Army of volunteers politely call back anti-abortion harassers who place threatening calls

Discuss

95 Responses to “Army of volunteers politely call back anti-abortion harassers who place threatening calls”

  1. jaduncan says:

    Oh, I always love this logic.

    1: I think you are bad.
    2: I think Nazis are bad.
    3: You therefore are a Nazi.

    I understand that Hitler himself was rather more exclusionary about who he’d let in the group.

  2. snagglepuss says:

    In my experience, modern-day militant anti-abortionists are NOT “Pro-Life” – And the “abortion” angle is just that: It’s the angle they play to justify their own misbehavior. The hatred they express towards pro-choice people has nothing to do with a baby being saved – It’s simply the 21st-century method of getting a gang of bloodthirsty goons together and stoning a harlot in the middle of the town square.

    • Judas Peckerwood says:

      Having dealt with these vicious scumbags face to face for the past two decades, I can tell you that you are 100% correct. I wish that the mainstream media and supposedly progressive political leaders had your insights.

    • Brainspore says:

      In my experience, modern-day militant anti-abortionists are NOT “Pro-Life”

      I completely agree but I’m glad you specified “militant.” As someone who was raised Catholic I do know many people who truly think abortion is wrong because they believe in the sanctity of all life—including the lives of violent felons facing capital punishment. Of course the pro-life-but-respectful-of-others crowd aren’t the ones you see out on the streets hurling epithets and committing acts of verbal and physical violence.

      • Tully says:

        As I usually put it, the AngryVengefulJesus mob is very visible and hates everyone who dares dispute their dogmas, the LovingJesus people may disagree with you b ut get along with almost everyone.

      • townandgownie says:

         Nor do you see the anti-choice (pro-life is a lie regardless of position) Christians who respect others lifting a single finger criticizing the “militant” Christians who don’t.

        So no, your righteous self-congratulations is worthless.

        • Shinkuhadoken says:

           That’s the same logic used by people who say the vast majority of Muslims who are moderate and peaceful don’t say enough against their extremist ilk as to be supportive of terrorism themselves. If you find hate so repulsive, perhaps you should invest some time in examining the sources of your own irrational “you people are all alike” hate before working on someone else.

        • Brainspore says:

          I’m very firmly pro-choice so I don’t see what is so “righteously self-congratulating” about my comment. I just happen to believe that it is possible for a person to be wrong, even on an issue as important as abortion, without being evil.

          I think you’ll find you can bring social change more effectively if you start with the assumption that many of your ideological opponents may actually be decent human beings who just happen to see the world in a very different way from you.

      • “As someone who was raised Catholic I do know many people who truly think abortion is wrong because they believe in the sanctity of all life”

        Oooh, I always love this bit.  So, Catholics are vegetarians right?  Right?

        • Brainspore says:

          So, Catholics are vegetarians right?

          Some are, others are not. Some are among the kindest people you’ll ever meet and some are complete bastards who have no problem sanctioning acts of terrible violence. Like most groups they are a pretty mixed lot. Which was pretty much my point.

          But I take your meaning; if it makes you happy I’ll amend my earlier comment to read “I do know many people who truly think abortion is wrong because they believe in the sanctity of all human life (which they believe a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus to be, though I disagree)“.

          • absimiliard says:

            You don’t need to get so specific.  Nathan pretty clearly meant “animal life” instead of just “life”

            -abs is pretty sure Nathan doesn’t disapprove of eating plants, given past posting

    • SomeGuyNamedMark says:

      You’ll never see these control-freaks out protesting capital-punishment or the  latest war.  Once you are born they tend to lose interest in you.

      • chgoliz says:

        Speaking as one of their victims: I agree.  Funny how they won’t take credit for all the horrors that are done to us once we’re born.  All that matters is that some woman had to put her life and health on the line to give birth.  Once her punishment is over, who cares about what happens to the kid?

  3. Sarge Misfit says:

    *gives two thumbs up to Voice of Choice*

    The actions of the protesters are abusive and verge on violence. I will always support those who exercise logic and reasonability.

    • bob d says:

      “The actions of the protesters are abusive and verge on violence.”
      Heck, they explicitly use the fact that some anti-choice wackos are violent as part of their strategy to use fear to coerce people into passively accepting their agenda.  I do believe there’a a word that describes people who do that: “terrorist.”

