abortion away and it'll set women back in time, but not men, they'll be fine. Women will suffer, and so will children.
I wasn't comparing it. I was responding to YOUR comment above.
I didn't say you were comparing it, I was just putting it out there that it's a good way to lose an argument which is what the pro-lifers are good at.
I was trying to show why someone could be against abortion and still for the death penalty.
Sure, but that someone is then no longer anything resembling "pro-life."
They're just pro-birth and pro-"killing f---ers."
Sure, but that someone is then no longer anything resembling "pro-life."
They're just pro-birth and pro-"killing f---ers."
Or perhaps they're just pro-inoccent-life. Pro-life is just a label.