Many are the lies and epic is the misinformation spread by the antivaccine movement. For instance, they claim that vaccines cause autism, autoimmune diseases, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), cancer, and a wide variety of other conditions and diseases when there is no credible evidence that they do and lots of evidence that they don’t. One particularly pernicious myth, designed to appeal (if you can call it that) to religious fundamentalists, is the claim that vaccines are made using fetal parts. This particular claim reared its ugly head again in the context of a propaganda campaign against Planned Parenthood that hit the news last week.

Before I get to the “sting” operation against Planned Parenthood, bear with me a moment while I discuss a bit about the background here. It definitely has bearing on the attempt by David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress to “prove” that Planned Parenthood is selling fetal parts for profit. First, you need to realize that fear mongering about “fetal parts” in vaccines is, not surprisingly, a distortion of the real situation, which is that the human cell lines used to make some vaccines. Specifically, the WI-38 cell line is a human diploid fibroblast cell line derived from a three month old fetus aborted therapeutically in 1962 in the US. Another cell line, MRC-5, was derived from lung fibroblasts of a 14 week old fetus in 1966 in the United Kingdom. These are currently the only fetal cell lines used to grow viruses for vaccines, with most other vaccines requiring cell lines using animal cell lines (which, of course, leads antivaccinationists to disparage them as “dirty” and using “monkey cells” and the like). In any case, the only commonly used vaccines in which these cell lines are utilized are:

  • Hepatitis A vaccines [VAQTA/Merck, Havrix/GlaxoSmithKline, and part of Twinrix/GlaxoSmithKline]
  • Rubella vaccine [MERUVAX II/Merck, part of MMR II/Merck, and ProQuad/Merck]
  • Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine [Varivax/Merck, and part of ProQuad/Merck]
  • Zoster (shingles) vaccine [Zostavax/Merck]

Although antiabortion antivaccine activists try to make it sound as though scientists are aborting babies left and right just to grind them up to make vaccines, in reality there are only two cell lines used this way, and they are so far removed from the original abortions that even the Catholic Church has said that it is morally acceptable to use such vaccines, although the statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life does urge scientists to develop vaccines that don’t use these cell lines. Basically, the Church concluded that the extreme good of protecting children’s lives far outweighed the distant evil (in the Church’s view) that created the cell lines, concluding in a FAQ, “There would seem to be no proper grounds for refusing immunization against dangerous contagious disease, for example, rubella, especially in light of the concern that we should all have for the health of our children, public health, and the common good” and “It should be obvious that vaccine use in these cases does not contribute directly to the practice of abortion since the reasons for having an abortion are not related to vaccine preparation.”

A variant of this gambit is to claim that there is fetal DNA in vaccines and that this is the cause of every evil under the sun attributed to vaccines. Perhaps the foremost proponent of this brain dead claim is a woman who really should know better. I’m referring, of course, to Theresa Deisher, of whom I first became aware way back in 2009, when I first learned of her attempts to link fetal DNA in vaccines to autism. It was, as I referred to it at the time, thermonuclear stupid, similar to the claim of Helen Ratajczak that fetal DNA from vaccines somehow would get into brain cells and undergo recombination with the baby’s native DNA to result in the production of altered proteins on the cell surface of the brain’s cells, thus provoking an autoimmune reaction and—voilà!—autism.

It’s an idea that’s so implausible that it’s worth explaining why again. To do what Dr. Ratajczak and Deisher claim, the minute amount of human DNA in a vaccine from the human fetal cell line used to grow up the virus would have to:

  • Find its way to the brain in significant quantities.
  • Make it into the neurons in the brain in significant quantities.
  • Make it into the nucleus of the neurons in significant quantities.
  • Undergo homologous recombination at a detectable level, resulting in either the alteration of a cell surface protein or the expression of a foreign cell surface protein that the immune system can recognize.
  • Undergo homologous recombination in many neurons in such a way that results in the neurons having cell surface protein(s) altered sufficiently to be recognized as foreign.

In other words, from a strictly scientific point of view, blaming the DNA from “fetal cells” used to make vaccine is pretty darned implausible. True, it’s not, as I’m wont to say, homeopathy-level implausible, but it wouldn’t take all that much to get there. The amazing thing is that Deisher is actually a scientist, with a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Physiology. (Holy doctorate Batman, that’s the same as mine! She even once worked for an evil pharmaceutical company, Amgen!) Given that, she really should know better, but she doesn’t. She even founded Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, which is dedicated to combat embryonic stem cell research and “share the research that indicts the use of aborted fetal vaccines as a trigger for the autism epidemic.” You get the idea.

I also like to point out that from a strictly physical standpoint this concept that fetal DNA can somehow recombine with infant DNA is pretty ridiculous. Vaccines are injected intramuscularly, and any tiny amount of contaminating DNA that might be present won’t go very far. If it goes anywhere into the body, it’ll be to the muscle cells nearby, which can take up DNA in a functional form. I like to point out as well that I know this from direct experimental experience. Back when I was a graduate student, one of our projects was to inject plasmid DNA into rat muscle and determine whether we could get reporter gene expression appropriately regulated by the promoter controlling the gene. It worked. Then there’s also the not inconsequential matter of the blood-brain barrier, through which DNA doesn’t pass easily. Unfortunately, Deisher just doesn’t give up, publishing more recent (and equally bad) “studies” trying to “prove” that fetal DNA in vaccines is an evil cause of autism. They’ve been no better than her earlier studies; indeed, they’ve been embarrassingly bad.

So it turns out that the antiabortion movement and the antivaccine movement can make not-so-beautiful pseudoscience together, which brings us back to Planned Parenthood. Even though abortion services make up only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s activity, with the other 97% of services going for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other women’s health services, Planned Parenthood remains a target of the antiabortion movement. So it was that David Daleiden and his Center for Medical Progress have released two heavily edited videos claiming to represent Planned Parenthood officials discussing the “sale” of fetal body parts from abortions. The first video has been deconstructed by many different media outlets and shown to have been deceptively edited to leave out the Planned Parenthood executive repeatedly telling the people doing the sting operation that its clinics want to cover their costs, not make money, when donating fetal tissue from abortions for scientific research. Indeed, as these deconstructions of the distorted presentation of information rolled in, I couldn’t help but think that the techniques used by Daleiden sure resembled the deceptive techniques used by the antivaccine movement, and I briefly thought of Deisher.

Then this story appeared over the weekend in The Daily Beast:

Anti-vaxxers couldn’t be happier about the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood’s fetal tissue donation programs. Many in the anti-vaccine movement have long maintained that fetal tissue in vaccines is behind increasing rates of autism, even though vaccines do not contain fetal tissue and rates of autism might not be rising after all.

But the anti-vaccine movement isn’t just piggybacking on David Daleiden’s undercover sting investigation into the women’s health provider. One of its icons tutored him.

Hmmm. One wonders who that icon might be, one does. Well, look no further:

But an interview with Daleiden in the National Catholic Register revealed this crucial detail: “Theresa Deisher helped to prepare [him] for his role as a biomedical representative, teaching him the ins and outs of the field.” Deisher, who did not respond to request for comment, is one of the chief proponents of the debunked theory that fetal DNA in vaccines is linked to autism.

For Daleiden, a man who, as The New York Times noted “only reluctantly talk[s] about himself,” the link to Deisher is one more clue about his background and the origins of his investigation. Daleiden has already been linked to a retinue of far-right activists—including the militant pro-life group Operation Rescue, which is partially funding the CMP—but his training under a noted vaccine skeptic has not yet been brought to light.

Until now. This is how Deisher is described in the National Catholic Register:

As her respect for the unborn grew, so did her intolerance for working in a field where experimenting on material from aborted babies is rampant. She is now the president of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute and CEO of AVM Biotechnology; both companies have a mission to end the use of aborted babies in biomedical research.

In the same article, she claims that we’re “taking a baby and chopping it up to make vaccines,” which, as I described at the beginning of this article scientists most certainly do not do. Let’s just put it this way. Deisher’s “research” is so sloppy that even those who share her implacable opposition to abortion can’t support it, pointing out, quite correctly:

However, deeply held beliefs do not make for rigorous scientific inquiry. And pro-life parents seeking to do the best by their children and by their culture deserve better than to have a plausible sounding lie masquerading as truth.

Of course, I can’t help but point out that the lie here is only plausible sounding if you don’t have a background in molecular biology. Even a freshman-level introduction to molecular biology provides more than enough knowledge to know why Theresa Deisher’s idea of how fetal DNA in vaccines can cause autism (I won’t even dignify it by calling it a hypothesis) is an enormous pile of wet, stinky BS. Even if you do believe abortion is a great evil, is it not also evil to misuse your scientific knowledge and credentials to spread a lie, such as the lie that fetal DNA in vaccines causes autism. Yet that lie is exactly the one that Deisher has been spreading for at least seven years. So willing is she to spread it that she got into bed with activists willing to represent themselves as being part of a fake company (Biomax Procurement Services) to try to induce Planned Parenthood into illegally selling fetal body parts.

The confluence of fundamentalist religion that believes abortion to be the same as murder with the antivaccine movement might surprise those who don’t pay the intense attention to both of them that I and other skeptics do. It shouldn’t. There has long been a wing of the antivaccine movement that uses the existence and use of the WI-38 and MRC-5 cell lines as reason to attack vaccination. Theresa Deisher is particularly dangerous because she used to be a real scientist until her embrace of an unholy union of antiabortion and antivaccine pseudoscience led her to produce a seemingly “scientific” rationale for not vaccinating that tapped into the opposition to abortion shared by Catholicism and various fundamentalist religions. Her willingness to coach a con man like David Daleiden shows just how far she will go in the service of her now anti-science agenda. She also serves as a useful reminder that antivaccine pseudoscience is the pseudoscience that knows no political boundaries. For every hippy dippy all “natural”-type antivaccine activist, there’s a right-wing fundamentalist like David Daleiden, who could do real damage to the vaccine program when backed by someone like Theresa Deisher.

Comments

  1. #1 See Noevo
    September 3, 2015

    Based on Krebiozen’s #1992, I think I could add one to my #1945 list: “Hanging out in biker bars”.

    It might be a bit redundant though,
    because my list already includes fornication, sexually-transmitted diseases, pornography, drug addiction.
    However, biker gangs are characterized by other things as well, such as womanizing, drug dealing, organized crime, murder, body odor.

    So, I might still add “Hanging out in biker bars”.

  2. #2 See Noevo
    September 3, 2015

    To Denice Walter #1994:

    “See has an out dated set of stereotypes of masculinity, doesn’t he?
    … The old way of thinking supposed that sexual orientation and tastes or interests aligned because …”

    Maybe as the old and their old ways are replaced by the young and their new ways, the very terms “heterosexual”, “homosexual”, “bisexual”, “other-sexual (?)” will become irrelevant.
    Maybe they’ll even be banned, and just replaced with “sexual.period.”
    But then, since everyone’s sexual in SOME way, perhaps the word “sexual” will be dropped as meaningless, in liberal land.

    These musing came to me as I read this:

    “A total of 49 per cent of 18-24 year olds who took part in the survey defined themselves as something other than totally heterosexual.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11807740/half-young-people-heterosexual-lgbt-homosexual-yougov.html

  3. #3 MI Dawn
    September 3, 2015

    See: Now you’re getting it! So nice of you to link to that very interesting article. And it’s so nice to see young adults become more tolerant of those who don’t fit into rigid gender molds – even for themselves.

  4. #4 gaist
    September 3, 2015

    For all its posts, See the deceitful creep had very little substance, apart from admitting modern technology we all enjoy today, as well as pro football and golf courses are thanks to us innovative evolutionists and our kin.

    Is kind of you to give credit when credit is due, even if your track record is a little choppy.

  5. #5 DGR
    September 3, 2015

    Maybe as the old and their old ways are replaced by the young and their new ways, the very terms “heterosexual”, “homosexual”, “bisexual”, “other-sexual (?)” will become irrelevant.

    Yeah but, there’s no evidence I’m aware of that indicates any “old way” has actually changed.

    The only thing that might have changed is that people feel more free … at least in most or all western nations … to be honest with themselves and others about their sexuality, now that stoning, burning at the stake, jail, etc. are no longer considerations.

    I suspect that the results of a similar poll might differ in places like Russia and nations where 15th. century religious belief is still the norm, due solely to fear of reprisal.and/or pariah status.

    I agree with you that eventually sexuality labels will be dropped entirely, if only because these made no sense in the first place.

  6. #6 Roger Kulp
    September 3, 2015

    Since I just drop in on this thread from time to time to see how things are going,I’m always a couple of days late in responding,but since See got off on this tangent of gays and football as “many” entertainment,I couldn’t help but think of this.Something See is probably old enough to remember.

    American football has always struck me as a bit homoerotic anyway.

    This is worth a read as well.

  7. #7 Narad
    September 3, 2015

    Maybe as the old and their old ways are replaced by the young and their new ways, the very terms “heterosexual”, “homosexual”, “bisexual”, “other-sexual (?)” will become irrelevant.
    Maybe they’ll even be banned, and just replaced with “sexual.period.”
    But then, since everyone’s sexual in SOME way….

    I don’t think “reject” is really commensurate with the other categories.

  8. #8 Roger Kulp
    On to 3000!
    September 3, 2015

    This needs to be here.

  9. #9 Krebiozen
    September 3, 2015

    However, biker gangs are characterized by other things as well, such as womanizing, drug dealing, organized crime, murder, body odor.

    No, not body odor! As a matter of fact I don’t remember anyone smelling too bad, and I don’t remember any of the bikers I used to hang out with murdering anyone or being involved in organized crime, unless you count dealing cannabis and amphetamines. One of them did once come into the bar with a flashing police light on his head – he had just stolen it off a police car…

    Womanizing was not really required as the women were quite assertive enough not choose their own men. Funnily enough the meanest-looking and ugliest guys always had the most beautiful young women hanging around them, which was annoying. I remember at one party a terrifying-looking mountain of a man appropriately called Bear bumped into me and apologized profusely, which was weird.
    On the other hand, a young man made the mistake of hitting his girlfriend in the pub one evening and was rapidly dragged outside and, er, chastised. I wouldn’t adopt those morals myself, but it was an interesting and exciting time. I’m glad I got (most of) that wildness out of my system before I settled down.

    Now I’m wondering when this portal to the 1950s will close, sucking SN back into ancient history where he belongs. I’m just very grateful that he is a dying breed. I like the new “feminized” world, in which women and minorities are treated as equal human beings, men are allowed to express emotion and those with unusual sexual tastes are less likely to be subject to abuse.

