Rep. Todd Akin’s views typical in southern PCA churches

So right now there’s a political and media firestorm over a creepy white Southern man after he said some appalling and untrue things about the victims of rape.

Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., was caught off-guard by the response to his comments, because he wasn’t saying anything new. He was simply repeating things he’d heard said, for years and years, by his fellow “pro-lifers,” his fellow Republicans, and his fellow leaders in the Presbyterian Church in America.

Todd Akin is not a fringe character in any of those groups. And Todd Akin’s views are not fringe views in any of those groups. His views are typical, customary, widespread, commonplace and — within those groups — utterly uncontroversial.

For his fellow pro-lifers, fellow Republicans and fellow PCA leaders, Akin’s only crime was one of candor, not heresy. For them, his mistake was his tactlessness, and not the substance of what he said.

Here, again, was what he said:

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

In Akins’ PCA community, no one blinks an eye at statements like that. Akins’ views are extremely common and typical in the ultra-reformed strain of Southern-Gothic Presbyterianism he inhabits.

Todd Akin was a follower of the late D. James Kennedy. Kennedy, founder of Florida’s Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, was not a fringe character in American evangelicalism. He was well-known and well-respected — and his views on rape victims were the same as those expressed by Akin.

Todd Akin is a product of Covenant Theological Seminary — that’s where you go if you want to be trained in patriarchal misogyny with a side of disturbing nostalgia for the Old South.

As Sarah Posner writes for Religion Dispatches:

This is not a situation where Akin sat in the pews of the church of a controversial pastor, or once attended a conference or seminar where controversial views were discussed. Akin has a Masters in Divinity from the PCA’s seminary, and proudly claims he took a political rather than a pastoral path after seminary. His denomination has not only opposed abortion in all cases, including rape, but has suggested that the number of pregnancies by rape is overstated, and even questioned the veracity of rape claims.

Go into any PCA church south of the Mason-Dixon line and you can routinely hear the same arguments Akin made this weekend, stated just as off-handedly as he stated them — casual remarks about what everyone just sort of knows to be true about rape victims, sluts, abortion and lady-parts.

Todd Akin is not unusual. Todd Akin is not alone. The pernicious, ridiculous lies he got in trouble for are widespread and blandly typical in his subculture — in the PCA, the GOP, and throughout the anti-abortion movement that has replaced what used to be evangelical Christianity.

 

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart
    Likewise, I think the stumbling block for a lot of people that leads to a “mixed view” is the (still misogynistic) position of “Well sure, abortions should be legal, but what about the sluts? Surely *they* shouldn’t be allowed to “get away with” using abortion as a form of birth control?”

    I’d expect much more of the “Of course abortions shouldn’t be legal – but what about women who get raped?”
    Just… for the record. As someone who knows a lot of anti-abortion types.

    Another caveat I’ve commonly heard is agreement that abortion should be legal where the pregnancy carries a considerable risk to the woman’s physical and/or mental health and/or social wellbeing, but not because the parents wanted a boy but it turns out to be a girl; or because the foetus has a non-debilitative deformity or health condition. Of course, there one can get into debates about how much one’s very strong sex preference, for example, may impact on one’s mental health and/or social wellbeing, or where the line between debilitating and non-debilitating disabilities is, but none of this is easy.

    To put it another way: it’s easy and possibly fun to decry anyone who has moral qualms about abortion as being a bigoted arsehole who likes to blame the sluts. But I know a lot of people who wrestle with the nuance and are primarily motivated by concern for the humanity of marginalised groups, like girls and people with disability.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I would love to ban abortion for reasons of not wanting a girl baby or a baby with a disability…but how to accomplish that while maintaining, as I do, that no one should have to give a reason for getting an abortion?

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    I don’t know.

  • Rhubarbarian82

    I have a friend whose girlfriend had to get an abortion, and it was an incredibly traumatic experience for both of them, both physically and emotionally (more so for her, obviously). I highly doubt that there is a statistically significant number of couples willing to experience that grief and physical pain over the gender of their child, especially at the stage where the gender is identifiable. Anyone trying to use that as a justification to limit access to abortion had better have some damn good statistics to back them up before I see them as anything but grasping.

