Pharyngula

Posted by: Michelle R | June 2, 2009 9:31 AM

My only regret regarding religion is that hell does not exist and thus these people aren't going there.

Posted by: Sniper | June 2, 2009 9:33 AM

Hey, if god is on your side, you can do anything - kill, rape, steal, con, slander - nothing is wrong as long as you can convince yourself and the gullible that you're working for some higher power.

Posted by: Falconer | June 2, 2009 9:36 AM

Also: She likens Dr. Tiller to a Nazi guard at Auschwitz, and asks why she should mourn his death, and then claims that the killer was a "lone wacko" and holds him at arm's length. If we hold our American vets who liberated (some of) the gas camps to our breast, then Gingi Edmonds is being intellectually dishonest ... but we knew that.

Posted by: Kristin | June 2, 2009 9:40 AM

She's 23 years old. So young, yet so goddamned self-righteous, hateful, and stupid.

Posted by: astrosmashley | June 2, 2009 9:41 AM

Now I really wanna cry...from her pic, she looks alot like Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Posted by: philosoraptor | June 2, 2009 9:43 AM

I checked the 'About' page, and found this gem:

I am currently available for pro-life presentations and speaking engagements, dedicated to educating and activating high school and college age individuals using a fresh and unique approach appealing to my generation through hard facts presented with sarcasm and satire.

Sarcasm?!? Satire?!? I'm always astounded by the cruelty and inhumanity of their particular brand of humour. When accused of being irrational, insane or cruel, they always fall back on the "it was a joke!" excuse.

She is a sick and twisted individual.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 2, 2009 9:43 AM

Its too bad this young girl (I cannot bring myself to call her a lady) is not old enough to remember when abortion was illegal and women who wanted an abortion had to go to back alley doctors.

I'm guessing she thinks the "sluts" would deserve to die.

Posted by: Beige | June 2, 2009 9:45 AM

Oh my. It's quite interesting to see how people twist things to fit their own viewpoint, the worrying thing is that people who read those viewpoints then go ahead and don't check to see if what they're swallowing is fact or pseudo-fact. I'm not sure if I should be scared or disgusted. Maybe a bit of both.

Posted by: Rey Fox | June 2, 2009 9:50 AM

"personhood as defined in our Constitution."

Where the fetus is defined as 3/5 of a person, presumably.

Posted by: Tomi | June 2, 2009 9:54 AM

Sick.

Posted by: CalGeorge | June 2, 2009 9:58 AM

"I would have much preferred him being tried and convicted in a court of law that is consistent with medical science and personhood as defined in our Constitution."

I have no idea what that means. Neither does she, probably.

I'm glad that all of the assholes are coming out of the woodwork to go on the record like this.

It can only do their movement damage.

Keep spewing your vitriol, Gingi.

Posted by: Evolving Squid | June 2, 2009 9:59 AM

I've always wondered how many of these rabid anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-abortionists have large broods of adopted children?

Maybe if Angelina Jolie got talking about abortion, it would carry a little weight in that she seems bent on adopting every child not fast enough to run away. I may not agree, but at least someone like that could take a certain high-ground by saying "I'm against abortion but I adopt unwanted kids and give them a good home."

But some Christian yahoo without an adopted family? Those guys only make me think of goatse

Posted by: Susan | June 2, 2009 10:01 AM

Did she just say that, if they really, really feel strongly about it, it's OK for someone to kill her? Logic is not her strong suit.

Posted by: vicnog | June 2, 2009 10:03 AM

"Judge Claude Frollo sought to cleanse the world of vice and sin,
And he saw corruption everywhere...except within".

Posted by: ChrisG | June 2, 2009 10:07 AM

What a loathsome, pathetic creature she is.

Posted by: raven | June 2, 2009 10:09 AM

Well there is a bright side. The fundies are so repulsive, evil, and ugly that they are destroying the xian religion in the USA.

Between 1 and 2 million people leave the religion every year and xians are down 10% to 76% of the population and falling at 0.5% a year.

When xian becomes synonymous with liar, hater, ignorant, and killer, who would want to be one?

Gingi is just a terrorist. The pro-killers just enable, encourage, support, and spawn terrorist monsters like Roeder. This is classic terrorism and this is how it works.

Posted by: True Bob | June 2, 2009 10:11 AM

Well I think both she and Roeder should be harshly interrogated. They MUST know about anti-abortion terror cells, and if they have a ticking time bomb...well, let's just do whatever's necessary to protect the country - doctors' lives are at stake NOW!

What?

Posted by: QDA | June 2, 2009 10:13 AM

"I mean, I personally would not shoot an abortionist, but who am I to impose my morality on someone else? If you are against shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one, right? Hmm, suddenly pro-choice rhetoric doesn't sound so warm and fuzzy and virtuous, does it?"

Classic pro-choicer cop out turned around on their own justifications. Perfect.

Just one question, PZ: Do you have evidence to support your claim that ALL late term abortions are done ONLY when the mother's life is in jeapordy? It's a nice thought, but I have a hard time believing that all of the abortions he did were done because the mother would have otherwise died. Feel free to enlighten me.

I also have to take issue with the idea that (on this issue) you are definitively right and anyone who is remotely siding with the killer (the gunman, not Tiller) is definitively wrong? Science and reason can't save you on this one, sorry to say.

Posted by: Sniper | June 2, 2009 10:17 AM

. I'm not holding my breath, though. In fact, judging by her writing, she is among the new generation of violent protesters.

She's the natural heir to Bill O'Reilly. I bet she has her own show or op/ed column within three years.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 10:18 AM

"personhood as defined in our Constitution."
Where the fetus is defined as 3/5 of a person, presumably.

I love it when the deluded zombie worshipping horde try this argument. All you have to do is keep a KJV babble and one of those pocket Constitutions in your car's glove compartment or a desk/locker at work. When a fundie spouts patent bullshit about what's in the Constitution, or, better yet, that the Constitution is based on the Bible, tell them, "Hold on, I have copies of both in [wherever]. I'll get them, then we can see what's what."

I used to just bring in my battered pocket Constitution after asking fundies to bring in his Hebrew Fairy Tale so we could compare notes. They always seemed to "forget" to hold up their end of the bargain, and then think I'm the weird, obsessive freak for keeping my word by bringing in data to support my argument. Just because they have the attention span and memory retention of hamsters on a meth IV doesn't mean everyone else does.

Posted by: blueelm | June 2, 2009 10:19 AM

I can't stomach it. This whole thing has gotten me so upset that it's actually bad for me to think about it. I wish there was more I could do, but it honestly makes me feel so hopeless and angry.

Posted by: tyaddow | June 2, 2009 10:20 AM

"Science and reason can't save you on this one, I'm sorry to say." -QDA

Reason: u r doing it rong.

Posted by: Sniper | June 2, 2009 10:27 AM

#28, #38, seriously? Rape jokes? Rape is actually used as a "corrective" (i.e. terrorist) measure against noncoformists in real life and "Woman X needs to get laid" jokes are as offensive as they are old and tired. Please think about it.

Posted by: Cooper | June 2, 2009 10:29 AM

Maybe Playboy could run a piece advocating that Gingi get raped. Oops. Too late. They already ran a pro-rape piece.

http://tommychristopher.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/playboy-magazine-officially-hates-women-conservative-or-otherwise/

I see Obama's post election land of bipartisan love and happiness is coming along nicely.

Posted by: daveau | June 2, 2009 10:31 AM

I am always perplexed as to why people like this can't leave the punishment for perceived sins up to god. Whatever happened to "judge not lest ye be judged?" It's not as though Dr. Tiller was running around performing abortions on anyone Edmonds knows.

Posted by: Allytude | June 2, 2009 10:32 AM

Isn't it just like fundies to then claim persecution- AFTER being called out for a MURDER

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 10:36 AM

Argh, it was supposed to be "medical boards and laws."

Where's the Rev? I think he sneezed on me or something!

Posted by: Fred the Hun | June 2, 2009 10:38 AM

Is there a legal scholar out there who could shed some light on when, what these religious groups are doing, legally crosses the line into the incitement to riot territory?

Is there no way to prosecute these slime bags?

Posted by: TechSkeptic | June 2, 2009 10:39 AM

Aquaria,

"I used to just bring in my battered pocket Constitution after asking fundies to bring in his Hebrew Fairy Tale so we could compare notes."

Now there are Iphone apps for both. Much easier. I've calle dout many people on their claims about what is and isnt in the constitution.

The number of bible apps is scary.

Posted by: gypsytag | June 2, 2009 10:43 AM

Wow she has a donate button. She thinks that the anti-human, anti-intellectual screed she spouts is worth money?
Just Wow.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 10:43 AM

Oh, and here's a link 65-6703.

For the lazy, here is what the law says.

(a) No person shall perform or induce an abortion when the fetus is viable unless such person is a physician and has a documented referral from another physician not legally or financially affiliated with the physician performing or inducing the abortion and both physicians determine that: (1) The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman; or (2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

It then goes into considerable detail after that, and includes defining 22 weeks as when these procedures must be implemented, a requirement to investigate viability, and how there must be medical documentation of the need to perform the abortion to show that it meets these conditions.

Again, to all those questioning if these abortions were necessary, do the math.

Posted by: Shaden Freud | June 2, 2009 10:47 AM

From #32

"The Inquisition: It wasn't that bad."

