Taking satire way too literally

July 11, 2006 5:09 AM

Pro-life blogger just doesn't get it. (via)
posted by May Kasahara (158 comments total)

It's worth noting that in the comments, both pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike point out that this blogger's an idiot.
posted by May Kasahara at 5:11 AM on July 11, 2006

That is hilarious. Especially since it took the blogger 7 years to find that article.
posted by TedW at 5:16 AM on July 11, 2006

The Onion is a name that intimates the media's multilayered look at the issues. Maybe they should change the name of the rag to The Garlic Press.
posted by DenOfSizer at 5:20 AM on July 11, 2006

Where has someone been for the last ten years that he doesn't know that the Onion is satire?
posted by octothorpe at 5:21 AM on July 11, 2006

I actually had the domain "onionarticlebelieved.com" registered for a while, intending to use it to highlight incidents just like this. (I think I was inspired by the Beijing Evening News.) Now I regret letting it lapse...
posted by staggernation at 5:21 AM on July 11, 2006

Ha ha, red state mouthbreathers are dummies! Oh man, I've got the munchies.
posted by intermod at 5:22 AM on July 11, 2006

Goodness me, the 'just doesn't get it' follow-up post is staggering. To not get it the first time can, just maybe, be excused, to not get it after - what? - a hundred people have explained the joke is... well, totally unsurprising going given the beliefs of this kind of militant 'pro-life' person.
posted by jack_mo at 5:22 AM on July 11, 2006

Hottie, me thinks.
posted by nostrada at 5:27 AM on July 11, 2006

We are talking about a woman who supports the murder of over 3,000 babies/human beings every single day. We are talking about a woman who supports the suctioning out of brains from human beings to collapse their skulls in order to remove their dead carcases from the women who have chosen to kill their children.

I just wanted to say, I very much support the right of women to suction out the brains of their unborn children, as much as 3,000 times a day. I wish more of them would consider this option.

I would support a program where women were paid to have abortions. After two, however, your uterus gets ripped out. Pro-abortion y'all.
posted by Witty at 5:30 AM on July 11, 2006

Yeah, that second post is sort of astonishing. He still seems to think "Caroline Weber" exists. Not to mention citing that lengthy conversation with some poor woman who is clearly just trying to get this psycho to go away. And this:

Hmm, let's look up the term satire:

“witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"”

Um, I think you looked up "sarcasm."
posted by staggernation at 5:31 AM on July 11, 2006

Won't somebody think of the children?!
posted by Jimbob at 5:32 AM on July 11, 2006

Fake. The replies are too one-sided and well-written.
posted by LarryC at 5:34 AM on July 11, 2006

Yeah, that second post is sort of astonishing. He still seems to think "Caroline Weber" exists.

This comes from being used to believing everything you read or are told.
posted by Jimbob at 5:35 AM on July 11, 2006

Yeah, not only is this satire, but it's clear, by the actual meaning of satire, that it's anti-abortion (or at least anti-taking-abortion-lightly): "A work, as a novel or play, that exposes folly by the use of humor or irony." The folly in question is obviously that which is being exagerrated in the article. It's sad not because the blogger in question is missing the point, but because said point supports his view.

MetaFilter: Witty language used to convey insults or scorn
posted by Plutor at 5:41 AM on July 11, 2006

Jimbob writes "This comes from being used to believing everything you read or are told."

You really owe me money !
posted by elpapacito at 5:41 AM on July 11, 2006

You know, all kidding aside, I found this paragraph very telling:

"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."

This is the real reason we're having the abortion debate. It's not about the child, it's about punishing women for "immoral" behavior.

These people are not pro-life. They are anti-sex.
posted by Malor at 5:42 AM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Wow... just - wow. That's astounding.
posted by antifuse at 5:43 AM on July 11, 2006

(related thought)... nearly always, when you're talking with abortion opponents, if you ask them if they believe in allowing abortions in the case of rape, they will say 'yes'. If you press them for why, the answer will usually be, "because the woman isn't at fault."

For these people, just having sex when unmarried is a sin. The idea behind preventing abortions is not to save babies, but to punish sluts.
posted by Malor at 5:48 AM on July 11, 2006

Wait. So...you're telling me that those hijackers are not surprised to be in hell?
posted by ColdChef at 5:53 AM on July 11, 2006

if you ask them if they believe in allowing abortions in the case of rape, they will say 'yes'

I haven't always found this myself. I've heard a lot of abortion opponents answering this question with "the baby could be adopted out" or "the mother can still provide a caring home and will learn to love the child". But apart from this, I completely agree with your argument. Anti-abortion activists aren't about saving lives - most of them couldn't give a shit about human lives once they're born - it's about controlling women and keeping them in their place.
posted by Jimbob at 5:54 AM on July 11, 2006

"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."

"For these people, just having sex when unmarried is a sin. The idea behind preventing abortions is not to save babies, but to punish sluts."

What, married women never have abortions?

I agree with the sentiment that the pro-life movement is about controlling women, but come on.
posted by JamieStar at 6:01 AM on July 11, 2006

THE ANTI-SEX LEAGUE IS WATCHING YOU.
posted by loquacious at 6:01 AM on July 11, 2006

...masturbate.
posted by loquacious at 6:02 AM on July 11, 2006

Yeah, not only is this satire, but it's clear, by the actual meaning of satire, that it's anti-abortion (or at least anti-taking-abortion-lightly): "A work, as a novel or play, that exposes folly by the use of humor or irony." The folly in question is obviously that which is being exagerrated in the article. It's sad not because the blogger in question is missing the point, but because said point supports his view.