    “A total of 49 per cent of 18-24 year olds who took part in the survey defined themselves as something other than totally heterosexual.”

    That’s probably because people were too afraid to admit to being other than totally heterosexual because there was a very real possibility of being verbally or physically abused. I think it’s a good thing that those people no longer have to hide their real feelings and suffer horrible feelings of shame and guilt. In SN’s ugly little world I guess it’s bad, that God wants those people to suffer and resist expressing the feelings He gave them (or was it Satan?).

    I feel terribly sorry for SN. It must be terrifying to see the constant spread of liberalism. From my perspective in Europe he seems like a weird relic of a bygone age. I have never, to my knowledge, net anyone as bigoted and close-minded as SN, and I once went on a pilgrimage to Lourdes (long story – no I’m not and never was a Catholic) and spent a lot of time drinking cheap wine and talking religious metaphysics with nuns and priests (mostly too drunk to be coherent, to be fair).

  10. #10 JustaTech
    September 3, 2015

    Thanks for all the kind words, everyone (*blush*).
    capnkrunch@1979: Actually, I’m an immunologist, but when I started commenting here at SB I was just a lowly lab tech.

    So, SN @1973: You think I’m dumb, you compare me to a tradesperson in order to insult me, (and simultaneously insult all tradespeople), you snark on what you assume my academic achievement to be, but I notice that you never actually addressed the substance of my point:

    As I said in the evolution thread, nuns are a counter-point to your silly list. You have never had a rebuttal.

    As to my day job, well, my day job would probably make you sweat and my night job is a Master’s degree.

  11. #11 JP
    September 3, 2015

    I can understand. Abortion wasn’t much of a thought or a topic of conversation, at dinner or elsewhere, prior to about 1973.

    I was born in 1987, doofus. I imagine it never came up because he and my mom never had to deal with the issue since they used birth control, and he wasn’t in the habit of bothering himself about other peoples’ business, an admirable quality the world could use more of.

    Well, nobody’s perfect. Not even your dad.

    Except you, right? Pfft. Ever heard of the sin of pride? Mother of all sins, I’ve heard.

    I would probably find it utterly repugnant, disgusting, barbaric, too.
    I’d never say someone is surely burning in hell, and I can’t imagine any other true Catholic would either.
    We don’t know.
    Sure as hell, the RCC hasn’t even declared Judas Iscariot is in hell. Although I don’t like his chances.

    I mean I find the belief in hell to be barbaric and disgusting, sh!twit. In any case, whether or not you’ll admit to “certainty” about your supposed foreknowledge of judgement, you seem awfully cavalier about implying that all sorts of people are going to hell, including commenters. Sin of pride again. Been to confession lately?

    And actually, plenty of people were historically and are currently perfectly willing to state that people who died in the manner that my dad did are burning in hell. They weren’t even given a proper burial for much of European history. And I seem to remember something about crossroads.

  12. #12 shay
    in the 21st century
    September 3, 2015

    I can understand. Abortion wasn’t much of a thought or a topic of conversation, at dinner or elsewhere, prior to about 1973.

    Maybe *SN* didn’t think about it; that doesn’t mean nobody else did.

  13. #13 JP
    September 3, 2015

    @Krebiozen:

    God wants you to suffer so you can reap the rewards of eternal life after you are dead? Are you sure that isn’t a line fed by the ruling classes to gullible people to persuade them to keep working, shut up and stop complaining?

    Pie in the sky when you die, as the old song goes.

  14. #14 Narad
    September 3, 2015

    @Roger Kulp:

    but since See got off on this tangent of gays and football as “many” entertainment,I couldn’t help but think of this.

    Excellent recall. I may have been a tad too young for that to have imprinted on first airing, but I recall that I was “forbidden” from watching Soap when it debuted. My mom was completely indifferent.

    I wish I had the time to follow the evolution of the homphobic response to the program (Jodie Dallas’s lover Dennis was also a pro football player) – the whole run was re-aired by a local DTV/OTA station a couple of years ago, and it still struck me as so brilliantly insane that the mere presence of a swish faggοt would be the least of the interpretive problems.

    It turns out that Billy Crystal has recently expressed some visceral responses to the depiction of male, well – judging by the photo that seems to follow this story around* – Frenching (I’ve never seen the program).

    It’s too bad that Crystal seems to have just utterly retreated from the statement. I mean, he was raised in a certain generation, so discomfort in the face of frank depictions of expressions of male sexuality isn’t exactly mysterious.

    It really strikes me as an opportunity missed. I mean, OK, you can probably just retire, but there’s a difference between being “some comic actor” and the end and aiming for a bargain-binned biography.

    Oh, wait, no, there’s not.

    * Assuredly a bad call, but I’m getting to that.

  15. #15 See Noevo
    September 3, 2015

    To JustaTech #2011:

    “… I notice that you never actually addressed the substance of my point: As I said in the evolution thread, nuns are a counter-point to your silly list. You have never had a rebuttal.”

    I never rebutted your silly point because I thought it was so obviously silly to everybody. But apparently, as with many things on this thread, it’s actually NOT a case of ‘Well, it [a rebuttal] should go without saying.’

    So, especially given the silly #2000 party pooping mood, I’ll be a little silly and deign to answer your “gotcha” with a couple points:
    #1
    That there is an increasing acceptance of, or increasing incidence of, *extended or perpetual singlehood* should be pretty obvious. However, I think, and the RCC thinks, this is NOT a good development. Probably no other institution on earth is more pro-marriage and pro-family than the RCC. [In fact, Pope Francis is coming to the U.S. and Philadelphia this month as part of the “World Meeting of FAMILIES”.]

    #2
    That there are fewer nuns (and priests) by absolute number and proportionally should also be pretty obvious. However, I think, and the RCC thinks, this is NOT a good development. I think, and the RCC thinks, having celibate clergy and celibate religious – and more of them than we have now – IS a GOOD thing.

    #3
    However, while we think having celibate clergy and celibate religious is a good thing, we know it’s NOT for everybody (and, obviously, we know everybody doesn’t have to be celibate to be good).

    #4
    Lastly, but not least-ly, regarding #3, Jesus seemed to think so, too:
    “The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”
    But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
    For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have MADE THEMSELVES EUNUCHS FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
    HE WHO IS ABLE TO RECEIVE THIS, LET HIM RECEIVE IT.”
    ……………
    Other than that, dude, your “nuns” point made sense, like totally.
    Have some more party pooper punch. It’ll fry you, dude! Come on, dude. I want to hear another one of your… whudya call it? Oh, yeah! One of your “points.”

  16. #16 DGR
    September 3, 2015

    I can understand. Abortion wasn’t much of a thought or a topic of conversation, at dinner or elsewhere, prior to about 1973.

    I was a senior in a Catholic high school at the time and “abortion” was certainly a topic of lunch hour conversation among students.

    I remember one classmate who was vehemently against abortion, until the day he frantically told a few of us he thought his girlfriend was pregnant and would need an abortion.

    Then there was the elderly brother who liked to put his hand on my (male) leg when giving me extra help after school.

    Come to think of it, sexual abuse by priests, pastors, etc. wasn’t a big topic around the dinner table in 1973 either.

  17. #17 Delphine
    home
    September 3, 2015

    Not reading 2K comments, skimmed, still ashamed to be Catholic when wordy hateful blowhards presume to speak on behalf of the Church.

    Try to be more like this guy, less like a total douchecanoe: “Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the head of the Catholic church in England and Wales, said: “This is a disgrace. That we are letting people die and seeing dead bodies on the beaches, when together, Europe is such a wealthy place. We should be able to fashion a short-term response, not just a long-term response.

    “It is no longer an abstract problem of people on the scrounge. It’s not. It’s people who are desperate for the sake of their families, their elderly, their youngsters, their children. And the more we see that the more the opportunity for a political response that is a bit more generous, is growing. What is screaming out is the human tragedy of this problem, to which we can be more generous.”

  18. #18 See Noevo
    September 3, 2015

    To JP #2012:

    Me: “I can understand. Abortion wasn’t much of a thought or a topic of conversation, at dinner or elsewhere, prior to about 1973.”

    You: “I was born in 1987, doofus. I imagine it never came up because he and my mom never had to deal with the issue …”

    That abortion even needed to become much of a thought or a topic of conversation, at dinner or elsewhere, SINCE 1973 is monstrous.

    That your father never spoke out on this monstrous issue… well, as I said, nobody’s perfect. Not even your dad.

    “… he wasn’t in the habit of bothering himself about other peoples’ business, an admirable quality the world could use more of.”

    Well, given that he wasn’t Christian, I can understand why he would, and you would, think that.
    Actually, I don’t think ANYONE should generally be in the HABIT of bothering himself about other peoples’ business. But there CAN BE times when one must, or should, so bother.
    The namesake of Christianity seemed to think so, too (ref. #1786).
    ……………………
    Me: “I would probably find it utterly repugnant, disgusting, barbaric, too.
    I’d never say someone is surely burning in hell, and I can’t imagine any other true Catholic would either.
    We don’t know.
    Sure as hell, the RCC hasn’t even declared Judas Iscariot is in hell. Although I don’t like his chances.”

    You: “I mean I find THE BELIEF IN hell to be barbaric and disgusting, sh!twit.”

    Well, to avoid misunderstandings in the future, try to take better care not to express yourself like “sh!twit.”

    “… you seem awfully cavalier about implying that all sorts of people are going to hell, including commenters.”

    I’m not being cavalier, I’m just reiterating what my Lord said (e.g. Mat 7:13-14).

    “Sin of pride again.”
    Not at all. I don’t even know if I, SEE NOEVO, am going to make it to heaven (Although I have good reasons to believe that I’m currently on the right track.).

    No, a “sin of pride” would be manifested if I were to say I’m going to heaven and you’re going to hell. (That might also be more properly described as the “sin of presumption”.)
    But that’s not what’s going on here.

    …………..
    “Been to confession lately?”

    About two weeks ago.

    Showered lately?

  19. #19 See Noevo
    September 3, 2015

    Time for another break for presidential politics…

    Our commander in chief has gone to a cold place (i.e. Alaska) to complain about too much warmth (i.e. global warming).

    But that’s not all he was up to up there:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgoVGerJDvE

    P.S.
    Those darling little survivors of pregnancy *can dance*! Maybe that’s why they’re laughing and clapping.
    Or maybe because they *survived to* dance.

  20. #20 See Noevo
    September 3, 2015

    Speaking of Obama & Company’s global warming hysteria power grab agenda,
    I for one wouldn’t mind the temperature ticking up a bit. I’d bet the people a hundred years from now might find they’d like it a bit warmer, too. And the plants. And the…

    Warmer might even bring us closer to our planet’s historical norm, whatever that is.
    Unfortunately, we’re just not sure.
    (But some are sure ready to spend trillions on the “problem”.)

    Anyway, I’d bet Brian MIGHT not mind some more warmth, too:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_TcWUslfvE

    So, don’t worry about it, baby. Let’s dance, party poopers!

  21. #21 See Noevo
    September 3, 2015

    Speaking of the importance of families (#1 in #2016), although Frank could be a cad and lothario, he seemed to love his family. Some cute pics of his here. (And holy Moses, even one of Moses’ enemy at 1:48!)

    And that’s not stupid.
    Anyway, nice duet, Frank, wherever you are:

  22. #22 Narad
    September 3, 2015

    Pie in the sky when you die, as the old song goes.

    Oddly enough, it turned out last week that the patriarch* of the refuge for the two youngest knew Utah Phillips. (The matriarch knew Utah in the excommunication sense, IIRC. I’ve already mentioned the octogenarian neighbor I used to have who let John Prine come over and use her piano, etc. “Oh yes, I knew Stevie [Goodman].”)

    S.N.’s bizarre choices of “soul music” that he (presumably drunkenly) felt inclined to “bless his congregation with” again defy belief in the revealing of the insane, underlying, General Steele variety, enucleated psychological cyst.**

    Anyway, everything needs more Fath Petric, of course, but she’s not on this one on Rebel Voices, which has some high points.***

    * As such things go in an idyll.
    ** As far as I am aware, the RCC has not addressed the question what the Holy Ghost is up to in making podiatric issues manifest orthopedically.
    *** Billy Bragg really should have stayed away.

  23. #23 See Noevo
    September 3, 2015

    This reminds me a bit of back and forths with ann and some others on this thread.
    (I’d be the blonde, in this case.):

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/03/clinton_spokesman_brian_fallon_i_dont_know_what_wiped_means.html

  24. #24 Narad
    September 3, 2015

    ^ The ital should have ended after the second “knew.” Then again, we’re (tinw) talking about someone who not only fails to understand the Gnostic heresy but finds it an essential addition to his “golf bag.”

  25. #25 Bill Price
    September 3, 2015

    That abortion even needed to become much of a thought or a topic of conversation, at dinner or elsewhere, SINCE 1973 is monstrous.

    That’s what we keep trying to tell you misogynists who claim that anti-life is “prolife” and that anti-choice is the high road.

  26. #26 Robert L Bell
    September 3, 2015

    #2020

    Anyone here surprised to learn that our little weasel is both ignorant of the fact that Alaska is the state suffering the most from the effects of global warming (it’s true! worser than California and everything) and that he thinks “har har Al Gore is fat” still constitutes some kind of effective rebuttal?

  27. #27 DGR
    September 3, 2015

    But that’s not all he was up to up there:

    You’re just jealous because he’s able to be around small children and you’ve still got the ankle bracelet and restraining order thing.

  28. #28 JP
    September 3, 2015

    “Sin of pride again.”
    Not at all. I don’t even know if I, SEE NOEVO, am going to make it to heaven (Although I have good reasons to believe that I’m currently on the right track.).

    Ha! So you think, and yet again you show yourself to be utterly lacking in any kind of humility or basic self-awareness. It is in any case obvious that you’re only interested in what’s “right,” or, more properly, “moral” as part of a pathetic and failing control trip, and if you even hew to those “moral” standards yourself, it’s only to procure some sort of reward for yourself in the hereafter, which is nothing but a particularly stupid form of selfishness. Which is to say that you wouldn’t know genuine kindness, charity, sacrifice, etc., if they reared up and bit you in the @ss. If “your L-rd” were to come back to the earth tomorrow, I well night guarantee you’d be crying out for his crucifixion all over again.

    “Been to confession lately?”

    About two weeks ago.

    Showered lately?

    Twice a day, in this heat.

    Listen, it’s not my fault you haven’t been able to get a woman (or man, whatever) to touch you since Bill Clinton was still in office, if even that recently. Your projection is getting tiresome. You should really invest in a mirror.

