Defending America from the Satanazis

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite asks a good question:

The choice between the biblical values of “good news for the poor” as announced by Jesus, and the “good news for the rich” of GOP fiscal proposals should be an easy one for Christians across the spectrum from liberal to conservative. But it’s not, as is clear from many polls. Why not?

That’s not a rhetorical question. It’s at the heart of American politics and of American Christianity in 2012.

I have a theory that suggests an answer — one I’ve talked about many times before here. I think it’s because of the Satanic baby-killers.

For many American Christians — particularly the sectarian voting bloc usually described as “evangelicals” — the war the rich are waging against the poor is at best a secondary consideration. Everything has to be a secondary consideration, because the No. 1 priority has to be stopping the monsters, the terrifying Satanic baby-killers. And the Hitler demons.

Because whatever one thinks about progressive taxation or keeping children safe from mercury poisoning or foreign policy or jobs, education, worker’s rights, civil rights or health care, none of that can possibly be as important as the pre-eminent existential and eternal threat posed by the Satanic baby-killers and the Hitler demons.

But don’t take my word for it, just listen to Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel, who says, “Are we comparing the pro-choice movement to the Nazi movement? Absolutely.”

Let’s be very clear here. What we’re talking about here is, as we’ve long called it, an abortion holocaust. Are we comparing the pro-choice movement to the Nazi movement? Yes! Absolutely.

In recent weeks we talked about how the pro-life movement really embraces the mantle of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. … This is the modern-day anti-holocaust movement; the pro-life movement is.

Or listen to Pat Robertson explain that homosexuality is “somehow related to demonic possession.”

Or check out the trailers for Gates of Hell, from “Illuminati Pictures,” which depicts armed terrorists rebelling against the Satanazi threat of abortion. (Or something — it’s hard to say. “Molotov” Mitchell” explains his film here, while doing what seems to be an impression of Ed Norton in the first half-hour of American History X.)

If you prefer a film in which the condemnation of the Satanic baby-killers is presented in more pastel shades, try the upcoming October Baby, which Alison Wilmore describes for the AV Club:

Most egregious of all is the film’s suggestion that late-term, edge-of-viability procedures are the norm and that abortion clinics are a horror show of maimed, discarded infants. (“There were things that happened there, terrible things, things they had me do,” [Jasmine] Guy murmurs when telling her [character’s] story.) This isn’t a movie; this is propaganda for the already converted.

Or read about how “Aborted Babies Are Being Chopped Up and Sold to Researchers All Over America.” That’s from Alex Jones’ Prison Planet website — home to the wacky fringe lunacy of birthers, 9/11 “truthers” and moon-landing denialists. Nobody regards that site as a serious or credible source of information, even if it’s fantasies about abortion clinics are indistinguishable from those of the “mainstream” October Baby.

For another movie that shows this SB-K mentality, see the acclaimed documentary Jesus Camp, in which children are taught this view of the world, instructed to be constantly vigilant against the monstrous Other. (You can now watch Jesus Camp online for free at SnagFilms.com.)

Or look at the 1984 manual, “How to Start and Operate Your Own Pro-Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center“:

Obviously, we’re fighting Satan. A killer, who in this case is the girl who wants to kill her baby, has no right to information that will help her kill her baby.

“Satan.” “A killer.” “The enemy.” “Terrible things.” “Demonic possession.” “Nazis.” A “holocaust.”

Stacked up against that, jobs, taxes, education, health care and the environment scarcely matter at all.

But do these folks really believe their own rhetoric about these Satanazis they claim to be battling?

I don’t think so. I think it’s more like what Steve M. describes in a post on the man who killed Trayvon Martin, “What you have to blend to get a George Zimmerman“:

The paranoia of George Zimmerman had a large, race-specific fear component, but I’d say it also had elements of pleasure. I see this in what gun fans say all the time — they like thinking of themselves as besieged, and as people who have the means to defend themselves if attacked. They really want their paranoid fantasies to come true, because it turns what’s largely a matter of personal enjoyment (they like guns) into a matter of being heroes of society. They hope they get to stop scary hordes of “urban” marauders from committing horrendous crimes of violence. They hope they have the chance to defeat a liberal/fascist/gun-grabbing government.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

The Fall of the House of Graham (ongoing)
The crops are all in and the peaches are rott'ning
Whatever happened to 'pro-life Democrats'? Go see 'Spotlight'
The Rod D. Horror Picture Show
  • tiredofit

    Also the popularity of prosperity Christianity, which suggests that wealth is an indication of piety and giving to the church and God.  When the God-less libruls try to tax the wealthy they are really trying to take God’s rewards away from teh faithful and give it to the sinful atheistic hordes.