      • Judas Peckerwood says:

        Exactly — the whole rationale behind this stalking is the implied threat that you could end up like Dr. Tiller (murdered at church), Dr. Slepian (murdered in his home), etc. Keep in mind that all of those who have murdered abortion providers started out as “peaceful” harassers.

      • pharmavixen says:

        I’ve been saying for twenty years that it’s high time the US gov’t acknowledged anti-choice terrorists for what they are and punished them accordingly. 

        • bob d says:

          If it hadn’t been for sympathetic Republican politicians, I think we would have seen a lot more legal action against these groups over the decades as they would have been publicly recognized for what they are.  Instead their tactics have become enshrined as “free speech” even when they clearly went far beyond that.  Post 9-11 there’s this legal cognitive dissonance where reactionary Muslim groups get (rightly) tagged and prosecuted as “terrorists” for doing less than these anti-choice groups do.

          • I think this is slightly less of a problem in parts of the world that have a recent history of terrorism that isn’t exclusively muslim (although that said, the US has had its fair share of home-grown terrorists, but I’m not sure of the label has been thrown around?).

            I grew up where the terrorist ‘persona’ was irish; and then later we had middle-eastern terrorists (and the same stigma we see today was seen then toward the Irish people); so it’s not a term that’s as specific in identifying a demographic as it might be in the rest of the world.  That said history gets forgotten quickly, and say the word ‘terrorist’ to most people here and they’d still likely be thinking of an arab guy with a big beard.

            I think the big problem though is mild-ignorance.  A lot of people use the word terrorist, but most of them don’t stop to think what it actually means or represents; if they did they’d quickly realise that the western-worlds reaction to it is the greatest sign of defeat.

        •  Good luck with that. Have you looked at the Supreme Court lately?

        • MetalPorkchop says:

          “I’ve been saying for twenty years that it’s high time the US gov’t acknowledged anti-choice terrorists for what they are and punished them accordingly. ”

          Except that they won’t, because it involves (Catholic) religion, and when religion is used as an excuse, you can pretty much get away with anything.  I always say that religion has no place in politics.

  4. John says:

    To be clear, Cory, Stave ‘upped the ante’ -after- they picketed on parent-teacher nights, “holding signs with pictures of foetuses and bearing Stave’s name and contact details. There’s even one guy who pickets the dental office of Stave’s brother-in-law.”

    • Andrew Kane says:

       That’s not what the sense of Cory’s article is, and it’s not what the part you quoted means. If you have further information, and explanation or a link would be helpful so that we can know what you mean.

  5. Sagodjur says:

    I was thinking about how much of a misnomer “pro-life” is. At best, you might call them pro-birth. Pro-life would entail caring about life in general, not just the life of a fetus. You would oppose war and the death penalty, and support the best possible healthcare programs, including widely available contraception and sex education, as well as well-funded medical research, well-funded public education, and job support programs since those would decrease unwanted pregnancy and improve the chances of well-cared-for human beings.

    • Guest says:

      There are people out there that hold that point of view. They’re rare, but they exist. It’s not all guns and executions on this side of the line.

      I use pro-life and pro-choice myself, simply as those are the accepted terms, but I’ve always thought it should simply be pro- and anti-abortion. Because, hell, I support choice in a lot of matters, just not this one.

      I know you didn’t ask and I don’t mean to jump down your throat. Just remember that there are some truly pro-life people out there.

      • townandgownie says:

         Again, labeling is important and people who are pro-choice should reject people using any other term.

        Being pro-choice has NO implication as to the pro or con as to abortions. People are free to be against abortions which you would think would lead them to support education on birth control, free or reduced cost of contractions or other strategies to reduce the incidence of abortions.

        But NO one has the right to restrict the basic right of a women to control her own body.

      • The problem with that set of terminology is that it doesn’t work for most people, by definition.

        I wouldn’t say that I’m ‘pro-abortion’ (I don’t think every un-born child should be aborted), but I’m definitely pro-choice.  Whether or not I agree with the practice is irrelevant, I don’t think it should dictate what others do with their own bodies.  ‘Pro-lifers’ put more importance on the life of an un-developed, un-wanted, superfluous entity than they do on the health and well-being of a living, breathing, consenting adult; that’s not pro-life, it’s pro-fetus. And wishing to bring an un-wanted child into the world under the premise of humanity is misguided.