    Also, allow me to add that seeing someone pull the childish stunts that I’ve seen in this thread really doesn’t make me feel inclined to take them at all seriously.

  • EllieMurasaki

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio –the world has 101 males for every 100 females. Counting only under-fifteens, 106 males to every 100 females. China has 106 males to every 100 females in total, 117 to 100 under fifteen. India’s a bit worse. Arabian Peninsula countries are all fairly bad. The UAE’s worst of all, 219 males to every 100 females. Most places skew the other way, as evidenced by how close to even the worldwide ratio is, but the place with the fewest males per hundred females is the Northern Marianas Islands at 89. The ratio at birth is consistently 103 to 107 males per every hundred females, some places as low as 101, only Albania, Azerbaijan, China, and India above 110. Albania is otherwise about average, and I think Azerbaijan’s ratio at birth is an overcorrection, they’re 97 males per 100 females overall.

    Sex-selective abortion is a thing that happens. So is sex-selective infanticide. Especially in cultures that put a great deal more value on men than women, such as China and India and Arabia.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Also, allow me to add that seeing someone pull the childish stunts that I’ve seen in this thread really doesn’t make me feel inclined to take them at all seriously.

    What childish stunts?

    Edit: Never mind. I skimmed through the first couple of pages earlier but just went back and had a proper look.

  • Tonio

    If you start from aplace where “some abortions are okay and some are not”, *the right to medical privacy* makes it impossible for law enforcement to determine which are which.

    And the only way to solve that artificial problem is to strip women of any privacy, not just medical. For argument’s sake, if we as a society deem it unacceptable that a few women have six abortions a year, or that some families abort for sex selection, then we shouldn’t treat all women as if they have some motives. There’s probably no way to asking a woman to justify why she’s having an abortion without putting her whole sexual life on trial, and possibly her whole life in general.

    I would love to ban abortion for reasons of not wanting a girl baby or a baby with a disability…but how to accomplish that while maintaining, as I do, that no one should have to give a reason for getting an abortion?

    Excellent point. Sex-selective abortion is really a symptom of “man-orientated” attitudes that devalue females. Empowering women would, in the long run, not only lead to fewer abortions but fewer ones for sex selection.

  • Tonio

    Sorry, I meant that we shouldn’t treat all women as if they have those motives.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    I know a lot of people who wrestle with the nuance
    and are primarily motivated by concern for the humanity of marginalised
    groups, like girls and people with disability.

    So, I’m curious: the people you know whose concern for marginalized groups extends to ensuring that people are born into them… would they be just as opposed to a technological intervention that differentially prevented conception?

    Just to make it more personal for me, because this sort of thing can suffer from getting too abstract, I often think in terms of policies that prevent queer children from being born. That’s hypothetical technology, but not impossibly so; we might develop it at any time.

    Such a policy would horrify me.

    This has essentially nothing to do with the moral status of fetuses. If it turned out that the technology in question prevented the conception of queer kids rather than prevented their gestation, my horror would not significantly diminish, despite there being no fetus involved.

    All that said, though… so, OK, a pregnant woman comes to me and says “Dave, my fetus is queer, and I’ve thought about it, and I’ve decided to terminate its gestation on that basis. But because this is a bizarre thought experiment, you have the legal right to veto that decision. What’s your call?” And now my choice is to ensure that child is born to a mother who would prefer no child to a queer child, or allow that child to not be born.

    I hate that situation a lot. And I’m not too crazy about the person, either. But once I’m in the situation, I don’t see how vetoing her decision improves anything. Ultimately, it makes no sense to me to say that I don’t trust her to make choices about her child, and will therefore ensure that she bears that child.

    It seems the proper intervention to make is one that prevents that situation from arising in the first place.

  • Tonio

    Journalists and commentators frequently talk vaguely about the ethical issues about prenatal technology, and it’s frustrating for me when they don’t go into specifics. The ethical issue with your thought experiment is the same as with abortion – you’re exactly right that any veto power equates to not trusting women to make these choices. I would go further and say that the veto would rob women of a major portion of their autonomy in general, not just their sexual autonomy.

    Seems similar to the legal concept of competency. We don’t automatically assume that the individual is the best qualified person to make personal decisions in hir best interest, but we do assume as a default that the individual has the right to make those decisions.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    So, I’m curious: the people you know whose concern for marginalized groups extends to ensuring that people are born into them… would they be just as opposed to a technological intervention that differentially prevented conception?

