Happy 40th Anniversary, Baby

In an attempt to prove to the world that theirs is an ideology neither outdated, nor blatantly unscientific, nor rapidly devolving into that ridiculous elitism blind beyond the narrow confines of its own minority view, the pro-abortion kids have made a YouTube video. It’s excellent, with universal appeal, celebrating all the good ushered into the world by Roe vs. Wade, wait, sorry, wrong script, it’s actually the creepiest shit you’ve ever seen.

YouTube Preview Image

Nothing says, “Gosh, what a wonderful, uncontroversial law I should support” like hearing a dude insinuating about taking the said law upstairs and getting coital with it, in between bouts of sith-lord-worthy chuckles, and — dammit STOP WINKING AT ME. It’s might even be worse than this:

YouTube Preview Image

Even Christians don’t make stuff this bad.

It’s times like these when I wonder why I’m planning to march on Washington to advocate for the abolition of abortion when my enemy is so busy stabbing himself in the eyeballs. Then I recall the panic that sets into liars when confronted by acts of courageous truth. The awkwardness of the opposed is not disconnected from the witness of those opposing.

“Happy 40th Anniversary, Baby” is going around the Christian world, and the comments claiming that the video is “scary”. Scary?

Now I strive not to be gleeful over idiocy, but when it’s the idiocy of a culture bent towards injustice and inequality, I have to thank them for the laugh. And it is at least mildly funny, this descent into awkward the pro-choice movement is currently stumbling through.

Time magazine pointed out they’re losing. Roe became an abolitionist on them. Planned Parenthood subtly dropped that phrase “pro-choice” in favor of plumbing the murky depths of relativism, taking up the infinitely more exciting banner of pro-you-can’t-know-what-abortion-is-like-so-don’t-say-anything-unless-you-want-to-support-it-in-which-case-say-something-but-don’t-say-choice-anymore-and-donate-to-us.

Now I’m all for ditching labels in exchange for definition. Clarity is a far better meal than catchiness. (For instance, I prefer telling people I support the abolition of abortion than that I’m “pro-life”, given that there’s plenty of people who support abolition but aren’t remotely “pro-life” when it comes to the death penalty, drone attacks or unjust war.) But this new-and-improved Planned Parenthood hasn’t forsaken labels for definitions, they’ve forsaken a known label, refused to define what they support, and taken upon themselves a new label so stifling and indecisive it may as well be a death shroud.

And now our culture has no idea how to talk about abortion. It was supposed to be no big deal, but you can’t simultaneously say it’s no big deal while saying you can’t talk about abortion unless you are “in her shoes”. Either abortion is normal, moral, and open to discussion, or it’s something so drastic that it can only be spoken of by those directly involved. It cannot be both. Thus we come to a split in the pro-abortion crew. There are those who will make videos to promote the idea that abortion is fine, commonplace, and open to jokes. And there are those who won’t. The former will get increasingly weird. The latter will get increasingly vague. Those in striving to abolish the injustice of abortion need only to spit fire into this darkness, that of basic embryology, the definition of life, the determination of the species of that life by way of DNA, and the philosophical truth of potency. From these we will hold fast to the rational claim that the unborn are living, human beings, worthy of the protection and rights granted to all human beings. Let our enemies flounder, but love them as they do.

The disgrace of papal blessing for Ugandan homophobia
In Which The Guttmacher Institute Continues to be Awful
Catholic Hospital Claims Fetus is not a Person!
Sustainable Sex
  • http://twitter.com/SamRochadotcom Sam Rocha


  • musiciangirl591

    that video made me sick and creeped me out so much, i wonder if that man knows about PP’s dark past (you know like their founder being a nazi sympathizer, a racist and a supporter of sterilizing the disabled and the “feeble-minded” (in her words, not mine))

    • Mike

      This is an argument ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy, and therefore makes your position look weak.

      • musiciangirl591

        ok? just saying she was a racist…

      • Montague

        It’s not an ad hominem if the subject is relevant. Personal character can be indications, though not final arguments, in most cases.

      • JoFro

        I don’t think it is a video produced by PP. This is a whole new reproductive rights org…could someone fact check this though!

        • musiciangirl591

          you mean about margaret sanger? google it :P

          • Claude

            Read, please.

            I don’t think it is a video produced by PP. This is a whole new reproductive rights org…could someone fact check this though!

            JoFro is correct. The video was produced by the Center for Reproductive Rights, not Planned Parenthood.

          • Claude

            Sorry! I could be wrong as well. The video may have been deliberately misattributed to the Center for Reproductive Rights, as Laurel suggested below. Wow.

  • Bridget

    I was starting to be more than a little creeped out by that video, but I turned on the captions to hear it better, and promptly cracked up.
    “That you could get annoying no big checks into the Japan.”

    Youtube captions: making even baby-slaughters play mad libs.

  • Denise

    “dammit STOP WINKING AT ME” hit the nail on the head. This guy is so creepy.

  • http://backoftheworld.com/ Ryan M.