Of course not...why, it was a delightful romp!

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 2, 2009 10:50 AM

QDA

I also have to take issue with the idea that (on this issue) you are definitively right and anyone who is remotely siding with the killer (the gunman, not Tiller) is definitively wrong?

Really? Read what you just wrote again... "I... take issue with the idea that anyone who is remotely siding with the killer is definitively wrong..."

Are you saying that this anyone could reasonably see this action as defensible?

You sure you want to take that position?

Posted by: Standard curve | June 2, 2009 10:52 AM

Perhaps life will kick her in the ass a bit and she will grow up, then again perhaps not.

Posted by: Steve M | June 2, 2009 10:53 AM

Send this ridiculous "child of god" off to Afghanistan for some quality time with the Taliban. Gingi needs to experience for herself the joys of living and working in a place where the dark ages of religious extremism still rules the day.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 2, 2009 10:56 AM

The lone wacko who gunned Tiller down was not associated with any single pro-life organization or group. He was working solo and his acts rest on his head alone. So why, exactly, are pro-lifers doing back flips to appease the abortion mongering moonbats that seek to elevate Tiller to martyrdom and sainthood?

Liar. Cold hard facts, my ass.

Is the pro-life position one of violence? Of course not. It is because we are so peaceful that lone acts of extremism immediately garner national attention.

But thank god that god sometimes sends a nutty lone gunman who does not draw upon the same well of morality that right thinking people like I do.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 2, 2009 10:58 AM

Posted by: Erik Jeppsson | June 2, 2009

That's one vile bitch.

I am the vile bitch. Gingi Edwards is a cheerleader for thugs.

Posted by: Prof. Henry Armitage | June 2, 2009 10:59 AM

#26:

So, you see, ultimately, it's the legalization of abortion that caused his death, not a "lone wacko." This is a threat, guys. "If you don't make abortion illegal and prosecute all 'abortionists, then we will kill them all.'"

And how is a concerted effort by a group of people to scare society to change its laws by the use of violence not terrorism?

Posted by: tyaddow | June 2, 2009 11:02 AM

Gingi, I know it feels like righteous indignation, and I appreciate that you have articulated your feelings so clearly, but you really just come across callous, arrogant and uninformed beyond your own confabulation and confirmation bias. Do try to look past some of the vile comments here and try to learn something. Words matter and so does the wealth of information that happens to undermine your reprehensible point of view.

Posted by: faux mulder | June 2, 2009 11:04 AM

so...the death camps weren't anti-jewish, they were merely expressions of pro-nazism?

Posted by: Anon | June 2, 2009 11:12 AM

is there a robust correlation between being unattractive, obese, and a loser on the one hand and believing oh so fervently that there will be pie in the sky when you die?

(no this is not a sexist dig at women, male 'spiritualists' also display the same regularity.)

Posted by: Anon | June 2, 2009 11:14 AM

This seems like someone taking the "abortion is murder" rhetoric to it's logical conclusion.

Her article is immensely distasteful, but not especially surprising. And it shows one of the real dangers of religion: people might take its moral proclamations seriously.

Posted by: daveau | June 2, 2009 11:17 AM

So, you see, ultimately, it's the invention of gunpowder that caused his death...

Posted by: raven | June 2, 2009 11:18 AM

So, you see, ultimately, it's the legalization of abortion that caused his death, not a "lone wacko." This is a threat, guys. "If you don't make abortion illegal and prosecute all 'abortionists, then we will kill them all.'"

It seems like anti-abortionists such as Gingi really do hate us for our freedoms.

And how is a concerted effort by a group of people to scare society to change its laws by the use of violence not terrorism?

This is terrorism plain and simple. Terrorists don't act in a vacuum.

1. They are the active agents of ideological movements with political aims.

2. They have supporters and support. Where do you think they get their weapons, mental justifications, and motives.

The terrorist supporters like Gingi spawn these terrorist monsters. They encourage and enable them. They make them into heroes and martyrs.

This is exactly the same as Moslem terrorism. If Roeder, Terry, Gingi, operation rescue and the like were Moslems what do you think the feds would do? They'd be on their way to Guantanomo for some hard questioning.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 2, 2009 11:20 AM

But I can't help but note - and my history is rusty so pardon me here - I'm trying to remember, did anyone mourn Lee Harvey Oswald when Jack Ruby gunned him down?

This statement points out one of her biggest flaws. There is no excuse to ever use this statement when on the internet, one can easily search online to dig up these ideas. But Gingi Edwards cannot be bothered to do so. Why not try to find out the opinions of some of the women who used Dr Tiller's services if they mourn the passing of the man.

Closed minded idiot.

Posted by: RamblinDude | June 2, 2009 11:25 AM

Fundamentalists don’t have to be honest. They don’t even have to make sense—this girl’s motive is theatre. She’s the revivalist old-time preacher lambasting swooning Charismatics with fire-and-brimstone sermons at a tent revival.

“Sacredness of life” hasn’t got a thing to do with it except as a convenient excuse to be righteously indignant for the Lord and get an ovation from her fellow cultists.

Posted by: Andyman | June 2, 2009 11:27 AM

Respone to my previous comment.

I am sorry for my statement, I never thought it would be offensive to rational thinkers like yourselves. If you think about it, since she's so pro-life, why shouldn't she try and have children so she can spread the virus we call her beliefs.

Posted by: SteveM | June 2, 2009 11:28 AM

re 88;
I messed up the close underline tag: only "not" should have been underlined.

Posted by: Walton | June 2, 2009 11:32 AM

is there a robust correlation between being unattractive, obese, and a loser on the one hand and believing oh so fervently that there will be pie in the sky when you die?

Generally, no. Firstly, Gingi Edmonds - despite her many other faults - is not unattractive, as one can observe from the picture at the top of her website.

Secondly, I can't speak for anyone else, but I am - by my own admission - unattractive and socially inept. Yet I am a rationalist and a sceptic. As much as I'd like there to be a god and a better life after I die, I don't see any empirical evidence for assuming such a thing. And I find it offensive that you see fit to stigmatise those of us who, through no fault of our own, are unattractive and unsuccessful.

If there is any correlation between unattractiveness/obesity/lack of success and taking refuge in religious dogma, it's because of people like you stigmatising us and making us feel that our lives are worthless, and forcing us to resort to religion in order to find hope (as indeed I did at an earlier stage in my life). I find it astonishing that, in an ostensibly progressive and anti-discriminatory environment, it can be considered OK to lambast people for being ugly.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 2, 2009 11:33 AM

Aquaria, either way, Gingi Edwards is willing to show off her ignorance and it does not bother her. It just astounds me that when it is so easy to look up facts that anyone should say excuse my ignorance.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 11:36 AM

Oswald had a wife, two children, a mother, and two brothers.

I'm sure at least one of them, while ashamed of what he did and being associated with such a person, mourned his death.

Proof that this vile little toad just assumes that no one would mourn the loss of a husband, father, child or sibling, even if he did something heinous. I thought these Xian morons were supposed to be all about love, and have compassion even for criminals.

Posted by: TechSkeptic | June 2, 2009 11:39 AM

I used to be attractive, successful and smart. Now, i'm balder and fatter.... Maybe I'm not so smart anymore?

(I had the same response, Dr. Armitage. It's sad that amidst so many thoughtful and freethinking comments, we tend to find crap like that)

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 2, 2009 11:41 AM

Truculentandunreliable, we cannot fall into the trap that this murder happened because a democrat is in the office. Many people like Roeder did not think republicans like dubya did enough to stop abortions. Actions like this will happen no matter which party is in power.

Posted by: Cogito | June 2, 2009 11:42 AM

Aquaria is right. There are basically only two situations where a late term abortion is legal in Kansas, the state Tiller practiced in, and both of them are tragic for the family involved. Either the fetus is developing abnormally or the mother's health is in danger. If the picture that radical pro-lifers paint were accurate, I might sympathize with some of their arguments, but the entire movement is based on canards and straw men.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 11:47 AM

Walton, hon, seriously, we've had our differences, but I would never foist the likes of Gingi Edmonds on you. It's not even because no man (or woman--who knows what her real preference is) deserves that. Quite honestly, you're too good for her.

And I really mean that.

One more thing: Looks can be overcome. There must have been plenty of women who would have jumped on decidedly unattractive Abraham Lincoln for other reasons. Heck, I would have done him. You just know he had a way with words--which can be a serious asset.

So quit putting yourself down. And think of it this way: We're all beautiful on the Internet. ;)

Okay?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 2, 2009 11:49 AM

Ah, the conditions desired by anti-choicers and misogynists (redundant, I know):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02abort.html

Posted by: Holbach | June 2, 2009 11:52 AM

Gingi Edmonds, the brain killer. I hope she chokes to death on a cracker at the altar, which will most definitely abort her demented life.

Posted by: Mena | June 2, 2009 11:53 AM

Zheesh, has "conservative" officially become a synonym for "ignorant asshole" YET!?!?!?

Posted by: truculentandunreliable | June 2, 2009 11:54 AM

SteveM@#104: Okay, you're right. I wasn't really making the point that I intended to make, which is that the use of that sort of language against women is especially harmful because of the idea that women who are uptight, angry, etc just need a little dick in their lives and everything would be better. But others have made that point better than I.