    By the way, you’re aware that getting drunk is a venal sin, right? I mean, I know you’ve got a magic box to wash away all your transgressions of the rules and all, but I doubt you even bother to really make use of it, since it’s obviously only all the other people around you that you think are sinners.

  29. #29 JP
    September 3, 2015

    ^well nigh.

  30. #30 Narad
    September 4, 2015

    This reminds me a bit of back and forths [sic] with ann and some others on this thread.

    The truly pathetic repugnant thing is that S.N. almost certainly senses at some sort of rudimentary, that-which-defies-repression level what his performance here actually amounts to.

    The notion of actually submitting this shіt to competent Catholic, pastoral review is demonstrably something that he lacks the essential belief to submit to.

    He refuses to submit to the hierarchy of the very church that he has tediously purported to embody – something that the Catechism shіttrip amply demonstrates. I use the boldfaced term deliberately; this is all about his apparently insatiable desire to impose rules.

    I don’t know what the price of Depends is, but S.N. is definitely trying to save on something, and it sure the fυck isn’t souls. His cowardice and enthusiastic craving for debasement in lieu of whatever constitutes communion with an actual lay religious community as “enough” are it. S.N. doesn’t have a genuinely religious bone in his body.

    I think it’s no great leap to assert that all of G-d’s children are vulnerable to loneliness at some time or another. Not all turn to freakish hostility predicated on a vague youthful memory of some sort of psychological control structure. Whatever really happened, there does not seem to have been, ah, anything that resembles progress.

    Seriously, Jesus died on Golgotha for this? Some badly maladjusted freak babbling about pro football, golf, and Hilary Clinton? I’d love to be judged side-by-side by the Abrahamic god next to this stinking, leaky garbage bag of Death In Life.

  31. #31 Roger Kulp
    September 4, 2015

    I notice SN has been pretty quiet about Pope Francis’ recent announcement.

    In other good news Pansy Division are back together.

  32. #32 Narad
    September 4, 2015

    By the way, you’re aware that getting drunk is a venal venial sin, right?

    FTFY, I think. None of this really matters.

    S.N. isn’t a Roman Catholic. He isn’t a Christian. He’s just a weird-ass control freak who appears to have glommed onto a rulebook in a way that specifically “alleviates” thought.

    Another simple line of inquiry, if one were actually dealing with somthing readily distinguishable from a bonobo, would be to inquire about its thoughts regarding The Seven Storey Mountain. But it doesn’t have any. There’s only the usual grunting about “yum” and “ick,” with a demonstrated inability to figure out why anyone would repeatedly present it with things like this.

    “Religion” exists only as a prop for S.N. Has anyone noticed any sign of his trembling in the contemplation of G-d? No, he’s desperately barfing up Y—be links and trying to denigrate women instead. Whatever, “rationalize” lying in the confessional, erm, maybe every fortnight.

    Oh, wait, that reminds me of something.

    The grand part is that S.N. has two options here, both predictably mechanistic. Well, those and the odds-on favorite, rank cowering. Give it time, though; the raw, let’s-sniff-a-gradient routine will blob out and embarrassingly declare primacy before too long.

  33. #33 Krebiozen
    September 4, 2015

    JP,

    By the way, you’re aware that getting drunk is a venal sin, right?

    Really? Someone should have told those priests I met in Lourdes; they were barely able to stand every night. When I asked a Catholic friend about this he said it’s so they fall asleep immediately and aren’t tempted to commit the sin of onanism. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know, but if it is it’s tragic.

  34. #34 MI Dawn
    September 4, 2015

    I’m getting more and more amused at SN’s flailing about. So in 2016 he basically says that the Catholic church is pro family, so they want everyone to have tons of kids (even if they can’t afford to raise them comfortably. Who cares? Suffering is good for your [imaginary] soul). Then he says there are not enough celibate nuns and priests, which is bad. So obviously, the breeding Catholics are only there to supply celibate nuns and priests, who can live on less and suffer more for the blessings of all.

    As for families: I love my parents. My mom gave me a *autographed copy* of “A Question of Choice” by Sarah Weddington for a birthday gift one year. She and my dad fully believe in a woman’s right to choose, and raised their 3 children to know that we had choices.

    Fun fact: When I was a little girl (early elementary school age), I wanted to be a nun because all my Catholic girlfriends told me how cool they were. I was devastated when my mom told me I couldn’t become a nun because I wasn’t Catholic. By the time I played a nun in the Sound of Music in high school, I’d learned she was wrong (I could always convert), but decided that boys were much more fun than celibacy. 🙂

  35. #35 Denice Walter
    September 4, 2015

    Although it isn’t really surprising, it appears that SN may hold core beliefs ( or, if you will, *idees fixes*) in common with dear old Mikey ( Natural News, today) who writes about the UN’s 2030 agenda:

    ” Goal 5) Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
    Translation: Criminalize Christianity… marginalize heterosexuality..
    shaming of anyone who expresses any male characteristics..
    Because only male energy has the strength to rise up against oppression and fight for human rights”

    Yeah right. I especially like that ‘rise up’ part.

    Mike speaks often of his work on his Texas ranch, clearing brush, chasing chickens and shooting at things with guns.
    Much of his social criticism decries modern roles and families and yearns for those in the good old days which probably exist only in hackneyed old films and elderly peoples’ imaginations.

    And frequently, Mike speaks of spirituality. Modern people are too self-centered and concerned about things of this world.

    I often wonder when Mike and the other idiot prescribe elaborate routines of food preparation and household cleaning processes whilst narrating tales of natural family planning and child care if they are indeed trying to get women back in the house and out of the public eye into their true and sanctified roles. It’s only natural.

    I’m just giving up a splash of their tripe but believe me, there are barrels of it if you tune in regularly- it forms an undercurrent that they usually never say explicitly since the majority of their followers are probably women. They romanticise traditional roles surreptitiously.

  36. #36 Ellie
    September 4, 2015

    Denice Walter – does Adams ever talk about all those survival products he was selling back when he was going to save us from the worldwide chaos that would happen when computer calendars tried to turn to 2000?

  37. #37 See Noevo
    September 4, 2015

    To Delphine #2018:

    “Not reading 2K comments, skimmed, still ashamed to be Catholic when wordy hateful blowhards presume to speak on behalf of the Church.”

    One shouldn’t be ashamed to be Catholic.

    But you should be ashamed to be “Catholic”, a “pro-choice” “Catholic.”

  38. #38 See Noevo
    September 4, 2015

    To MI Dawn #2035:

    “As for families: I love my parents. My mom gave me a *autographed copy* of “A Question of Choice” by Sarah Weddington for a birthday gift one year. She and my dad fully believe in a woman’s right to choose, and raised their 3 children to know that we had choices.”

    I hope you thanked mom and dad for choosing not to abort you.

  39. #39 MI Dawn
    September 4, 2015

    SN: she never had any desire to abort me. On the other hand, she did make the tough decision to terminate a pregnancy before me and one after me due to fetal anomalies found on Xray (I was born pre-ultrasound era, but when things looked wrong, they did do Xrays). Those were very wanted pregnancies, but she and my dad both felt that they could not bring a child into the world who would die either during the birth process or shortly thereafter.

    I was born before abortion was “legal” except for extreme circumstances. They went through the steps and got the procedure approved both times. Not everyone could afford to do that back then.

  40. #40 See Noevo
    September 4, 2015

    To MI Dawn #2040:

    “SN: she never had any desire to abort me. On the other hand, she did make the tough decision to terminate a pregnancy before me and one after me…”

    Well, lucky you. The fortunate one out of three.

    Is this one of your favorite songs?

  41. #41 Delphine
    coffee
    September 4, 2015

    #340 Could you find something from Lester Bangs?

    Did this ever happen?

  42. #42 Denice Walter
    September 4, 2015

    @ Ellie:

    I wonder how much is the same: he has a whole survival section in his web store

    What I think is a brilliant con involves survival in two ways-
    – he makes people fear everyday products so they need special ones because the usual stuff endangers their health
    – he sells specialised products for when the end comes- so you have to buy _groceries_ from him which is volume- freeze dried vegetables and fruits, powdered meals, etc for all of your needs- unless if you grow your own but he has a hydroponics kit for that.
    Hilariously, the other idiot even labels his product “Survival Stuff”

  43. #43 gaist
    September 4, 2015

    “I’m going to saw this monkey in two!” See promises, flinging the poor screaming creature by the tail.
    “Just put it down, you monster!” shouts the audience.
    “I knew you’d be some sort of horrible animal rights enviromentalists” See makes a grimace. “Liberals, sheesh! No wonder God hates them all.”
    See forces the monkey into a small, worn suitcase and slapping the creature’s flailing paws away shuts the case. “There!” See mutters.
    See turns to his side table and rummages about. The monkey makes pitiable scratching sounds from inside the suitcase.
    See pulls a rusty chainsaw from the pile of magic props. “This is gonna be awesome! I can feel the testosterone flow through my veins already.” See says. “You bleeding hearts women and effeminate limp-wrists might want to avert your eyes!”.

    (crickets)

    “I’m serious” See says, “this didn’t end prettily for the first three Darwins”
    “No cruelty to animals allowed” says the stage hand, without lifting his eyes from the comic book.
    “It’s for enterntainment!” See exclaims. “Of course it’s allowed! The bible explic-”
    “No cruelty to animals allowed.”
    “But it’s only an ape!” See exclaims.
    “Monkey.”
    “That’s what I said!”
    “Apes aren’t… you know what, nevermind. Just let it out, or get out.”
    See opens and closes its mouth a few times, until it sighs and drops the chainsaw. “Fine. Bloody liberals, ruining good Christian fun for everybody.”
    See kicks the suitcase hard, and it flies several meters before hitting the stage. It bounces, the lock broken and the distressed monkey tossed out, its eyes wide in terror.
    “Grab it!” See shouts in alarm, to the stage hand. “Grab Darwin four! I can’t afford another one!” The monkey scrambles onto its feet and flees off the stage. The stage hand follows, grumbling something about not being paid enough for this shit(exeunt monkey and stage hand stage left).

    See Noevo makes several golf swings to collect itself.

    “For my next trick. I’m going to make Planned Parenthood disappear!” See Noevo proclaims, gesturing wildly with its hands. “Just like the good, strong heterosexual all-American manly man has disappeared, the John Waynes of this world.”
    “John Wayne was gay” someone shouts from the audience.
    “He was no such thing! And just for that, I will add, this return to magic is most definitely not because of you lot complaining about the youtube videos, no suree, no no no! This is all according to my plan…”

    “I give you Hillary!” See Noevo exclaims, moving next to a wooden box and from it producing a ventriloquist dummy that looks quite unlike Hillary Clinton, in bright orange jumpsuit. “Didn’t see this coming, did you!” See gloats, before turning its attention to the dummy, and tenderly straightening the puppets hair.
    “So Hillary. Have you been a bad girl?” See asks, talking to the puppet.
    “oh yes” answers See in shrill falsetto voice, while shaking the puppet violently about.
    “You have?” See exclaims, in mock surprise.
    “I lie constantly and hate children and want to tax everybody into poverty because of my liberalism!” See says in falsetto.
    “Oh my, that is naughty” See agrees with itself.
    “I know!” replies See in falsetto, “and I want gays to take over the world and kill the black folks so there is room for all the colored I bring in to the country when open the borders wide!” See Noevos voice climbs even shriller as it reaches near-religious fervor pitch.
    “That is so naughty I think you should be punished!” See says, sternly wagging a finger at the puppet.
    “I should” agrees the falsetto voice, “and how! I should be thrown in jail and tied to the radiator and disciplined by hunky screws like-”

    “How is this going to make Planned Parenthood disappear?” asks somebody from the audience.
    “Yeah,” agrees another. “All it is doing now is exhibiting its hard-on for Hillary”.
    “Silence!” See erupts. “You’re ruining the build-up!”

    (crickets)

    “What buildup? You’re just acting out your weird obsession-”
    “Nonsense, this is just a build up to the epic conclusion!”
    “Whatever. Skip to the punch line and the disappearance.” shouts the audience.

    “I won’t jump through your hoops” See says, outraged. “I’m not here for your entertainment!”
    “You’re the one on stage, remember!” shouts the audience.

    Excrusiating and higly repetitive aeons later, the banter between See with its regular voice and See in falsetto is still going on.
    “But as much as I deserve your righteous punishment, hunky prison master See, my naughty sisters surely deserve it more!” says See in falsetto voice, waving the Hillary doll around so fast it looks like it is having an epileptic fit.
    “What naughty sisters?” See asks.
    “The wicked feminist liberals who rule Planned Parenthood and sacrifice babies to our dark lord the liberal science!” answers See in falsetto.
    “What horrors!” See exclaims, “They must be punished too!”
    “I know!” cries See in shrill falsetto: “You must throw them too in jail and chain us all to the radiator and hose us with ice-cold-”
    “Enough of this nonsense!” cries the audience.
    “You’re ruining my magic!” See shrieks, jumping up and tipping over his box of puppets.

    (shocked silence)

    A member of the audience picks up a puppet, that looks like See in judges costume.
    “I’m See ‘Judgement’ Noevo” he says, mimicing See’s falsetto. “I fantasize about Hillary daily”
    “I’ll have you know it’s far from daily!” See shouts.
    “You are deemed a liar” proclaims the member of the audience, in falsetto, making the judge-puppet bang its gavel. “I sentence you lousy!”
    “I’m not! I never lie!” Screams See
    “You lies!” shouts the audience member in mock falsetto. The puppet keeps swinging its tiny gavel.
    “This fine example of uneducated menial worker here,” See says, gesturing towards the returning stage hand, “even he recognized my genius and agreed with me!”
    “What? Who? When?” stutters the stage hand.
    “About the monkey” explains See, and nods as if that settles the issue.
    “What about the monkey?” asks the stage hand, confused.
    “You don’t get to weasel out like that! You said I was right!” See spits the words into his face.
    “I didn’t!” the stage hand shouts in response.
    “You did! You didn’t disagree, thereby you confirmed I was right!” See screams.

    (crickets)

    “Where’s my monkey?” See asks the stage hand, suddenly realizing he came back alone.
    “Escaped up the hemp house.” he answers.
    “You’re a drug fiend?” See asks surprised, lifting an accusatory finger.
    “No, silly. The hemp house” the stage hand says, pointing towards the back of the stage.
    “Drugs are bad, mmkay. Sinful, actually.” See mocks.
    “The ropes.” explains the stage hand, “back there.” pointing off stage.
    See mimes smoking a joint and rolls its eyes.
    “Whatever” says the stage hand and sits down. “You’re still one monkey short.”

