Your Idiot of the Week

Some anti-abortion zealot (Pete) decided to saddle up his high-horse and take down an evil, vile, pro-abortion advocate (Caroline) on his blog (and I use those terms purposefully; you're not pro-life or pro-choice).
Sorry ma'am, if you hadn't had sex you wouldn't have gotten pregnant, it's not the HMO's fault for not supporting your promiscuity while not married.

One small problem though; Pete is an idiot. The article in question was on, say it with me, The Onion. Missing moutains of satire and deftly proving the point of the original article, Pete goes on to call Caroline a "murderer" and graciously offers to pray "for the suffering which you will endure when you realize what you have done." That's right, he's going to pray for her suffering, not to lessen that suffering, but just to ask God to make sure she gets what she deserves, apparently.

He then leaves his readers with a call to action.
Speak out against abortion. Don't just complain about it.

Consider that done, Pete. I'm not complaining, I am speaking out. Against you. You're an idiot. You represent all that is wrong with your side of the debate; you're a man, you're too emotional to process basic forms of communication, and you use religion as a weapon, not a a tool. Abortion is not a black and white issue. Abortion is something that requires deep philosphical debate. Abortion is something that is deeply, deeply personnal.

It's also something you need to let go because you obvisouly don't have the mental faculties to participate in the discussion.

You can read the entire, mind-numbingly idiotic post at March Together For Life: Murder without conscience. I highly recommend reading the comments.

Comments

  1. "you're a man, you're too emotional to process basic forms of communication"

    haha...since when have "men" been accused of being too emotional? Sorry, I think that argument is reserved for the other sex.

    But be that as it may, your wholesale rejection of Pete's arguments against abortion betray your own bias as well. Maybe you don't like the fact that Pete thinks God's law is more important than your personal opinion?

    Sure, abortion is a deeply personal issue. Lot's of things are "deeply personal". That doesn't justify them in the slightest, not ethically, not morally and certainly not under the code of law. If you want to argue for abortion, do so on it's own merits and not merely at the expense of others.

    You can start with proving scientifically that aborted fetuses are not human. Roe v. Wade didn't even bother with that gem. But in your apparent wisdom I'm sure you'll knock it out just fine eh?

    ReplyDelete
  2. But on a less serious note, I will say it is pretty funny that "Pete" didn't get that the article (and entire site) was satirical in nature, even when people told him in the comments....he posted yet ANOTHER article indicating he still hadn't quite gotten the gist of it.

    Ahhh well....like I always say, "Just say no: don't give computers to old people."

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, which is it, he's an idiot for not getting it or he's making a profound point?

    You're right, of course, I do have a bias. My bias is that I'm not qualified to make that decision. You also misread my post; Pete isn't emotional because he's a man, he's a man who is also too emotional about the topic. Being a man doesn't automatically mean you can't be emotional, it means you don't have the first clue about what it means to terminate a pregnancy. Men, by their very gender, are not capable of relating to what a woman must go through when they decide to have an abortion or choose to give up a child. I think it's very easy for men who, let's face it, run rough-shot over any and all "God's law" to make sweeping statements about $TOPIC. Males have dominated the church, and not through any mandate from God, I might add.

    You also betray a bias in your comments. You assume that I'm some godless heathen (my personal opinion is greater than God's law) and that I reject anti-abortion advocates simply based on their religious affiliation. That's not true; I reject most anti-abortion advocates because they don't know the first thing about the topic they are ranting about. From church to church, denomination to denomination, the definition of "life" varies. That can't be, either philosophically or scientifically.

    The hypocrisy is also a little hard to take. Anyone who calls themselves "pro-life" with a straight face and doesn't have anti-war stickers on their car is just picking the fashionable side on both issues. "Pro-life" means, and to remain meaningful must be defined as, advocating for life no matter what. Supporting open war and opposing abortion is, simply, hypocrisy.

    For what it’s worth, I do think fetuses are humans, I just think we need to be careful about how we grant and, more importantly, take away rights. This concept that all abortion is bad or all abortion is good is stupid. Life is not like that; life has gray in it.

    You challenge me to debate abortion on its merits, which I will say right now I’m not going to do. My post was to mock an obviously incompetent commenter on an already over-participated-in debate. There are far more intelligent people than either you or I who have devoted a great deal more thought and effort on the topic than the two of us combined could produce. That said, I would challenge you to do the same and debate anti-abortion with the same logic and detachment, and leave the sermonizing for Sunday’s. Not all of us give a rip about your particular flavor of religion and don’t find it compelling in the least.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

RIP Tom Petty

Google Inbox: A classic Google product

Evernote