    This video is ridiculous. But you know what? It’s the most honest thing I’ve ever seen coming for the other side. It’s a tacit admission that abortion is not about “women’s health,” but is rather, as any pro-life feminist will tell you, about irresponsible men wanting to remove any and all barriers to and consequences of their promiscuity…

  • Matthew Ferrantino

    Abortion is, imo, one of the least controversial things one can possibly talk about.
    You are either against killing babies or you have a preference for death over life.
    Raise your hand if you have a preference for death over life.
    No-one? Not even Lord Voldemort? Sauron, put. your hand. down. You are a spirit more than a living thing, and don’t get to vote on what living things do with life because you are cheating, since this decision doesn’t exactly effect you the same way.
    Jesus and Voldemort pretty much are never supposed to agree on anything, but both them were babies that got born. One can conclude they are probably pro-I-want-to-live.
    So stop the friggin abortions.

    • emd04

      Oh, one can say Voldermort was very pro HIS life….he wanted to live forever!

    • John (not McCain)

      You’re either against raping children or you’re not. If you are, then you don’t give money to people who aren’t.

    • Vision_From_Afar

      Abortion is, one of the simplest things to distill to black-and-white, evil-and-good dichotomy that “monotheism” is so obsessed with. You are either a follow-the-crowd-biology-is-religion “pro-lifer”, or you are somewhere else on the spectrum of knowledge, aware that it’s only in the last 30 years that any church has cared at all about the legality of the issue, rather than the spiritual impact. Every denomination listed acknowledges the tragedy of it, but there’s no call for repeal or outlawing it. Only since the Religious Right picked it up as their tentpole has it become a legal issue.

      • John Wright

        are impressively, extraordinarily, astronomically mistaken. Abortion
        was illegal in 30 states in the union before Roe v Wade. It has been a
        legal issue since the time of the Roman Empire. The Church has cared
        about the legality of its since the Didache was written in the First
        Century, back when the word ‘church’ had no plural.

        But even supposing your historical revisionism is true, your argument is
        illogical: for you are arguing that if the Church has impure motives,
        that is, since she has not consistently called for the abolition of
        abortion for 30 years, therefore abortion should be legal.

        This does not even rise to the level of an ad hominem. It is merely a nonsequitur.

        • Vision_From_Afar

          Oh HAI John. Nice to see your verbose responses have followed me even here, after you and Shea both kicked me off your blogs (no hard feelings, of course (back in the neo-pagan bashing fiasco you two started, remember?))

          Anyhow, it was a legal issue due to population control, pure and simple. I am not, in fact, arguing that the Church has ever condoned or even somewhat approved of abortion in any sense. However, making it a legal issue was about maintaining the population of the faithful thru governmental authority, rather than the entirely appropriate and readily available spiritual authority of the Church itself.

          I am arguing that the Church might not have pushed as hard as it is for the illegality of abortion were it not for the rise of the RR. Also, the whole “soul at conception” thing? Even Aquinas argued against that.

          • Paul

            I just want to mention that Aquanias did believe abortion from the moment of conception was a mortal sin-

            “Notwithstanding his belief in delayed animation and ensoulment, Aquinas still taught that abortion was wrong from the moment of conception. He believed it to be a mortal sin expressive of a homicidal will, even if in the early stages of pregnancy, as he thought, homicide isn’t actually committed.

            Aquinas’s opposition, then, squares perfectly with the Church’s teaching, even if there’s a difference between why Aquinas thought abortion was wrong and why Catholic theologians and moralists today think it is.”

          • tedseeber

            The argument isn’t “soul at conception”. The argument is “Genetics at conception”.

      • tedseeber

        Eugenicists do not admit that it is a tragedy. In their twisted worldview, abortion is a good thing that *must be promoted at all costs* or else we will never exterminate the lesser races.

        Don’t believe me? Read some Margaret Sanger. Or better yet, notice that Planned Parenthood’s teen outreach program is only offered in schools with less than 50% white students.

        • Vision_From_Afar

          You seriously think PP is staffed by Eugenicists? Which flavor of Kool-Aid is that again?
          I notice that PP’s teen outreach program (which is more about contraception than abortion) is offered in the areas with the lowest income/population ratio. It’s a product of our society that such places have less than 50% white students. Correlation is not causation.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-J-Patrick/1525803730 Andrew J. Patrick

            Ah, so we’re just trying to cull the herds of the poor in a colorblind way. That makes it all fine, then.

          • T. B.

            Thanks that was Hilarious, Andrew!!!!

  • Tom

    One of these days it will come out that you designed both this and “Ordain a Lady” to make the opposition look bad.

    • JoFro

      OK, I lol’d at that :D It shall be known as The Bad Catholic Conspiracy!

    • Loud

      That would be FUN! But it is actually sometjing Id prefer, that it was an innocent joke. I dont like believing bad things about opponent, that the women are not metely mistakenly holding an idea thats wrong, but actually telling people to ditch paul, for instance. Or that there is enough people in the world narssisistic enough to promote a video celebrating that they can have illicit sex then get away with murder. But they do, and thete is.