  44. #44 ann
    September 4, 2015

    He’s just a weird-ass control freak who appears to have glommed onto a rulebook in a way that specifically “alleviates” thought.

    He’s a person who can look right at a piece of text from the Catholic rulebook plainly stating that one of the ways people choose between good (a choice!) and evil (a choice!) is by choosing to act (a choice!) or not to act (also a choice!) and fail to see why it’s heretical for a Catholic to say that taking a pregnancy to term is not a choice but aborting it is.

    So I’m not sure that thought is something SN really needs to alleviate. And I’m also not sure he even cares about the rulebook.

    Seriously. You really almost can’t get more heretical than saying that to carry a pregnancy to term is not a choice. And that’s not only because of free will alone. Or at least not in a simple sense. The infallible teaching of the Church on morals and faith explicitly states that motherhood is a vocation (ie — a choice!) at every point in the process, including pregnancy, because (as St. John Paul II explains):

    This truth, which Christian faith has accepted from the beginning, was solemnly defined at the Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.).18 In opposition to the opinion of Nestorius, who held that Mary was only the mother of the man Jesus, this Council emphasized the essential meaning of the motherhood of the Virgin Mary. At the moment of the Annunciation, by responding with her “fiat”, Mary conceived a man who was the Son of God, of one substance with the Father. Therefore she is truly the Mother of God, because motherhood concerns the whole person, not just the body, nor even just human “nature”. In this way the name “Theotókos” – Mother of God – became the name proper to the union with God granted to the Virgin Mary.

    ^^For this and other reasons, defining pregnancy as a strictly bio-physiological and/or natural phenomenon is explicitly contrary to Catholic faith and morals:

    The woman’s motherhood in the period between the baby’s conception and birth is a bio-physiological and psychological process which is better understood in our days than in the past, and is the subject of many detailed studies. Scientific analysis fully confirms that the very physical constitution of women is naturally disposed to motherhood – conception, pregnancy and giving birth – which is a consequence of the marriage union with the man. At the same time, this also corresponds to the psycho-physical structure of women. What the different branches of science have to say on this subject is important and useful, provided that it is not limited to an exclusively bio-physiological interpretation of women and of motherhood. Such a “restricted” picture would go hand in hand with a materialistic concept of the human being and of the world. In such a case, what is truly essential would unfortunately be lost. Motherhood as a human fact and phenomenon, is fully explained on the basis of the truth about the person. Motherhood is linked to the personal structure of the woman and to the personal dimension of the gift: “I have brought a man into being with the help of the Lord” (Gen 4:1). The Creator grants the parents the gift of a child. On the woman’s part, this fact is linked in a special way to “a sincere gift of self”. Mary’s words at the Annunciation – “Let it be to me according to your word” – signify the woman’s readiness for the gift of self and her readiness to accept a new life.

    I mean, that’s really not ambiguous. And there’s nothing incidental about it. It’s core doctrine. But he’s perfectly okay with overriding it.

    I guess that since women really aren’t people to him, it just goes over his head. But that’s counter to Catholic teaching, too. So same difference.

  45. #45 ann
    September 4, 2015

    Recap, in short, easy-to-follow steps:

    Per Catholicism, is motherhood a vocation?

    Yes.

    Is a vocation something you choose?

    Yes.

    So it’s a choice?

    Yes.

    Does that include motherhood?

    Yes.

    Does motherhood include pregnancy prior to delivery?

    Yes.

    Is pregnancy a bio-physiological process that naturally resolves in birth or miscarriage if no action is taken to prevent it?

    Yes.

    Does that mean it’s not a choice?

    No.

    Is that why abortion is wrong, according to Catholicism?

    Absolutely not. Catholicism regards that kind of thinking as dogmatically corrupt materialism.

  46. #46 Ellie
    September 4, 2015

    @Denice Walter
    Thanks for the answer. I haven’t actually been to his website, so didn’t know. I agree about the brilliant con.

  47. #47 Ellie
    September 4, 2015

    gaist, you are going to win all the Internets and there won’t be any left for anyone else.

  48. #48 Denice Walter
    September 4, 2015

    Ellie, there’s also a parody called ‘NaturalNewd.com’ with Adam Michael

    But you should see the original.

  49. #49 Delphine
    September 4, 2015

    Between ann and gaist, I’m not getting any work done this aft. 🙂

  50. #50 capnkrunch
    September 4, 2015

    gaist@2044
    +1

  51. #51 MI Dawn
    September 4, 2015

    SN: you really are a sad person, aren’t you. Everything is black and white. In your mind, my mom should have died instead of terminating the pregnancy before me. Then I wouldn’t exist, either, you know. But it’s obvious that women as people have no worth to you. Only as baby-making machines. And if a few of them have PREVENTABLE deaths, oh, well, it’s all for your blood god’s glory.

    And, by the way, I would never insult your mother the way you have insulted mine.

  52. #52 MI Dawn
    September 4, 2015

    Delphine: welcome back. Your vacation sounds like it was lovely, even the tough parts.

    gaist: How many internets can your garage hold? It must be getting full…(lugs in another 1000).

    My daughter arrives today for the holiday weekend, so I won’t be on much…but if I post this SN can’t claim he chased me away or that I’m avoiding his inane questions (neither of which would be true, but we all know how closely he holds to some truths.)

  53. #53 Delphine
    September 4, 2015

    Thanks, MI Dawn. Have a lovely time with your daughter this weekend.

    On abortion: I downloaded this https://books.google.ca/books/about/Clinical_Midwifery.html?id=QVxRAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y for reading on the trip, obstetric case studies from Dr. Robert Lee in the 1820s/30s/40s, London.

    There’s an entire chapter devoted to craniotomies, which often took place whether the baby had tones or not. Saving the mother’s life, you see, took precedence. Also some high forceps deliveries, heck, forceps in general, in absence of trained practitioners, hygiene, anesthesia. These procedures still happen in developing countries.

    Inductions via ARM in the 7 month of pregnancy – women with rachitic pelvises that couldn’t handle a term delivery. If the baby lived, great, but again, the goal was to save the mother’s life. Some women had several births that ended in craniotomy, or 7 month induction, or risky forceps. One woman in particular here stands out, she was induced over and over again in the 7th month, until she ultimately died, without a live born child. Some were wanted pregnancies, I suppose, but I suspect many were not. Not a lot of agency back in those days, to say nothing of birth control.

    But anyway – what struck me most were two things — one was Lee’s humility. His willingness to say, I should have done ABC instead of XYZ, or I should have done LMNOP sooner, and I regret that I did or did not. And the second was that the baby was ultimately secondary. It was the mother’s life that mattered most. That’s the life he was trying to save and support.

    Sorry about that, See.

  54. #54 gaist
    September 4, 2015

    No internets necessary (but thanks, greatly appreciated).

    I’m just doing my civic duty. I fear the dishonest creep is generating so many anti-internets that if left unbalanced, it might great such a concentration of anti-internet it could mean the death of cat videos! civilization (Luckily there are many many crusaders here fighting the good fight, each equally deserving of glory).

  55. #55 gaist
    September 4, 2015

    A few days ago I would have said that See was not only as socially embarrassing as an STD, but also, like them, a “gift” that keeps on giving, but lately its posts have been repetitive and substance-free to the point of insignificance – but luckily for the Superlative See Noevo Nerve-rending Magical Mystery Tour, there’s a huge backlog of See’s idiocy yet untapped for entertainment.

  56. #56 Ellie
    September 4, 2015

    Thank you, Denice Walter. You made my day with that. Not much difference between the two, is there?

  57. #57 Gray Falcon
    September 4, 2015

    While I may have been hasty with my previous judgements of See, I should note that he’s showing far more passion and rage about people not liking football than a pregnant nine-year-old rape victim. He is a horrible person, and too proud to even understand why.

  58. #58 Krebiozen
    September 4, 2015

    It does make a pleasant change laughing hard at something that was intended to be funny. Thanks gaist, muchly appreciated.

  59. #59 Narad
    September 4, 2015

    “I give you Hillary!” See Noevo exclaims, moving next to a wooden box and from it producing a ventriloquist dummy that looks quite unlike Hillary Clinton

    I’m truly grateful that you have relieved me of the burden of properly working Señor Wences into this.

    These should be memorialized as a definitive, one-stop response to S.N.’s trying to raise his head.

  60. #60 Narad
    September 4, 2015

    ^ I really need to start cooking, but I can also imagine a compiled “do not ball” list to go with them.

  61. #61 See Noevo
    September 4, 2015

    To ann #2045:

    I’ve said that “pro-choice” means one thing and one thing only, namely, “pro-abortion/pro-abortion rights.”

    By continuing to disagree with me on this I have to believe you are either
    a) truly oblivious, or
    b) truly acting (i.e. Although you know, or at least sense, you’ve lost the argument, you start your histrionic hand-waving to try to make yourself and others think you haven’t.).

    On the off-chance you’re just a) truly oblivious,
    I’ll try this one more time and a little differently:

    1) You’re completely missing the point by talking about a woman choosing to try to become pregnant and become a mother. Yes, THAT certainly CAN be a choice, but it’s IRRELEVANT to my argument, because…

    2) *My argument starts AFTER the woman becomes pregnant.* That is, time zero = you just now conceived. And the time stretches to the end of the pregnancy by delivery or miscarriage.

    3) The natural process of pregnancy ends with delivery or miscarriage. There is no choice involved. That’s just what pregnancy IS.

    4) Now, if you suddenly say you want “choice” on the existing pregnancy, what could that mean other than you want to be able to end the pregnancy with something OTHER THAN delivery or miscarriage? In this context, what could “choice” mean other than abortion?
    It can NOT mean anything other than abortion.

    You may as well say you’re “pro-choice” on human respiration.
    First, people would rightly think you’re crazy.
    Then, after seeing you’re serious, they’d think something like: “Whoa! Wait! Yeah, she’s crazy, a crazy killer!”

    “Pro-choice” = “pro-abortion/pro-abortion rights”. Period.
    …………………

    “It’s core doctrine. But he’s perfectly okay with overriding it. I guess that since women really aren’t people to him, it just goes over his head. But that’s counter to Catholic teaching, too. So same difference.”

    On second thought, now I have to believe the case with you is b).
    Or maybe another option: c) You’re truly insane.

  62. #62 ann
    September 4, 2015

    He still doesn’t get it.

    Shocking.

  63. #63 ann
    September 4, 2015

    Arson at a Planned Parenthood in WA.

  64. #64 Narad
    September 4, 2015

    By continuing to disagree with me on this I have to believe you are either
    a) truly oblivious, or
    b) truly acting (i.e. Although you know, or at least sense, you’ve lost the argument [sic], you start your histrionic hand-waving to try to make yourself and others think you haven’t.).

    Heh.

    You ever been to Poughkeepsie?

  65. #65 shay
    September 4, 2015

    Yet another adherent of the Humpty Dumpty School of English. Pro choice does not now and never has meant ‘automatic ‘ abortion. However, those who refer to themselves, erroneously, as pro life are really saying no other options but mine even if it kills you.

  66. #66 Narad
    September 4, 2015

    Arson at a Planned Parenthood in WA.

    There’s plainly much for S.N. to empathize with in the general region.

    a certain KIND of man – the traditional, MASCULINE, competitive, physical, testosterone-y kind

    I wonder if you can actually get a pizza topped with testeroney in Fishtown.

  67. #67 See Noevo
    September 5, 2015

    She still doesn’t get it.

    Shocking.

  68. #68 See Noevo
    September 5, 2015

    Public Service Announcement:

    Folks, you better try to get your Luciferian licks in while you can over the next two days or so.
    Because at the end of Sunday night, I’ll be essentially shutting this thread down.
    See, early Monday morning I’ll be heading out of town for a week for a golf tournament, and will be “off grid.” This thread will go concomitantly comatose.

    Perhaps I’ll bring it back to life when I return. Perhaps not.

  69. #69 gaist
    September 5, 2015

    We’re all equally terrified of your threat, dishonest one.

  70. #70 ann
    September 5, 2015

    FFS.

    It is effing fundamental to Catholicism that you can choose to sin or not to sin, and that abstaining from sin by not doing something is always a choice. Because you’re always governing yourself and your actions with your own free will. That doesn’t mean you can do things that aren’t possible. But it does mean that if you carry a pregnancy to term you are choosing not to have an abortion, even if the subject never comes up. In the same way, by remaining faithful to your spouse, you are choosing not to commit adultery even if you’re not tempted to do so. And likewise, you can choose not to lie simply be preferring to be truthful. They’re all choices. That’s how free will works.

    Furthermore, the word “choice” in itself means — by effing definition — that there are at least two options. You can’t have a choice of one thing. Even Merriam-Webster agrees about that.

    the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

    : the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

    : a range of things that can be chosen

    Additionally, you have right in front of you a pope who is now a saint saying — in plain English — that pregnancy is not simply a bio-physiological phenomenon and that to think of that way is excessively materialistic because it’s a part of the vocation of motherhood in.which the woman is an active participant.

    If you still can’t see why it’s heretical to say that carrying a pregnancy to term or miscarriage is not a choice, you’re not competent to make simple decisions for yourself without supervision.

    And since that could well be the case, for all I know, I should add that there’s no shame in it if it is. It would just be even more of a waste of time for me to keep explicating the obvious for you if it were.

    So be an idiot if you must. I don’t care.

  71. #71 ann
    September 5, 2015

    For example:

    Let’s say you — a lone individual — choose to be chaste. Naturally, you therefore don’t seek out opportunities to have sex. And let’s say none come your way. The natural state of the lone individual — the given, in your terminology — is therefore chastity. But that doesn’t mean that chastity is not a choice.

    Same thing goes for pregnancy.

  72. #72 ann
    September 5, 2015

    Or let’s say that you choose to be chaste for religious reasons and that chastity is not difficult for you to live with because — as it happens — you actually don’t want to have sex anyway.

    That, too, is still a choice. You can choose to do things you want to do. It still counts.

  73. #73 ann
    September 5, 2015

    And things that are natural to you. I forgot to say.

  74. #74 Robert L Bell
    September 5, 2015

    Does little weasel not understand because he is unable to comprehend simple written English?