    • bob d says:

      And that’s why “anti-choice” is the most appropriate label – it neatly captures their position – and should be used instead of the misnomer “pro-life” when talking about these sorts.

      • Cefeida says:

        But that is as loaded a misnomer as if you called the pro-choice people anti-life. The pro-lifers don’t believe in taking away a choice, they believe there IS no choice to be made. Similarly, the pro-choicers don’t believe in murdering children, they believe in removing undesired foetuses. 

        They will never come to an understanding, because they believe in fundamentally different things.

        Meanwhile, people like me who believe abortions are sometimes necessary, should be legal, and that only the pregnant woman is able to decide, but also that an abortion is, in fact, the unfortunate choice to euthanise one human being for the benefit of another, end up being tossed from one side of the barricade to the other. We want a sensible, logical, healthy compromise that treats the issue seriously…but no one wants to listen to us because we don’t go around waving signs. Mostly because you can’t fit the issue of abortion into a neat little slogan.

        :/

        • Andrew Kane says:

          “The pro-lifers don’t believe in taking away a choice, they believe there IS no choice to be made.”

          Clearly this is not true, or they would not be out actively protesting against the people making that choice.

          Also, if you actually spoke to many “pro-choice” people I think you would find that your stated view is actually in the majority among them. That “abortion is, in fact, the unfortunate choice to euthanise one human being for the benefit of another” is hardly an exotic view.

          • Cefeida says:

            Your bias is showing, or you just didn’t understand what I wrote. The pro-life stance is that abortion is murder- thus, according to them, there IS no valid choice other than carrying to term. Their fight is not a whimsical desire to deprive people of choice, but to prevent murder.

            Please understand that I am not saying this is a good ideology, but simply that this is the pro-life perspective.  You wouldn’t say that the pro-choicers are out there actively protesting for murder, would you?

            Also, eh? I’ve spoken to plenty of pro-choice people (where by pro-choice I assume you mean decided, activist, the kind who’ve clearly made up their mind). What I find disappointing is that most of them think ‘my body my choice’ ends the discussion, whereas I believe that it merely begins a more difficult discussion.

        • They may believe there is no choice, but are you suggesting there isn’t one?

          Ultimately there is a choice; whether or not to have an abortion, so denying that choice is undeniably anti-choice.

        • wysinwyg says:

          The pro-lifers don’t believe in taking away a choice, they believe there IS no choice to be made.

          Hence “anti-choice.”  You’re not being very consistent.

    • Brainspore says:

      Pro-life would entail caring about life in general, not just the life of a fetus.

      They’re a minority but they’re out there. Most nuns I’ve met would support most of the positions you just detailed, for example. (Though they would probably have a very different opinion of what material was appropriate for a “sex education” course.)

    • townandgownie says:

       They’re not eve “pro-birth” any more considering the new legislation being proposed in some states that prohibit abortion EVEN WHEN THE FETUS IS DEAD or laws which prohibit doctors from telling parents of birth defects which might lead to abortions.

      These people are despicable regardless of the labeling.

      • Jonathan Roberts says:

        “These people” are not as monolithic as you think. There are plenty of people who oppose the actions of militant anti-abortionists, while being pro life (just as there are many who oppose animal cruelty without supporting the actions of certain groups. Just because the groups exist and are effective doesn’t mean they are universally supported). Making out that every proponent of a viewpoint necessarily holds the most extreme view is neither helpful nor productive.

        I’m not from the US and can’t be sure about this, but the bill that I found which seemed to prohibit stillborn abortions (HB 954 in Georgia) specifically excluded removing dead fetuses from the definition of an abortion. That’s not to say the law was wonderfully liberal or anything (aborting fetuses that were not expected to come to full term was banned), just that the main part that many people got worked up about was not actually being proposed. There may be other bills that I’m missing that do ban abortions of dead fetuses, so I’m not going to suggest that the other bills you were talking about are the same.

  6. Chris Landers says:

    A small point, and not to take anything away from the Voice for Choice folks, but all Jezebel’s Cassie Murdoch has done is rewrite a slightly longer column from the Washington Post by Petula Dvorak. The way it’s written in the Jezebel version makes it sound like they talked to the people themselves.