    It’s a stunning misread of Jesus, but much of modern vocal American Christianity is about sussing out great meaning from small lines in the Bible while ignoring outright stated messages from Jesus.  That way you can think contraception is the greatest evil since the Flood but support thrice married (and never widowed) Newt for president.

  • Anonymous-Sam

    Sometimes it’s not even a misread. I remember Bill Maher’s Religulous, where he confronted a megachurch preacher on the subject of his fine hundred thousand dollar suits and the man tried to justify it by quoting the Bible. Specifically, he tried to turn “It is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven” into “It is better for a rich man to enter Heaven…”

    That goes beyond epic reading comprehension failure into the realm of being purposefully disingenuous. Once again, it makes me feel that white collar crime, when it’s punished at all, isn’t punished nearly severely enough. I vote for removing his hands.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I remember Bill Maher’s Religulous, where he confronted a megachurch preacher on the subject of his fine hundred thousand dollar suits and the man tried to justify it by quoting the Bible. Specifically, he tried to turn “It is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven” into “It is better for a rich man to enter Heaven…”

    Maybe he was trying to become less rich by blowing all his megachurch money on expensive clothing? 

  • The Lodger

    I initially read this as “five hundred thousand dollar suits” and went nuts.
    But even “fine” “hundred thousand dollar suits” is just crazy. I mean, you can’t actually blow 100 Gs on a suit, can you? (Note: when I check Pierce’s blog on Esquire, I skip the apparel ads, so I really don’t know the answer.)

    “Hundred” “fine” “thousand dollar suits” is still an insane way to stuff your closet, but it’s believable.

  • vsm

    “What inexhaustible reserves they possess of darkness, ignorance, and
    savagery! Despair has raised them to their feet fascism has given them a
    banner. Everything that should have been eliminated from the national
    organism in the form of cultural excrement in the course of the normal
    development of society has now come gushing out from the throat;
    capitalist society is puking up the undigested barbarism.”

  • Tricksterson

    And this is a quote from?

  • MulderTheHypotenuse

     “What Is National Socialism?” by Leon Trotsky.

    http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/trotnazi.html

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I found the text here, in case that helps.

  • Tricksterson

    “Kettle, thou art black!” cried the pot.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    A killer, who in this case is the girl who wants to kill her baby, has no right to information that will help her kill her baby.

    So how long do they think this “girl” should be imprisoned for for the crime of conspiracy to commit murder?

  • Anonymous

     The run of the mill “pro-life” Christian who votes along abortion fault lines has no answer to your question Triplanetary. They haven’t thought that part out at all. They only see the little babies that they will be saving, the mothers are merely a prop in their fantasy.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

     

    The run of the mill “pro-life” Christian who votes along abortion fault
    lines has no answer to your question Triplanetary. They haven’t thought
    that part out at all. They only see the little babies that they will be
    saving, the mothers are merely a prop in their fantasy.

    I used to ask Forced Birthers protesting in front of clinics how much jail time a woman should get if abortion were illegal. The answers I got fell into three camps:

    1.) “Oh, I think abortion should be illegal, but the woman shouldn’t go to jail; she’s being punished by God.” (my follow-up question of “if something is illegal, but there’s no punishment, how is that a meaningful law?” got blank stares)

    2.) “The woman shouldn’t go to jail; it’s the doctor who’s doing the killing who should!” (my follow-up question about how hiring a hit-man makes you guilty of murder also got blank stares)

    3.) “The woman shouldn’t go to jail, because she was lied to/was being manipulated/didn’t understand what she was doing/wasn’t completely sane at the time of the abortion. If she really understood and was thinking clearly, she would never get an abortion.” (My follow-up question about how those claims infantalize women got blank stares, even when it was a woman speaking)

  • Lori

      “The woman shouldn’t go to jail, because she was lied to/was being manipulated/didn’t understand what she was doing/wasn’t completely sane at the time of the abortion. If she really understood and was thinking clearly, she would never get an abortion.” (My follow-up question about how those claims infantalize women got blank stares, even when it was a woman speaking)

    They also have no answer if you ask them how a person who is supposedly so fragile or so dumb and easily lead is going to be a good caregiver for a helpless infant.