    Let us lend a hand of assistance to our resident New Testament Scholar:

    Ο άτακτος σκύλος

    Υπήρχε κάποτε ένα σκυλί που χρησιμοποιείται για να σπάσει απότομα σε ανθρώπους και δαγκώνουν τους χωρίς καμία πρόκληση, και ο οποίος ήταν μια μεγάλη ενόχληση για κάθε έναν που ήρθαν στο σπίτι του κυρίου του. Έτσι, ο κύριός του στερεωμένο ένα καμπανάκι γύρω από το λαιμό του για να προειδοποιήσει τους ανθρώπους της παρουσίας του. Ο σκύλος ήταν πολύ περήφανος για το κουδούνι, και αντηριδωτών για tinkling με τεράστια ικανοποίηση. Αλλά ένα παλιό σκυλί ήρθε σε αυτόν και είπε, “Οι λιγότερες αέρηδες δίνετε στον εαυτό σας το καλύτερο, φίλε μου. Δεν νομίζω, εσείς, ότι η καμπάνα σου σου δόθηκε ως ανταμοιβή της αξίας; Αντιθέτως αυτό, είναι ένα σήμα από ντροπή. ”

    Φήμη είναι συχνά συγχέεται με τη φήμη.

    Or perhaps he retains a bit of Dog Latin from that time he washed out of priest school.

    Perniciosis canis

    Fuit qui canem morsu disrumpam istos sine irritatione, qui erat in domo domini sui quisque noceat. Ita ut tintinnabulum collo suo monere populum invasit eum. Canis erat valde superbia campanae, incedens et de gradu incedebant cum ingenti gaudio. Sed vetus canis stetit et ait: “paucioribus meliora auras dederis te, amica mea. Non arbitror te, qui te campanae datum praemium meriti quod ea turpe est insigne. ”

    Fama saepe fallitur pro fama.

    Good luck, buddy! Don’t get struck by lightning or drowned in a water hazard or eated by gators.

  75. #75 See Noevo
    September 5, 2015

    To ann #2071:

    Taking the natural process of pregnancy to its natural conclusion (i.e. delivery or miscarriage) is about as much a “choice” as breathing.
    But crazy ann is “pro-choice” on human respiration.

    “It is effing fundamental to Catholicism that you can choose to sin or not to sin, and that abstaining from sin by not doing something is always a choice.”

    That gives me an idea.
    Here’s a new take on “pro-choice” = pro-abortion/pro-abortion rights:

    “Pro-choice” = pro-sin.

    So be an idiot if you must. But I DO care.

  76. #76 See Noevo
    September 5, 2015

    To ann #2072:

    “For example: Let’s say you — a lone individual — choose to be chaste. Naturally, you therefore don’t seek out opportunities to have sex. And let’s say none come your way. The natural state of the lone individual — the given, in your terminology — is therefore chastity. But that doesn’t mean that chastity is not a choice. Same thing goes for pregnancy.”

    Firstly, just a matter of housekeeping:
    What you seem to be describing is celibacy, not chastity. The RCC calls ALL to chastity, but not all to celibacy.

    Secondly, analogizing celibacy to pregnancy would be proper only in the following sense:
    Once an individual exists, his “natural state”, for lack of a better term, is celibacy. She will remain celibate, and live and grow AUTOMATICALLY. The celibacy and living and growing are NOT CHOICES, they are GIVENS.
    She will END her “natural” celibate state if she CHOOSES to (i.e. chooses to have sex).

    Likewise, once an individual is pregnant, her “natural state”, for lack of a better term, is to remain pregnant through delivery/miscarriage. She will remain pregnant through delivery/miscarriage AUTOMATICALLY. The remaining pregnant is NOT a CHOICE, it is a GIVEN.
    She will END her “natural” pregnant state if she CHOOSES to (i.e. chooses to abort).

    “Pro-choice” = Pro-abortion/pro-abortion rights.

  77. #77 Robert L Bell
    September 5, 2015

    So be an idiot if you must. But I DO care.

    I take it back: get hit by lightning, drown in a water hazard, and be eated by gators.

    That would be fitting.

  78. #78 shay
    September 5, 2015

    To SN, there is no such thing as choice. He can’t wrap his brain around the concept of free will, either.

  79. #79 Narad
    September 5, 2015

    Jesus Christ, it came sniveling back right after the “off the grid” debacle?

  80. #80 ann
    September 5, 2015

    You’re seriously saying that celibacy is not a choice?

    A Catholic man is free to choose the celibate priesthood, the married life, or even the single life (which also is celibate). Celibacy is forced on no one.

    ^^People who write books for “Catholic Answers” disagree with you.

    What you’re saying is crazy. And heretical:

    1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act,

    But I guess you’d rather win an argument on the internet than observe the tenets of your faith.

  81. #81 ann
    September 5, 2015

    @shay —

    How can he not understand free will? It’s fundamental to the whole entire…,Well. I’m sure you know.

  82. #82 ann
    September 5, 2015

    Some Catholics also disagree with you:

    VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis has praised the “heroism” of parents of gravely ill children who chose not to abort.

    LINK

  83. #83 shay
    September 5, 2015

    How can he not understand free will?

    The same way he can’t understand anything else that doesn’t jibe with his world-view.

  84. #84 shay
    September 5, 2015

    This is someone who thinks celibacy is a natural state, remember.

  85. #85 See Noevo
    September 5, 2015

    To ann #2081:

    “You’re seriously saying that celibacy is not a choice?”

    I’m saying celibacy (i.e. not having sexual relations) is the initial state of an individual and that state will not change unless the individual chooses to change it.
    Somewhat similar to the old “A body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it”. But here it’s more of an inside force (i.e. a choice to change).

    The “natural state”/initial state of celibacy is AUTOMATIC, a GIVEN, NOT a CHOICE.
    …………………..
    “People who write books for “Catholic Answers” disagree with you… What you’re saying is crazy. And heretical… I guess you’d rather win an argument on the internet than observe the tenets of your faith.”

    Dear archbishop annie, I hope you realize that when I use the small “a” for archbishop, it’s for more than the mere fact that you’re female.
    You DO realize that, don’t you?

  86. #86 ann
    September 5, 2015

    From Archbishop Chaput’s column, entitled Choosing Life:

    Along with John Paul II, the other great patron of the World Meeting of Families 2015 is St. Gianna Beretta Molla. A doctor and pediatrician by training, and a member of Catholic Action, Molla did generous apostolic work among the very young, the elderly and the poor of Italy. But Molla was also a devoted wife and mother. In 1961, during the pregnancy of her fourth child, she was diagnosed with a uterine tumor. She chose the life of her unborn child over her own, and carried the baby to term. Molla died a week after her youngest daughter was born in 1962. Fittingly, Pope John Paul — now St. John Paul II — canonized her as a saint in 2004.

    Few of us will ever face a choice like Gianna Beretta Molla.

  87. #87 ann
    September 5, 2015

    The “natural state”/initial state of celibacy is AUTOMATIC, a GIVEN, NOT a CHOICE.

    You don’t choose to start out there, but you do choose whether or not to continue — ie, whether (as the CCC says) to act or not to act.

    Same goes for pregnancy. You can — as Archbishop Chaput points out that St. Gianna Beretta Molla did — choose to continue a pregnancy as well as choose to end it. But there are at least two options. Because that’s what choice always means.

    This:

    “Choice” means the freedom to select from at least ONE option

    Is crazy talk. What “choice” means is

    an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
    “the choice between good and evil”

  88. #88 ann
    September 5, 2015

    Please note that Archbishop Chaput did not say “She chose to refuse medical treatment,” but rather “She chose the life of her unborn child over her own, and carried the baby to term..” In a column entitled “Choosing Life.”

    It’s almost as if he knew that there were idiots out there who didn’t grasp that choosing to continue a pregnancy is a choice and wanted to address them in their confusion.

  89. #89 See Noevo
    September 5, 2015

    Class, I have a pop-quiz for you.
    Now, don’t groan.
    These will be easy multiple choice, and I know you love CHOICE.
    Here they are:

    #1
    A “pro-choice” person in the abortion debate is pro (i.e. FOR)
    a) The right to abortion.
    b) The right to destroy the life growing in the mother.
    c) The right to terminate, unnaturally, a pregnancy.
    d) All of the above.

    #2
    If you asked a person 50 or more years ago if she was “pro-choice” regarding pregnant women, she would likely respond
    a) Huh? Are you asking if I am FOR women who are pregnant? Of course I am.
    b) Jeez. What do you mean by “choice”? The woman is already pregnant!
    c) “Pro-choice”? What the hell do mean?
    d) All of the above.

    So, these are easy and you should be able to ace them in a minute.
    But I have to step away for a few to get something to eat.

    You can hand in your answers to Ms. Richards.
    (Psst. Thanks, Cecile. You’re a doll.)

  90. #90 ann
    September 5, 2015

    Incidentally, this doesn’t mean anything to me politically. I’m not particularly invested in the term “pro-choice.” I really only used it because “Papa Don’t Preach” is a song about a woman choosing to continue her pregnancy and not about being in favor of keeping abortion legal.

    It’s purely the idiocy of your position that I object to. Beyond that, it doesn’t actually matter to me.

  91. #91 ann
    September 5, 2015

    Way to shift those goalposts.

  92. #92 TBruce
    September 5, 2015

    In 1961, during the pregnancy of her fourth child, she was diagnosed with a uterine tumor. She chose the life of her unborn child over her own, and carried the baby to term. Molla died a week after her youngest daughter was born in 1962.

    Great. Not only is she dead, but 4 children have been left motherless. At least she is a saint. Bet her kids are just thrilled.

  93. #93 ann
    September 5, 2015

    You’re in favor of her right to choose, though, right?

  94. #94 shay
    September 5, 2015

    E. None of the above.

    Someone still clings to his fantasy that not only did abortion not exist 50 years ago, but no one knew about it or discussed it.

  95. #95 Narad
    September 5, 2015

    Dear archbishop annie, I hope you realize that when I use the small “a” for archbishop, it’s for more than the mere fact that you’re female.

    Coming hot on the heels of the the pantywaisted flounce fail, this is an outstanding diptych of self-portraiture.

    The list of such titles that one could assign to S.N. (or, more likely, that he has assigned to his own anatomy, etc.) is left as an exercise for the reader.

    Class, I have a pop-quiz for you.
    Now, don’t groan.

    “Groan”? I’ve been waiting for S.N. to tee one up that could be simply answered with “GOATSE” for some time.

  96. #96 ann
    September 5, 2015

    Abortion existed fifty years ago, and according to a CBS news special with Walter Cronkite that aired in 1965, there were a million of them a year in the United States, despite their being entirely illegal.

    That’s about the same as today.

    Plus if you’d asked someone if she was “pro-life” fifty years ago, she would have thought you were calling her a hippie-dippie flower child. It didn’t come to mean “anti-abortion” until the ’70s. And it was and is no less political-frame-driven than “pro-choice” is.

    On top of that, this whole ridiculous debate started because I used the term “pro-choice” to describe “Papa Don’t Preach,” and SN — ever astute and attuned to detail — decided it called for the old why-do-you-say-that-when-you-know-you-mean-pro-abortion argument.

    Although obviously, that hadn’t been what I meant.

    And that’s how someone who professes a religion in which people who take holy orders swear a vow to remain celibate ended up arguing that celibacy is not a choice because it’s a given.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

  97. #97 Narad
    September 5, 2015

    C’mon, baby, what happened? Did you manage to embarrassingly get kicked out of the clubhouse? The, ah, pro shop?

  98. #98 See Noevo
    September 5, 2015

    Some things about ann:

    1) Ann’s “not particularly invested in the term “pro-choice.”
    2) But ann’s “pro-choice” on continuing a pregnancy.
    3) And ann’s “pro-choice” on human respiration.
    4) Sure as hell, ann’s “pro-choice” on just about anything you could think of. She’s even “pro-choice” on defecating.

    [Of course, the one “choice” regarding any of the above would invariably result in an untimely death.]

    Oh, and ann would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if she could.

    P.S.
    ann, I’m thinking of putting you on my “No fly/Do not call” list. Don’t sweat it though.
    This thread will be over in 24 hours or so.

  99. #99 See Noevo
    September 5, 2015

    “Abortion existed fifty years ago, and according to a CBS news special with Walter Cronkite that aired in 1965, there were a million of them a year in the United States, despite their being entirely illegal.”

    And in 1965 there were over a million burglaries, despite their being entirely illegal.
    Both then and now, many people are “pro-choice” on burglary.

  100. #100 capnkrunch
    September 5, 2015

    See Noevo exiting after the thread hits 2000 makes it seem like he just wanted to yell word of his victory from the top of the thread. Is not pride a sin? I suppose See Noevo won’t be inheriting the Earth (doesn’t matter anyways, he’s the one bequeathing it).

  101. #101 Narad
    September 5, 2015

    ann, I’m thinking of putting you on my “No fly/Do not call” list. Don’t sweat it though.
    This thread will be over in 24 hours or so.

    Oh, G-d, now it’s trying to double down on its failed control fantasy. This is spectacular.

    But, S.N., I think we’re all naturally concerned about your suddenly pronounced, erratic, emotional behavior. Are you on the rag? That’s OK; it’s natural.

    (As, I suppose, is embracing maladaptive psychological compensation mechanisms.)

  102. #102 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    Next week, two abortion survivors, Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen, will testify to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the recent goings-on at Planned Parenthood.

    Gianna has said earlier
    “If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were mine? There was not a radical feminist standing up and yelling about how my rights were being violated that day; in fact, my life was being snuffed out in the name of women’s rights.”

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/04/abortion-survivors-will-headline-hearing-next-week-on-planned-parenthood-selling-aborted-babies/

    That above article also has a handy list of some of the highlights from the nine videos released thus far:

    • In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

    • In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.

    • In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.

    • In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”

    • In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”

    • In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”

    • In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”

    • In the eighth video: StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits Planned Parenthood sells “a lot of” fully intact aborted babies.

    • The 9th video: catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.

  103. #103 Narad
    September 6, 2015

    Next week, two abortion survivors, Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen, will testify to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the recent goings-on at Planned Parenthood.

    Gee, I guess it’s too bad that you’ve firmly declared (*twice*) that nobody will be able to comment after your direly promised absence, which has now transcended an imaginary “golf tournament” during which you’ll be “off the grid.”

    Unless you pull the MY LATE-LIFE ESTRUS JUST WON’T STOP routine again.

    Got any YouLube videos for that? Personally, I’m suddenly reminded that Can’t Stop the Music gets an unfair rap as far as I’m concerned.

  104. #104 gaist
    September 6, 2015

    Someone from the audience helpfully piles the scattered puppets on the edge of the stage and task finished, looks at them, curiously.
    “Who are these?”
    “It’s Margaret Sinner, the eugenicist pro-choicer and Gloria Slay’em, the woman-hating feminist.”
    “Woman-hating feminist?”
    “Yes, she forced women out of their natural state of servitude and prettiness into the men’s manly world, and now everybody suffers.”
    “The natural state?”
    “Yeah. Like all men are born celibate, all women are born inferior and only good for housekeeping.”