Janine, OMnivore@#105: I don't think that it happened because a dem was in office or that it wouldn't have happened if a repub was in office, but I think it's pretty apparent that right-wing extremism tends to increase when right-wingers are out of power. Furthermore, people who feel disenfranchised (legitimately or not) are often more likely to use extreme rhetoric and violence to achieve their ends.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 11:58 AM

Honestly I couldn't give a shit if she was warthog ugly or Kate Beckensale. She's a disgusting person who should be pointed at and made a public spectacle of.

Posted by: JJR | June 2, 2009 12:02 PM

PZ said: "No, she doesn't need to get laid...that wouldn't change her mind at all."

I wouldn't be so sure about that. It's easy for someone to be anti-abortion when it's in the abstract, about someone else. Quite another matter when they themselves face the reality of an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy.

I find it ironic that one of the most effective ways to reduce abortions (Sex Ed and effective contraception) are also bitterly opposed by the religious. Abstinence-only Sex Ed has been statistically demonstrated to be utterly inadequate/ineffective (and has often led to an uptick in abortion rates).

All the tension & struggle is based in superstitious fear of (nonexistent) divine retribution to be visited upon EVERYONE for "sexual immorality" of some in society...and when that doesn't happen, some nut job takes "divine will" into his own hands. Dr. Tiller, Matthew Shepard...more divine sacrifices to a savage desert God by his weird death cult.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 2, 2009 12:02 PM

SteveM - As for the reason that Walton continues to attract wisecracks about pokers/#9 scoop shovels, and the hiring of professional sex workers on his behalf see above #97.

Posted by: SteveM | June 2, 2009 12:05 PM

SteveM@#104: Okay, you're right. I wasn't really making the point that I intended to make, which is that the use of that sort of language against women is especially harmful because of the idea that women who are uptight, angry, etc just need a little dick in their lives and everything would be better. But others have made that point better than I.

I agree. I was only writing about my interpretation of the expression itself. Not how it was being used in a sexist way. I knew that no matter how I wrote that I would be putting my foot in my mouth, but I guess I was curious to see what my toes tasted like :)

Posted by: Carlie | June 2, 2009 12:08 PM

It's easy for someone to be anti-abortion when it's in the abstract, about someone else. Quite another matter when they themselves face the reality of an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy.

NopeC.

Posted by: Carlie | June 2, 2009 12:16 PM

Argh. My link works, but looks ugly. It's a report about women who walk in from the picket line, get their abortion, and then walk right back out to keep picketing because none of those immoral sluts deserve the same services they just got.

don't you agree that it has SOME moral interests in continuing to live, and thus that the state thus potentially has some legitimate place in considering them when dealing with the matter

And the decision has been legally made that any of those interests that may exist do not outweigh the interests of already living humans. But this post isn't about that; it's about an idiot defending the cold-blooded assassination of a 67-year old physician by a domestic terrorist. Care to stay on topic?

Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY | June 2, 2009 12:17 PM

@ Holbach, #113:
When I first posted my comment, I was going to express disappointment that my fellow revenge fantasist hadn't yet chimed in. Then I reloaded the page and got what I was hoping for. Unwitting Fight Club candidate all the way! I admit to my own sexism here: I can't harbor quite the same unpleasant thoughts against Gingi as I do Bill Donohue. Being croaked by a cracker sounds fitting.

Posted by: SteveM | June 2, 2009 12:19 PM

...don't you agree that [the fetus] has SOME moral interests in continuing to live, and thus that the state thus potentially has some legitimate place in considering them when dealing with the matter?

No, the state does not. Does the state force organ donation (of the recently dead) because someone will die without it? Does the state force anyone to undergo any medical procedure to save the life of someone else? A person's right to life is not a right to force someone else to provide them with life.

Posted by: daveau | June 2, 2009 12:26 PM

I have to agree with Aquaria@132. I can't cite any study, but I feel fairly confident that women who consider a 3rd trimester abortion aren't using it as a form of birth control. I also feel confident that no doctor would accept that as a reason for a late abortion. Health of the mother, or abnormal development. Heartbreaking in either case.

Posted by: Walton | June 2, 2009 12:30 PM

Too simple, imho. Whether you think the interests of the fetus are more important than the mother's interests, don't you agree that it has SOME moral interests in continuing to live, and thus that the state thus potentially has some legitimate place in considering them when dealing with the matter?

Yes, but it depends substantially on the stage of development of the foetus.

Manifestly, there is no sense in ascribing any legal or moral rights to a blastocyst or embryo. It's just a bundle of cells. Calling it a "potential human being" is spurious; by that logic, sperm cells and ova are also "potential human beings", yet we don't ascribe to them any kind of legal protection.

Nor can we justify protecting it on the grounds that "all life is precious". Self-evidently, not all life is precious; even the most ardent vegan kills thousands of unsuspecting bacteria every time he washes his hands. Life can be rationally treated as valuable only if it has some characteristics (consciousness, personality, the ability to feel pain) which make it a moral agent. A blastocyst or embryo doesn't have any of these characteristics, hence why, at an early stage of pregnancy, we accept that a woman has a right to abort. Slogans such as "life begins at conception" and "all life is sacred" are utter nonsense.

Applying the same logic to a foetus at a later stage of pregnancy, we reach a different conclusion. A foetus in the third trimester has, or is in the process of developing, many of the core characteristics which define a human person. While its life is not as important as that of a fully-developed human being, it is at least as valuable as that of an animal such as a cat or a dog; and while we don't ascribe to cats and dogs the "rights" of a human being, we do accord them some protection against wanton abuse. The same can be applied to a late-stage foetus; hence why most nations have some regulation of, or prohibition of, abortion in the late stages of pregnancy. Yet, just as the law could not reasonably require a cat's owner to sacrifice his or her own life to save the cat, so too it ought not to force a woman to sacrifice her own life for her foetus; and so late-term abortions are generally allowed where needed to protect the life of the mother (and almost all such abortions are performed for this reason).

Posted by: Gilgamesh | June 2, 2009 12:37 PM

Gingi is only one sample of the vile invective passing for discussion among the neocons on the internet. We are attaching too much importance to a young ignorant person trying to outshout her peers and grab the golden ring of 'holier than thou'. Incitement to violence is more persuasive then we think.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 12:43 PM

I find it astonishing that, in an ostensibly progressive and anti-discriminatory environment, it can be considered OK to lambast people for being ugly.

Given Carlie's post one minute after yours, obviously prepared without reference to your admonishment, it should be apparent that we do not consider that OK.

Posted by: CalGeorge | June 2, 2009 12:45 PM

...don't you agree that [the fetus] has SOME moral interests in continuing to live, and thus that the state thus potentially has some legitimate place in considering them when dealing with the matter?

Think about all the people who have had their lives shortened, or women who have delivered children with awful birth defects, due to environmental pollution.

Where is the state? Usually, on the side of the business that does the polluting and killing.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 12:48 PM

#141:

And given my remark for him to stop obsessing about it, from me, of all people, you'd think that would seal the deal.

I think he's killfiled me, because he didn't respond at all. Hey, Walton, I've met you halfway, and not just in this thread. Hint: If you want to get some babes, learn to do some of the little things, like acknowledging kind things people say to (or about) you.

Sheesh. Now I'm starting to give the guy pointers.

Posted by: Pete | June 2, 2009 12:50 PM

Pro-Choice advocates and Pro-life advocates will never find common ground because the one fundamental thing they can't agree on is whether the fetus is "person enough" to have the same right to be alive as any person who has exited the womb. To a pro-life advocate, all talk about "private medical decision" and "the women's right to her own body" are meaningless because they are not talking about the right's of the mother, but the rights of the baby. If you took every pro-choice argument, but substituted 2 year old toddler for 5 month old fetus, you would hear it as pro-life advocates do. When a mother decides for any reason (even her own health) to inject poison into her two year old, we don't tend to defend her by insisting on her rights or her "private medical decision".

And the word's of a pro-life advocate are just as obnoxious to a pro-choice advocate, because the pro-choice advocate does not see the developing fetus as a baby, a child, their child, or a person with the same rights as the rest of us. And surely this is not so far fetched, as MOST abortions happen in the first ten weeks when the developing fetus has a long way to go into developing into a human, doesn't look very human, and surely doesn't have any mental capabilities, thoughts, feelings, pain sensory, etc. Its just a ball of replicating cells. If in your opinion this ball is not the same thing as a two year old, then any insistence by the pro-life crowd that YOU must do such and such because of this thing inside your body is truly offensive.

And sadly the two sides can never meet because there really isn't any moment that ball of replicating cells transforms into person with same rights as every reader of this blog. Instead there appears a smooth continuum. What's the difference between a nine month old fetus and a 1 day old infant but which side of the womb one presides on? I don't know many pro-choice advocates that don't get at least a little bit quiet when discussing very late term abortions. Nor do I know many pro-lifers that aren't a little taken back when presented with the evidence that nearly all pregnancies end in miscarriage before the mother ever knows she is pregnant. And then to complicate things even more we have the constant battles over legal decisions about having to attempt to save the life of a baby/fetus after a botched abortion where the baby/fetus is outside the womb but still alive. And then there is the question of whether you should anesthitize (sp) a fetus before going through the abortive procedure. A pregnant mother is murdered and the assailant is charged with a double murder? (has this ever actually happened or was that just a Law and Order I saw?) It seems clear to me that these very laws expose that there is no clear definition about this middle ground between embryo and person.