Actually, I disagree with you there. I think the article was meant to poke fun at the term "pro-abortion," which is a poor descriptor of the abortion rights crowd.

As some commenters to the linked post point out over there, no one wants an abortion in the sense that they want candy or to go to the movies. People who are "pro" abortion would by-an-large rather that they never happened, in other words. It's just that we have come to the conclusion that it is the lesser of many bad outcomes in a less than desirable situation.
posted by illovich at 6:02 AM on July 11, 2006

I'm sure that the intelligent discussion that comes from this will result in many minds being changed on the subject.
posted by spock at 6:11 AM on July 11, 2006

Hottie, me thinks.

It's thinking like that that lead to abortions, nostrada.
posted by spock at 6:13 AM on July 11, 2006

Yes, I've met people who actually believed that abortions were casual, fun operations that women went through between parties and drinking binges. The Onion article satirises this.
posted by elgilito at 6:14 AM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

illovich: "Actually, I disagree with you there. I think the article was meant to poke fun at the term "pro-abortion," which is a poor descriptor of the abortion rights crowd."

Hm, that's a good point. Just goes to show you that satire is a thorny beast. Especially The Onion's. I don't read it that much because I generally don't find it either humorous or entertaining, but I do recognize the quality and intelligence in the writing.
posted by Plutor at 6:17 AM on July 11, 2006

That blogger just doesn't get much, does she? That woman she was having the conversation with in the second post was fairly obviously not being literal, either reactively trolling or just trying to get the woman (and her unwelcome intrusion) to go away, yet the blogger treats her conversation as 100% literal.

It seems this woman may have little capacity for subtlety or understanding anything other than literal speech.

Perhaps there's something deeper psychological cause behind the beliefs of many people who are very literalist in their beliefs (fundamentalists of all stripes for example): a very real incapacity to understand sarcasm, satire, irony, or anything else that requires you to understand speech/text on multiple levels. A solid understanding of a religious text would require a very layered reading to understand the context, meaning, and intent.

(disclaimer: may not represent all anti-choicers; YMMV)
posted by 1024x768 at 6:23 AM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Stegasaurus of the Week

(From the comments on the first one.)

I find it hilarious and scary that this person exists. Unless, of course, this in itself is cleverly disguised satire, in which case, hats of to you, sir. As Colbert would say, ya got me.
posted by anomie at 6:24 AM on July 11, 2006

Looking at the comments, it's nice to see when the pro-life supporters can at least identify the fact that they have plenty of idiots on their side. Then again, I guess every side in any possible debate has its share of idiots.
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 6:29 AM on July 11, 2006

Marriage is no guarantee.
posted by GoodJob! at 6:32 AM on July 11, 2006

From the comments:

I'm pro life, but sweet Jesus you're an idiot. For your next post, how about a passionate speech on the need to immediately free Prince Albert from the can?

Well said.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:33 AM on July 11, 2006

It's not about the child, it's about punishing women for 'immoral' behavior.
Excellent blog post on the distinction.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:38 AM on July 11, 2006

As a matter of fact, call me a dolt, because in the beginning I really did think it was real. Why? because I meet women like her in the field all the time.

WHO?! Who has this moronic blogger ever met that is really like that? Who on Earth says "wheee! an abortion!"

Clearly this person lives in a reality not defined by the actual events or human beings the rest of us encounter.
posted by thekilgore at 6:40 AM on July 11, 2006

Hmm, let's look up the term satire:
“witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"”
Either way, I think I did a good job of turning the “satire” right back at them, don’t you?

No.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:44 AM on July 11, 2006

Anti-abortion activists aren't about saving lives - most of them couldn't give a shit about human lives once they're born - it's about controlling women and keeping them in their place.

I think a lot of them just haven't thought it through. I used to call myself anti-abortion, and now I realize that's really the right term for me — I hate abortions and wish they never had to happen, but I accept that we have to give women the option of having them, that having abortion as a legal option is the lesser of two evils.
posted by orange swan at 6:48 AM on July 11, 2006

I call bullshit. That blog was definitely definately photoshopped.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:50 AM on July 11, 2006

TedW said: "That is hilarious. Especially since it took the blogger 7 years to find that article."

The reason the 1999 story was picked up was because The Onion is having a 10 year retrospective and the abortion story was featured front page last Thursday.

That said, I can't vouch for whether the blog posting is a meta-joke or not.
posted by bhouston at 6:53 AM on July 11, 2006

Either way, I think I did a good job of turning the “satire” right back at them, don’t you?

That's rich.
posted by caddis at 6:53 AM on July 11, 2006

Kirth, ITYM that blog was enhanced using Adobe Photoshop. Ixnay on the tradeverbing.
posted by cortex at 6:54 AM on July 11, 2006

Posts like this make it clear that a lot of "pro-lifers" really DO believe that "pro-abortion" people are psychotic blood-lusting murderers.

The sad thing is, from an evolutionary standpoint (which of course is flawed, rite?), these people are the ones who are reproducing more, and passing on the anti-choice message to their vast number of offspring.

Meanwhile, the more intelligent part of the population who realize the impact that over-population has on the earth is voluntarily thinning out their numbers...

