Abortion Leads to Murder?

I always hate the way the media and the lobbyists behave after a shooting. About 15 minutes after a shooting you can expect that a gun control lobby will hold a press conference pushing for stronger regulations. About 7.5 minutes after that, the NRA will have a rebuttal. A little while later some right wing Christian group will show up to explain that this is all because we took prayer out of schools.

I know the lobbies pretty much have to do this. It’s their job after all. And the media probably feels that it’s their job to publicize the debate. But it always feels so rote and repetitive, and so opportunistic as well. When the situation is horrible, the people who jump in to press their political agendas look like vultures even if their intentions are good.

Recently a young man named Christopher Lane was shot and killed in Oklahoma. Three young men have been arrested for the crime. There’s been a lot of acrimony because two of the shooters were black, which has led some right-wing sources to turn Lane into the anti-Trayvon. Also, it was initially alleged that the shooters committed the crime just for the fun of it. It’s started the usual arguments over the morals of American youth.

This set up the worst vulture I’ve ever seen. Worst is multiple ways. She’s Janet Morana, director of the anti-abortion group Priests for Life. Obviously she was looking for a way to tie her agenda to the shooting. This was her hook:

First of all, we have to start with the fact that since 1973…. These kids are survivors. They could have been aborted. And that’s a fact. And people don’t realize. They’re post-Roe v Wade, and therefore there’s a thing called “survivor syndrome.” There’s a psychiatrist up in Canada, Dr. Philip Ney, has studied this for decades and shown the effect. Just the fact that you could have been aborted can affect you as a survivor of Roe v Wade.

(Hattip to Amanda Marcotte)

…. So every child born after 1973 – myself included – is suffering from survivor’s guilt? Excuse me? Never mind the implausibility of it, how exactly does a condition that usually leads to depression cause someone to commit murder?

Incidentally, Dr. Philip Ney is the head, and possibly the only member, of the Christian Heritage Party in Canada. Just judging from the website it’s the canuck equivalent of a fringe “Take Back America for JESUS” party.

The Sandy Hook Truth Movement has Found a Victim
Romance at Mars Hill
So Long, And Thanks For All The Memories (From Dan)
Being Agent Scully
  • DannyBoyJr

    The gun grabber lobby (which seems to permeate most of the atheosphere, sadly) even has a “playbook” for taking advantage of gun tragedies. It’s called “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging”. Even Ted Nugent’s crass wingnut drivel pales in comparison.

    • Michael

      I don’t see any serious problems with that document. The statistics are accurate and the advice is sensible. The comparison to Ted Nugent–who thinks gun control laws will literally destroy American society–is not even close to fair.

      • Rework Oh Ryan

        Yes, we should let our perfect angel government control all the guns, because they never abuse their power, and we always get recourse when they do.

        • Michael

          How exactly does owning guns help protect you against the government?

          • Rework Oh Ryan

            Because they are less apt to become tyrannical if the populace is armed.

            • Michael

              How? You didn’t answer my question, just restated your point.

              The government already spends over a billion dollars on ammunition alone every year. There is no way a collection of random, untrained, unorganized civilians with civilian weapons can resist forceful tyranny by the U.S. government to any meaningful extent.

              If the reason you want increased access to guns is that you think it will allow you to lead an armed revolution against the U.S.F.G., you might want to rethink your position.

            • Rework Oh Ryan

              You obviously never served or you would know that tactically speaking, smaller groups are far more effective than large standing armies. Harder to track, harder to pinpoint, and harder to eradicate. We only have several wars in the Middle East going on for you to learn this from.

            • Rework Oh Ryan

              However, let’s explore your position on preventing tyranny, for fun. You suggest if we don’t have weapons and the government will just behave? Because they have such a good track record of that. You gun-control advocates always take the naive position that we can control our government through elections and public opinion. Of course, that always works

            • Michael

              I never advocated gun control or said that the government could be trusted or would behave. I merely pointed out the indisputable fact that our army is by many orders of magnitude the greatest military power the Earth has ever seen, and that fighting against tanks with rifles is not likely an effective strategy.

              If you really want to bring history into this, then historically, the government has had more fear of its leader being photographed with the wrong woman than its people rising up in armed revolt.