    I’m not crazy about the part of the sentence before the elipse. I’m tired, so I can’t tell if you’re sarcastically saying that people who claim to be concerned about marginalised groups want more people to be marginalised.

    But assuming not, then I expect the answer would be mixed, but some would certainly be opposed to the idea that the problem of marginalisation lies on the shoulders of the marginalised. As in–if you lot didn’t exist for other people to be upset about there would be no problem.

    The idea that the solution to marginalisation is to get rid of the people who become marginalised is something I find ridiculous, but I have personally come across it, especially wrt various disabilities.

    It seems the proper intervention to make is one that prevents that situation from arising in the first place.

    No disagreement there. However, the best intervention doesn’t happen a lot of the time; and we can discuss ideas about one thing without precluding all other and better possibilities.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    I can’t tell if you’re sarcastically saying that people who claim to be
    concerned about marginalised groups want more people to be marginalised.

    No, I fully believe that we would far prefer that the groups (and, consequently, the people in them) not be marginalized in the first place, and work towards that end. But I think we do want people to continue to be born into those groups (whether they are marginalized or not), as I said initially, and we want the groups to continue to exist.

    Though, having said that, I should admit that I have trouble embracing that principle when it comes to group markers that are uncontroversially seen as disabilities. That is, I freely acknowledge that medical intervention to replace the disability with typical function (for example, letting blind people see) actually eliminates the group (if everyone can see, there aren’t any blind people), and that in general that’s problematic, but I nevertheless balk at the idea that we therefore shouldn’t perform such interventions.

    I’m not arguing here that I’m right to feel this way, merely admitting that this is in fact how I seem to feel. In particular, I know this is a real source of concern within the Deaf community, where giving up Deaf culture is seen as an inevitable and too-high price of giving up deafness. I do accept that where something is seen as a disability by some people and not others, it’s problematic to treat it as above, even when I’m one of the people who sees it as a disability. 

    All that said, killing a blind person is an entirely different thing from restoring their vision, despite the fact that both acts result in one fewer blind person.

    And while I recognize that reasonable people of good will do disagree about whether aborting a pregnancy is a different thing from killing a person, as far as I know nobody believes that preventing an egg from being fertilized is the same thing as killing a person.

    Which is why I was asking about preventing conception. That is, is the goal to avoid killing people? Or to ensure that people are born?

     

    However, the best intervention doesn’t happen a lot of the time; and we can discuss ideas about one thing without precluding all other and better possibilities.

    Absolutely.

    That said, when I find myself faced with a “Well, this sucks, but the alternative sucks too!” situation, I often find it useful to address the problem that created such a horrible choice, rather than to champion one horrible alternative over another.

  • Tonio

     

    In particular, I know this is a real source of concern within the Deaf
    community, where giving up Deaf culture is seen as an inevitable and
    too-high price of giving up deafness. I do accept that where something
    is seen as a disability by some people and not others, it’s problematic
    to treat it as above, even when I’m one of the people who sees it as a
    disability.

    The debate over the presidency of Gallaudet involved those larger questions. While I wouldn’t have anything remotely like an informed opinion on such questions, as a general principle I would go with personal preference instead of the assumption I know what’s best for another person.  If a particular deaf person doesn’t see it as a disability, I would be very reluctant to label it otherwise.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I often think in terms of policies that prevent queer children from
    being born. That’s hypothetical technology, but not impossibly so; we
    might develop it at any time.

    How does one identify someone else’s sexuality or gender identity without asking that person? One could guess that of my mother and her siblings, the one most likely to be gay is the youngest brother (who is in fact gay), but being male and having two older brothers only made it more likely that that particular uncle would be gay, it didn’t guarantee it, and there’s disagreement over whether the older-brother deal actually means anything anyway. It certainly doesn’t explain my oldest-child bisexual self. And people tend to assume that ‘boy wearing pink’ means ‘gay boy’ or ‘trans girl’ when the truth might well be ‘straight boy likes pink’. No, the only sure way is to ask, and if the kid’s capable of answering, we’re years past abortion being feasible, months more past the feasibility of contraception.