    (stunned silence)

    “And how would equal rights be a bad thing, exactly?”
    “Now all the women are so uptight and lesbian they won’t even look at me when I tell them I want them to sire me children and make me sammitches.”

    (crickets)

    “And most earn more than me and it’s intimidating and unfair.”
    “For whom?”
    “For me! Back in the day I should have been able to buy a wife by promising her food and shelter, but noo…. Now they want conversation and respect and even opinions of their own, the sluts, thinking they’re equal to men. Don’t they realize their opinions and choices only lead them to sin?”

    (outraged silence)

    “Wait! I think I get it!” exclaims someone from the audience, also looking at the puppets.
    “Was your ‘trick’ to make Planned Parenthood disappear having Hillary and these two women-”
    “Three, there’s also Suzy the lesbian manhater, that blonde busty one, for having the nerve to refuse my advances!”
    “So Hillary and these three women are tied to the radiator, and molested-”
    “Disciplined, what are you, stupid?”
    “Disciplined, then the judge-
    “I’m judgmental Noevo! I sentence you to domestic slavery for being a woman for now knowing your place!” says the member of the audience, in falsetto, in the general direction of the female puppets.
    “Then the judge comes in, sentences the women who confess and repent”
    “How did you know that?” asks See in wonder.
    “I noticed they have tear-away costumes on, and underneath is an nuns outfit with ‘I’m a poor sinner’ written on their chests.”
    “Yes.” says See Noevo.
    “Then something happens I haven’t figured out yet, they turn into ridiculous caricatures of housewives”
    “They’re not ridiculous!” See insists.
    “What housewives” asks another voice from the audience.
    “Well, underneath the nun-garb are some sort of fifties outfits with ‘dutiful mother’, ‘respectable woman’ and ‘obedient wife’ written on them.”
    “Oh… my…. God…” the voice says, stifling laughter.
    “And then what?” asks the audience-member looking at the puppets.
    “What what?” asks See Noevo.
    “How does this go from here to making Planned Parenthood disappear?”
    “You can’t seriously be this thick!” says See Noevo. “Obviously it’s a metaphor.”
    “But you said it was a magic trick!”
    “And it is! Once everybody accepts the ingeniousness of my wisdom they will shut down that filthy den of woman-liberating abortionists once and for all! Faster than saying abracadabra.”

    (crickets)

    “We’re not accepting your, uh, ‘wisdom'” says a member of the audience, making air quotes around the last word.
    “That’s only because you ruined my build up!” pouts See Noevo, swinging an imaginary golf club about.

    “what’s with the golf thing anyway, apart from the pimp costume and racial segregation, obviously?” asks someone from the audience.
    “It’s also for social prestige,” See explains, “My neighbor has bigger house, newer car, a hot wife, indeed a wife, and even though he’s five years older than me he looks twenty years younger and so fit seeing him makes even me question my heterosexuality, but only sports he does are silly ones like jogging and Pilates. Can you believe, it, a guy doing Pilates… So I had to start golfing so that I could look down on him on something at least.”

    See suddenly freezes.
    “That was a nasty trick question but I deftly dodged it with my obvious intellect!” it proclaims. “And for your information, it’s an uniform! Not a costume.”
    “What about the racial segregation, then?”
    “There’s no such thing, they’re letting in Jews now, and my caddie is a spic, but a decent lad despite that.”

  105. #105 capnkrunch
    September 6, 2015

    Narad@2103
    I’m reminded of “Stop the Rock” but unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a 10 hour version on YouTube.

    gaist@2104
    Brilliant again. I hope you keep it going. See Noevo kindly provided plenty of source material.

  106. #106 Narad
    September 6, 2015

    I’m reminded of “Stop the Rock” but unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a 10 hour version on YouTube.

    Last I checked, all of Berlin Alexanderplatz was available. No time-stretching, of course, and subtitles are ghey.

  107. #107 Narad
    September 6, 2015

    I have been idly wondering whether the “golf tournament” was maybe going to be in Washington.

    There’s nothing that says sincerity like the canonical fake Edmund Burke “quote.”

  108. #108 ann
    September 6, 2015

    This is spectacular.

    Agree. I’m officially daring to hope.

    (That SN will depart the thread, I mean. The no-fly list is a

  109. #109 ann
    Oops
    September 6, 2015

    I didn’t mean to post that.

    As I was saying:

    The no-fly list is a matter of complete indifference to me, owing to there being no objective distinction between being ignored by SN and being in receipt of replies from SN.

    I mean, look at #2099. The only part of it that’s true is that I’m not particularly invested in the term “pro-choice,” which I very rarely use. And he’s evidently being sarcastic about that.

    The rest of it is just SN making stuff up in order to avoid admitting that he once again made a fool of himself insisting on some ludicrous and demonstrably false piece of idiocy and got his ass handed to him as a result.

  110. #110 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    For those few of you still eligible for a reply, remember to get your cards, letters and calls in to me as soon as possible. Only about 12 hours remain.

    archbishop ann, in the remaining time, you may want to try contacting Archbishop Chaput to get confirmation of how “heretical” I am.
    Good luck.
    [I’ve never tried contacting or soliciting a response from the good man myself. When and if I do, it sure as hell won’t be about inane insane points like yours.]

  111. #111 ann
    September 6, 2015

    Of course not. You’ll be too busy telling him that calling the preparatory catechesis for the World Meeting of Families “Choosing Life” was a mistake because *one cannot choose something which one already possesses*.

    But I’m not really sure why I’m supposed to care about that anyway. I mean, why would I want you to?

  112. #112 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    “I mean, look at #2099. The only part of it that’s true is that I’m not particularly invested in the term “pro-choice”…”

    I know, and everyone else here knows,
    that ann would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if ann could.
    We know, even though ann has never specified where she WOULD stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if ann could.

  113. #113 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    “Of course not. You’ll be too busy telling him that calling the preparatory catechesis for the World Meeting of Families “Choosing Life” was a mistake because *one cannot choose something which one already possesses*.”

    Coincidentally, when I got back from Mass this morning, I made a donation with my VISA card to the World Meeting of Families – Philadelphia.
    Every little bit helps.
    You too can help at
    http://www.worldmeeting2015.org/get-involved/donate/

    My receipt didn’t say I get anything for my donation. And I don’t want or need anything from them for my donation.
    But who knows, maybe they’ll send me a “Pro-Choice and Proud” bumper sticker.
    Ya think?

  114. #114 ann
    September 6, 2015

    Also, fwiw, I’m not saying you’re heretical. What I’m saying is that this is a heretical argument:

    “Choices: 1) Carry to term, deliver…”

    No, not a choice. This is the forever status quo of pregnant women.

    Because it is. The orthodox position is that you not only can choose to carry a pregnancy to term, but that it’s essential to do so:

    Abortion promoters insist that access to abortion is necessary for such situations. But this is false solidarity. Like Mary and Elizabeth, we can respond differently, more creatively. There is no such thing as a “need” for abortion. It is never necessary for anyone to do evil, and it is always possible to choose the good.

  115. #115 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    It’s Sunday, so for the eyes of the one or two self-identified Christians out there, some verses that I think about from time to time:

    “For thou didst form my inward parts,
    thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb.
    I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful.
    Wonderful are thy works!
    Thou knowest me right well;
    my frame was not hidden from thee,
    when I was being made in secret,
    intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.
    Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance;
    in thy book were written, every one of them,
    the days that were formed for me,
    when as yet there was none of them.” [Psalm 139:13-16]

    “Did not he who made me in the womb make him?
    And did not one fashion us in the womb?” [Job 31:15]

    “And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
    and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
    And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
    For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.” [Luke 1:41-44]

    “And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them.
    But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.
    Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
    And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them.” [Mark 10:13-16]

    “At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
    And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them,
    and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
    Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
    “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me;
    but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” [Mat 18:1-6]

  116. #116 TBruce
    September 6, 2015

    You’re in favor of her right to choose, though, right?

    I don’t believe that a brainwashed person subjected to the threat of eternal torture is actually making a “choice”.

  117. #117 ann
    September 6, 2015

    I know, and everyone else here knows,
    that ann would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if ann could.

    No you don’t. Furthermore, even on its own terms, it’s untrue. But that’s not going to stop you from saying it. And I’m sure that an explanation wouldn’t either. So I’m not going to reward your repeated falsehoods by offering one.

    Plus the more you repeat it, the clearer it is that your arguments are corrupt, untrustworthy and vicious. And while I’d obviously prefer that that wasn’t the case, as long as it is, it’s better for it be clear.

    So go to it.

  118. #118 TBruce
    September 6, 2015
  119. #119 ann
    September 6, 2015

    It’s also not true that I haven’t said. BTW.

  120. #120 Krebiozen
    September 6, 2015

    That biblical piece about God fashioning us in the womb is weird to read immediately after reading about the genetics of conjoined twins (it has something to do with sonic the hedgehog). One wonders quite what He is up to when he fashions a child that is so genetically abnormal it is still-born. I suppose the suffering of the parents cheers Him up like the suffering of children gave Mother Theresa a warm glow.

    Another thought: rabbits, and some other animals, reabsorb their fetuses if there is little food available or they are otherwise stressed. If humans did the same, would they be committing a mortal sin?

  121. #121 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    “It is never necessary for anyone to do evil, and it is always possible to choose the good.”

    Virtually every human being above the age of two knows or senses that one can choose between doing bad things and doing good things.
    [Except, perhaps for some evolutionists who don’t believe in free will.]
    One doesn’t need a Catechism for such epiphanies.

    ……………
    Every one of the aforementioned human beings exists because his or her mother took the natural process of pregnancy to its natural conclusion.

    Now, imagine a world in which abortion was unthinkable; where abortion was not available legally or illegally.

    In such a world, would you say a pregnant woman was CHOOSING to take her pregnancy to its natural conclusion?

  122. #122 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    Me: “I know, and everyone else here knows,
    that ann would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if ann could.”

    ann: “No you don’t.”

    Yes I do.
    I most certainly believe my statement to be true.
    And I’ll continue to believe it’s true until such time that you tell me NOW where you would stop a woman, if you could, from having an abortion she wanted.

    In the mean time, ann would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if ann could.

  123. #123 Garou
    Québec, Canada
    September 6, 2015

    @See Noevo

    Yeah, you are choosing to take your pregnancy to term… Or commit suicide. And indeed some do, or die from a botched abortion procedure. Also, we are in a world where abortion exist, so I don’t see how that helps your point.

  124. #124 Narad
    September 6, 2015

    That biblical piece about [G-d] fashioning us in the womb is weird to read immediately after reading about the genetics of conjoined twins….

    Not to mention craniopagus parasiticus. Never did get an answer from A.H. about Manar Maged before it ran away.

    Speaking of which, S.N.’s continued babbling is really taking all the drama out of the ultimatum behind his impending second flounce.

  125. #125 Robert L Bell
    September 6, 2015

    Why doesn’t little weasel attack me?

    Then we could have quotes like

    Me: “I know, and everyone else here knows,
    that Robert L Bell would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if Robert L Bell could.”

    Robert L Bell: “That is correct. It’s none of your business, you toxic little control freak.”

    Then we agree to disagree, and we all go home, and no more doctors get shot and no more hospitals get blown up.

  126. #126 DGR
    September 6, 2015

    Now, imagine a world in which abortion was unthinkable; where abortion was not available legally or illegally.

    This world has never existed and never will.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion

    Discussing an impossibility seems rather pointless.

    However, based on human history, if somehow all females lost the ability to self-induce or were prevented from doing so, e.g., all pregnant females are placed in restraints until giving birth, I imagine what you’d end up with would be more kids left on riverbanks, or immersed in the river, left in dumpsters, etc.

    This seems to be yet another “argument” or “point” that exists in your mind but, makes little or no sense to a sane individual.

  127. #127 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    “That biblical piece about God fashioning us in the womb is weird to read immediately after reading about the genetics of conjoined twins… One wonders quite what He is up to when he fashions a child that is so genetically abnormal it is still-born…”

    Almost sounds as if Krebiozen is making some kind of anti-theodicy argument for the non-existence of the God of the bible, doesn’t it?
    But it’s not, really.
    Any of his talk about rare but woeful biological conditions (or even rare but woeful results of human choice) are but a smokescreen.
    People like Krebiozen disbelieve in God because this world has something, ANYTHING, they don’t like. It could be anything as small as a hangover or a paper cut.
    ANY suffering serves as their rationale for “This God of the bible does not exist.”

    Just a smokescreen. An anti-God smokescreen.
    Similar to the pro-abortion smokescreen used by everyone else here (#846).

  128. #128 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    Me: “Every one of the aforementioned human beings exists because his or her mother took the natural process of pregnancy to its natural conclusion.
    Now, imagine a world in which abortion was unthinkable; where abortion was not available legally or illegally.
    In such a world, would you say a pregnant woman was CHOOSING to take her pregnancy to its natural conclusion?”

    DGR: “This world has never existed and never will… Discussing an impossibility seems rather pointless.”

    Neither has a world without thievery and rape and MURDER ever existed.
    Which brings something to mind…
    Just a brief follow up on my “1) ann’s “not particularly invested in the term “pro-choice.”
    2) But ann’s “pro-choice” on continuing a pregnancy. 3) And ann’s “pro-choice” on human respiration. 4) Sure as hell, ann’s “pro-choice” on just about ANYTHING you could think of. She’s even “pro-choice” on defecating. [Of course, the one “choice” regarding any of the above would invariably result in an untimely death.]”…

    It should go without saying, but the ANYTHING would, of course, include murder, i.e. ann is “pro-choice” on murder.

    BUT it should ALSO go without saying that I don’t really mean to single out just ann. The same goes for DGR and all the rest of you.

  129. #129 DGR
    September 6, 2015

    @ #2128, #2129

    Getting back to my #2127 comment:

    This seems to be yet another “argument” or “point” that exists in your mind but, makes little or no sense to a sane individual.

  130. #130 DGR
    September 6, 2015
  131. #131 DGR
    September 6, 2015

    Now these are rational and decent Catholics:

    http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

    Unlike See, what they have to say will make sense to a sane person.