These are questions more for a pro-choice advocate because pro-lifers tend to believe that God has specifically told them who is and is not a person (not dwelling to long on the fact that God doesn't see it fit to bring most of those people into the world). The only person I have personally read on the matter was Carl Sagan, who (tentatively and with an admission that it was still arbitrary) proposed we should consider life around the 6 month period when brain waves kick in.

I'm certainly not here to answer this question. But it is the only question that matters. All this discussion about pro-lifers hating women, or controlling women, or hating sex, etc is counterproductive and not true. Now I recognize the pro-life camp might never be swayed and are usually a bit less tolerant, receptive to new ideas, or willing to compromise, I still think the pro-choice crowd need to explain what they really believe regarding when a person is a person. They need to be specific. All to often it seems the definition tends to get fuzzy and have more to do whether the baby is wanted (or even loved!) by the mother, removing it from any objective basis (surely we can all agree a person's right to live is not based on whether anyone loves them). And while the pro-life side won't be the least bit receptive, at least this can be the basis the pro-choice side uses. The pro-choice side doesn't have to convince the pro-life side (good luck with that!), but at least that can be specific on what it is the two sides disagree on.

Okay, since there really isn't any unbiased observer, I can't pretend to write this as an uninterested third party. I'm sure you have all been guessing and figured me out. I was at one time a pro-life advocate, I am know a moderate pro-choice advocate who finds it all unsettling and wished people would be more careful not to get pregnant. I no longer have a strong belief that God communicated the definition of life to us, indeed I am no longer sure God even exists. And yet I still respect the right of people to live (as most atheists do) and there has to be some objective basis to determine who is alive. I thought Carl Sagan proposals was very good. And while it is still arbitrary, at least I could be sure that any fetus pre-brain wave activity would never know they had been alive or feel any pain.

Posted by: Ktesibios | June 2, 2009 12:52 PM

I wouldn't be so sure about that. It's easy for someone to be anti-abortion when it's in the abstract, about someone else. Quite another matter when they themselves face the reality of an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy.

Oh, I wouldn't say that...

One bit of mental gymnastics at which authoritarian-follower personalities excel is granting themselves absolution for acts which contradict their supposed principles and which, if committed by the Evil Other, would merit utter condemnation. Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarian Spectre has plenty of data on this.

If the RWAF adheres to fundianity it's even easier for them to stick the landing- a god is an astonishingly useful sock puppet for that purpose.

Posted by: raven | June 2, 2009 12:55 PM

It turns out that religious school grads have abortions at the same or higher rates than the general population. They are just hypocritical about it. Data below, read it yourself.

MSNBC.com:

Religious school grads likelier to have abortions
New study examines faith’s role in deciding to terminate a pregnancy
LiveScience
updated 11:30 a.m. PT, Mon., June 1, 2009
The killing of an abortion provider on Sunday raises again the extreme potential consequences of the nation's schism on this topic. It's a tough issue to reconcile on a personal level too, and a new study on the effects of religiosity on the decision to have an abortion reveals more inconsistencies.

Unwed pregnant teens and 20-somethings who attend or have graduated from private religious schools are more likely to obtain abortions than their peers from public schools, according to research in the June issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.

"This research suggests that young, unmarried women are confronted with a number of social, financial and health-related factors that can make it difficult for them to act according to religious values when deciding whether to keep or abort a pregnancy," said the study’s author, sociologist Amy Adamczyk of John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center, City University of New York.

(George Tiller, a 67-year-old physician who had long been targeted by anti-abortion activists, was shot and killed Sunday while attending church in Wichita, Kan.)

Adamczyk examined how personal religious involvement, schoolmate religious involvement and school type influenced the pregnancy decisions of a sample of 1,504 unmarried and never-divorced women age 26 and younger from 125 different schools. The women ranged in age from 14 to 26 at the time they discovered they were pregnant. Twenty-five percent of women in the sample reported having an abortion, a likely underestimate, Adamczyk said.

Results revealed no significant link between a young woman's reported decision to have an abortion and her personal religiosity, as defined by her religious involvement, frequency of prayer and perception of religion's importance. Adamczyk said that this may be partially explained by the evidence that personal religiosity delays the timing of first sex, thereby shortening the period of time in which religious women are sexually active outside of marriage.

Despite the absence of a link between personal religious devotion and abortion, religious affiliation did have some important influence. Adamczyk found that conservative Protestants (which includes evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians) were the least likely to report having an abortion, less likely than mainline Protestants, Catholics and women with non-Christian religious affiliations.

Regarding the impact of the religious involvement of a woman's peers, Adamczyk found no significant influence. However, Adamczyk did find that women who attended school with conservative Protestants were more likely to decide to have an extramarital baby in their 20s than in their teenage years.

"The values of conservative Protestant classmates seem to have an abortion limiting effect on women in their 20s, but not in their teens, presumably because the educational and economic costs of motherhood are reduced as young women grow older," Adamczyk said.

Despite Adamczyk's finding that rates of reported abortions were higher for young women educated at private religious schools, the type of religious school was not a factor: Catholic schools had similar rates as other religious schools.

"Religious school attendance is not necessarily indicative of conservative religious beliefs because students attend these schools for a variety of reasons," Adamczyk said. "These schools tend to generate high levels of commitment and strong social ties among their students and families, so abortion rates could be higher due to the potential for increased feelings of shame related to an extramarital birth."

Data for this study came from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a three-wave school-based study of the health-related behaviors of students in grades 7 to 12 at the time of the first wave. Adamczyk analyzed data from the first and third waves of Add Health, the first wave taking place from 1994 to 1995 and the third wave being completed between 2001 and 2002. The Add Health program project was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, along with several other agencies.

© 2009 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31048153/

Posted by: Tommykey | June 2, 2009 12:56 PM

Speaking of the Constitution, I'm pretty sure that the 14th amendment refers to persons born or naturalized in the United States, not conceived.

Posted by: Haihread | June 2, 2009 12:58 PM

Pardon me for being pissed off, but why have NONE of the right-wing forced-birth assholes similarly advocated the murder of EVERY ONE of those heartless bitches who went and aborted their fetuses. I mean, the doctor is only the accessory, right? It's the WOMAN who made the decision, not just once, but many, many times through the torturous protocols deemed necessary by legislation, doctor's codes, and simple morality to obtain a late-term abortion.

C'mon! Consistency here! Who is calling for the murder of the murdering bitches!

Hemmm. Seems to be some kind of . . . . inconsistency here.

Posted by: Paul | June 2, 2009 1:00 PM

Okay, since there really isn't any unbiased observer, I can't pretend to write this as an uninterested third party. I'm sure you have all been guessing and figured me out. I was at one time a pro-life advocate, I am know a moderate pro-choice advocate who finds it all unsettling and wished people would be more careful not to get pregnant.

So why are you trolling Pharyngula instead of posting on the anti-abortion side trying to get them to support proper sex-ed and access to contraceptives?

Saying you don't like abortion here is meaningless. Nobody does. Abortions should be rare. But that does not mean the government should outlaw them. Talking about late term "convenience abortions" is a strawman. They don't happen.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 1:05 PM

All this discussion about pro-lifers hating women, or controlling women, or hating sex, etc is counterproductive and not true.

If it's not true, it's only because the people claiming to think this way have not thought through what criminalizing abortion will mean for women, which is in itself not indicative of their not caring about women, and the host of issues that will directly impact women's lives, far beyond merely being forced to bear a child.

I have implored people trying to say that the woman herself is not part of this to think about what no abortion will really, truly mean for women. Try thinking about how not having access to abortion could affect their opportunities in education and the job market.

The other ugly reality is that criminalizing abortion will only cause it to go underground. It won't go away. And who will pay the price of this? Women. Women will be maimed and die. The "life" they carry will die, as well.

If you truly care about women, you have compassion for their humanity (they will make mistakes, or be victims of misfortunate accidents or worse), and you will want them to have a means to correct that mistake safely and legally.

When someone refuses to consider what the impact will really be on women about the policies he espouses, yet claims otherwise, it reeks of being less than truthful.

Posted by: X-man | June 2, 2009 1:12 PM

Gingi says:

'I mean, I personally would not shoot an abortionist, but who am I to impose my morality on someone else?' see second-to-last paragraph.

That is wrong on so many levels...all she does is impose her morality on others...except when she doesn't want to be accused of inciting hate and murder. She sucks man!

Posted by: Justin | June 2, 2009 1:18 PM

All this talk about "the rights of the mother" and the "rights of the child" are frankly, irrelevant.

The issue in question is: Does the right to bodily autonomy trump the right to life?

The answer in North America is YES.

End of story.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 1:23 PM

Aquaria - From the evidence posted over months and months of threads, Walton enjoys wallowing in his self induced misery.

I know, but some weird well of compassion in me wants to cheer up the guy and help him gain some self-assurance. Then again, I'm one of those people who can't stand to see someone struggling with something and goes up to help.

I'm also the person you stop on the street of the town you're in for the first time when you're lost and need directions, or you need to know where the nearest pharmacy (or whatever) is.