  • AnonymousSam

    I think this is assuming that homosexuality is caused by genetics and that we will eventually find the exact DNA sequences responsible for it.

    I don’t think that’s actually the case. My prediction is that long before we become capable of identifying the genetic markers that would indicate this, it will have ceased to be a concern for most people.

  • Libs are Idiots

    Who better to represent your pro-choice views than Bill Clinton and TEd Kennedy.  They’ve raped or killed more women than probably anyone on this discussion thread!

  • EllieMurasaki

    [citation needed]

  • AnonymousSam

    You’re accusing people in this thread of raping and killing people? Seriously?

    As the resident sociopath, I take offense to this.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    No, the only sure way is to ask

    Agreed.

    And if you think the fact that they can’t be sure will stop people from deciding to terminate the development of fetuses with genetic characteristics that turn out to correlate highly with certain sexualities or gender identities, supposing those characteristics were discovered tomorrow, I envy your expectations and wish I shared them.

  • EllieMurasaki

    *shrugs* Somebody sufficiently heterosexist and/or cissexist to abort a gender/sexual minority fetus has excellent odds of belonging to a heavily pro-life population. In the US, anyway.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     

    I would love to ban abortion for reasons of not wanting a girl
    baby or a baby with a disability…but how to accomplish that while
    maintaining, as I do, that no one should have to give a reason for
    getting an abortion?

    While I sympathize with that position, I can’t see any way that doesn’t amount to “Because I find your bigoted beliefs socially unacceptable, you should be punished for them by being forced to bear a child you don’t want and will therefore probably mistreat.” (or the more magical thinking-y “you should be forced to bear a child you don’t want and this will somehow magically cure you of your bias.”)

    I mean, I don’t like the idea of someone having an abortion because of the gender of their fetus, but I like babies going to parents who don’t want them and resent having been compelled to give birth to them a lot less.

  • Tricksterson

    I thought I was the resident sociopath.  I challenge you to a duel for the honor!  babypults at twenty paces.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     (shrugs) For my own part, I find a fair bit of heteronormativity and cis-normativity in the pro-choice population as well, so I’m not quite so cavalier about it. But I don’t have reliable data, so I’m willing to either agree to disagree or to be convinced by reliable data.

  • Jenora Feuer

    I think this is assuming that homosexuality is caused by genetics and
    that we will eventually find the exact DNA sequences responsible for
    it.I don’t think that’s actually the case.

    The scientific consensus seems to agree with you.

    My understanding from an old Scientific American article is that given if you take two related people, one of whom is homosexual, the probability of the other being homosexual as well tends to increase as the closeness of the relation increases.

    The key points are at the top end:
     - The probability of the second of a pair of fraternal (non-identical) twins also being homosexual is greater than that for two siblings born at different times;
     - The probability of the second of a pair of identical twins also being homosexual is still only about 50%.

    Basically, there may be genetic predispositions to it, but epigenetic details such as hormone levels in the womb have non-trivial levels of say in the results.

  • AnonymousSam

    *Nods* About the same things I was hearing when I was taking psychology classes in college. We spent the better part of an hour talking about it in Abnormal Psychology while covering some of the revisions of the DSM, specifically how they had thrown out the classification and diagnosis of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

  • Madhabmatics

     Is this a reference to famed vaporware MMO “Dawn”?

  • Madhabmatics

     You are one Carter short of the hat trick

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    Yup, absolutely agreed with all of this.

    It doesn’t change my sense that fetal markers that correlate highly with atypical sexuality and/or gender identity could easily be discovered, or that many people would be motivated to terminate the development of such fetuses. 

    But, as I said to Ellie below, I could be wrong about that, and would like to be.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    I think both camps exist. I think the ones I described would be the “Pro-choice, but thinks the hard-liners should just compromise with the pro-lifers because maybe we can find a set of restrictions that aren’t too bad” camp, and yo’re describing the “Pro-life but willing to be generous with the granting of exceptions” camp.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    The reason I point it out is that the right of a woman to have a pregnancy terminated is not the same thing as the right to have one particular procedure. If it becomes medical best practice to terminate pregnancies by the method of “beam the relevant tissue into the donor uterus,” and other methods are deprecated, that wouldn’t be an infringement on the right to choose; it’d be how modern medicine works.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     My inclination is that the sort of person who would want to terminate such a fetus would first have to be persuaded that minority sexualities and gender identities aren’t something you get recruited to.