It's survival of the stupidest. And it all adds up to more red-state voters in the long run.
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 6:56 AM on July 11, 2006

RE: TechnoLustLuddite

Generally, evolution doesn't select for "intelligence" loosy defined, it selects for the competitive ability to out reproduce -- which may in a secondary way select for some types of intelligence.
posted by bhouston at 7:02 AM on July 11, 2006

cortex, it was satire. There was no intent on my part to diminish or infringe on the awesome trademark potency of Adobe^® Photoshop^TM.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:03 AM on July 11, 2006

You know, I'm familiar with "satire". Your scornful, self-absorbed liberal attacks on the integrity of American corporations' intellectual property is disgusting, no matter how you try to dress it up or pass it off.
posted by cortex at 7:08 AM on July 11, 2006

Man, where is Bevets when you need him?
posted by c13 at 7:08 AM on July 11, 2006

posted by eisbaer at 7:11 AM on July 11, 2006

mmmmm sweet sweet sanctimonious idiocy.
posted by Doorstop at 7:12 AM on July 11, 2006

Aren't you guys aware that March Together for Life is, itself, a long-running satire of the pro-orphan community?
posted by Captaintripps at 7:16 AM on July 11, 2006

You know, I'm familiar with "satire". Your scornful, self-absorbed liberal attacks on the integrity of American corporations' intellectual property is disgusting, no matter how you try to dress it up or pass it off.

Spoken like a true lackey of the Capitalist overlords! Do you find it necessary to remove your boot from the neck of the poor when you kiss up to the Man?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:17 AM on July 11, 2006

posted by anotherpanacea at 7:19 AM on July 11, 2006

hilarious, thanks.
posted by fungible at 7:20 AM on July 11, 2006

Dang it! The blogger was in my neighborhood last week, and I missed him.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:21 AM on July 11, 2006

when you kiss up to the Man

Somehow I'm not surprised to see the homosexual agenda rear its head. More like Filth Gerson, I think.
posted by cortex at 7:33 AM on July 11, 2006

What amazes me is the number of people who took the time to tell her she was a "fuckwad" or "retard" etc. Most of them sound less literate than her (although able to recognize humor, esp. satire, something most of us are able to do.

You'd think that after a hundred people told her it was satire people would leave her alone.

Although this was funny: Wow, you're obtuse! But I won't criticize you; I'll pray for you.
posted by kozad at 7:36 AM on July 11, 2006

)
posted by kozad at 7:37 AM on July 11, 2006

I would support a program where women were paid to have abortions. After two, however, your uterus gets ripped out. Pro-abortion y'all.

my.

does that mean, in the Witty-led alternate-universe Congress, men would have their gonads "ripped out" after causing two unwanted pregnancies?

also, would retroactive abortions of internet jackasses be legal? that i would support. retroactive abortion y'all.
posted by Hat Maui at 7:38 AM on July 11, 2006

does that mean, in the Witty-led alternate-universe Congress, men would have their gonads "ripped out" after causing two unwanted pregnancies?

That would require massive amounts of anti-Witty.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:41 AM on July 11, 2006

Don't feed the Witty.
posted by clevershark at 7:42 AM on July 11, 2006

My favourite comment:

Don't listen to these heathens Pete, you know in your heart of hearts that Caroline Weber is just as real as I am. Keep believing child.
Jesus Christ | 07.11.06 - 3:15 am
posted by MattWPBS at 7:44 AM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

"I'm having an abortion and I can't wait!"
posted by Sidthecat at 7:47 AM on July 11, 2006

posted by Mayor Curley at 7:47 AM on July 11, 2006

"retroactive abortion y'all."

Isn't that Limp Bizkit's new album?
posted by klangklangston at 7:48 AM on July 11, 2006

From his blog:

What are the things we do in our battle against abortion?

> Pray
> Debate
> Protest
> Use signs
> Outreach
> Crisis pregnancy
> Cross our fingers
> Insert yours here
> Legal battles

That's what causes abortions, silly!
posted by Deathalicious at 7:51 AM on July 11, 2006

Hey - anyone want to join me in a picket line at Best Buy to keep total freaking idiots from buying computers?
posted by thekilgore at 7:52 AM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Wow. What a total asshat.
posted by agregoli at 7:55 AM on July 11, 2006

A quote from one of his other posts:

Don't bother telling me that there is no comparison between Adolph Hitler and the mass murder of babies in America and around the world today. Over 15 million human beings are slaughtered by abortion every single year around the world. Over one million in America alone, right in front of you, right in your neighborhood. Adolph was an amateur.
posted by Pendragon at 8:04 AM on July 11, 2006

Over 15 million human beings are slaughtered by abortion every single year around the world.

Just what we need--another 15 million people a year populating the planet.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:12 AM on July 11, 2006

Mayor Curley - you are rocking my world.
posted by chrissyboy at 8:17 AM on July 11, 2006

Michael Sandel, (yes, that Sandel) while working on the presidential Council on Bioethics, wrung this statement from expert witness John M. Opitz, MD:

Sandel: "...[W]hat percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant or are otherwise lost?"
Opitz: "Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost."

Hmmm.... so, in 2003, there were about 4 million babies born in the United States. Given the most conservative estimate of 60% lost before parturition, that means that 6 million embryos were destroyed by natural causes. This is convenient, as it is the most popular estimate for Jewish deaths during the Shoah (Holocaust). The CDC recorded 857,000 abortions in 2000, so, to keep the numbers round, let's say 1 million.