  • Tonio

     Slate tackled this question a while back:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/09/punitive_dissonance.single.html
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/09/fetal_exception.html

    The writer theorizes that pro-lifers such as Virginia’s governor doesn’t really believe that fetuses have the same right to life as the rest of us. My theory goes deeper – I suspect that they cannot process the fact of a woman lacking the desire to become a mother, even if it’s in that given circumstance. They may perceive this as a threat on an existential level, where it’s as if their own mothers didn’t want them or they had never been born. Or they may simply believe that women’s sole purpose is mother and homemaker. Or both.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    The writer theorizes that pro-lifers such as Virginia’s governor doesn’t really believe that fetuses have the same right to life as the rest of us.

    There’s no question in my mind about this. As Fred recently said, if life begins at conception, and thus abortion is murder, then miscarriage is the leading cause of death in the United States. So why hasn’t the government taken an interest in preventing this horrible, enormous epidemic of deaths, the way it does with other leading killers such as heart disease? With all the millions of blastobabies dying every year because they just couldn’t grip that endometrium hard enough, why haven’t pro-life legislators diverted a single dollar to preventing miscarriages?

    Oh right, because “life begins at conception” is all bullshit anyway, and as you said, it’s far more about “women have no right to avoid their place in society as mothers and homemakers.”

  • Tonio

     A hunch – there seems to be a common belief that single women are selfish, in the sense that they’re allegedly placing materialistic needs over their “duty” to marry and procreate. I would be curious to know how many pro-lifers espouse this belief. Similar to how there’s a strong correlation between homophobia and beliefs in “traditional” gender roles.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    I think that’s a good way to put it. In much the same way that misogynistic men who are bitter about not getting laid (or not getting laid enough) and thus get pissed at every woman they see because she could be fucking some poor sex-deprived dude right now if she weren’t so selfish as to have her own life, anti-choicers seem to have a serious problem with unmarried adult women. Because somewhere out there is an unmarried creeper she should be cooking dinner for, but instead she insists on pursuing a career, not to mention hobbies and interests. What a bitch!

    Plus, there aren’t nearly enough white babies as it is! We’re going to get overrun by the brown-skinned horde! (This sentiment is in no way racist, however.)

  • Tonio

    I didn’t have in the belief that a woman should be some man’s sleep-in maid, although there is much of that involved. The mindset we’re talking about might see the creation of life as the highest good, to the extent that every woman should spend all her years between puberty and menopause pumping out babies like Pez dispensers.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    Whatever their superficial justifications, or whatever the particular motivation of some sub-group, these narratives are formed to benefit the existing power structures. “Creation of life as the highest good” is one of those superficial justifications that the people in power don’t actually give a shit about. “Creation of impoverished peons who will have to work for minimum wage when we need them, and starve in the background when we don’t” is stepping a little closer to the reality of the kyriarchy.

  • Tonio

    That’s somewhat of a reach, like warmed-over Marxism. The religious right originally began campaigning against Roe when it realized that its original mission might cause it PR headaches. (That mission was fighting the feds’ removal of tax-exempt status for private schools that practiced racial discrimination.) The alliance between the pro-lifers and the traditional GOP plutocrats has long been an uneasy one – the latter see the former as rubes, useful but unstable and dangerous. We’re talking about people who generally lack real economic or political power, and as a consequence value social privilege based on gender and ethnicity and religion. The same ones who misinterpret government neutrality on religion as “attacks on people of faith.” If they think at all about reproduction as perpetuating power, it might to perpetuate the power of individual husbands and fathers.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    The alliance between the pro-lifers and the traditional GOP plutocrats has long been an uneasy one

    Quite, but not because the plutocrats want to see easy access to abortion for all. The plutocrats feel that their wives are entitled to abortions if they need/want them (the Santorums sure seem to think so), but they certainly don’t want the lower class to have easy access to abortion. That might give them a slightly better chance of climbing out of the hole of perpetual poverty, after all.