  132. #132 gaist
    September 6, 2015

    “You’re all mean! If you don’t stop I’ll just leave! And you’ll be left in the dark silent theater for ever!”
    “Why on earth would we do that? That’s absurd.”
    “Yes you will! With me gone you’ll just have to sit here watching nothing! Nothing!”
    “Why would we do that?”
    “Because I wouldn’t be here! I can’t even imagine how terrifying, how utterly empty and devoid of meaning a life without me would be! I bet all of you I’ve put on my do not call list are crying!”
    “We really aren’t.”
    “Crying! I just know it.”
    “Well, at least he’s consistent on one issue.”
    “Wailing, no doubt contemplating suicide!” wails See Noevo.
    “I think he’s losing it” says a member of the audience.
    “I think he lost it long ago.” replies another.
    “I think it’s losing it all over again.” agrees a third one.
    “I’m See Noevo’s conscience” says a fourth one in falsetto voice and making the judge puppet he is holding bang its gavel. “I sentence you to pitiable existence alone and forgotten, friendless and broken!”

    (silence)

    “You’re mean!” See Noevo cries out, tearful, and runs away from the stage.
    “Maybe that was a bit harsh,” says another member of the audience. “I think we should encourage See to get out more, meet people, y’know…”
    “Would you let a rabid dog free?” asks the man holding the judge puppet.
    “Sadly, he’ll be back.”

    And less sadly, so will the Superlative See Noevo’s Nerve-rending Magical Mystery tour, as the dishonest people-hating creep keeps generating so much bullshit it would be dangerous to ignore it. Had too much to do today to write any more, but there’s several long posts worth of material already still unedited.

    And to the creep, it’s never too late to choose honesty and wisdom, even if dishonesty and bigoted idiocy comes natural to you. Drive safe.

  133. #133 Robert L Bell
    September 6, 2015

    I bet all of you I’ve put on my do not call list are crying!”

    Heh! I’ve been trying for ages to get the little weasel to pick up. Guess I just don’t know how to be obnoxious – True Christians are famous for that.

  134. #134 ann
    September 6, 2015

    Yes I do.

    No you don’t.

    I most certainly believe my statement to be true.

    Your fantasies are your prerogative.

    And I’ll continue to believe it’s true until such time that you tell me NOW where you would stop a woman, if you could, from having an abortion she wanted.

    And I’ll continue to believe that you’re an idiot if you think that will make a damn bit of difference to me. You’re just pouring a bucket of crap over your own head by repeating the falsehood. Go play some golf with your buddies who know your gay nickname and reminisce about the strippers you saw that time heh heh heh.

    Or whatever.

    In the mean time, ann would not stop any abortion a woman wanted, even if ann could.

    Like that’s gonna work out any better than it did the other hundred times.

  135. #135 ann
    September 6, 2015

    ANY suffering serves as their rationale for “This God of the bible does not exist.”

    Calm down. There’s no point in having hysterics over your imaginary fears

  136. #136 DGR
    September 6, 2015

    Heh! I’ve been trying for ages to get the little weasel to pick up. Guess I just don’t know how to be obnoxious – True Christians are famous for that.

    He prefers people who, in good faith, “engage” him … which opens the door for the bizarre ramblings that to his make-believe, black and white universe mind comprise an “argument” or “point” to be made.

    He’s experienced enough at trolling to not be distracted by one line insults, mockery, etc.

    Just like he ignores anything that shows him to be a fool and pretends he’s “the winner” rather than acknowledging his butt being kicked on pretty much every comment he makes.

    I

  137. #137 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 6, 2015

    So if I were to say I support changing the law to allow abortion at any time up to birth, what do I win?

  138. #138 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 6, 2015

    Sigh, failure of the subjunctive. Please reword in your mind to make it grammatically correct. Thanks.

  139. #139 Robert L Bell
    September 6, 2015

    Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.

    Thomas Gray

  140. #141 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    To Mephistopheles #2138:

    “So if I were to say I support changing the law to allow abortion at any time up to birth, what do I win?”

    You win the “Anti-ann Honesty Award”.

  141. #142 ann
    September 6, 2015

    2) But ann’s “pro-choice” on continuing a pregnancy. 3) And ann’s “pro-choice” on human respiration. 4) Sure as hell, ann’s “pro-choice” on just about ANYTHING you could think of. She’s even “pro-choice” on defecating. [Of course, the one “choice” regarding any of the above would invariably result in an untimely death.]”…

    It should go without saying, but the ANYTHING would, of course, include murder, i.e. ann is “pro-choice” on murder.

    BUT it should ALSO go without saying that I don’t really mean to single out just ann. The same goes for DGR and all the rest of you.

    Since I didn’t say anything about the continuation of pregnancy being a choice that Archbishop Chaput, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and — in short — the Catholic Church don’t also say, you’re obviously talking about them too.

  142. #143 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    Just a couple hours remain before the lifeblood of this thread ends, and the parasites depart for another host.

  143. #144 DGR
    September 6, 2015

    Just a couple hours remain before the lifeblood of this thread ends, and the parasites depart for another host.

    There’s more than one of you?

    Oh, gotcha … in your “omnipotence”, you view yourself as being the “lifeblood”.

    https://psychopathyawareness.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/the-psychopaths-false-sense-of-omnipotence/

    Have to keep an eye out for “body of teenager found near golf course” type stories for the next little while.

  144. #145 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    Mephistopheles, you’ve shown remarkable honesty with your #2138.
    I’m curious about something.
    As winner of the “Anti-ann Honesty Award”, do you believe

    ann would ever would stop a woman, if ann could, from having an abortion the woman wanted?

  145. #146 ann
    September 6, 2015

    You’re a sketch, Marty.

  146. #147 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    You, too, inspector clouseau.

  147. #148 See Noevo
    September 6, 2015

    Well, as per the PSA in #2069,
    it’s time for me to go,
    and so,
    for this thread to trickle to a quick end.

    Good bye, you little devils.

    I’m…
    Leavin’.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDzCP-5Prbs

    P.S.
    Did you catch the Philly connection? Hint: Sunglasses.

  148. #149 MI Dawn
    September 6, 2015

    Hi, all! I’ve had a wonderful weekend with my daughter. I see that SN has continued thinking that things won’t go on without him. Is he aware that threads close automatically after (IIRC) 3 months? So we can merrily keep leading him on his tantrum until that date. I’ve actually enjoyed not dealing with him but I appreciate those who have tried to continue to engage with him.

    And, I think I’m in love with gaist.. the things posted are truly wonderful and much more interesting and amusing than anything SN has said lately.

    Also, I’m STILL waiting for SN to admit the PP videos are all edited and non-factual.

  149. #150 ann
    September 6, 2015

    So long Marty. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

  150. #151 DGR
    September 6, 2015

    It should go without saying, but the ANYTHING would, of course, include murder, i.e. ann is “pro-choice” on murder.

    BUT it should ALSO go without saying that I don’t really mean to single out just ann. The same goes for DGR and all the rest of you.

    See, you posted this before I provided the helpful dinosaur comic at #2131, so I won’t bust your balls, assuming you have these, over your circular reasoning.

    To my knowledge, no western nation considers a legal abortion to be a crime … much less “murder”.

    Law aside, your murder premise is based on what must be your “fully formed human from point of conception” belief.

    Anyone who does not, as I don’t, share your belief in this regard will not arrive at the “murder” conclusion of your circular logic.

    Legal abortion is not murder in other than crackpot religious eyes.

    And, this being the case, supporting female choice is not analogous to participating in or supporting murder … other than in the eyes of wingnut anti-abortion busybodies.

    Maybe we should look at an example of what law would consider to be an actual murder … say a gun related homicide.

    You’re “pro-second amendment”.

    Using your own bizarre logic, would this not make you culpable in every gun related homicide?

    Personally, I think it would be nuts to accuse you or any other pro-gun person of murder, or being an accessory to murder, in respect of every gun related homicide that may occur.

    And we’re talking about real murders here, rather than imaginary murders conjured up in the minds of anti-abortion whackadoodles.

    And what about people bludgeoned to death with golf clubs … should you be responsible solely due to your being “pro-golf”?

    I say not.

  151. #152 DGR
    September 6, 2015

    Oh snap, See has left the building.

    And here I was hoping we could talk a bit about evolution in the strange little universe that exists in his strange little mind.

    http://0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/71/71/d4c2acd38731680acff7d0b6849bbf8a-jesus-with-a-dinosaur-2.jpg

    Oh well, maybe when the anti-abortion dog and pony show he mentioned at #2103 has concluded, he’ll be back to discuss.

    Unless of course he’s too busy settling in the refugee family the soon to be U.S. bound Pope will likely ask him to house.

    Or perhaps being the super-Catholics he is, he’ll find room for two or three families.

  152. #153 shay
    September 6, 2015

    Also, I’m STILL waiting for SN to admit the PP videos are all edited and non-factual.

    What’s that line from the old song “Until the twelve of never?” That would require SN to tell the truth.

  153. #154 shay
    September 6, 2015

    Argh. Borked the italics.

  154. #155 Bill Price
    September 7, 2015

    #2149, SN:
    Come on back when you can’t stay so long.

  155. #156 ann
    September 7, 2015

    I’m pretty sure that sooner or later he won’t be able to stay away, unfortunately.

  156. #157 MI Dawn
    September 7, 2015

    shay: here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNNRGa3pKyw

    The original Johnny Mathis version.. 🙂

  157. #158 Robert L Bell
    September 7, 2015

    So long.

    I’m pretty much here to gawk at the train wreck, perhaps I’ll check back on the 23rd to see if we hit 3300.

    And remember: “choosing natural healing” is a euphemism for rejecting treatment while engaging in elaborate anxiety management rituals and hoping for spontaneous remission.

  158. #159 Narad
    September 7, 2015

    #340 Could you find something from Lester Bangs?

    Did this ever happen?

    No, but Aristotle seems to have been thrown overboard.

  159. #160 Delphine
    September 8, 2015

    And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others…

  160. #161 Narad
    September 8, 2015

    Although S.N. has declared that he will shut down this thread while he’s Aqualunging up some sort of Junior LPGA event (and I have a longer comment on the back burner), I’ve just had an analogy come over the wireless.

    It’s completely obvious, of course, but S.N. is functionally dependent upon clumsily labeling people. The profound embarrassment of the “no call”/”no fly”/”no ass, no gas” routine solidifies this.

    S.N. might as well be numbering people. I see no obvious reason to refrain from drawing the frank Godwin connection – modulo his nonexistent nuance – to a (closeted) Nazі poseur at heart.

  161. #162 Narad
    September 8, 2015

    ^ This also is consonant with the not-exactly-hidden frustrated-bottom routine, but I’m too tired to delve into the relevant Eurotrash material. A quick look suggests that Deleuze’s BDSM trip isn’t going to cut it.

  162. #163 gaist
    September 8, 2015

    (silence)

    “You hear that?”

    (silence)

    “No. What?”

    (silence)

    “That.”

    (silence)

    “That is nice for a change…”
    “True.”
    “You think this is all an act, or is he really that horrible a person?”
    “You believe he’s been fooling us all this time? I doubt it.”
    “I do too, but nobody, nobody can really be that insensitive, imbecilic or insecure as he is.”
    “Oh no, I think there definitely was a role he played, but it wasn’t for our benefit.”

    (silence)

    “Self-delusion is a curious thing…”
    “None of it even makes sense, as a whole.”
    “It really doesn’t.”
    “Remember how he argued that ‘the natural state’ isn’t a choice, and therefore women are breeding machines.”
    “Yeah, and he basically insisted that porn stars spend most of their day celibate. Not in so many words but that’s what his argument amounted to.”
    “True”.
    “But if natural state is good, why did it go to such inept tirade against people cutting off life support? Isn’t that to him what’s natural, and therefore good?”
    “I don’t understand how someone can claim to be obedient Christian and insist natural state is best.”
    “I think it proves he’s gay.”
    “How come?”
    “That whole idea of inaction not being a choice, I think it springs from him being unable to accept a central part of himself, and his obsession of repressing sexuality… well… that and the constant off-hand gay bashing and it’s paints a pretty telling picture, don’t you think.”
    “In garish rainbow colors.”
    “It’s sad really. Not daring to be who you are, for so long. No wonder he takes it out on everybody else.”
    “Well, sympathy and whatnot are all good, but it’s no excuse to being such an asshole.”
    “True that.”

    (silence)

    “Remember his proclamation that our commonly-accepted practice of denying children a college education, his words – not ours.. I can only imagine he was talking about creationists like himself homeschooling their offspring ignorant enough that they’ll never get accepted into college.”
    “You know what, it never made sense before, but when you put it like that…”
    “I know.”
    “Or how he tried to redefine some terms while quoting a dictionary for others”.
    “Oh god. The ‘I’m the only real magician’, the others are just ‘showmen’, and abortion is ‘willfully murdering humans out of malice and excepting every reasonable objection’ but at the same time, football players quitting are ‘aborting’ pro football according to him…”.

    (contemplative silence)

    Theres a sound of Tardis teleporting, and the stage hand checks his mobile phone.
    “Are they still there or did I win?” he reads.
    “Excuse me?” asks someone from the audience.
    “See sent me a text, asked if you were still here.”
    “Or if he had won?”
    “Yup.” nods the stage hand.
    “Jesus fucking christ that guy…”
    “Yup.” nods the stage hand.
    “So he’s coming back?” asks another member of the audience.
    “Probably,” says the stage hand, looking up into the flies, frowning. “I doubt it has anywhere else to go.”

    (sympathetic silence)

    The stage hand looks down and begins typing on his mobile.
    “You going to reply to the creep?”
    “Yup” nods the stage hand. “‘Your monkey defecated all over the flying rig, and I have to bill you for it’*” he reads as he types.
    “Lovely.”

    More sombre than usual, this time, but there’s jokes to come, have no fear.

    (* true story, except it was a parrot with diarrhea).

  163. #164 MI Dawn
    September 8, 2015

    @gaist: yes, more somber. Watching the news this morning, I was wondering how SN would respond to the pope making annulments easier to obtain for Catholics. Of course, No True Catholic (TM) would ever seek a divorce, but annulments are A-OKAY because they mean that the marriage really never happened.

  164. #165 Renate
    The Netherlands
    September 8, 2015

    Last day I read an interview with a man who reminded me on SN. It was basicly about his organisation to defend our ‘Black Pete’, but het appeared to be a conservative Catholic who said anticonception was very female unfriendly. Alas the journalist didn’t ask for the reason why he thought so, probably because it didn’t fit the subject at had.