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

    I’m sorry, what’s heteronormative or cisnormative about pointing out that the instant you start asking a pregnant woman (or man whose reproductive organs were biologically female, but who identifies as a man) what reasons they have for aborting and start trying to categorize those reasons into “good” or “bad”, you take away their agency. You take away their right to govern their own bodies as they see fit and anyway?

    They can always lie to you about the reason for an abortion and you won’t know.

    So I categorically am in the camp that refuses to label abortions as “bad” based on any feeling of mine to be competent an arbiter of moral choice.

    Because the instant I regard myself as the arbiter of moral choice beyond “do not harm other beings, human or not, except insofar as that act preserves human life even if at the expense  of non-human life”, I’m setting myself up to claim I know better than a particular person about that particular person’s own life-choices.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    I’m sorry, what’s heteronormative or cisnormative about pointing out
    that the instant you start asking a pregnant woman (or man whose
    reproductive organs were biologically female, but who identifies as a
    man) what reasons they have for aborting and start trying to categorize
    those reasons into “good” or “bad”, you take away their agency.

    Nothing at all, as far as I can tell.
    Why do you ask?

    They can always lie to you about the reason for an abortion and you won’t know.

    Yup, that’s true.

    So I categorically am in the camp that refuses to label abortions as
    “bad” based on any feeling of mine to be competent an arbiter of moral
    choice.

    That’s fine.

    Me, I see no problems with respecting people’s agency about their own choices (including but not limited to their reproductive choices) and also considering some choices better than others.

    Of course, nobody is in any way obligated to give a damn what I consider better than something else. They might, if they respect my opinion. Or they might not, if they don’t. That, too, is their choice.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     Sure; I agree with all that.

    The reason I consider it irrelevant to what I’m saying is that I’m talking about the preference some people would express to have the fetus destroyed, not what rights they may or may not have or what medical best practices are. (This was all in response to someone asserting that were “beam the relevant tissue” an available technology, nobody would want to terminate the fetus. I continue to consider that assertion false.)

  • Daughter

    To lighten things up, I thought I’d share something a friend posted on Facebook:

    Once upon a time, a mother made her son a
    wristband. On it was written: WWJD. This, of course stood for: What
    Would Jesus Do?’ She instructed her son to look at the wristband before
    making decisions on how to live his Christian life.

    A week later she was shocked to see that her son had become friends with prostitutes, was hanging out with ‘sinners’ – even buying people who were already drunk yet another round of beers!
    Worse still, he had walked into their church the previous Sunday and
    tore down the book store, overturned the tables and threw the cash
    register through the window, he then made a whip and chased the pastor
    out of the building, declaring he was turning God’s house into a den of
    thieves. Most shocking was what happened when his mother went
    to picket the local abortion clinic. To her embarrassment, her son was
    also there, but he was standing with the women who just had an abortion,
    and yelled at the protesters: “You who is without sin, throw the first
    stone!” The mother was very distressed, but fortunately she
    found a solution to this terrible problem. She made another wristband,
    this time it read: WWAPD, this, she explained to her son, stood for:
    What Would A Pharisee Do? She took the old WWJD wristband and burned it.
    Since her son has been wearing the new wristband, looking at it to help
    him make his decisions, he has become a dedicated tither, a public
    prayer warrior, an active condemner of ‘sinners’, a passionate defender
    of the Old Covenant law, and has a great reputation as a godly young man
    amongst other religious people. Needless to say, the mother is very happy now. She only wishes Jesus would take notice and follow her son’s good example. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    I don’t like the idea of someone having an abortion because of the gender of their fetus, but I like babies going to parents who don’t want them and resent having been compelled to give birth to them a lot less.
     
    The second doesn’t automatically follow from the first. China’s sex ratio would be skewed a lot worse than it is if every girl abandoned for not-boy-ness had been aborted or infanticided, and part (a teeny part, but a part) of why the US has more females than males is US couples adopting said abandoned Chinese girl children. I take your point, but.
     