  • http://twitter.com/gailfinke Gail Finke

    Glad to read something funny about this revolting ad. Look at that guy! What the heck is he DOING at the end of the video, when he’s supposed to be drinking wine? He looks as if he can’t actually manage it, as if he doesn’t have human drinking apparatus and is going to turn into a snake or something. I am not exaggerating — he holds the wind glass in a really weird way and makes bizarre slurping noises, staring into the camera. What is that supposed to be??? If you go to the web site it advertises it is equally bizarre. I guess when you make an ad that says, “Hey women, we sleazy men are all so thankful we can be promiscuous and if anything goes wrong you’ll kill our children!” it really isn’t going to turn out well, no matter what you do.

    • musiciangirl591

      he kinda reminds me of satan in this video (the laugh makes the comparison even worse)

  • Guest

    Two words for the sleazebucket in that ad: Uncle Tom.

    • anon


    • JoFro

      Do not insult the name of Uncle Tom – he was a Christ figure who has been maligned by militant Blacks as a symbol of cowardice. This sleazebucket is Satan’s minion!

      • Joseph

        It’s really odd how that term came about… but from what I understand it’s not because of the original book, but other works based upon it afterwards… still I think the term should be stopped… it’s just stupid, and is usually only used to deride and marginalize those that just have a different view than the majority. In the common usage though, the term would apply perfectly in this situation.

        • Claude

          How so?

          • Joseph

            I’m sure you are aware of how disproportionately abortion affects Black Americans. I’m not saying you have to agree, but to at least see where I’m coming from I think you should look up Maafa 21 on youtube.

          • Claude

            But Joseph, you said the “common usage” of Uncle Tom “would apply perfectly in this situation.” What did you mean by that?

          • Joseph

            I mean in the sense of a “person perceived to be a participant in the oppression of their own group.” I guess it’s not the most common form, usually it’s just about a black person who doesn’t represent some value the black community holds, or is seen to be working for the “white man” in a sense, a betrayer… or at least that’s what I gather. I took the quotation from wiki… but I think it still captures the usage adequately.

          • Claude

            So you’re unaware that what you appear to be suggesting is that this guy is an Uncle Tom for the white man’s purported ethnic cleansing of black people? Are you serious?

          • Joseph

            If the term could ever be applied, I think it’s appropriate. I realize you don’t see abortion as too terrible a thing, and so I guess it doesn’t matter that even though black people make up only 13% percent of the population in U.S. they account for over 30% of abortions (http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/). I never said that fact has a master plan behind it, besides whatever part Margaret Sanger and her ilk had to play, but you still have to face the fact that abortion affects blacks and hispanics at a much higher rate! And so if this term can somehow be justified when used against Allen West or Herman Cain, I think it can be applied in this case (even though the actor, I assume, is oblivious to these facts… or has a personal interest in keeping it around given how creepy this video is!).

          • Claude

            What would you say might be some of the reasons for the high abortion rate among African-Americans (apart from a Planned Parenthood conspiracy to wipe out black people)?

          • Claude

            By the way. This:

            I realize you don’t see abortion as too terrible a thing…

            It depends. Certainly I think forced abortion is a terrible thing. I think gender-specific abortion is terrible. I think it’s terrible when a woman who would like to keep her baby feels compelled to abort because of poverty, or because the baby’s father is absent or abusive or inclined to bolt, or for any number of reasons that would convince women they have little choice.

            But no, I don’t think abortion is terrible in all cases. Neither do a majority of Americans, who some of you are pleased to suggest are accomplices to murder.

          • Joseph

            I agree with most of this for sure… From a Catholic perspective, we differentiate the evil of an act and the moral guilt or culpability of the person participating. So for instance, I don’t think a good deal of those who support abortion rights are guilty of murder, or guilty of being accomplices to murder. An abortionist on the other hand, when he knows what he is doing, I think is morally culpable and quite guilty, though in light of its legalization I don’t think the laws would be applied retroactively if it became illegal again. I think there are situations in which the guilt is also lessened depending on circumstances, as with every other moral decision.

            To your question below, yes of course poverty and culture have a great deal to do with the higher rate of minority abortions. I’m not saying it’s some eugenic conspiracy, even if that plays a role in the founding of PP. It is still a problem, and while I won’t defend the usage of Uncle Tom with dogmatic fervor, I think that it’s something more Black Americans should be aware of, and I think that it negatively impacts them… and given it’s nonchalant usage against Black Americans who simply have a different political view than the majority, I find it’s not too extreme a thing to say.

          • Claude

            Just a reminder that I’m a (long-time) lapsed Catholic and am familiar with such tenets as “hate the sin, love the sinner.”