  7. davidasposted says:

    Sadly, this account proves the rule that the most extreme person will win any such dispute. Protesters of the kind mentioned in the Jezebel article cannot be reasoned with, they do not abide by the fact that the U.S. is an ideologically pluralist society, and in other cases they have demonstrated a willingness to go to any length (including murder) to force their own beliefs onto others. Stave is not willing to go to the same lengths–nor would any reasonable person–and therefore he cannot win this fight. It is maddening, and perhaps one of the best examples why the U.S. is simply too large and ideologically diverse for its own good.

  8. abstract_reg says:

    Just out of curiosity, what were Hitler’s opinions on abortion?

    • Judas Peckerwood says:

      Verboten for Aryan women impregnated by Aryan men. As far as  everyone else was concerned — well, you know the story.

    • Cefeida says:

      Having a member of the family who survived the Nazi medical experiment camps, I have to say, you really don’t want to know :( 

      (although we all should know.)

  9. Judas Peckerwood says:

    As a longtime pro-choice activist, I personally don’t know anyone with more courage than the doctors and clinic staff who make women’s reproductive freedom a reality in the face of constant threats from violent, insane theocrats.

  10. Jeff Goss says:

    I’m pretty divided on the whole issue, largely because there is a lot more emphasis placed on access to abortions and even Cory’s flippant use of the term anti-choice.  I’d be a lot more onboard if people like this spent more time on access to contraceptives and counseling – the best choice for 99% of these people was to use their choice to make better decisions on what method of birth control to use or what loser to hook up with.

    As an atheist who doesn’t believe in any god, my take is that at a certain point the “it’s my body” rants break down in that fact that you are the caretaker of another life, and that is not your body in there, it just shares half your DNA.  Basically I don’t see this little life as going to some big white guy in the sky to look after, and you played your part in getting the whole thing going, take some responsibility.

    But I can’t stand the lot who preach abstinence and hellfire at you either.  The fact is that a lot of these women are little more than girls themselves, they’ve made perhaps some choices they wish were otherwise, and need more understanding and counseling to see whether they should keep, give for adoption, or yes, abort.  But again, more avoidance to limit the trauma in the first place would go a lot further than just rushing to ‘easy’ choices to abort.

    • Judas Peckerwood says:

      “I’d be a lot more onboard if people like this spent more time on access to contraceptives and counseling – the best choice for 99% of these people was to use their choice to make better decisions on what method of birth control to use or what loser to hook up with.”

      What rock do you live under? The extremists who oppose abortion are leading the effort to cut off access to birth control and factual sex education — and have been largely successful, increasing the number of unintended pregnancies.

      “…you played your part in getting the whole thing going, take some responsibility.”

      Yeah, tell that to victims of rape and incest, and those women denied access to birth control — or those who just aren’t prepared to be a parent.

      You’re exactly the kind of willfully clueless guy who I hope my sisters/female friends/any woman never has the misfortune of meeting.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Your straw man is on fire.

    • Guest says:

      they see me trollin’ / they hatin’

    • bumpngrindcore says:

      How about if part of the emphasis we put on contraceptives and counseling is in the form of IUD’s that men have to insert in their urethra. 
      But of course, heaven forbid we ever talk about contraception when it’s something which men have to do. 

      Also, love your reference to ‘easy choices to abort’. Oh yes, so easy to decide to undergo a major medical procedure, actually, it’s just a walk in the park, abortion clinics are just a girls only holiday resort where we drink cocktails on banana lounges by the pool while having our vaginas discreetly vacuumed out by handsome shirtless men. Sshhh, don’t tell anyone! 

      • Jeff Goss says:

         exactly. You have decided before the fact that I am anti-women, when in fact abortion is such a male solution.  It’s not easy. Many women are scarred for life by these decisions.  All I said is that I would respect these people more if they would do more to help people have access to contraceptives tan to abortion.

        • bumpngrindcore says:

          Sorry dear, hate to break this to you but when you want to restrict women’s rights to reproductive freedom, you are indeed, anti-women. At least have the balls to admit it.And I’ll wager more women are scarred for life by unwanted births than by termination. If I wanted your ideology in my vagina I’d be having sex with you, ok? Good, now run along and live your life and I’ll live mine. 

  11. Bob Brinkman says:

    I say, buy the sidewalk in front of the clinic from the city and then arrest the protestors as trespassers. I mean, it works for the Mormons in Salt Lake City…. just sayin’.