    And it’s not, or not entirely, magical thinking to believe that having a girl child will undo the parents’ anti-female bias. http://jezebel.com/5262701/sometimes-it-takes-a-daughter-to-make-a-man-a-feminist –people, men especially, are more likely to vote feminist if they’re parents of a daughter than if they’re not. Doesn’t work every time–my mother has four daughters and I don’t think anything will ever convince her that the Catholic Church is wrong about contraception–but it works often enough to have a noticeable effect.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Because the instant I regard myself as the arbiter of moral choice beyond “do not harm other beings, human or not, except insofar as that act preserves human life even if at the expense  of non-human life”, I’m setting myself up to claim I know better than a particular person about that particular person’s own life-choices.
     
    Which brings us to, what happens when many people making the same apparently-harmless life choice has a negative effect on everyone? Overpopulation. Human-driven climate change. Stay-at-home moms. There’s nothing inherently wrong with two adults choosing to have four children, or choosing to keep their house at the same temperature year round instead of wearing sweaters in winter and shorts in summer, or choosing to sacrifice the woman’s career rather than the man’s so that the children will have a parent at home at all times. But when most of the country does each of those things, the population grows (and the earth may well already have more people than it can support), electricity (mostly drawn from coal, which worsens climate change) is wasted in immense quantities, and people carry on with the assumption that a woman of childbearing age in the workplace is just biding time till she has children or that she doesn’t need as much money as a man (all else equal) because her income is supplementary to her husband’s rather than being the household’s primary money source.
     
    One abortion because the parents found out the fetus was female and they don’t want to raise a girl child, disturbing but not a problem. Many such abortions, and in twenty years there’s going to be a lot more young men than young women. If a significant fraction of those young men are willing to be half of an m/m couple or part of a polyamorous arrangement with more men than women, and if society doesn’t object to either situation, then it’s not a problem in itself. (Symptom of the problem of valuing men over women, yes. Problem in itself, no.) But most people are straight, and history indicates that people would much rather a man with at least one wife than a woman with more than one husband, and societies tend to look down on same-sex and polyamorous arrangements. So the more prevalent sex-selective abortion is, the worse of a problem the skewed sex ratio is going to be.

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

    Overpopulation and human-induced climate change, though, are acts that will ultimately harm human life. The proper response, though, must preserve human agency as much as possible.

    So removing tax incentives that promote population growth and climate change, and putting in place voluntary incentives that work oppositely, are the things to do.

    In addition, while sex-selective abortions are an issue, taking away agency by banning abortions given for reasons of sex-selectivity will just mean people will lie about why they want an abortion, and doesn’t really solve the problem.

    What does solve it is changing cultural incentives, and that preserves agency, because it doesn’t BAN people, instead, it changes the weighting people assign to the decisions they voluntarily make.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    acts that will ultimately harm human life. The proper response, though, must preserve human agency as much as possible

    I really don’t know what the proper response to such acts must or must not do.

    Speaking personally, I can think of situations where I choose to avoid harming people, even at the cost of reducing people’s agency. I can also think of situations where I choose to preserve people’s agency, even at the cost of harming people.

    I suspect that’s true of most people.

    Perhaps that means we behave improperly… that would not surprise me at all.

  • erikagillian

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen a discussion of abortion on the internet get rid of the trolls by just continuing to discuss it in a rational and polite way.   Bravo!

    But I had such scathing things to say when I started to read the thread and now they’re pointless.

  • Tricksterson

    Don’t worry little buckaroo,  Save them up.  The world is full of idiots.  You’ll get to use them eventually, probably soon.

  • erikagillian

     Why thank you, sirrah!   If I could have caught up with the discussion about Ryan on Whatever I could have used a lot of them.  Am kind of amazed how many ‘he’s on my side!’ posts there were there.

  • Rhubarbarian82

     Sorry, I was being all egocentric and only referring to the United States. I know it’s a major issue in other countries, but didn’t specify that in my post. My mistake, lesson learned, thanks for the correction.

  • Drtummy

    When you say murder, you’re talking about abortion right?  I think you have your parties mixed up…

  • Drtummy

    This is ridiculous.  I belong to a PCA church south of the M-D line (in DC) and the people there are much more intelligent than the average blogger.  


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X