And I'm also the person you tell your life story to on the bus, in the grocery store checkout line, over Prada purses at Neiman's...

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 1:24 PM

I don't know many pro-choice advocates that don't get at least a little bit quiet when discussing very late term abortions.

Now you do. Nice to meet you.

Posted by: Monado | June 2, 2009 1:25 PM

Personally, I think that the language on the Gingi Edmonds site is a call to action in that it justifies and incites murder of people who are lawfully providing a medical service. Would someone who lives in her country please report this hate-crime recruiting call to Domestic Security? Thanks.

Posted by: Justin | June 2, 2009 1:26 PM

Badly phrased. Try "Does the right to bodily autonomy trump the right of a fetus to enslave the mother so it can be brought to term.

The phrasing is deliberate. I'm widening the debate to include areas outside of abortion, like say mandatory organ donations.

(Ie, things that would involve men too)

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 1:29 PM

Beaten by Carlie's quick hands again!

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 1:36 PM

Well, I'm learning to like it.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 1:42 PM

What's wrong, Justin? This thread is not for your delicate stomach?

Posted by: FlameDuck | June 2, 2009 1:44 PM

She likens Dr. Tiller to a Nazi guard at Auschwitz

and asks why she should mourn his death

Why is this "person" not locked up in a mental institution, and kept on a steady stream of prozac? I mean seriously, is society really best served by this person running around, making you think "Wow. I guess Ted Bundy wasn't such a bad guy after all - at least his condition was pathological, not voluntary".

Posted by: Justin | June 2, 2009 1:46 PM

What's wrong, Justin? This thread is not for your delicate stomach?

Haha I should have included ;) at the end.

Posted by: Walton | June 2, 2009 1:47 PM

I think he's killfiled me, because he didn't respond at all. Hey, Walton, I've met you halfway, and not just in this thread.

Sorry! I wasn't ignoring you intentionally; there were quite a few posts I wanted to respond to, and I've been busy writing an essay most of the day.

FWIW, I do appreciate your kind words. Thank you.

(And as a side point, I don't have killfile installed, nor will I ever do so. I don't think there's anyone who posts here regularly whose posts aren't worth reading.)

Posted by: Paul | June 2, 2009 1:51 PM

OTOH, the American people aren't real crazy about terrorists. We lost two skyscrapers and 3,000 civilians to them in New York. We are fighting two wars in the middle east against them, although Iraq was the wrong target for retaliation.

Yet the American people are still more scared of brown people than people who blow things up (although they justify it by assuming that there is no difference between the two). I salute your optimism, but I doubt there will be a backfire here.

Posted by: chgo_liz | June 2, 2009 1:57 PM

EvolvingSquid @ #144: Thanks for the response. Believe me, I hear you. I was one of those unwanted fetuses. My childhood was hell. Those people never once did a damn thing to help, even when I went to the police or other authorities.

People like me have to live with the consequences of their beliefs and actions, which is why I'm so vehemently pro-choice. I can smell their hypocrisy. My whole life is smothered in it....right down to the 5 (illegal) abortions my mother had after me, despite being loudly and rabidly anti-choice for every other woman.

I respect anyone who says "this is what I believe and I'll do what I can to help," such as what your grandma did....as long as they don't break the law or work to change the law to keep others from following their own consciences to a different choice.

Posted by: raven | June 2, 2009 2:00 PM

Yet the American people are still more scared of brown people than people who blow things up

I'm a lot more wary about Xian Terrorists than Moslem Terrorists. The Moslems are "over there" killing other Moslems. The Xian Taliban are over here, killing US citizens.

We'll see how the American people take home grown terrorists. In a worse case scenario, we could end up like Iraq or Afghanistan. Bombed out neighborhoods and a daily weather report followed by a daily terrorism log. It would be unfortunate but people end up with the society they create or tolerate.

Posted by: SteveM | June 2, 2009 2:03 PM

The phrasing is deliberate. I'm widening the debate to include areas outside of abortion, like say mandatory organ donations.

It is not a question of one right "trumping" another. The right to life means that it can not be taken from you. It does not impose an obligation on anyone to give you life. Secondly, there is no right to life in the Constitution. It is a priciple on which much of the Constitution is based, but it is not explicitely stated. (The DOI is not the Constitution).

Suppose you woke up one morning to find that you were transfusing an unconscious man in a bed next to you. You are told you need to keep doing this for the next 6 months or he will surely die. Does his right to life mean that you must continue the transfusion against your will?

Posted by: Verde | June 2, 2009 2:08 PM

She's a fucking coward too. No comments enabled on her blog? seems she fears debate from the rational.

Posted by: Justin | June 2, 2009 2:11 PM

Suppose you woke up one morning to find that you were transfusing an unconscious man in a bed next to you. You are told you need to keep doing this for the next 6 months or he will surely die. Does his right to life mean that you must continue the transfusion against your will?

But isn't life being taken from you if someone refuses to donate that much needed kidney?

As for your scenario, my right to get up and walk away with my bodily fluids does indeed trump his right to lie there and metabolize.

Again, everyone has rights until they affect other people, then restrictions come in.

Additionally a right belongs to everyone or it belongs to no one. A woman can say what she wants to do with her body, or no one can. Conversely, everyone has the right to co-opt another for their survival, or no one can.

Posted by: Carlie | June 2, 2009 2:26 PM

It's not her fault daddy touched her.

Yeah, that's pretty much worse than everything else put together at once.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 2:27 PM

SteveM, I agree with you, but a correction:

Secondly, there is no right to life in the Constitution. It is a priciple on which much of the Constitution is based, but it is not explicitely stated.

It's not in the original Bill of Rights, but it is in the Fourteenth Amendment:

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note that it doesn't apply to any persons not yet born. Note also that it's not an absolute right, and can be revoked under due process. So even if did apply to unborn fetuses, it could be revoked if courts determined that fetal rights conflicted with a woman's right to liberty and property over her body.

Posted by: SteveM | June 2, 2009 2:31 PM

But isn't life being taken from you if someone refuses to donate that much needed kidney?

Do you not understand the difference between "giving" and "taking"? "Not giving" is not the same as "taking". Am I taking wealth away from a beggar when I refuse to give him a quarter?

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 2:35 PM

Even more importantly, this bears repeating:

The right to life means that it can not be taken from you. It does not impose an obligation on anyone to give you life.

Even if a fetus has a right to life, that does not impose a legal obligation for anyone to give the fetus any of the things it needs for life, including a womb, placenta and maternal nutrition.

Posted by: Rainbow Rascal | June 2, 2009 2:41 PM

If you thought reading her screed was bad, you should listen to her radio interview. It's available here:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ASKShow/2009/06/02/Andrea-Shea-King-Show

Gingi says:

"We're the most peaceful civil rights movement in the history of the world."

"I studied the science behind abortion."

"...Obama is our abortion President."

"My favorite was the Michelle Obama quote: 'Children are our most precious resource,' next to a picture of a hand on a quarter."

And Gingi is going to write a book on Obama's abortion policy.

Posted by: SteveM | June 2, 2009 2:43 PM

re 199:

the Fourteenth Amendment

Thanks, I stand corrected.

Let me try to rationalize that it refers more to the "due process" aspect than actually defining (or declaring) the right. I think that when most people talk of "the right to life" they are thinking of the DOI more than the 14th amendment. But that is all weasel-words, I will not be saying the right to life is not in the COTUS from now on. Thanks again.

Posted by: Spidergrackle | June 2, 2009 2:55 PM

That woman is truly vile.

Posted by: Lee Picton | June 2, 2009 3:00 PM

Hi, Walton, this is for you.
I too see that you are becoming more adult. But your inability to like yourself distresses me. I remember a young man in a chatroom who was very much like you, and was convinced he was ugly and awkward, in spite of the fact that he was extremely bright, funny and articulate. When he realized I was totally unthreatening, he sent me a picture of himself. No, he was not handsome, but he was perfectly presentable looking, with the promise of better than average looks once he outgrew some of his adolescent less than perfect proportions. Do you have someone you know who could give you an objective opinion? I suspect you are not nearly as unattractive as you think you are. BTW, the spawn (who was a beautiful child) went through a protracted "ugly" period as a teenager when nothing seemed to match, and emerged as a pleasant looking man with reasonable intelligence, and a wicked sense of humor. And he was also a babe magnet. There was a parade of them through our house, and I had to be nice to all of them, never knowing which one might become a future DIL.

Posted by: Pete | June 2, 2009 3:02 PM

So why are you trolling Pharyngula instead of posting on the anti-abortion side trying to get them to support proper sex-ed and access to contraceptives?

I support sex education and access to contraceptives and have been vocal about it in the past.

But a 5 month fetus is not a 2 year old. It simply isn't.

I agree with you. That is why I am no longer pro-life.

If it's not true, it's only because the people claiming to think this way have not thought through what criminalizing abortion will mean for women

That's a good point. But it will mean little for anyone who feels a 5 month fetus is the same as a born child. To them, being worried about the safety of abortion is like arguing the murder should be legal less we let it go underground and fear for the safety of the murderer.

Go HERE. It's a lot of writing but don't worry; just read the parts in the big blue box.

Those are good points, and truthfully I overstated my case. I put the word “usually” in but surrounded by quotes that removed it. And frankly, I don't know if even that is true, I don't know what percentage are actually just against sex.