    If the pro-life/plutocrat alliance is uneasy, it’s because the pro-lifers would like to make abortion illegal for everyone, including said plutocrats. Unfortunately, they’ve found a compromise that seems to make both groups reasonably happy – keep abortion legal, but do your damnedest to make it as difficult to access as possible. Such obstacles are far less of an obstacle for the very rich, after all. They can pay for an abortion out of pocket. This kind of legislation has been cropping up in state after state these past few years.

    We see this strategy of putting up as many roadblocks for the lower class as possible in every arena – food, education, healthcare, transportation. In the grand scheme of things, it’s by design.

  • Tonio

    The compromise that you theorized sounds plausible. But I’m not talking about the party’s power brokers or the leaders among the religious right. Most of the slut-shaming this year has come from the newbie legislators who are more openly disdainful of their veteran colleagues, who they see as sellouts. Economically, religiously and socially, they’re identical to the front lines of the pro-life movement. Some may own businesses but they’re not Mitt Romney wealthy. For these people, abortion is most definitely NOT a vehicle for keeping poor people down, even though that is one effect. Instead, it’s about majority religion privilege and resentment.

  • Tonio

    And here is one such newbie:

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/27/451563/ron-johnson-google-birth-control/

    Apparently the old guard is scared that these radicals are alienating women and throwing the election to Obama.

  • Matri

    Apparently the old guard is scared that these radicals are alienating women and throwing the election to Obama.

    Oh my, such a quandry. Let a Democrat (a black man, no less!) win the elections again, or admit that they were (gasp!) wrong to allow demonizing of women!

    What to do, what to do? [/sarcasm]

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NR2MMC4EJXJWJMLH6IF457XL64 Alex B
  • Psuke

    I think in some cases there are states that are trying miscarriages as manslaughter at the very least.

    Frankly, I sometimes think the Xtian Xtremists really just want women as Axlotl tanks, even the women.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Well, they’re not allowed to stone us for having sex or burn us as witches any more. How else are they going to punish us for being women? Oh, sure, they’ve got rape culture, but that doesn’t have the same kick to it, because it doesn’t tap quite as directly into how evil it is for women to simply be women.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    The real answer — actually throwing women in jail for abortions might provoke a backlash, weakening their position and making them look like (or exposing them as) misogynistic tyrants. At least, that’s the reason why the political authorities shy away from explaining why they’re not proposing criminal cases against women who have abortions. The rank-and-file might have more innocent rationalizations though.

  • Anonymous

    As long as it takes her to carry that baby to term.  After that, eh, who cares.

  • Anonymous

    Well I talked a while back with my dad about abortion and that he is just like me pro-life but he isn’t a fan of american pro-livers because of their extremism.

    He is conservative about those matters but he thought me to be concerned about mother, father and child first and and trying to give those people the help they need.

    He isn’t a fan of screaming at those people at the moment when you should be listening to them.

  • Tonio

     What’s his stance on the legality of abortion? Over here, “pro-life” usually denotes not just a moral opposition to abortion but also a belief that it should be illegal. Many of us here have said that such laws aren’t about preventing abortions but about shaming women who want to have intercourse without becoming mothers. Is it fair to label anyone who believes that abortion should be legal as “pro-choice”?

  • Green Eggs and Ham

    But I do think they believe their own rhetoric.  I grew up in the midst of it. 

    Is it a  well-thought-out rhetoric?  No.  Fred rightly points out the flaws in the belief system.

    The fact that their belief system is incoherent or contradictory does not diminish the intensity of their belief.

    And for them Belief is the fundamental issue.  They Believe in Jesus.  They Believe in Pro-Life rhetoric.

    Furthermore, given the anti-intellectualism rampant in the far right, their beliefs take on an immunity to rational discourse.  We cannot falsify their beliefs. 

    Truth is not acquired by rational inquiry.  Truth is not acquired by painstaking collecting of facts sifted through the scientific method.  Truth is spoken by authority.  The authority of God as presented in their Bible.  The authority of pastors and leaders of the conservative movement.

    If they worked from an epistemology that was open to discourse, then they would be disingenuous, liars, and propagandists. 

    The fact that they have not thought through the implications of their rhetoric is not a bug; it is a feature.

  • scott (the other one)


    But do these folks really believe their own rhetoric about these Satanazis they claim to be battling?I don’t think so.