            I don’t understand why, if you think abortion is murder, you wouldn’t consider supporters of legal abortion as at least complicit in “genocide,” as your propagandists call it. Jesus said, in effect, that thought carries the same moral weight as action. If you desire another man’s wife you have already committed adultery in your heart. So by Jesus’s draconian standards, if you support abortion that you have in effect participated in abortion. I’m not sure “hate the sin, love the sinner” gets you off the hook.

            while I won’t defend the usage of Uncle Tom with dogmatic fervor, I think that it’s something more Black Americans should be aware of, and I think that it negatively impacts them… and given it’s nonchalant usage against Black Americans who simply have a different political view than the majority, I find it’s not too extreme a thing to say.

            I’m confused by what you mean here. Do you mean that the disproportionately high rate of abortions among African-Americans is something they should be more aware of? (How do you know how aware African-Americans are of the issue?) Or are you referring to the use of the “Uncle Tom” slur?

            Do you mean to draw an equivalence between the accusation that West and Cain are Uncle Toms because they align with a political party that for decades has exploited racism for political advantage with the suggestion that there is some design behind the abortion rate among African Americans that implicates this black guy in a video?

  • David Thane

    that planned parenthood video was scary….

  • Arkanabar

    I had to stop watching that sleazy guy before he’d had ten seconds of screen time. Bizarre, creepy, and covered with squick.

  • Joseph

    Planned Parenthood Golden Gate video… What the hell was that?

  • Jay

    If only the man in the video was aware of Margaret Sanger’s true agenda… Pray for our pro-abortion folks to be converted! Any day, God will call another Saul who will stand firm in the fight for life.

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

  • Claude

    You may think your enemy is…busy stabbing himself in the eyeballs, but the tide has turned and a majority of Americans now support choice. No doubt the reflections of right-wing nutjobs, who mused out loud about “legitimate rape” and how rape babies are the will of God, did not resonate with the American people. Apparently it’s that sort of thing that people find scary, not some fish in a barrel on Youtube.

    • TomK

      But, but….the facts…. http://www.pewforum.org/Abortion/Support-for-Abortion-Slips.aspx
      (Unless you’re referencing a more recent statistic I’m not aware of)

      • JoFro

        There is a new poll that states most Americans are pro-life but also that they do not want Roe V Wade repealed…so essentially, it seems what we do have is a bunch of people running towards whichever is the more popular label they can be under

        • http://twitter.com/gailfinke Gail Finke

          No. It means that the majority of Americans want to be what they think of as compassionate to desperate, pregnant women but do not approve of abortion in general.

          • Oregon Catholic

            …and have no moral compass with which to make their decisions, said compass having been skewed by the moral relativism of our society and leadership.

      • Claude

        Yes, I’m referencing two more recent polls (2013) you’re apparently not aware of, Pew and NBC News/Wall Street Journal.

        I see you’re trying to pass off as “the facts” a poll from 2009. Nice try.

        • DeGaulle

          When the baby-killers are reduced to propaganda like that being discussed, we know that we are at least near the end of the road that attempts to morally justify abortion. Whether people act on that is another issue. If they don’t that is a reflection of their depravity.

          • Claude

            Let’s review.

            The issue concerned not the moral debate but the degree of support in the US for legal abortion.

            To counter my assertion that “the tide has turned,” TomK offered a three-year old poll indicating that support for abortion had slipped.

            However, polls released this month, one of which was from the very agency (Pew) TomK linked to above, reveal that, yes, the tide has turned and a majority of Americans support legal abortion.

            Whether a majority of Americans are “depraved” is indeed a separate issue.

        • TomK

          Then you have a point and I am mistaken. I had heard of that statistic, but not seen it for myself. Mind linking it to me so I can investigate it for myself.

  • Becca

    Yeah when I first watched this video I thought it was like Satan’s love letter to abortion.

  • kate

    If you follow the link to website it is quite funny. To read down the list of claims about what will happen if you don’t sign the Bill of Reproductive rights is an experience. To think anyone could believe the claims they make or even take them seriously makes you wonder about humanity. It makes Nazi propaganda seem level headed.

    • Charlotte

      Any one who stoops to the level of using Nazi’s as a comparison is looking for shock value. Abortion is a woman’s right to her body, Nazi’s took life without thought, compassion, or reason. Women who get abortions are in all states of mind and never deserve the hate and judgement that you fling at them.

      • Dave P.

        Hate, certainly not. Judgement – only God knows for sure, Sadness and horror at the action taken – certainly. Righteous anger (different from hate) with the people who may have coerced the mother into this (as often happens) – oh yes. And love and prayers for conversion and healing for all (which worked on Bernard Nathanson, Norma McCovey, Abby Johnson, and numerous women in Project Rachel) – a guarantee.

        • Vision_From_Afar

          “Judgement – only God knows for sure”
          - Cop out.

          “Righteous anger (different from hate)”
          - Not on the receiving end. Cop out, pt 2.

          “with the people who may have coerced the mother into this”

          - And yet, there’s little call in any quarter on the “pro-life” side to ensure that coercion is not a factor, just that everyone likes getting mad at the (supposedly) evil, vile, controlling men who demand that the (supposedly) poor, defenseless women perform this against their will. Because hey, outside of human trafficking (which does happen, but is a completely different can of worms), it must happen every time because this is the 1950s and women can’t think for themselves yet, poor things.