  12. Guest says:

    So I’m pro-life (or anti-choice, however you want to put it), but I think that this is a good thing that Stave and Voice of Choice are doing, because there are protesters who absolutely cross the line of what is appropriate.

    However, one thing about the article. This line:

    “If only abortion opponents had the same respect for people doing what they were allowed by law to do.”

    Could we get some sort of qualifier in there? As an intelligent, respectful man who agrees with the sentiment, it’s a bit infuriating to see all abortion opponents lumped together in this fashion. I know, our side does it too, but I’m not the one writing those articles.

    It was just a bit disheartening to see an article about such a good cause contain something that seems to miss the point.

    Having said that, glad you called attention to this. This will probably draw me a lot of boos, but I’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. However, it’s important that people like me work legally to do that and don’t encroach on the private lives and civil liberties of others. It’s also important to accept that the laws as they stand are what they are, even if people like myself strongly disagree.

    Kudos again to Voice of Choice for going after those who cross the line and leaving fair and honest people be.

    • Amphigorey says:

      You are a forced birther.

    • abstract_reg says:

       If you are a level headed Pro-Lifer, than it is your duty to try your best to stop the idiocy on your side. On the pro-choice side we have arguments All The Time, and we reach a consensus and move on/ break-up into a fractured mess that makes us easy to be drowned out by monolithic pro-lifers.
      You want our respect, earn it.

      • Guest says:

        If you really believe that all pro-choice people are level-headed and rational, and all pro-lifers are “monolithic” and idiots, I respectfully disagree.

        Furthermore, I’m doing exactly what you said. I encourage my far right and far left leaning friends (and you have no reason to believe some random guy online, but yes, I have both) to be civil and respect laws and personal rights. I have no desire to hold public office or work for an advocacy group, so I’m not sure what else I can do.

        I said what I said specifically to demonstrate that there are rational people who also happen to be pro-life. My apologies if I missed the mark.

        • penguinchris says:

          Part of the problem here is that you describe yourself as rational, but your argument is at its heart illogical, as put forward by yourself:

          This will probably draw me a lot of boos, but I’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. However, it’s important that people like me work legally to do that and don’t encroach on the private lives and civil liberties of others. It’s also important to accept that the laws as they stand are what they are, even if people like myself strongly disagree.

          You say you want to work legally to overturn the court decision, and not encroach on the private lives and civil liberties in the process. OK, that’s rational. 

          But by overturning the ruling, you’re then enabling the encroachment on private lives and civil liberties of others. So you’re passing the buck.

          This is the same issue with gay marriage, and in particular Prop. 8 in California. What proponents of these types of measures (including yourself) are doing is proposing limitations on private lives and civil liberties. It’s really little different in the end if you do this by terrorizing people or by trying to get it passed as law.

          This is why this argument will never end. Your side – and yes @boingboing-5e751896e527c862bf67251a474b3819:disqus  I consider ‘pro-life’ people to be fairly monolithic in this regard – is trying to limit civil liberties which is despicable even if there were a rational reason to do so, which in this case there isn’t (though I admit there are some reasonably nuanced arguments to be made there).

          • Cefeida says:

            This is the part you’re missing: according to the pro-life people, the pro-choice side is also trying to limit a rather important civil liberty- the liberty of a child to live. You don’t have to agree with that point of view to understand that it exists. If someone believes that abortion is equal to murder, then why wouldn’t they want the murderer’s civil liberties to take second place to the victim’s safety? But if someone believes abortion is just a medical procedure, then, naturally, they find the desire to protect the foetus absurd, and any limitation of their right to abort an unjust encroachment.

            Your argument for the moral upper hand of the pro-choice side is based on the notion that the pro-choice side has the moral upper hand! It’s going in circles. 

            In fact, THAT’s why the argument will never end. Both sides are forming arguments based on two entirely different premises, and there is no satisfactory common ground.

            Anyway. The comparison to gay marriage is rather weak, as that debate doesn’t ever have to touch on someone’s right to live or die, or on whether a biological entity is human or not. Also, gay marriage involves consent on both sides, whereas abortion does not. Whether abortion, like gay marriage, also involves two human beings, is questionable. That’s the part that makes it difficult.

            As to your impression that pro-life people are monolithic and pro-choice people are not…I think that’s biased and silly.