For 2003:
Humans: 1 million
God: 6 million
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:18 AM on July 11, 2006

I love how the picture of Miss Caroline Weber links to her picture and nothing else. Those pro-lifers need practice using their internet machines.
posted by hellbient at 8:31 AM on July 11, 2006

Wow.
God is worse than Hitler.
Who knew?
posted by Floydd at 8:35 AM on July 11, 2006

"Fail to implant"? Why are you so afraid to say "are murdered"?
posted by staggernation at 8:37 AM on July 11, 2006

Ah, this debate bitchfest again. Personally I fit the profile of a pro-choicer all the way down to my well-educated, godless little toes. Just one problem:

I'm adopted.

Part of me is pro-choice, but part of me is also really fucking glad that there were no Abortions R Us clinics just down the street in rural Alberta in the 70s. Religion the cause? Sure. Religion the result? Hell no. I'm living the high life on a cloud that wasn't meant for me.

Think about little old me the next time you knee-jerkingly rip on pro-lifers from the comfort of your charmed lives where you have such crazy advantages as knowing your parents and whether or not you'll be bald in 5 years. Some of 'em are just really glad for not being sucked through a straw.

Rant over.
posted by jimmythefish at 8:42 AM on July 11, 2006

God is worse than Hitler.

God made this man in His own image, maybe?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:44 AM on July 11, 2006

Blazecock,

As someone who attends a school which contains architects, I claim in many cases form has fuck all to do with function.
posted by jimmythefish at 8:47 AM on July 11, 2006

I'm also adopted. Were I aborted in 1968, the year I was born, I would probably not have an opinion on the subject now. But since I wasn't and I do, I have an opinion: I'm pro-choice.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:51 AM on July 11, 2006

jimmythefish writes "which contains architects"

Interesting, which shape better contains an architect ?
posted by elpapacito at 8:54 AM on July 11, 2006

jimmythefish --

as a fellow adoptee, i can relate to your rant somewhat.

however, let's say that you had been aborted.

doesn't that mean you wouldn't be around to care that you had been aborted?
posted by Hat Maui at 8:55 AM on July 11, 2006

FACK. foiled by astro zombie yet again.

(well, ok, i don't remember being foiled by astro zombie before, but it sounds better that way.)
posted by Hat Maui at 8:56 AM on July 11, 2006

Presuming that pro-choicers must be folks completely personally untouched by abortion is insulting.
posted by cortex at 8:59 AM on July 11, 2006

Astro,

Yours is the kind of opinion I respect. I just get the feeling that a lot of pro-choicers go along with being so out of the need to distance themselves from the nut job religious types without having thought the issue through for more than 30 seconds or so.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:01 AM on July 11, 2006

yeah, totally.

wait, who did that?
posted by Hat Maui at 9:02 AM on July 11, 2006

I'm still pro-choice...by the way.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:02 AM on July 11, 2006

Hat Maui,

Say I come to your house and kill you tonight. Does that mean it's OK, given that you wouldn't be around tomorrow to care about it?

Of all the arguments for pro-choice, that's a bad one.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:06 AM on July 11, 2006

You know what I wish? That both sides had people you could call to come pick up these intellectual strays.

"Pro-Life Pound. Yeah, that's one of ours. We'll send out truck around shortly with the net cannon."

Stegasaurus of the Week

Heh. Even that person has a hook in the mouth, because it's also a pretty subtle send-up of the pro-choice propaganda as well as the pro-life disinformation.

I find it hilarious and scary that this person exists.

They do. Oh, they do. I grew up in that part of America. These are people who send me urban legends and glurge e-mail six times a day. Back in the 1980s there was a run on a Tulsa S&L that effectively closed it down because of completely unfounded rumors that they were broke, and the rumor was entirely spread word of mouth over a summer morning.

People can be such lemming-flavored sheep sometimes.
posted by dw at 9:07 AM on July 11, 2006

I say that the comments of the first link contain some A+ snark.
posted by frecklefaerie at 9:12 AM on July 11, 2006

elpapacito,

Spheres, with little holes for cigarettes and back issues of Wallpaper.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:13 AM on July 11, 2006

"If you can't be a good example, you have an obligation to be a horrible warning." - Joey Comeau
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:24 AM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

TechnoLustLuddite: I've noticed that as well, but anytime I've tried to bring it up I usually get shouted down fairly quickly.

Even though it is, of course, anecdotal, I will say that EVERY SINGLE FAMILY I have known, in my entire life, that contains more than 3 offspring born after 1960 were evangelical christians.

I've thought long and hard about this. From elementary school, through college, and into adulthood, whether I knew the kids or knew the parents.

Around here, practically everyone goes to church, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about evangelical, bible-thumping, hard-core militant christians.

I'm sure this is not the same everywhere... but I think if you reflected on most large families (again, since the 60's or 70's... I know practically everyone has a grand or great-grand that came from a group of 10+ siblings) I bet most people would notice that, yeah, most multi-children households are quite religious.

I don't know that it really says much about anything, but it does seem interesting.

Interesting side note... at the church I grew up in, rather large, about 2000 members, every year on Mother's Day that would have this auction of sorts where they would ask all the mothers to stand, then sit if you have 1 child, now sit if you have 2, etc. After 4 there would only be a handful standing, then it would get down to 2 or 3 by 6 children. The last one standing (i.e. the one with the most children) got brought to the front of the church, given a round of applause, and a vase of roses or some such.