Now you do. Nice to meet you.

How do I know you didn't type that slowly?

And I say this as a long-time blood donor--closing in on 3 gallons, including apharesis.

I give blood about every ten weeks.

I've heard metaphors before on what we do or do not force people to do and mostly agree with it. The only caveat would that the fetus finds itself in this predicament on no choice of its own. If I took a knife and stabbed someone's only good kidney, I wouldn't find it morally repulsive if the state demanded I give up one of mine for the victim.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 3:13 PM

I've heard metaphors before on what we do or do not force people to do and mostly agree with it. The only caveat would that the fetus finds itself in this predicament on no choice of its own. If I took a knife and stabbed someone's only good kidney, I wouldn't find it morally repulsive if the state demanded I give up one of mine for the victim.

Comparing the woman to a violent criminal isn't exactly apt.

SteveM's example is closer:

"Suppose you woke up one morning to find that you were transfusing an unconscious man in a bed next to you. You are told you need to keep doing this for the next 6 months or he will surely die. Does his right to life mean that you must continue the transfusion against your will?"

The unconscious man is in this predicament on no choice of his own.

Posted by: Aljo | June 2, 2009 3:17 PM

"fetal gods" - People are worshiping Atropals now? Cool.

Posted by: Pete | June 2, 2009 3:21 PM

Comparing the woman to a violent criminal isn't exactly apt.

I agree with you, I didn't mean to imply that it was. I sort of switched thoughts mid paragraph there to address the kidney scenario. Still, I don't think the dependence on a mother a fetus finds itself in after conception is equal to a forced assistance of a completly random stranger. I think it overstates it the other way.

Posted by: Sir Craig | June 2, 2009 3:23 PM

Wouldn't it be nice if this half-wit (Edmonds) actually had some kind of, oh, I don't know...experience...in order to back up the crap she's spewing?

Surprisingly, CNN seems to have found someone who will speak of her experiences regarding late-term abortions. No second-hand bullshit from the likes of O'Reilly or Operation: Rescue's pamphlets, this woman speaks from true knowledge and the personal heartache attached to making such a decision.

Amazingly, there are still people in the comments who give her grief, when it is very clear that none of these people bothered to read her open letter to then-Senator Obama regarding the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy and its termination. (For a truly pathetic case of judgmentalism mixed with heavy denial, read this.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 3:23 PM

SteveM's example is closer:

"Suppose you woke up one morning to find that you were transfusing an unconscious man in a bed next to you. You are told you need to keep doing this for the next 6 months or he will surely die. Does his right to life mean that you must continue the transfusion against your will?"

The unconscious man is in this predicament on no choice of his own.

I hate to be somewhat pedantic but was there some action taken by you that said there is a chance, albeit a small one that you will wake up the next day with some stranger attached to you?

Posted by: jemnd | June 2, 2009 3:32 PM

Ok, Rev. BigDumbChimp, suppose that waking up with an unconscious stranger attached to you occasionally happens in all countries on earth except Somolia.

You moving there now?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 2, 2009 3:36 PM

I hate to be somewhat pedantic but was there some action taken by you that said there is a chance, albeit a small one that you will wake up the next day with some stranger attached to you?

At the risk of letting this metaphor fly completely out of control...

I see where you're going here... but should it matter? Let's say the answer to your question is "yes"... and the action was, for example, that you took medication clearly labeled as "will cause drowsiness" and then drive your car onto a crowded freeway, fell asleep at the wheel, caused an accident and one of the accident victims is the man you wake up with attached to your arm.

So you made a very poor, stupid, or even dangerous choice... does that give the state the right to attach this man to your blood supply, as in SteveM's example?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 3:36 PM

If you consent to sex does that mean you have to consent to pregnancy?

Before you get all fired up, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm only saying that the argument by that analogy isn't a great one as it has that one hole in in. By leaving out the knowledge of a chance of pregnancy you leave open a big hole for which that analogy to be attacked. Right or not.

And no, by no means if you consent to sex, do you have to consent to pregnancy. But if you know that there is a possibility then... well you know it is a possibility. It's not just like waking up and holy shit how did this happen. It's your choice to remain pregnant or not, but it's not like you had no idea it could happen.

If I'm not clear, please don't read anything into that other than my words. I'm not arguing against the right of a woman over her body only disagreeing with that particular analogy as a line of argument.

Posted by: raven | June 2, 2009 3:41 PM

What kind of bullshit is that? Preventing people from getting shot by mentally disturbed individuals is pretty high on my list of things I would like the government to take care of.

We need both. The cops are busy, understaffed, and can't be all places at all times.

But really the FBI and Homeland Security should be doing something. We do pay taxes to employ them. And this is terrorism,.

As to what they should be doing and what they are doing, got me. Homeland Security seems to have lost my email address, they never even call or write anymore.

But they should really act now. If this violence continues and escalates, they are going to have to do something sooner or later.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 3:42 PM

yay typos.

the king is not dead.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 3:49 PM

But I did think that there was perhaps a viable context (stretched to the degree of the metaphor itself, of course)... just made an attempt at providing it. No worries.

Yeah my point is only that there are consequences to actions. What we as those who support a womans rights over herself see as consequences and what those who seeks to limit that right see as consequences differ, my many magnitudes. Leaving out the acknowledgment of any consequences IMHO is a bad way to go about arguing as it leaves holes open for them to jam their ridiculousness into.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 3:51 PM

damn it

my should be by

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 3:54 PM

sweet

Posted by: Walton | June 2, 2009 3:59 PM

Do you have someone you know who could give you an objective opinion? I suspect you are not nearly as unattractive as you think you are.

Most people I know say, when asked, that I don't look that bad, but obviously I suspect that they're trying to avoid offending me. Actions, on their part, speak louder than words.

But anyway, this is OT for the thread and it's best that we don't go into it in depth here. (As narcissistic as I am, I do try not to hijack every thread with discussions about myself...)

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 4:02 PM

Maybe an apt metaphor for how sex doesn't require consenting to pregnancy is very much along the lines of grace periods with car purchases. As long as you retract your decision within certain guidelines and in a timely manner, then you can do so. If you don't, the longer you wait to get out of it, the more it will take, and the more difficult it will be to get out of keeping (and paying for it).

Posted by: Stu | June 2, 2009 4:15 PM

But really the FBI and Homeland Security should be doing something. We do pay taxes to employ them. And this is terrorism. As to what they should be doing and what they are doing, got me.

Dunno. In the Bush years, they were very busy infiltrating peace groups and instigating riots. Could come in handy, eh?

Posted by: jemand | June 2, 2009 4:18 PM

My point was that insisting all straight women must forgo sex or "consent to pregnancy" is a rather high burden on them... similar to insisting that you'd have to go live in a country with a rather unpleasant government/war situation to avoid getting kidnapped and hooked up to unconscious people.

I'm particularly irritated by a certain gay guy I know who argues abortion must be illegal... hell I've been working for HIM to have the right to separate his sex life from reproduction and thus have the right to be married... but I'm so outta luck 'cuz I'm a straight girl.

Posted by: Walton | June 2, 2009 4:37 PM

My point was that insisting all straight women must forgo sex or "consent to pregnancy" is a rather high burden on them... similar to insisting that you'd have to go live in a country with a rather unpleasant government/war situation to avoid getting kidnapped and hooked up to unconscious people.

I concur. That argument would be as silly as saying that by choosing to get into a car, you "consent" to have a traffic accident, and therefore should be unable to recover in tort if you're injured by another driver's negligence. Of all the arguments against abortion, that one is among the weakest (though it's not quite as bad as platitudes like "all life is sacred").

Like anything else, there are good and bad pro-life arguments (just as there are good and bad pro-choice arguments). We should, IMO, discard the bad arguments out-of-hand, as they add nothing useful to the debate.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 4:45 PM

We should, IMO, discard the bad arguments out-of-hand, as they add nothing useful to the debate.

The problem of course, Walton, is that people of this mindset will continue to bring it up. Look at how they keep using the arguments of Pascal, Aquinas and even Anselm(!) to support the claim of their deity's existence.

Or to the thousands of debunked assertions in the evolution debate they insist on dragging out, long after each has been thoroughly routed and rational people have considered the entire matter settled (provisionally, but not for the reasons they think, so let's not go there).

Posted by: jose | June 2, 2009 4:46 PM

Isn't it christian terrorism?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | June 2, 2009 4:51 PM

Gingi Edwards has a lot of anger. I shudder to think how that anger might be expressed.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 4:56 PM

And that was a pretty good metaphor, Walton. I would modify it a little to add something like having an accident because a faulty part caused it. Or you were in an accident because someone willfully rammed his car into yours.

This could get interesting.

By the way, negligence torts? Just what kind of libertarian are you?

Walton, Walton, Walton, you're not supposed to sue if you're in an accident, you chiseler. What kind of pinko commie are you???? ;)

Posted by: luna1580 | June 2, 2009 5:05 PM

BREAKING: scott roeder charged:

let's see, two different native born american citizen "lone gunmen" with two different sets of "political and religious" motivations, commit 2 murders -both designed to gain vengeance against perceived wrongs and to create fear and terror, one day apart in the US.

so, how will we treat these terrorists under the law?

the one, a white christian known to have ties to radical libertarian antigovernment groups and anti-choice groups whose ex-wife said he had become frighteningly religious "in an old testament way," is a tax protester, and had a previous run in with the law for having bomb-making supplies:

Scott Roeder, 51, heard the official charges against him. They are one count of first degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, also known as Carlos Bledsoe, is charged with capital murder and 16 counts of terroristic acts.

anyone else see what is wrong with this?