  165. #166 Renate
    September 8, 2015

    ‘het’ should be ‘he’

  166. #167 Renate
    September 8, 2015

    and ‘had’ should be ‘hand’

  167. #168 JGC
    September 8, 2015

    Movement in the wings. A small boy steps on stage.
    BOY: Mr. Noevo…
    Voice from the audience: We’ve seen you before, haven’t I?
    BOY: I don’t know, Sir.
    Audience: It wasn’t you came yesterday?
    BOY: No Sir.
    Audience: This is your first time?
    BOY: Yes Sir.
    Silence.
    Audience: Words words. (Pause.) Speak.
    BOY: (in a rush) Mr. Noevo told me to tell you he won’t make sense this evening but surely tomorrow.
    Silence.
    Then more voices from the audience.
    1st Voice: We’ve nothing more to do here.
    2nd Voice: Nor anywhere else.
    3rd Voice: Don’t go on like that. Tomorrow everything will be better.
    1st Voice: How do you make that out?
    3rd Voice: Did you not hear what the child said?
    1st Voice: No.
    3rd Voice: He said that See was sure to make sense tomorrow. (Pause.) What do you say to that?
    2nd Voice: Then all we have to do is to wait on here.
    1st Voice: Are you mad? We must take cover. Come on.
    2nd Voice: (looking at a tree). Pity we haven’t got a bit of rope…

  168. #169 Denice Walter
    September 8, 2015

    Tomorrow?
    Not likely: the relevant meds take a lot longer to start working.

  169. #170 JP
    September 8, 2015

    Viagra can’t possibly take that long to start working, can it?

  170. #171 Denice Walter
    September 8, 2015

    @ JP:

    Right but Viagra would have other symptoms which would keep him uh… occupied for a while.

  171. #172 Delphine
    exile
    September 8, 2015

    Maybe he is getting his rocks off. What’s the matter with the boy? He don’t come around no more. Is he checking out for sure? Is he gonna close the door on meeeeee?

  172. #173 Denice Walter
    September 8, 2015

    @ Delphine:

    Oh, I know.
    What shall we do? ( wrings hands and sobs inconsolably)

    Well, we could always:
    – make fun of Vani Hari
    – detail precisely what BS Mike Adams is writing about today
    – show photos of the palaces woo-meisters like Null and corrupt doctors like Mercola, Oz, Burzynski and ( ex doctor) Wakefield live in as they inveigle trusting people
    – show how anti-vaxxers pervert legal exemptions
    – show how anti-vaxxers mislead frightened new parents
    – write a tribute to lilady and discuss her usage of expletives and insults
    – talk about what we like to eat or drink in GREAT detail
    ( including recipes)
    -discuss our most recent travelling experiences
    – talk about university drug experimentation OUTSIDE the lab
    – talk about hair-raising medical events that we either witnessed or survived
    – illustrate why trolls will get nowhere here
    – talk about those rad parties Lord D gives
    – discuss the differences between spoken and written language
    – discuss films we have seen recently
    -whatever

  173. #174 Delphine
    September 8, 2015

    We could. We can. We should.

    We can also pay tribute to a man who died in great pain nearly 38 years ago. He died because he believed that people should be afforded the same rights, irrespective of the colour of their skin. My father knew him fairly well and he was not perfect but he deserved so much more.

    Yihla moja, yihla moja. RIP Steve. And the eyes of the world are watching now. (still) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ncVyxQRw70

  174. #175 Delphine
    you can blow out a candle
    September 8, 2015

    My better half just read this over my shoulder and said, “way to be a buzzkill.” Let’s make fun of Vani. It’s easy enough. #polysorbate80 #yogamatssubwaybread

  175. #176 Delphine
    September 8, 2015

    Mind you, he grew up with clean socks and a working fridge, so…

    I’ll STFU.

    Where’s our resident Catholic? Probably stroking out over Pope Francis’ edicts on annulments. #awesomePope #lovehimdon’tgiveafuckifyoudon’t

  176. #177 gaist
    September 9, 2015

    “Was there a boy here?”
    “When?”
    “Just now.”
    “Was there?”
    “I think so. I’m not sure, I forget.”
    “He forgets.”
    “When?”
    “Just now.”
    “I did. I do.”

    The stage hand is sitting on the edge of the stage, chatting with the audience. “In his previous show, if you can call it that, the ‘God Hates Evolution and We Both Hate You Also, a light comedy’ he insisted for the second half that first living organisms had to be self-aware and immediately capable of logical reasoning or evolution didn’t exist, and therefore evolution didn’t exist.” he explains.
    “But… That’s… Oh god.”
    “Has he not heard of single cell organisms? Algae?”
    “I don’t think they’re mentioned in the Bible.”
    “There is something seriously wrong with that one.”
    “Not to mention that according to See they must have had perfectly formed digestive systems from the start. ”
    “So this might not have even been his worst performance?” asks a member of the audience, horrified.

    (stunned, contemplative silence)

    Several members of the audience involuntarily shudder.

    (contemplative, stunned silence)

    “At least it passed the time.”
    “It would have passed in any case.”
    “Yes, but not so absurdly.”
    “Did that evolution-show also include the monkey? Darwin IV or one of his predecessors?” asks somebody from the stage hand.
    “Yeah. There was a long-winded skit where See kept parading the monkey about and pointing out it can’t mate with a dog and therefore evolution is impossible.”
    “That is some mightily impressive reasoning, I must admit. I’m nigh convinced already.” laughs someone on the audience.
    “Strong am I, young grasshopper, in the way of the Dunning-Kruger. ” says the man with the judge puppet, poorly imitating Yoda in his falsetto voice.

    Both curious and disappointed in equal measure with the sound of laughter and joviality emanating from the audience, See Noevo peeks in through an open doorway leading back stage, forcing its eyes decidedly away from the audience.
    “You never answered my question” it tells the stage hand.
    “You owe the theater a hundred bucks.” the stage hand tells it.
    “Nonsense, and stop trying to change the subject.” says See.
    “Well, as you can see the audience is still here,” says the stage hand, waving a hand in the general direction of the pews. “And your monkey soiled the flying rig, pulleys, harness and all.”
    “Bah, I’m not my monkeys keeper, and besides, I only have your word for what happened and besides, you let it escape! And besides, and most importantly, I see that the audience is still trying to get rid of me, but I’m still here so I must be winning. Go me!”
    “But they’re here enjoying themselves.” the stage hand points out.
    “No doubt crushed in spirit and desolate. The laughter is just a ruse to trick me.” See insists.
    “I doubt that, but its still your monkey and you were the one who kicked the suitcase and broke the lock.”
    “Prove it.”
    “We all saw it.” adds a helpful voice from the audience. See ignores it, and adds
    “And besides, that might be your crap!”, addressing the stage hand.
    “It’s not and you’re being ludicrous.”
    “Add hominem! I win again!” exclaims See.

    (crickets)

    “That’s not an ad hominem, nor would that be how they worked.” a reasonable voice says from the audience.
    See turns to the people there, hissing “I’m not on right now, so shut up!”
    “Says the man who thinks he wins if we leave.”
    “Shut up! Shut! Up! I took a break of my own volition! You had nothing whatsoever to do with our, nothing! Nada! Absolutely and unequivocally-”
    “Methinks it protests to much…”
    “In the meantime, do try to converse calmly, since you’re incapable of keeping silent.”
    “You’re right. He’s inexhaustible.”
    “It’s so he won’t have to think.”
    Ignoring the audience once again See turns to face the stage hand but before it manages to say anything to the stage hand it turns back to address the audience. “Why can’t you accept you lost already?”
    “Is that desperation I hear on your plead? You finally realized the only way you can ‘win’, is by attrition.”
    “That’s… It’s… I… Nonsense! My performance speaks for itself! See stutters.
    “Indeed. By now even you realize you’ve lost every argument you actually invested in, all lies to the contrary not withstanding, and are just playing for time.”

    (silence)

    Lost for words, See Noevo tries to state down the audience. See fails, its eyes dating furtively from one spectator to the next until it finally looks down and stats at its feet.
    Until suddenly, it looks up, visibly excited.
    “So can’t you!” it shouts work glee. “You can’t win me!”
    “He imagines that when we see him indefatigable we’ll regret our decision. Such is his miserable scheme.”
    “We’re not trying to ‘win you’,” explains the audience, “we’re not playing whatever your silly little game is.”
    “But you’re here!” shouts See. “You wouldn’t be here without me!”
    “Silly little wabbit” says someone from the audience. “we’re having fun without you.”
    “But… but…” See whispers, eyes tearing up.
    “You’re just something with which we chose to occupy or time with, not a task we have to do. We don’t need anything from you, and frankly, we don’t really want anything from you either.”

    (silence)

    “Well, I want and need that hundred bucks from you, because I’m not cleaning that monkey feces.” says the stage hand.

  177. #178 shay
    September 9, 2015

    Other than his say-so, is there any evidence SN is actually Roman Catholic?

  178. #179 gaist
    September 10, 2015

    I don’t doubt it thinks itself Roman Catholic, but one does get the impression that to See Noevo its just a tool it can pick and choose from to rationalize and reinforce its own (small and bigoted) world view.

    So there isn’t any, except evidence to the contrary (of See being a True Catholic(tm) anywhere outside its own feeble imagination).

    On par for the course for See Noevo the dishonest people-hating creep; Never-ending deception both of self and others.

  179. #180 MI Dawn
    September 10, 2015

    Oh, I have no doubt that SN is a version of Roman Catholic. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a member of Opus Dei and regularly attends Tridentine Masses.

  180. #181 gaist
    September 11, 2015

    “You shut up!” See Noevo spits at the stage hand. “I’m not going to pay one cent for that monkeys doings!”
    “But you brought it here!” replies the stage hand, frustrated.
    “For your benefit and education! I shan’t pay.”
    “Then you clean up after it.”
    “That hardly seems fair,” says See Noevo, “I wasn’t even here when it happened!”

    (crickets)

    “I think it’s obvious what is happening here.” says See, “You’re trying to undermine my authority.”
    “What authority?”
    “Respect mah authoritah!” someone barks, imitating Cartman.
    “Come top think of it, I think See has been channeling Cartman all along…” adds another member from the audience.
    “The court recognizes the same compassion, same humility, same intelligence and judges you Cartman!” sounds the falsetto, in time with the judge puppet banging its gavel.

    See flinches at this but pretends to not have heard it, and continues raving at the stage hand. “This is a character assassination, plain and simple! A heinous attack on good old Christian values I embody and the important work I do here!”
    “What important work?” shouts another member of the audience. “All you’ve shown us thus far has been your feeble if frantic mental maturation.”
    “Eww, thanks for the picture…”
    “Then you’re just stupid! My good work here is self evident!” screams See Noevo, no longer ignoring the spectators.
    “What is self evident are you’re lies and evasions, your contempt for reason and compassion, as well as that ridiculous inconsequential competition you invented and dishonestly pretend you’re winning.”
    “Fuck you!” See erupts, face the color of beetroot.
    “Is that the important work manifesting itself?” asks a member of the audience.

    (silence)

    “Can I ask you why you’re here?”
    “Are you being obtuse on purpose?” See snaps back.
    “That’s partly what I mean… You’re not trying to convince anybody because you either insult, ignore or lie about them every chance you get. You’re not trying to be convinced, because you evade or ignore all arguments and points you can’t refute, nor are you even open to dialogue, instead just carpet bombing any attempt to reach you with your religion fueled bigotry”
    “So you believe anybody who quotes the bible is-”
    “You are doing our again. I said no such thing.”
    “Just now-”
    “Just now I never even mentioned the bible but I did refer to you yelling ‘no true Catholic’ every time you come across something you don’t like but can’t refute. And to your habit of imagining what others say, rather than accepting what they actually say.”
    “So what’s your point, then?” See mutters, a little deflated.
    “If you need to vent at the world, fine – glad to be of assistance, hope it helps you cope somehow with being you, but let’s not pretend it is anything more. Just get the expletives out of your system and fuck off already. If, however, you want more than a soapbox to spray spittle from while being ignored or ridiculed, you need to get your shit together.”
    “Or at least get your monkeys shit together.” adds the stage hand.
    “Ignored? Me? But I’m the one doing the ignoring!” See exclaims.
    “No, you’re the one cowering in fear of the mess you made with your conduct, and are either too timid or obstinate to acknowledge it.”
    “Or your monkey’s mess-” adds the stage hand, unhelpfully.
    “That is, uh, wholly untrue… ” says See, clearly uncomfortable and defensive.

    The judge puppet bangs its gavel. “I sentence See to ignorance and ignominy for the crime of hypocrisy and lack of self awareness.” says the puppeteer, in falsetto.
    “Stop doing that!” howls See. “Stop turning the tables!”

    (pitying silence)

    “Why area you here?”
    ” I hope it’s to clean up after his animal.” says the stage hand.
    “I’m here because I matter” See says, nor meeting anybody’s eyes. “Because I’m important.””If you came here to entertain or educate you failed miserably, from the get go.” says an audience-member.
    “Utterly .”
    “Completely”.
    “Indubitably” agree several other spectators.
    “You’re not, you’re just tedious and unimaginative.” says the stage hand.
    “And you know it too,” continues the audience-member. “and now you’re trying to make us leave so you don’t have to face your embarrassing failure.”
    “Preposterous.” See stutters, voice shrill with panic
    “It’s that, or you came here to pick a fight.”
    “But you’re the ones resisting me!” it shouts, pointing wildly at everybody.
    “cue ii dee”.

    Suddenly, a beam of light envelopes See as one of the spotlights swings to center on See, blinding it.
    “…wha-…” See whispers, trying to shield its eyes from the brightness. See takes a few steps to get away from the spotlight, but the light follows it. Flecks of dust dance along the beam.
    “…what, who…” See stutters, “I never… Not I,… never …realized…” Tears are running down his cheeks.

    “Who the hell is up there?” the stage hand wonders out loud. All eyes turn up towards the source of the light, but it is too bright, and the theater to dark and they see nothing.

    “I’m sorry I failed you!” See Noevo cries out, eyes fixed on the impossibly bright source of illumination, falling to his knees.

    (silence)

    “What happened?” asks a member of the audience.
    “I have no idea.” says the stage hand.
    “I have failed Him,” whispers See, “and you, I’ve failed you too.”

    (silence)

    ” Will you give me another chance?” pleads See Noevo, still kneeling, “Please. If I don’t lie anymore, won’t belittle or dismiss or insult anybody anymore? Please, I have to be better, I have to show I’m better…”
    “Why should we believe you now?”
    “I’ll show you I can behave…”

    High above them, the monkey, Darwin IV, climbing along a hanging power cable, reaches the batten of spotlights over the stage, and scampers along the row of spotlights towards a uncovered ventilation shaft, which by the smell of it will lead to the roof, and to freedom.

    (exit monkey)
    —-
    The end (of act one?)>

1 9 10 11

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.