It just seems weird to me to "celebrate" someone for the mere fact that they have had more children than someone else.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:24 AM on July 11, 2006

Say I come to your house and kill you tonight. Does that mean it's OK, given that you wouldn't be around tomorrow to care about it?

so you're conflating murder and abortion and yet you claim to be pro-choice? my point isn't whether it would be OK or not (depending on who you ask, some people might be totally alright with my untimely demise) but rather that i wouldn't be here to have an opinion on it.

let's try again: had you been aborted instead of being adopted, you would not be here, right now, making illogical arguments on metafilter. ergo, you cannot say after the fact that you were glad you weren't aborted, because had you been aborted, you'd have never known about it.

if you died tomorrow, would you care if tim horton's stopped serving breakfast all day starting in january 2007? well, no. you WOULDN'T BE AROUND TO CARE.

get it?
posted by Hat Maui at 9:26 AM on July 11, 2006

Jimmythefish, you're not comparing apples-to-apples here. There's a difference between killing someone who has a conscious expectation to live through tomorrow and killing someone who doesn't have a self-awareness or consciousness.
posted by craven_morhead at 9:34 AM on July 11, 2006

Somehow I'm not surprised to see the homosexual agenda rear its head. More like Filth Gerson, I think.

Boy, talk about your ad homonym attacks! Sounds like somebody needs a hug.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:44 AM on July 11, 2006

Hat Maui,

Sure, my retort wasn't the best. I understand the difference between murder and abortion.

However, your agruments are equally illogical. Saying that something doesn't have potential value if it had never existed (but could have, and was scheduled to - I might add) is just plain wrong. Also, 'caring' isn't the be-all-end-all sentiment upon which to base the justifications for such cessation.

It is entirely possible for me to care about something and lament its potential loss while I am indeed here. If we consider how the world would have been different if, say, Jonas Salk had never been born, could you agree that the world would be worse off? That it was a good arrangement for Jonas Salk?

Yes, I am rather glad that I've been able to experience this life instead of the alternative. That I wouldn't have been around to say this on Metafilter isn't the thing that sucks. It's the lack of living a life that, for me, would have been bad.

Yes, I know, I didn't exist for infinity until May 10 1975 and I was OK with that. I personally, however, feel that somehow it's a nice arrangement - existence. If the world never existed, nobody would care that it didn't. But, we can be glad for us, now, that it does.

Get it?
posted by jimmythefish at 9:48 AM on July 11, 2006

the thing that gets in the way of pro-life logic is the belief that every zygote has a soul. And an aborted soul will wail away in purgatory (limbo) for all eternity, because they never got the chance to be baptized (except of course, now purgatory doesn't exist anymore, so i'm not sure where those souls went).

Crying over a dead zygote is like crying over the dead sperm cells you flush down the toilet after masturbating, or the dead egg cells you flush down the toilet after your period.

As monty python says: "Every sperm is sacred!"

ON PREVIEW: Jimmythefish- I am glad that i was born. But i can only say that because i have the self-awareness to think that. I can also say that the world is most likely a better place now than it would be if there were 10 billion more people taking up space (or however many abortions there have been total)
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 9:54 AM on July 11, 2006

"I'm pro life, but sweet Jesus you're an idiot. For your next post, how about a passionate speech on the need to immediately free Prince Albert from the can?" comic gold
posted by AllesKlar at 9:55 AM on July 11, 2006

Yes, I know, I didn't exist for infinity until May 10 1975 and I was OK with that. I personally, however, feel that somehow it's a nice arrangement - existence. If the world never existed, nobody would care that it didn't. But, we can be glad for us, now, that it does.



So....you're not really pro-choice because you believe that every fetus deserves a chance? I don't really understand your position on this.
posted by agregoli at 9:56 AM on July 11, 2006

Think about little old me the next time you knee-jerkingly rip on pro-lifers from the comfort of your charmed lives where you have such crazy advantages as knowing your parents and whether or not you'll be bald in 5 years. Some of 'em are just really glad for not being sucked through a straw.

Rant over.
posted by jimmythefish

jtf: I think that's why it's called pro-choice. Even if abortion is legal, there's still the choice to have the baby and adopt it out, as in your case. Even if you don't know whether or not you'll be bald in 5 years.
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:00 AM on July 11, 2006

jimmythefish, the "X person wouldn't be around today if abortion had been legal" argument is fundamentally flawed--and the comparison to murdering an adult human being is simply irrelevant.

If you are to give any force whatsoever to the argument that says "we must weigh potential future creation of lives in the balance as a positive future good equivalent to the good of preserving current lives" then think of the policy consequences that would have. Should we commit the same resources, for example, to encouraging people to breed as we do to protecting the lives of the living? Should the government require all women of child-bearing age, for example, to bear as many children as they have the means to support? Should recalcitrant women be required to report to government run "impregnation clinics" to ensure that they reach their quota?

If you say "no, that's ridiculous" you should consider: if such a thing was implemented, and a child was born, what would you say to him in eighteen years if he said "well, you may think those government impregnation clinics were a bad idea, but if they hadn't existed, where would I be"? If you think his future (potential) argument is no good reason to consider the implementation of the policy, then--similarly--your potential future existence/non-existence has no bearing on whether abortion rights laws would have been good policy or not at the time of your conception.
posted by yoink at 10:01 AM on July 11, 2006

Sounds like somebody needs a hug.

Aw, heck. I can't stay mad at you! *huggles*
posted by cortex at 10:01 AM on July 11, 2006

TechnoLustLuddite,

Most likely a better place, sure. I also agree that, yes, you can only say that you're happy that you were born because you have the self-awareness to do that.