          • Dave P.

            Cop out on judgement? No. We can judge actions, but only One knows what’s really going on. And yes, I’ve also come across women who freely chose to abort their child for selfish reasons. I still ask mercy for them.

            And righteous anger is not equivalent to hate. You can still be angry with someone for what they’ve done and love them. It’s called “love the sinner, hate the sin”. For example, if someone wiped out my entire family, I’d want them locked away for life -that’s justice. But I’d still want to meet that person in Heaven (contingent on me getting there myself). Or, more commonly, a loved one with an addiction of some sort. You can be angry with them for messing up their own lives and the lives of others, but you do what you can to help them, even if it means “tough love”, or simply prayer. The same with the abortion industry and all who participate and enable it. I’m angry that this slaughter is legal and even encouraged, but I pray for the repentance and conversion of those involved (like the examples I cited).

            Speaking of which, you seem to treat that scenario as a fiction. My sister was subjected to that when she told her boyfriend she was pregnant. “Have an abortion and we’ll rethink the relationship”, she was told. Fortunately, she broke up with him, and I have a fine nephew as a result. I’ve known others who were pressured and coerced, even to having an appointment made without her consent. I’ll refer you to http://www.theunchoice.com/coerced.htm for more concrete examples.

          • Vision_From_Afar

            “We can judge actions, but only One knows what’s really going on.”
            So you’re free to judge, and your God will give you feedback some day? Still judging.

            You completely missed my point that on the receiving end, there is no way to differentiate between hate and “righteous anger”. It’s all well and good to justify your emotions to yourself, but at least be honest that if you’re ripping that addictive substance from the addict’s hands, they can’t tell the difference if you hate the substance or them.

            She was told to have an abortion by the boyfriend. She wasn’t frog-marched or dragged kicking and screaming to the clinic. She said no, as was her choice. Of course others have been pressured and coerced, but the fact that women young and old buckle to that coercion is the fault of society which consistently tells women that they need an authority figure to rule over them. The fault lies not with abortion, but those doing the coercion.

          • Kate

            “little call…to ensure coercion is not a factor”? Because all of those attempts at waiting periods and mandatory counselling in every state over the last 40 years don’t count, right? …. and I’m pretty sure those were vehemently opposed by abortion advocates, even though those are the measures most likely to give a woman space to advocate for herself if she is being pressured. (and there’s nothing sex-specific about social and relational pressure…you don’t have to think women are weak to realize that no person makes decisions of any kind in a vacuum, and the more difficult your situation, the more vulnerable you are).

            Anyhow, it helps if you avoid attacking straw men and realize that you really aren’t aware of how much pro-life people actually do to support women -and men, and children – in difficult situations. You don’t have data on it, you don’t have any insider knowledge, and it’s not the sort of thing your neighbor two blocks down is going to put on a sign in their yard: “Hi, I’m prolife and I just helped my neice and her baby escape an abusive relationship.”

            You’re arguing against a cartoon caricature, which probably goes over well with people who share your opinions, but it certainly isn’t going to convince any of the people you’re caricaturing! :-)

          • Vision_From_Afar

            All of those attempts at waiting periods and mandatory counselling were simply pro-life coercion on a legal front. Most of those “counselling” services were religious-based, so you can guess what they’re going to pressure someone to choose at all costs. Show me one neutral counselor or even two opposing ones offered equally, and I’ll show you five other locations where there wasn’t a choice at all about who to go to.
            Anyhow, if it helps you feel better about thinking all pro-choice people are evil, you really aren’t aware of how many pro-choice people actually do support those in difficult situations.

            Pro-lifers don’t have the monopoly on support and charity.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-J-Patrick/1525803730 Andrew J. Patrick

            Except to the fetus. But to hell with that little parasite anyway.

          • Vision_From_Afar

            Way to add meaningful discussion, cupcake. Take your bitter brew and stew elsewhere.

      • kate

        I was not comparing women who have abortions to Nazi’s and I did not intend to offend or go for shock value and am deeply sorry if I offended you or any others. It was not my intention to shame or judge anyone I meant the comparison in relation to how they framed their arguments in their website. To say that if you object to paying for someone else’s contraception you also want to ban it seems outrageous to me. If you have sex and get pregnant and have the child you are expected to pay to raise it yourself it seems fair that if you wish to have sex and not get pregnant that you cover the cost yourself. Their argument seems to aim for scare value which is why I used the comparison. It was not directed at act of abortion itself merely how they present their case on their website.

    • Claude

      I invoke Godwin’s Law against this obscene comparison.

      Shame on you.

  • Contra Mundo

    I’ll say this much for pro-abortion politicians, they tend to be more open and honest in their agenda than most of the so-called pro-life politicians. I’m sick of “pro-life” politicians who are against abortion, but with so many exceptions with different circumstances that their double-speak would make Big Brother proud.