    I agree with pretty much everything else in this post. But on this one, you’re just wrong. They do believe it, at least a good percentage of them. Not the politicians and maybe not the ones running the organizations or writing the posts. But many of the ones outside the clinics, for example? Yes. They do. They really do. To the depths of their souls. And they’re afraid, terrified, that Satan is going to successfully tempt their children away from the path of righteousness, that their kids are not going to get into heaven if they don’t watch over them every moment of the day. And that fear is what drives so many of them.

    It’s sad. And we all pay the consequence for their unrelenting terror.

  • http://accidental-historian.typepad.com/ Geds

     I agree with pretty much everything else in this post. But on this one,
    you’re just wrong. They do believe it, at least a good percentage of
    them. Not the politicians and maybe not the ones running the
    organizations or writing the posts. But many of the ones outside the
    clinics, for example? Yes. They do. They really do.

    I would agree.  Fred tends to make the assumption that true belief always leads to action, as if it is a 100%, or near 100% thing.  So when he sees rhetoric without action he assumes false rhetoric.

    I knew a lot of Christians who genuinely believed X (whether it be “abortion = bad,” “homosexuality = bad,” or “we need to go out and tell people ’bout Jesus) but did not often — or even ever — take Corresponding Action X.  That’s a basic issue of human nature.  Humans are fundamentally lazy and easily distracted and prone to cognitive dissonance.  In a lot of cases it’s a good thing, as it means less violence and cruelty and public annoyance.  In a lot of cases it’s a bad thing, as it means people walk right past the violence and cruelty they see and might be able to do something about without doing anything.  But I have to get to work.  Or I carefully avoid looking at whatever is going on down there because I just don’t want to have to acknowledge that it’s a thing that can happen in this world.  Or I know that I can’t solve the big, root problems, so I talk myself out of trying to help right now because, really, why would that matter in the long run?

    Or, y’know, I end up on the side that derides people in trouble as “lazy poor” and “welfare queens” and “satanic baby-killers” and I assume that simply being on the side of the anti-kitten-burning coalition means I’m making the world a better place.

  • Tonio

    While I agree with The Other Scott’s general point, in Fred’s defense I remember him saying some time back that the Satanazi concept involves a certain amount of self-delusion. If one has any realistic amount of interaction with people with different worldviews, the fiction that they’re all immoral heathens who roast children in cauldrons for breakfast would collapse through experience…unless one devotes a great deal of mental energy to perpetuating the delusion.

  • Anonymous

     We atheists like our breakfast babies poached thank you very much. Roastung is for holiday dinners.

  • Magic_Cracker

    Waitaminute, Fred, you seem to be implying that it’s morally wrong to wage a real crusade against an imaginary enemy thereby hurting real people or that’s it’s likewise wrong to wage a real crusade against an imaginary problem thereby neglecting real problems, but you forget that the Anti-Kitten Burners have been washed clean in the blood of Good Intent!

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    “Aborted Babies Are Being Chopped Up and Sold to Researchers All Over America.”

    I for one am glad to see the aborted remains put to constructive use. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=687121933 Carrie Looney

    When I worked in a neuro lab, we used legally aborted fetuses as sources of cells.  If we suddenly managed, as a society and as a medical community, to make all birth control 100% effective, all relationships safe and unabusive, all pregnancies 100% risk-free, and all economic issues moot, so as to take the demand for abortions close to zero, I would be so delighted that I would consider it a more than fair tradeoff for not having that research material, but in the meantime – as you say, better they be put to use in research meant to help victims of strokes and neurodegenerative disease.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I also heard that the joke’s on the anti-abortion people anyway because they pushed so hard for no-stem-cell research they’ve forced researchers to find new ways to generate stem cells from other cells.

  • rizzo

    I’ve gotten tired of debating silly religious people, so now when I’m in that kind of position I like to start talking about 2 Kings 2:23-24 or the real story of Jonah and the big fish.  Pulling out crazy fun stories from the OT tends to shut them up right away since they tend to have no idea what I’m talking about.