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 5:19 PM

But by having sex you know there is the possibility, even with protection, that it could happen.

But it's the same thing with a car accident. You know the risks when you get in a car. The problem with the anti-abortion movement is that they essentially want to take away your right to fix your car after the accident. They don't care if this kills you. You have to motor on with that car, because you must have the reminder of the consequences of driving a car.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 5:32 PM

Most people I know say, when asked, that I don't look that bad, but obviously I suspect that they're trying to avoid offending me. Actions, on their part, speak louder than words.

I volunteer to look at a photo of you and give you my honest opinion. The evidence demonstrates that I have no compunction about offending you. It'll be a data set where n=1, and my taste in men is not universal, so you shouldn't take final conclusions from it. But I'll be honest.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 5:35 PM

But it's the same thing with a car accident. You know the risks when you get in a car. The problem with the anti-abortion movement is that they essentially want to take away your right to fix your car after the accident. They don't care if this kills you. You have to motor on with that car, because you must have the reminder of the consequences of driving a car.

I'm not arguing they don't nor am I arguing by any stretch of the imagination they are correct, only that ignoring that there are consequences (minor or major) doesn't help our argument. If you get in your car, you may get in an accident and have to fix your car.

But I don't like the car accident either. Because then you're equating choosing to have a child is akin to choosing to not fix a broken car. It's just not a good analogy when arguing with them because even some very fervent pro-choice people choose to have their child.

Think about the screaming and yelling about "a child is a gift not a broken fender!!!! Baby killers". Then the discussion is over. They can ignore the actual argument and just focus on what a bad person you are for not recognizing even born babies are special.

Just my opinion on how to address the issue, nothing more.

Taking the pups for a walk. I'll be back later to further beat this minor point of my personal opinion into oblivion.

Posted by: Carlie | June 2, 2009 5:46 PM

Suzi, you have absolutely no citation for that claim. However, there have been several posts in this thread and all the others about this assassination that provide great detail on the facts surrounding the abortions that Dr. Tiller provided, including links to actual stories of actual women who had to use his services. Every time he was hauled into court on those exact charges, he was cleared because what you are saying never happened. You are either seriously misinformed or a fucking liar.

Posted by: Bambi | June 2, 2009 5:53 PM

But Carlie, girls who drop the "e" from the spelling of their names value "common sense" more than those pesky facts you're talking about!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 2, 2009 6:03 PM

Poor Suzi, can't do math, can't do logic. What else must a girl due to be "popular"?

Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | June 2, 2009 6:05 PM

There are several thousand women who need late-term abortions each year in the US. There are only three clinics that perform them.

I guess it depends how you're defining 'late term'--this seems to be a shifting time point depending on who's using it. this site lists more than three (and the top ad, sadly, is Dr. Tiller's), many of which do list a cut-off time point, most likely in compliance with state law. Additionally, quite a few ob/gyn providers regularly perform these services for their patients of record--they just don't advertise it to the general public.

I'm certainly not arguing that abortion providers of Dr. Tiller's ilk are abundant and easy to access, by any means. Many parts of the country are pitifully underserved, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few more docs dropped off the open provider list after Dr. Tiller's murder. My only point is that there is plenty of genuine inadequacy in the system to rail against without understating the number of providers out there.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 6:18 PM

George Tiller deserved to be put into prison for one year for each count against him, if he wasn't best friends with the Governor, he'd have been safely behind bars when a crazed gunmen came after him.

Except he was was exonerated. So he deserved nothing of the sort. Your pitiful attempt at excusing the killer by saying "well he would have been safe" is disgusting.

Ooops!

There goes your whole argument.

Gingi is a vile disgusting woman who deserves every bit of scorn heaped upon her in relation to this subject.

Posted by: raven | June 2, 2009 6:27 PM

Suzi the Death Cult terrorist lying:

For those who asked about the fact that Tiller did these late term abortions 'only because the mother's life was at stake'...that was proven by an independent study to be false. In just a few years time there were 19 counts of him doing abortions on VIABLE children, with NO defects at all. The 'reasons' were for the girls to go to prom or a sporting event. That was why he was brought up on charges.

That is simply a lie. The 19 counts were just harassment. Tiller was tried by a jury and acquitted of all 19 charges.

Suzi (and Gingi) seem to be mentally ill. But it is actually much worse. Mental illness is treatable and curable. You have Toxic Religion Syndrome. Symptoms include inability to tell the truth, a compulsion to lie, enormous unfocused hate, and homicidal rage that sometimes end with murder.

Don't worry though. While cures are known but rare, Toxic Religion Syndrome is treatable. Society watches the patient until she kills someone and then the police and courts isolate them from the public in a special clinic called a "prison"..

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 6:31 PM

Raven:

I was going to bring up how she was going to have to explain how the governor coerced all those jurors--all twelve!--into exonerating Tiller, but I sort of lost track of it in my disgust with this vomitous bag of pus.

Posted by: Carlie | June 2, 2009 6:34 PM

Jennifer - there's been muddying about in these threads as well. Some people refer to "late-term" as anything after the 20-week cutoff common in several states - most of the "late-term" providers are dealing with second trimester abortions. The "only three" that you see written about are the really late-term. Sadly, there are instances where these need to happen as late as 38 weeks, particularly in instances of fetal death. Technically, removing a dead fetus is still classified as an abortion unless it is removed via c-section or induced labor. Most of the cases that have been made public from Dr. Tiller's patients are clear that there was no one to refer them to besides him, even when it entailed thousands of dollars of travel costs for airline tickets/hotels.

And it's a growing problem even for earlier term abortions - South Dakota is down to a single Planned Parenthood clinic that provides abortions, and they're not alone.

Here's a quickie summary. If you can't access it, the info is Maintaining access to safe abortion in the United States: a post-Gonzales primer and guide to action by Beth Johnson and Lydia Pace, Contraception 76(3): 179-181, 2007.

This article also summarizes the current state of abortion access. Pertinent parts:

"Over one third of US women live in the 87% of counties in the United States, including 30% of metropolitan areas, that have no abortion provider.[7] The situation is worst in rural areas.[15,67] Only 1800 physicians provided abortion services in 2000, down 11% from 2400 in 1996.[3,7] Only 12% of obstetrics and gynecology residency programs required abortion training in the mid-1990s, down from 25% in 1985.[68-72]"

Also:
"Since 1977, there have been 80,000 reported acts of violence and/or disruption at abortion clinics in the United States and Canada, including 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 166 arsons, 125 assaults, and 654 anthrax threats (480 of them since September 11, 2001).[15,75,76] Patients are often harangued, belittled, defamed, and taunted with verbal and physical threats, despite the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.[46,77] Between 55% and 86% of providers report that they have been harassed.[16]"

To access the entire article requires a login, but you can click on the references and get the full listing.

Posted by: raven | June 2, 2009 6:41 PM

Suzi the Death Cult terrorist lying:

For those who asked about the fact that Tiller did these late term abortions 'only because the mother's life was at stake'...that was proven by an independent study to be false. In just a few years time there were 19 counts of him doing abortions on VIABLE children, with NO defects at all. The 'reasons' were for the girls to go to prom or a sporting event. That was why he was brought up on charges.

That is simply a lie. The 19 counts were just harassment. Tiller was tried by a jury and acquitted of all 19 charges.

Suzi (and Gingi) seem to be mentally ill. But it is actually much worse. Mental illness is treatable and curable. You have Toxic Religion Syndrome. Symptoms include inability to tell the truth, a compulsion to lie, enormous unfocused hate, and homicidal rage that sometimes end with murder.

Don't worry though. While cures are known but rare, Toxic Religion Syndrome is treatable. Society watches the patient until she kills someone and then the police and courts isolate them from the public in a special clinic called a "prison"..

Posted by: Ty | June 2, 2009 6:48 PM

Wonder if Suzi will come back now that her lame ass argument has been totally debunked.

Done being spanked, Suzi?

Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | June 2, 2009 7:07 PM

One of the myriad offensive things about Gingy is that she has associated herself with the
'Abortion Holocaust', identifying herself as an '(Abortion) Holocaust Survivor'.

I can't even comprehend the twisted logic required to make this comparison in earnest. It all feeds into the unsavory lies of the anti-choice movement that paint all abortion providing doctors as craven ghouls who relish the procedural aspects of their work and all women seeking abortions as soulless and wanton--or, alternatively, naive and/or stupid and easily misled into surrendering their 'babies' into the hungry steel tubes of the abortionist. It just horrifies me, not least because of how much this patently false equivalence diminishes the experiences of actual Holocaust survivors.

Posted by: Joe Cracker | June 2, 2009 7:28 PM

These bozos had to live in Romania, during the communist rule of Ceausescu. He decided in 1966 that Romania needs more citizens, and totally forbid abortion. Ceausescu is pro-lifers' God. Good for them ...