    • dgriffey

      That’s because the media and culture through which politicians must get out their message tend to be pro-abortion. Hence, a politician says ‘I want to abolish abortion’, and you’ve got a three week circle of stories accusing him of every misogynistic anti-woman act and thought under the sun; he’ll be presumed guilty and forced to defend himself, and the entire conversation will be around whether he (or she for that matter) is worthy for office. Questions about rape and incest will abound, and comparisons to anti-civil rights politicians and politicians who supported slavery will be par for the course. The politician who says he or she is pro-choice? Nothing. They could cause more trouble in the media by saying the sky is blue.

      • Joseph

        This is too true… Imagine if this were flipped, and every time a pro-choice politician argued their case ALL of the news headlines read “Baby Killer Pelosi” “Reed Wages War on Children” “Obama Wants to Kill His Grandchildren.” You’d bet they’d try to avoid the question!

      • Claude

        Hence, a politician says ‘I want to abolish abortion’, and you’ve got a three week circle of stories accusing him of every misogynistic anti-woman act and thought under the sun

        Like which politician, for instance?

        • dgriffey

          Like pic a GOP politician in the last ten years that has attempted to speak toward radically limiting if not eliminating abortion. Even if they say they’re for limiting it, that becomes the story of the news cycle. Think Rick Santorum. That poor man had to backtrack while still trying to hold to his own beliefs from a Catholic perspective because his views were so radical they became the focus for a month (just his abortion views, I’m not talking about other things he said or did). And think of all the times that rape/incest are brought up to pro-life Republicans (not so much Democrats, haven’t figured that one out yet). When was the last time you saw a Democrat hounded for weeks because he or she said pro-choice or pro-abortion rights? When was the last time a reporter asked a pro-choice politician about the meaner sides of abortion: like aborting babies because you want a particular gender, or don’t want a disabled baby, or similar, or even tried to pin them down about abortions for convenience sake. Anyone? Ever hear a week of discussions around those questions because a Democrat said ‘hey, I’m pro-abortion rights’?

          • Claude

            Hmm. I remember Rick Santorum walking back his comment that JFK’s famous words about separation of church and state made him want to “throw up.” I remember Rick Santorum walking back his comment that President Obama is a “snob.” But I don’t remember Rick Santorum walking back any of his views on abortion. Remind me again what happened.

            As for Democrats being hounded for their views: have you ever watched Fox News? Bashing liberals is their very reason for being. You are sure to find satisfaction there.

  • Dave G.

    Out of curiosity when did supporting the use of capital punishment become incompatible with being pro-life? As long as the Church allows for the use, we can’t simply say anyone who holds some vague position on the death penalty is not pro-life.

    • DeGaulle

      The death penalty, which has never been formally condemned by the Church in two millenia, where properly administered, at least involves issues of Justice. Abortion is, by definition, a slaughter of the most innocent.

  • Oregon Catholic

    As a video in support of Roe v Wade it is shocking how transparent the evil is – satan is barely disguised. If it were a video mocking R v W it would be sadly funny satire.

    • John (not McCain)

      How do you pedophile enablers manage to sleep at night?

      • Dave P.

        Ah, the usual canard. We sleep pretty well, as we’ve been angry with those who cover up and enable that scandal, and giving the 98% of good priests a bad name. Speaking for myself, I occasionally wonder when the press is going to be as unrelenting and thorough in investigating public schools for the same thing.

        • Korou

          But the people who have been covering up an enabling the scandal are the ones in charge of the Church.

          The problem isn’t that a majority of priests abused children. It’s that they were and are protected by the Catholic Church itself.

          Oh, and happy birthday, Roe v. Wade.

          • Dave P.

            Like I said, we’re angry with the bishops who covered it up. Usually, they didn’t tell the whole story to Rome. And I’m still waiting for the press to investigate school administrations and the teachers’ unions for doing the same. Not that it excuses the Church scandal in any way, but when you have an institution which has a bigger problem with it, shouldn’t it be scrutinized as well?

          • Dave P.

            And I’m still trying to figure out why the media considers abusive a priest having a relationship with a 17 year old boy (the vast majority of cases were with teenaged boys), but will glorify an advertising executive doing the same (Queer As Folk).

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-J-Patrick/1525803730 Andrew J. Patrick

            THANK YOU.

          • Joseph

            It’s abusive because he is in a place of emotional and spiritual authority… it’s like a therapist who has sex with clients. It’s INEXCUSABLE. The Church needs to be purged of those who participate and aid in these things, whether it’s pedophilia, ephebophilia, or any other sexual abuses in their positions. We don’t go on a witch hunt, just taking accusations willy nilly, but if we KNOW, or have a good reason to think, they are guilty, take them away from active ministry Period, until it can be settled in court. Our shepherds need to start being watchful bridegrooms who truly love the Church (willing to DIE for Her,), not like Adam who lets the Church fall prey to danger! We MUST be spotless, and if we aren’t, let it be no fault of those who have been entrusted with our safety. Bishops should really start taking that whole millstone thing seriously. Complacency on our part is not an option. By now we just have to accept the fact that the media is always going to be biased against us, but let it be that by the grace of God we use it to purge the evil from ourselves! I can’t wait for our new faithful priests to take over, and I pray they have no obstacles in replacing some of the corrupt, with the help of the truly holy bishops and priests of course!