        • abstract_reg says:

          Keep it up. When you run into people that are going to far tell them so.
          I agree that the pro-choicers are not all level-headed, but the stereotypical problem progressives have is that small disagreements divide our group. Where on the right, it didn’t used to be like that. (Now that the Republican Party has gone clearly insane I suppose the right will be falling to bits as well.)

      • Cefeida says:

        Your side. Our side. This is the damned problem. I have an opinion on the subject (see above) and yet I refuse to subscribe to either side, because neither side fits my expectations. And yet people will always insist on labeling me.

        Hoff11 did describe himself as pro-life, but he also explained how his position differs from the extremists described in the article, AND how he supports Voice for Choice’s actions. And yet he still gets told off for being part of some despicable monolith.Wtf?

        • abstract_reg says:

           Didn’t mean to tell him off, just to point out that we are all have a responsibility to speak when things are wrong. (For each person’s definition of wrong.) If one doesn’t speak, one is part of the problem.

    • bumpngrindcore says:

       “I’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. However, it’s important that people like me work legally to do that and don’t encroach on the private lives and civil liberties of others”
      Umm, not to burst your bubble or anything, but you do realise that by overturning a woman’s right to abortion you’re kinda encroaching on the private and civil liberties of others, don’t you?

      Oh, that’s right, women don’t count as citizens in your mind. Keep going, nothing to see here people, Ima just take my shoes off and go back to the kitchen. 

    • wysinwyg says:

      Could we get some sort of qualifier in there? As an intelligent, respectful man who agrees with the sentiment, it’s a bit infuriating to see all abortion opponents lumped together in this fashion.

      It makes sense to talk of sides here because literally no one on the pro-choice side pickets pro-life folks or calls them at home to harass them, etc.  This is actually the closest I’ve heard to such a thing and it’s apparently pretty tame.

      This will probably draw me a lot of boos, but I’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. However, it’s important that people like me work legally to do that and don’t encroach on the private lives and civil liberties of others.

      Banning abortions or adding burdensome requirements to the process will encroach on the private lives and civil liberties of others whether or not it’s done legally.  I really don’t understand this attitude.  Like, if I worked really hard for the repeal of the nineteenth amendment and got Congress and the states to vote on repeal and it was successful wouldn’t I still be depriving women of their right to vote even if I did so legally?

      Banning abortions is also stupid in a pragmatic public health sense.  If you’re against abortion advise your female relatives not to have them and be done with it. 

  13. Teller says:

    Yay for protesters! no wait, Boo for protesters! Yay for passion over issues! i mean, Boo for passion over issues!  Dudes hacked their websites! bwahahaha! Dudes have their phone numbers! gasp!

  14. petz79 says:

    I think, Freedom of Speech is too much overrated in America. Seriously, this is pure and dangerous harassment.

    • abstract_reg says:

       Fact.

    • wysinwyg says:

      I think, Freedom of Speech is too much overrated in America.

      No, it’s seriously undervalued elsewhere.  Freedom of speech is the most fundamental right.  Without it you can’t even claim to have any rights at all.

      Seriously, this is pure and dangerous harassment.

      Yes, this is true.

  15. MrEricSir says:

    This is what happens when you feed the trolls.

  16. DamnitDani says:

    I see such passion erupt for a fetus. And yet, once the baby is born, not a shit is given about the quality of its life. “Oh! Give it up for adoption!” you say. Yes, and let the poor child be sent to an abusive foster family or grow up in the system without any kind of parental figure. That sounds SO much better than aborting it before it even has the cognitive ability to mull over its sad future.

  17. Guest says:

    Seriously. If you allow a multitude of comments like “pro-life people are violent”, expect a little sass. Bigotry and false classification are not acceptable in the 21st century, OK? Really, this was all starting to sound a bit like a GOP debate, with all the insane rhetoric and whatnot.

    Truth be told… I think Voice of Choice did the right thing. If you DoS someone by telephone, you deserve to have it shoved right back in your face. Surely this point of view is no shock to the people who actually know me.

    In any case, now you know way more about violent people than you probably cared to. I make no apologies to any of the sandy ostriches that may have sustained permanent neck injury in the process.