  • http://redwoodr.tumblr.com Redwood Rhiadra

    Nobody regards [Alex Jones’] site as a serious or credible source of information […]

    Sadly, I know a bus driver who does regard Jones as a credible source, and was relentless in sharing the latest story every time I rode with her, along with her belief that pre-Columbian crystal skulls (which are actually known to be 19th-century archeological frauds) were really alien psychic holographic computers, and how she was could pick up telepathic impressions from something-or-other, and…

    Thank the FSM she’s been moved to another route…

  • Tricksterson

    So she thinks the  Indiana Jones movies are documentaries?

  • http://redwoodr.tumblr.com Redwood Rhiadra

     I think she said the last one was “based on a real legend”. She liked to have an “open mind”, by which she meant “if it sounds good, it *must* be true!”

  • http://jesustheram.blogspot.com/ Mr. Heartland

    Put anti-choice rhetoric and gunnuttery together, and what you get is the belief that all White men (and maybe a few brown folks so long as they are properly wealthy and assimilated) are kings.  Entitled to heirs from whatever wench they choose and entitled to defend his utterly dependent brood from outside corruption however he sees fit. 

    Yet over the years one has gotten less and less able to state openly that it is the privledge of every White man to do whatever wants to whoever he wants jhowever he wants, and the duty of everyone else to do what he says or else.  And so the justifications for this mindset have grown progressively more…. fantastic. 

  • Julian Elson

    Does anyone else think Satanazis sounds like it could be a good name for a Southwest Asian dynasty? Or maybe Satanazids? Their last shah, Jalal the Not-Nearly-As-High-Functioning-An-Alcoholic-As-He-Thinks, died in battle in 1217, when he rode out to single-handedly face down an invading Mongol horde with the words “Alright, Genghis. You wanna fight? I could take you! I could take you and all of your lackeys just by myself!”

  • LL

    Fred, you spelled “African-American, Socialist Secret Muslim” wrong in the sentence, “Everything has to be a secondary consideration, because the No. 1 priority has to be stopping the monsters, the terrifying Satanic baby-killers.”

  • Anonymous

    I was discussing October Baby on a board and a commenter came along and trotted out some of the same tired arguments about abortion.  Apparently her grandparents had tried to pressure her mom into getting an abortion, and now she thinks all abortion should be illegal.  I pointed out that pro-choicers are against attempts to coerce abortion just as much as we are against forced childbirth and I also pointed out that her mother chose to have her so it didn’t make sense for her to use that as an argument to take choice away.  She said she still wanted it to be illegal anyway because it’s her “heart belief”.  I guess this is A Thing now and it’s not just Rick Santorum.

    So then she just outright said abortion is obviously baby-killing.  I’ve heard this so many times that I decided to do something about it, and I scanned a (probably copyrighted) photo from a biology textbook comparing an embryo of a human, lemur, and pig without caption to show that it’s not so obviously a baby as she claimed.  She said it didn’t matter because she’s still wants abortion to be illegal because it’s her “heart belief”.

    Many other commenters responded to her cliches with well thought out replies.  Everything she brought up was addressed by someone or another.  And still, she insisted that she wants all abortion to be illegal because it’s her “heart belief”.

    So I’m sure that at least some of these people really truly believe what they are saying, because they’ve gone to such extreme efforts to continue believing.

  • Lori

     

    She said she still wanted it to be illegal anyway because it’s her “heart belief”. 

    Is she OK with the government enforcing my “heart beliefs” too? She should think really, really carefully before she answers that.

  • Anonymous

    I have some questions about the Gianna Jessen story (what the October Baby movie is based on), but it’s really hard to google it and find anything that it’s just propaganda.  Hopefully somebody here will know more about this or at least be patient enough to wade through everything to find the real story.

    Her birth mother attempted an abortion at 30 weeks.  Does anyone know why?  Women don’t just have elective abortions that late.  Was there some kind of health concern with the fetus?  If that’s the case, I don’t see how she can blame her health issues on the attempted abortion and not the underlying health issue.

    I just wish I knew the reason but I think they’re leaving it vague on purpose so people will just assume it was elective.  But it does seem really odd to use an example of a (presumably) therapeutic abortion as reason to make elective abortion illegal.

  • Hellboy

    When a person goes to war against the Devil his enemy may not exist, the General giving him orders may not exist, but the casualties he creates will be real.

  • Matri

    But do these folks really believe their own rhetoric about these Satanazis they claim to be battling?

    I don’t think so

    I dunno, Fred. These people are doing a remarkably excellent job of convincing us that they do believe it.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X