Check an excerpt of a documentary about what happened:
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/1598/

Video file here: http://www.respiro.org/decret1.WMV

Posted by: raven | June 2, 2009 7:36 PM

Jennifer:

Thanks Carlie. Defining your terms was exactly what I was looking for. 'Late term' seems to mean something different for everyone who uses it.

Late term is a nebulous term. The fundies frequently define it early so they can lie about all the horrible "late term" abortions.

Legally it refers to third trimester abortions after 24 weeks or so. Which are quite rare as only about a 1000 are performed in the USA out of a population of 320 million.

Third trmester abortions are heavily regulated and heavily reviewed. Hazards include getting harassed, having your clinic bombed, brought up on charges by politically motivated prosecutors on nonexistent evidence, and getting assassinated. I doubt many docs do those anymore and virtually no one is going to be publicly identifiable if they can help it.

There are many medical conditions that, when combined with pregnancy can result in death. 25% of PAH patients who get pregnant die. I'm guessing, but the number of pregnant women eligible for third trimester abortions who don't get them and die might be higher than the number that manage to procure a third trimester procedure. If the terrorists get their way it is going higher for sure.

Posted by: Sniper | June 2, 2009 8:10 PM

One of the myriad offensive things about Gingy is that she has associated herself with the
'Abortion Holocaust', identifying herself as an '(Abortion) Holocaust Survivor'.

How twisted. I guess all Americans born before 1972 (and Canadians like me, born before 1967) can take comfort in the fact that our mothers were legally obligated to carry us to term and that our existence may be at least in part attributable to the threat of state power and fear of illegal abortion.

Oh, wait. That's actually no comfort at all.

Posted by: Carlie | June 2, 2009 8:41 PM

I think it's important for those of us on the pro-choice side to be painstakingly specific when we speak of 'late term' abortions.

I think you're absolutely right. I'm going to be more careful to use "third trimester" when that's what I mean.

Posted by: Stu | June 2, 2009 9:06 PM

Yes, it looks like LGF's loons have filtered out over to Freeperland. The site owner actually sounds a lot like John Cole (www.balloon-juice.com), ca. 2004.

Let's give him a year or two.

Posted by: BostonRob | June 2, 2009 9:49 PM

Hey, did anyone catch this from her "About" section:

"I'm also available for hire for photography projects within the pro-life and human rights community"

I wonder how she'd react to the request to photograph a pro-gay marriage rally?

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 10:02 PM

It's too bad that not being visible in mirrors doesn't apply to operating cameras when it comes to blood sucking vampires.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 10:18 PM

I was going to say that I thought he was the one who has some genuine archaeological evidence to support his existence, something many of the others don't have. Thanks for reminding me about what it was. Can you point me to something discussing it online? When you're a layman like I am, it's almost impossible to tell who to trust when it comes to biblical archaeology.

I still consider him the best character sketch in all of the bible; he is depicted very differently from all the others, with more human qualities and more coherence in the narrative (one of the tightest story arcs in the book). I suppose the literary character could be a composite of several tribal lords, but... His story holds together better than composites usually do. Or the person who complied the David legend during the Babylonian captivity was just a better writer than most of the other scribes.

Who knows?

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 2, 2009 11:48 PM

Aquaria @ # 303 - a brief but plausible-looking intro, with enough names to drive further searches, is at http://biblicalstudies.info/top10/schoville.htm ("... first mention of King David and the earliest mention of a biblical figure outside of the Bible.")

Posted by: Kseniya | June 3, 2009 12:13 AM

While we're (not exactly) on the subject:

Breaking: Girls are good at math!

Maybe the infamous Barbie doll who announced that "math is hard" was on to something -- that is, if she had continued on to say "when you live in a sexist society." A new study shows that differences between boys' and girls' math performance has more to do with gender inequality than hard-wired ability.

Posted by: Miranda Hale | June 3, 2009 12:35 AM

What a horrifyingly vicious woman! Ugh.

Posted by: Nadia Williams | June 3, 2009 5:03 AM

#310 As far as I know what will happen is that the fetus will start decaying inside the womb if it dies and is not removed. I'm not a medical professional, our first baby died at 20 weeks gestation and I was told I was lucky to have started bleeding, as some expectant women show no sign of anything being wrong until they succumb to septicemia because of the toxins released into their bodies.

In my case labour was induced - would that be considered partial birth abortion? We had an intact fetus to hold a few moments before she was taken away, and to us it was a huge help in the grieving process.

Posted by: Dianne | June 3, 2009 8:36 AM

Did I actually read that removing a dead fetus surgically is considered an "abortion" - that you would have to go to a specialist (called an "abortionist") to have the procedure safely done?

Yes. The procedure is the same whether there is a living fetus or not. Women can and have died because they have a dead fetus in their bodies and no doctor available familiar enough with how to do a D and X to safely remove it. So potentially more dangerous routes of delivery, i.e. induction, are used. (The potential problem with induction being that the stress of labor is nontrivial especially if the diagnosis of fetal demise was delayed and therefore there's a lot of decaying tissue in the uterus...makes things like DIC and inflammation related shock all the more likely. Not to mention infection.)

Posted by: Walton | June 3, 2009 9:27 AM

I just find that so commendable. I hereby submit my small vote that the coveted Order of Molly be bestowed upon Aquaria.

I concur, and will vote for Aquaria to get a Molly at the next opportunity.

Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY | June 3, 2009 9:46 AM

"In 1996, Scott was arrested for having explosives in his trunk. Lindsey said he planned to blow up an abortion clinic."

Wow. To echo Luna here, if Scott was brown-skinned or a professed follower of Islam, he'd be in jail for life just for that offense. Why the hell was this guy freely roaming in society in the first place?

Posted by: Kseniya | June 3, 2009 10:06 AM

Rey, consider this:

>> "identifying herself as an '(Abortion) Holocaust Survivor'."

This claim would be hilarious if it weren't so contemptibly annoying - not to mention hypocritical. Gingi whines about how the pro-choice side constantly plays "the victim card" - yet here she is, claiming to be a "survivor" without having suffered for an instant. Her ridiculous claim is a slap in the face to those who have had to survive a holocaust, or years of childhood or domestic abuse. She equates her admitted good fortune to be alive to the ordeals that others have survived? Pathetic.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 10:24 AM

This is my favorite recent right wing idiocy about abortion brought to you in part by Chuck "Watergate" Colson and Tom "Campaign Finance Indictment" DeLay.

Abortion is at fault for a good portion of illegal immigration because there aren't enough Americans to fill the jobs.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 3, 2009 12:47 PM

raven @ # 322: A quick Google search finds the only link between Sarah Palin & the Army o' God is a couple of pages on the latter's web site attacking particular alleged critics of Palin.

Nor can I find any such connection in my email archive, which contains thousands of messages on the "religious right".

The ties between Roeder and the AoG, while not conclusive, are more substantial.

Posted by: Watchman | June 3, 2009 1:15 PM

Jennifer, maybe one day she will be able to rightfully claim to have survived, with her mind relatively intact, the ongoing right-wing fundamentalist fallout from what took root and flowered during a quarter-century of largely Republican rule. Will she ever seek to implement the necessary self-directed, voluntary deprogramming? I doubt it very much.

Posted by: raven | June 3, 2009 2:36 PM

link between Sarah Palin & the Army o' God is a couple of pages on the latter's web site attacking particular alleged critics of Palin.

I'm going from memory here. The links weren't smoking guns (not that xians would ever use guns or anything) but weren't nenexistent either.

The ties were more between the various pentecostal and fundie churches and organizations she belonged to and various lunatic fringe movements. One was Joel's army, third rain, and so on.

All of these groups are fluid, ephemeral, and keep changing their names. This is because they are lunatic fringers and some of them are operating way out of the mainstream and sometimes out of bounds of the law.

Membership is also nebulous, especially for the illegal ones. It isn't like they are going to keep a lot of paper around and update their membership and donation lists on the web. They know, and the people who belong and support them know that the cops and the public could come down on them hard at any time. These are shadowy, underground groups.

Posted by: Watchman | June 3, 2009 4:46 PM

*gasp*

Don, are you suggesting that Gingi's admissions of heartbreak are something less than completely genuine?

I am shocked. Shocked and stunned.

Posted by: Matt H. | June 4, 2009 7:26 AM

Funny how 'pro-life' advocates also tend to be pro-execution. This girl is one, as is her friend she links to on her main page - as well a creationist. Lunatics often go hand in hand.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 4, 2009 9:18 AM

WRT Palin and Army of God: Any direct links between her and the terrorists in that group are likely secondary and tertiary personal relationships. She obviously hangs out closer to the fringe right than John McCain does, but to link her directly to the terrorist wing of the misogyny movement is more than a little stretch. She and Michelle Bachman remind me a lot of Helen Chenowith. Crazy-ass right-wingers who hang near the conspiracy-tinged violent fringes but are also far enough from it that they can appeal to less whacked-out 'wingers and even some ignorant "moderates."

Posted by: Watchman | June 10, 2009 1:03 PM

Oh yes, what a happy conclusion.

"Murder: It works!"

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 10, 2009 2:31 PM

Not saying the happy ending justifies the evil means.

Watch as the disingenuous asshole celebrates.

The closing of the clinic is one of the goals of the anti-choose movement. A victory for the bad guys. And less aid for women who are in a hard situation.

The Hoax is happy.