That's a rather nihilistic approach, though, isn't it?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 'you wouldn't care so it doesn't matter' argument really only holds in a vaccuum, whereas the decision to cease a pregnancy and all the potential advantages and disadvantages in that is in no way simply a case of the fetus not having the self-consciousness to care whether it lives or not. This choice is why I'm pro-choice - we can consider and debate the positives and negatives of the kid's existence in absence of religious considerations. Will it make the adoptive family happy? Will it mess up the natural parents' lives? Will the kid suffer in poverty? Will it be mentally retarded? Can we live with that?

etc etc...

I'm just saying...in my case, all things considered, I'm glad it turned out the way it did. People around me agree. If you can't understand that, too bad.
posted by jimmythefish at 10:04 AM on July 11, 2006

jimmythefish: I just get the feeling that a lot of pro-choicers go along with being so out of the need to distance themselves from the nut job religious types without having thought the issue through for more than 30 seconds or so.

You're projecting--just like with all things in life, people's views on abortion can be nuanced. One can be pro-choice ("I support the right of a woman to have an abortion") and still be personally uncomfortable with abortion yourself.

Supporting the legal right to reproductive control is a different issue than what choices would be right personally for your partner and you.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:05 AM on July 11, 2006

All that means is you're happy you exist. That's great for you....but I don't see what that has to do with any part of the abortion argument.
posted by agregoli at 10:07 AM on July 11, 2006

we can consider and debate the positives and negatives of the kid's existence in absence of religious considerations. Will it make the adoptive family happy? Will it mess up the natural parents' lives? Will the kid suffer in poverty? Will it be mentally retarded? Can we live with that?

Will it be bald?
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:07 AM on July 11, 2006

yoink,

I'm not making an across-the-board pro-life argument. But, I'm sure you can understand that some pro-lifers and some people who are hung up on the debate do so precisely because bad choices can always be made in this regard.

Often a scared 18-year old making these decisions might choose something less than ideal for the situation, either way.
posted by jimmythefish at 10:15 AM on July 11, 2006

Saying that something doesn't have potential value if it had never existed (but could have, and was scheduled to - I might add) is just plain wrong

i never said anything about "value." i said that had you been aborted you wouldn't be around to have an opinion on it.

Yes, I am rather glad that I've been able to experience this life instead of the alternative. That I wouldn't have been around to say this on Metafilter isn't the thing that sucks. It's the lack of living a life that, for me, would have been bad.

you somehow just don't get the point that if you had been aborted, there'd be no jimmythefish to reflect on how not being alive totally sucks, and how much you'd prefer it if you hadn't been aborted.

Yes, I know, I didn't exist for infinity until May 10 1975 and I was OK with that

you were OK with that? when? before you existed?

take a flight of fancy with me -- it's now 2006 and you were never born, just aborted in 1975. what's your opinion on being aborted?

what's that you say? nothing? total silence? damn you, aborted jimmythefish!
posted by Hat Maui at 10:19 AM on July 11, 2006

Have I been beaten on sufficiently, or do I have to stay for more punishment for making a little rant? Can I go?
posted by jimmythefish at 10:20 AM on July 11, 2006

Jesus Hat Maui, I understand. I understand that if I'd been aborted, I wouldn't have an opinion. So what? I am and I do. I'm glad that the choice was made to keep me around.
posted by jimmythefish at 10:25 AM on July 11, 2006

sorry...i am here and i do.
posted by jimmythefish at 10:26 AM on July 11, 2006

As an adopted child myself, I have to argue in favor of the pro-life position and against contraception. But I am concerned about the care and feeding of children and their burden on society, particularly in families over 6 children. I would propose that children beyond say 3 or 4 a family, be allowed to suckle well for at least a year to make them plump, and then served to the others. Obviously infant flesh would be tender and could be well seasoned. The brains, instead of being sucked out before birth could be served chilled on the half-skull with any of the tangier sauces to provide flavor. Newborns and fetuses can range anywhere from one to nine pounds, but a year old child could weigh up to 28 pounds if well nursed. Indeed, the flesh could be marketed as a delicacy and bring more income into larger families with more fecund women. I suspect the Christian right with their focus on both fecundity and wealth generation through exploitation of natural resources would find many interesting ways to market not only the flesh but the skin and bone into gloves, hats, cufflinks and other garments. A status symbol perhaps, to show the moral superiority of allowing children to come to term and have their birth serve not only the highest morality, but the most laudable ends of capitalism.
/meh, nowhere near as good.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:31 AM on July 11, 2006

Yes, I am rather glad that I've been able to experience this life instead of the alternative.... It's the lack of living a life that, for me, would have been bad.

And I'm glad you're glad. But I do not see why you — or any adopted person — being glad that he or she exists has any bearing on whether I should be allowed to legally and safely terminate a pregnancy.
posted by orange swan at 10:41 AM on July 11, 2006

Really? I had no idea you were doing your own version of Swift!
posted by Captaintripps at 10:43 AM on July 11, 2006

I think jimmythefish had a good point, actually.

It's dangerous (and a political loser) to get abortion wrapped up with population control. Pro-choicers should be celebrating life, supporting adoption, promoting family -- but be absolutely firm that these are not things that are mandated by legislative fiat.

This country desperately needs a political philosophy that knows how to say, "I believe that xxx is the right thing to do, but I believe even more strongly that the government has no right to compel it."
posted by bjrubble at 10:49 AM on July 11, 2006

That's hard to reconcile, bjrubble, with the idea that many pro-choicers do not see abortion as wrong. Although you are right in that it's possibly the only political strategy capable of working, because sadly, a lot of people (particularly politicians) are too scared to say that.
posted by agregoli at 10:54 AM on July 11, 2006

if that guy is smart, he'll put the google ads on that page yesterday.
posted by crunchland at 11:01 AM on July 11, 2006

More beatings for jimmythefish!

THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR BEING BORN!
posted by craven_morhead at 11:20 AM on July 11, 2006

if that guy is smart, he'll put the google ads on that page yesterday.

Somehow, I don't think this guy is smart... .
posted by moonbiter at 11:31 AM on July 11, 2006

It’s just tough to get that baroque sort of formality down, Captaintripps.
Part of what makes satire good is the skill with which it’s executed. The Onion is leagues ahead of other similar satirical work. This isn’t like misinterpreting a pedestrian website. The Onion is so well done it’s hard to see anyone missing it, but, apparently someone did.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:43 AM on July 11, 2006

My favorite quote on his blog:

To many liberals, freedom of speech means they can say anything.

What a special kind of hell you must live in, Pete.
posted by deadfather at 11:43 AM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'm still trying to figure out if the March Together For Life site really is also satire, as has been claimed both here and in the comments to one of the links above. If it is, it's bad. Really, really bad, as it links to, and is linked to by, many of the legitimate pro-life sites it seeks to satirize. Or does that make it really good satire? Ack, my head is spinning.

Well, it is either written by a total maroon [sic] who truly doesn't know that The Onion is satire, or the site is so "well-disguised" that neither the readers nor the pro-life sites which link to it realize that it is satire, in which case it isn't working.

Either way, I don't feel stupid for calling the writer an idiot in the comments.
posted by jennaratrix at 11:44 AM on July 11, 2006

I've been working at a womens hospital in pittsburgh, and I have seen a woman and her interaction with whom she reffered to as "maybe my babys daddy". I saw them bicker and fight over $60, shut-off electricity, and drugs and alcohol. Then she came out of the room crying and red. Her test was positive.
Who cares if its her fault or not- nobody should be born into a home with drugs and without electricity or any money.
I hope she decides to suck it out.
posted by ackeber at 12:02 PM on July 11, 2006

My favorite quote is this:

"The Fredo of the family is the president of the United States, so why doesn't his father or his brother … take him out for a little fishing, and let him say some Hail Marys – he loves God so much. … You know, Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with thee – pow [gunshot sound] – works for me."

Now if I only knew what a Fredo is...
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:10 PM on July 11, 2006

Oh my god, she refers to blog entries as "blogs". as in ("I wrote a blog"). What a horrible person.
posted by delmoi at 12:18 PM on July 11, 2006

Smedley, I was more addressing the fact that that to which you were paying homage was quite obvious.

As far as The Onion: They basically have one gag which they do over and over again. It's the kind of writing which had me amused, but silent in 1999 and now gets no reaction from me at all.

I do fail to see how this person could not get any of the multiple levels of satire in that piece (and for those multiple levels I do give them credit), but I wouldn't call it a subtle, satirical masterpiece. I can't name anything I've ever read in The Onion which I would consider good satire.

The thing they were really good for was their headlines, which have also been lackluster for several years. My favourite has to be "HOLY SHIT! MAN WALKS ON FUCKING MOON!" from their history book.
posted by Captaintripps at 12:25 PM on July 11, 2006

leftcoastbob : Fredo
posted by punilux at 12:34 PM on July 11, 2006

“Now if I only knew what a Fredo is...” -posted by leftcoastbob
Is that satire? Fredo:

was an inept character from a little film called Godfather in which he is the middle brother. The boss or “Don” of the family, Don Corleone, tries to rob a bank, but is trapped inside by the police and his gay lover...or am I mixing up my Cazale films?

“that to which you were paying homage was quite obvious.”
Yeah. But nowhere near as good as the original. Which is the thing, I mean if your satire is lousy some people might miss it. Granted mine was pretty baldfaced. But yeah, the one-trick pony thing from the Onion, I mean who doesn’t get that?
(I like the man on moon thing too - that and the earliest one about an escaped slave)
posted by Smedleyman at 12:37 PM on July 11, 2006

Bob- Fredo is Michael Corleone's brother in the Godfather. Fredo is not very bright, he ends up betraying the family so Mike has him taken out for a little boat ride
posted by InfidelZombie at 12:37 PM on July 11, 2006

It means Fredo sleeps with the jimmythefishes.
posted by staggernation at 12:45 PM on July 11, 2006

I thought it was a typo and was referring to a Hobbit.

My bad.
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:47 PM on July 11, 2006

And no, Smedleyman, that wasn't satire; I really am that clueless.
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:52 PM on July 11, 2006

And on top of this, Smoove B.'s lover-man advice hasn't been getting me laid either.

Fuck The Onion.
posted by bardic at 1:14 PM on July 11, 2006

Sorry to hear you haven't enjoyed it lately, CaptainTripps. I've found it to be hit/miss, but there are often gems that make it worth reading. My favorite from the past few weeks, for example:



Rogue Scientist Has Own Scientific Method

Also: the linked blog has to be fake. There is no way to make blogs easy enough for someone that stupid to use.
posted by voltairemodern at 1:28 PM on July 11, 2006

"I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!"
posted by Stauf at 1:41 PM on July 11, 2006

The Rogue Scientist article was one of my favourites too.
posted by easternblot at 2:34 PM on July 11, 2006

“And no, Smedleyman, that wasn't satire; I really am that clueless.” - posted by leftcoastbob

Hazards of Gen X: “Dude are you being sarcastic?” “I don’t even know anymore”
posted by Smedleyman at 2:59 PM on July 11, 2006

Where has someone been for the last ten years that he doesn't know that the Onion is satire?