          • Dave P.

            I heartily agree with you, mind you. I just like pointing out the double standard. Some time ago, I came across someone who blasted the Church while defending and excusing Roman Polanski…

          • Korou

            17 years old? 15? 13?

            The advertising executive wasn’t part of an organisation in which similar things happened all the time and were protected from the view of the police.

          • Dave P.

            No, but the relationship between Brian and Justin(albeit fictional) was treated as something good. Not to mention the numerous “coming of age” stories in which a teenaged boy is initiated into the gay lifestyle by an older man (often an authority figure of some sort). Again please explain to me why those are not considered instances of abuse? And I’m not endorsing or rationalizing a priest doing this. I’m pointing out a double standard.

          • Korou

            I’ve never seen Queer as Folk, and I’ve said all I know about it, but I believe that I’ve answered this already. A consensual gay relationship; borderline legal, would have been legal in most parts of the world. This simply isn’t comparable to the Catholic scandals, and it’s a red herring to pretend that they are. What more is there to say?
            The conduct of the Catholic Church – Church, not members of it – is inexcusable. You shouldn’t be trying to excuse it.

          • Dave P.

            I don’t excuse it at all (the purge was overdue, and I hope Mahoney receives justice), but I know that a good number of priests were dismissed because of borderline relationships similar to that of Brian and Justin, including one who broke off the relationship after the other party turned 18, sought counseling, and remained chaste for a number of years. Because of the zero tolerance policy, he was dismissed. I can also tell you that a substantial number of those dismissed in my diocese (or would have been had they been alive) were members of the “Lavender Mafia” as described in Michael Rose’s Goodbye, Good Men.

            The boy in the stories I refer to can be anywhere from 13 to 17 years old. The authority figure is often a teacher or coach. And there’s other interesting stuff out there as well. I wish I had never come across the stuff, but it’s made me aware of what goes on in certain segments of gay culture.

            The analogy you present below is accurate to some degree. But I would say the store managers (the bishops) very often didn’t report everything, or nothing at all, to Corporate Management, not realizing or caring that it would hurt the company’s reputation in the long run. Or there were false incidents (like what happened to Cardinal Bernardin or Cardinal Pell) which hindered the investigation of rotten shipments. Then you have the store managers who have stronger quality control, and throw out the bad apples as soon as they appear, or even refuse shipments if they don’t look right. Meanwhile, people wonder why the government-owned competition is escaping the same scrutiny, even though more rotten apples turn up. Some believe that that store’s union plays a huge role in that…

            As it is, we’ve dug the rabbit hole deep enough here. Peace to you, and thanks for keeping the conversation civil.

          • Korou

            Dave, if you want to stop here I’d be happy to. I’d also like to thank you for a civil conversation. I do think there is more to be said, but we can leave it for another time.

          • Korou

            Aren’t the differences obvious? Consent, and institutional enabling of offenders.
            I’m not familiar with the stories you’re referring to, but I assume we’re talking about parfticipants aged sixteen, seventeen or eighteen? There are different ages of consent, of course, in different areas.

            If it were the case that the majority of people abused by Catholic priests were of the age of consent, it would be different. But they’re not.
            If it were the case that they were able to give consent and did so, there would not be a problem. But they weren’t, and they didn’t.
            If it were the case that the Catholic Church, on discovering the existence of any of these offenders, promptly turned them over to the authorities there would also be no problem. Instead, not only have these allegations emerged from outside the Church, the Church has done everything it can to obstruct their investigation.
            If it were even the case that the Catholic Church, on discovering the existence of these offenders, took no moral actions (ie, did nothing) rather than took actively harmful action (ie, hiding and defending the offenders) then it would, at least, not be so bad.
            As I said, apples and oranges. There is no double standard, but there are a lot of terrible things that have happened and, no doubt, still continue to happen, and the Catholic Church is enabling them.
            It’s a very sad and worrying situation, and comments about double standards don’t help.

          • Korou

            I did a little research, and found two things which I think answer your question:
            First, 17 is at or above the age of consent in many places in America and around the world. To be fair, in Pennsylvania, where Queer as Folk is set, the age of consent is 18.
            So the first answer to your question, I suppose, would be that the case is an isolated borderline situation which would have been legal in many other parts of the world.

            Second, the Wikipedia article on Catholic sex abuse cases begins by saying:
            “The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of convictions, trials and investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse crimes committed by Catholic priests and members of Roman Catholic orders against children as young as 3 years old with the majority between the ages of 11 and 14.”
            So the second answer to your question, I suppose, would be “apples and oranges.”

          • Korou

            You seem to think that this was the case of a few bad apples who have now been rooted out. It’s not.

            To extend the analogy: it’s not the case that you have a shopkeeper who one day notices a few bad apples and quickly removes them. It’s more like a shopkeeper who turns bad apples over so their rotten spots won’t be noticed. When a customer complains he pretends there isn’t a problem, and when the customer turns over a rotten apple he reluctantly throws it away and then gets angry when the customer wants to see under the top layer of apples.