  18. kanweg says:

    It would be nice anti-abortionists showed some support for the purported almighty powers of their deity and trust that their deity will punish the sinners once they’re dead. This demonstrated lack of trust in the almighty powers of their deity is appalling, especially in view of the fact that they can’t show having received personal, unambiguous, and written directions from their deity, not to mention that an all powerful deity can stop the practice (or the perceived need thereof) at a whim.

    • abstract_reg says:

       I always felt this way.
       If there is a hell, great! Then leave me alone while I’m here, and feel safe in the knowledge that I will be punished for all the awesome sex I’ve been having.

    • chgoliz says:

      Absolutely.  Either you believe that your god is omniscient/omnipotent or you don’t.

      It seems the height of arrogance for so many people to think their god isn’t running things well enough, so they have to step in and fix things.

    • Guest says:

      Oh God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
      Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
      God say, “No.” Abe say, “What ?”
      God say, “You can do what you want Abe, but
      The next time you see me comin’ you better run”

  19. bumpngrindcore says:

    Holy crap BB, is it just my imagination, or are you being inundated with mouth-breathing idiots lately? Never have I seen so may deleted comments here as I have in the last few months. Aren’t you people satisfied calling talk-back radio and writing to the local rag? Why disturb the adults while they’re talking? Go back to reddit or yahoo news, kids.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Disqus allows comments from non-BB users.

      • Charlie B says:

         It’s really degraded the level of discourse noticeably.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Once upon a time, when it was just BB commenters, people knew not to feed the trolls. Now, the most obvious troll posts get dozens of replies before we get a chance to look at them. Nesting exacerbates the problem.

          • benher says:

            If there was a chance for BB regulars to voice their discontent with Diskqkz in a post somewhere, I unfortunately missed it… so yeah, I’ll just add that here. ;)

  20. Amphigorey says:

    1. Nobody asked you.

    2. Your particular hobby horse has nothing to do with this post. That’s why nobody is talking about it. 

  21. Judas Peckerwood says:

    “Sheesh, my ex-wife and I even had an abortion once…”

    No, you didn’t. No more than you’ve ever given birth.

  22. Jerril says:

    American and Canadian women flock to these places to subvert the parental rights laws in their usual place of residence.

    No, they flock there for the economic opportunities and nice climate, and possibly because the local politics agree with them. Along with all the men that flock to those two provinces.

    The general immigration trend to the western end of Canada is if anything weighted towards men, due to the kinds of jobs on the oilpatch and the way those jobs are still male-dominated.

    Anyway, thanks for sticking up for everyone’s rights… when it serves your public image, that is. I’ll always look up to you for sticking it to those who rape, kidnap and extort. /rolls_eyes

    The massive disenfranchisement of convicted criminals in the US has featured repeatedly on Boingboing I’m pretty sure.

  23. Marc Mielke says:

    No, even actual men can’t put up with your MRA crap. Nobody but you cares if you got the horns put on you. 

  24. Judas Peckerwood says:

    “Clearly you haven’t fathered children, because if you did, you wouldn’t be talking out of your ass like a total fucking moron.”

    (from your previous comment) “Sheesh, my ex-wife and I even had an abortion once, so it’s not like I’m entirely ignorant of both sides of the argument. Of course, I didn’t know she was sleeping with two other people at the time.” 

    Sounds like you might not have fathered any either. Can’t say that I blame her.

  25. pharmavixen says:

    Women’s right to choose has nothing, as in zero, nada, to do with father’s rights. 

  26. Guest says:

    I am left to wonder what assumptions you make about the sperm donor.

  27. Ipo says:

     The father obviously had some input

  28. Ambiguity says:

    The person who could cure cancer is murdered by a “doctor”

    That’s OK. They guy who invented the virus who killed everyone was murdered too, so we’re actually still in positive territory.

    If you were really for choice you would let the baby choose if it wants to live.

    In most places they won’t even allow terminal patients to make that decision; my guess is that voluntary suicide laws would be even less popular than abortion laws amongst certain vocal groups. So while I salute your civil libertarian proposal, I don’t think it would fly too well.

  29. grimc says:

    If you were really for choice you would let the baby choose if it wants to live.

    If yours was representative of the kind of thinking I’d have to put up with, I know what I’d choose.

  30. chgoliz says:

    In a similar vein, a dying child cannot legally compel a parent to undergo a simple blood test to see whether or not they would be compatible for a bone marrow or other transplant.

Leave a Reply