Prolly too busy, out on the street corner handing out religious tracts.
posted by ericb at 3:38 PM on July 11, 2006

...masturbate.

Dammit. Now everytime I read that word on MeFi a picture of a cat sticking its head outta the ceiling comes to mind!
posted by ericb at 3:42 PM on July 11, 2006

An abortion thread that turned into a sarcastic flamewar? On the internet? how did that happen?
posted by Megafly at 4:42 PM on July 11, 2006

Sarcastic? Sure.

Flamewar? Not so much.
posted by leftcoastbob at 4:48 PM on July 11, 2006

I know a young woman who was impregnated at the age of sixteen standing up in an alley, drunk and stoned. Babydad is not in the picture and provides no financial support or any other kind of support for that matter.

Mom still lives at home, where her 9-year old brother steals her Marlboro lights.

Anyhow, four-year old little Makenzee is reportedly smart, sweet and adorable and already knows some bad words and has opinions on how to properly kiss boyfriends. Gummint cheese, eggs and milk renew like clockwork.

Sigh. I guess I'm just trying to say that it's complicated.
posted by longsleeves at 6:33 PM on July 11, 2006

adopted. pro-choice. thanks for the funny, though.
posted by exlotuseater at 7:52 PM on July 11, 2006

was an inept character from a little film called posted by Smedleyman at 2:37 PM CST on July 11

What an odd title for a movie. Maybe it is an experimental film.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:21 PM on July 11, 2006

Awww, crap. Dude's deleted all his comments!!!
posted by tantrumthecat at 12:22 PM on July 12, 2006

I don't think he actually deleted them. I can still see the comments hosted on haloscan that someone linked to above.
posted by puffin at 1:17 PM on July 12, 2006

Attacks from the "intellectual" left

A kind person who disagrees with me was nice enough to point out that people were posting my personal information, which resulted in many phone calls that I did not enjoy.

I'll just bet you didn't!
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:50 PM on July 12, 2006

And...

Summing up the "Onion" flap
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:53 PM on July 12, 2006

And just like 99% of radical pro-lifers, I'll bet even money that the writer of "marchtogether" is a capital punishment supporter. Hypocracy? naw... 'nuff said
posted by pezdacanuck at 7:14 PM on July 12, 2006

Some people just don't know when to stop digging their own hole.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:42 PM on July 12, 2006

and how many of the pro-choicers are against capital punishment? Which hypocrisy is greater? (by the way, abortion is really quite anti-Hypocracy, it makes the baby Hippocrates cry) (also, if it's 99%, what kind of a lame bet is even money?) ;)
posted by caddis at 12:45 AM on July 13, 2006

In the summing up article, he says, "Oral contraceptives cause abortions too, just at an earlier stage than hospital abortions."

Woah.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:25 AM on July 13, 2006

And just like 99% of radical pro-lifers, I'll bet even money that the writer of "marchtogether" is a capital punishment supporter.

Except that most of these people are Catholics, and most Catholics are anti-capital punishment.

He probably is (he comes off as a Randall Terry type who tosses around CP for gays and rebellious teenagers), but if he's Catholic, it's not that easy a slam-dunk, since most Catholics are anti-CP.
posted by dw at 9:15 AM on July 13, 2006

In the summing up article, he says, "Oral contraceptives cause abortions too, just at an earlier stage than hospital abortions."

Woah.

See, that says to me he's Catholic right there.
posted by dw at 9:16 AM on July 13, 2006

and how many of the pro-choicers are against capital punishment?

There is a distinction that is missing in labeling pro-choicers as being of the same motivation as pro-lifers. A pro-choicer doesn't tell you have to have an abortion, they tell you it is your right to choose whether or not to have a pregnancy terminated. A pro-lifer tells you you have no choice and must keep the pregnancy going.

Therefore there is no hypocrisy in a pro-choicer being a supporter or not supporting capital punishment.

But I'm not sure that your reasoning of Catholicism and the death penalty holds. The US is by and far a Christian nation (read: catholics, anglicans, protestants of all types) and a majority hold views favouring the death penalty. Is that a negligence on their part and their own knowledge of religion? Probably not, but just a belief that it is an effective deterrent.
posted by pezdacanuck at 10:55 AM on July 13, 2006

Is that a negligence on their part and their own knowledge of religion? Probably not, but just a belief that it is an effective deterrent.

I don't think I follow you. Unless the deterrent is so totally effective that no one ever commits a capital crime and is subsequently put to death, how can support for the death penalty not be explicit support for the killing of your fellow man?
posted by cortex at 10:58 AM on July 13, 2006

I don't think I was trying to make that arguement. Just that supporters of capital punishment tend to view it as a deterrent to crime as this would be the ultimate form of punishment, irrespective of religious views (conveniently so I would assume).

Unfortunately the more tangents that are tied together, the more difficult it gets to present the rebuttals... :o)
posted by pezdacanuck at 11:07 AM on July 13, 2006

I see what you mean, then. I thought you were trying to argue away the religious conflict rather than explain the justification for religious flexibility.
posted by cortex at 11:10 AM on July 13, 2006

Area man mistakes Onion story for reality
posted by homunculus at 8:20 PM on July 14, 2006

You'd think an "...Internet communications consultant..." would have known about the Onion! Or is that just fancy short hand for "unemployed person with so much spare time on his hands that all he can do is worry about what the world's female population is doing with their sex organs"?
posted by zarah at 8:47 PM on July 14, 2006