            What makes it worse is that the shopkeeper is in fact the owner of a chain of shops, all with the same policy, and when the serious complaints are made against his chain he starts complaining himself, about how the butcher’s shop or the bakery – single-owned stores – never get targetted.

            Possibly that analogy got away from me a bit.

      • Kate

        Good question. Abortion enables the coverup of statutory rape…how do you sleep at night?

        • Vision_From_Afar

          Legal guns cover up all kinds of illegal crimes…how do you sleep at night?
          Legal cars transport all kinds of illegal substances…how do you sleep at night?
          Legal operations make all kinds of people sterile every day…how do you…

      • anton

        hey john, why not mccain?…..they make the best fries!

      • Dr. Eric

        I believe we call this one “Cardinal Law” it’s kinda like “Godwin’s Law.”

  • J G

    Good job, PP is creepy.

  • Korou

    And by the way – for a Catholic to insult other groups by referring to them as “outdated blatantly unscientific ideologies that are rapidly devolving into ridiculous elitism beyond the confines of its own minority view” – well, that goes way beyond hilarious irony and straight into sheer projection.

  • http://www.facebook.com/WorthWaitingFor777 Sara Simons

    Great job as always, Marc :)

  • PatrickG

    Though I heartily disagree with Marc both on the issue of abortion and his accusation that my side consists of liars (maybe I’m misreading, who knows), I do actually agree that they whole “you’re not a woman you can’t have a say!” line is completely ridiculous. I’d disagree, though, that abortion is necessarily either happy-fun times or sent straight from the pits of hell. It could be a legally-acceptable remedy to a problem without being something to joke about, just as drug detox is not really something to joke about.

  • Joe C.

    I’d just like to point out that the infamous anniversary video appears to have been taken down from all over the internet, probably due to the outrage expressed by people in both the Pro-Life movement and the Formerly-but-Also-Still-Pro-Choice-Maybe movement. Having to tuck your tail and hide after the celebration of your victory probably doesn’t bode well.

  • Laurel

    The text accompanying this video shows it to be either a either a sick joke, or malicious slander. The Center for Reproductive Rights did NOT create it, any more than Jews murder Christian babies for their tasty tasty blood. Did my analogy shock you? I hope so. Even the devil can quote scripture, and lies like this one smear shame on the cause that creates them. Pro Life advocates are already subject to ridicule because of the crazies in the midst, with liars like the makers of this video, who needs enemies?

  • Loud

    Cant see it. Says the vid was removed by the user. Think they realized their mistake?

  • Amanda

    Marc, what about a follow up article since the video has been “taken down by the user”.

  • Melanie

    “This video has been removed by the user” hahaha too bad I missed it!

  • GK Student

    The lack of evidence that the “soul” is conceived at birth does not mean: “because we cannot or don’t know if a soul exists at conception, we may dispose of the existence of it, and by doing so, call it merely a clump of tissues.”

    If you do not know or cannot tell if a soul is conceived at conception (meaning an unknown), you cannot declaratively say, therefore, since from an unknown, you can now call it a known to which you may dispose of that life and call it a clump of tissues.

    What is known is that all attributes of a living breathing human comes to life from the various stages of human life developing at the point of conception with a beating heart, brain, bone structure, hands, feet, belly button, eyes, mouth, ears, and nose as seen from being a zygote, embryo, fetus, and then a baby. You would have to declare a person as not being person by the same measure when you declare someone an infant, minor, adolscent, adult, and elder. What of the 1/5 man act which deprived men, women, and children, because of attribute given to them for colour, in the south?

    The argument that no soul exist at the point of conception is even a violation of private property and a person’s life when they are asleep. You wouldn’t say your wife or husband was a non-existent person when they’re a asleep. You couldn’t cheat on them or even take their life if they were asleep. Also, you would describe the foundation of a home being laid out, walls being put up, and roof overhead to declare there is not indication of any anticipation of human life to exist or live in the home? Even baby’s showers are the experience of expectant mother’s to receive a son or daughter and not a clump of tissues.

    The whole argument that since there is no evidence of a soul at conception so absurd to the reality to say dinosaurs didn’t exist even though you have footprints and fossilized remains. That is, the entire argument to dispose of a developing human life in his or her mother’s womb – of course having DNA not of the mother – at any stage is invalid. Because, it fails conventional fact both in science, common-sense, reality, and reason.

  • http://snickersnackbaby.blogspot.com/ David Ferguson

    What would Dante do with abortion, I wonder?

  • SallyWallyDoodle

    I have just discovered “Bad Catholic” and have been reading posts all afternoon! Very intriguing, thought-provoking. As a newly-converted (from evangelical Protestantism ) Catholic, I enjoyed the intellectually coherent arguments that jibe with the coherence I’ve found in the faith. Thanks for stretching my poor brain, tired from a year of defending my conversion to family and friends.