            • Michael

              Furthermore, your position isn’t even consistent. You say that politics don’t matter, and the only way we can protect our freedom is with guns. However, you say that gun control laws have the potential to destroy this freedom, even though these laws are the product of the very politics you dismiss.

              Either (a) when the government tries to “take our guns” as you imagine liberals would have it, the people will refuse and overpower the government, or (b) the government could just take all our guns already without going through the political process.

            • Rework Oh Ryan

              Freedom is not legislation. Freedom is an inalienable right, that the government does not have the power to grant, because it is natural born.

            • Rework Oh Ryan

              You fail to understand what the bill of rights are. You think they are acts of legislation, granting rights, but that is false. They are writs detailing natural born rights that are NOT granted by the government.

            • Anathema

              You can make a decent argument that many of the rights detailed in the US Bill of Rights qualify as basic natural rights. But I don’t think that you can make that argument for ALL of the rights that it guarantees.

              For instance, the seventh amendment says that you have the right to a trial by jury in federal courts if you are tried in a civil case so long as the claims dealt with in that case exceed twenty dollars. Specifying that the claims have to be greater than $20 for this to apply seems rather arbitrary if we’re talking about a fundamental, natural-born right here. But it makes sense if you consider the seventh amendment as dealing with government-granted legal rights.

              If we read gun control laws as a violation of the second amendment, that means that every country with stricter gun control laws than the United States is violating the fundamental human rights of its citizens. Do you really think that this is the case?

            • Rework Oh Ryan

              I am referring to this country, not others. Other countries are sovereign and can make those distinctions themselves.

            • Rework Oh Ryan

              Tanks are only effective, like all military resources, in certain theaters of operation. If you know SOPs, you can work around anything they have to throw at you. Back to history, governments haven’t had to fear such an armed revolution, because information didn’t flow like it does today. My point is that anyone who claims “our government would never turn on us”, needs only look back in history, and even present foreign countries to see that is simply naive. Our government fears its’ armed civilians, which is the reason for their continuous push for banning firearms. It’s not to save lives, it’s to gain total control.

            • Retiredbiker

              This is preposterous. Including the National Guard, the Gov’t has a standing army of over a million; and the local police forces are now being armed by Homeland Security, so they are as well equipped as a combat brigade. They have drones armed with Predator missiles, armored personnel carriers, the latest in firearms, F-18′s and Blackhawk helicopter gunships, not to mention the world’s largest navy.

              Please tell me just what a bunch, however large, of untrained, redneck gun-nuts going to do when confronted by such a force.

              And, with the NSA’s power to spy on our every move, and infiltrate any group, you can bet that they will know what these phoney “patriots” are planning before they do.

              Welcome to the Police States of America

            • Rework Oh Ryan

              You are making the moronic assumption that they are “untrained”.

            • kessy_athena

              Yeah, yeah, yeah. You’re a bunch of big tough scary macho men. We know. We don’t care. Go compensate for your undersized attributes somewhere else – that sort of crap isn’t going to impress anyone, and it doesn’t belong in a discussion of public policy. Genuine strength comes from within, not from a gun you wear like some cheap badge you got out of a Crackerjack box. If you’re really a strong person, you don’t need a later day codpiece to show it.

            • Rework Oh Ryan

              I assure you, nobody cares about impressing you

            • Cafeeine

              While I tend to agree with your view of things, I can’t help but think that a large chunk of the armed forces overlap with the people who stockpile weapons. Treating the US armed forces as a monolithic block in this scenario is as naive as treating the other side as untrained hillbilly crazies.
              The biggest misapprehension here is thinking that any prospective coup in the US will occur at gunpoint, and will depend on even a well-armed, well-trained civilian guerilla force to turn the tide. That’s the fantasy.

            • Retiredbiker

              Admittedly, a number, perhaps a significant number, of active and former military personnel would sympathize with a civilian militia. However, the overwhelming superiority of equipment, professionally-trained personnel, including local law enforcement, coordinated logistical support, the NSA, etc., information and disinformation of the federal gov’t, not to mention unlimited mobility and money, would rather quickly put down any uprising. And, don’t forget that the plutocrats, banksters, corporate thieves, and the rest of the 1% would throw their support behind any effort to maintain the status quo.

            • Fred

              Shorter Rework Oh Ryan: “FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOMMMMMMMMMMMM”

            • kessy_athena

              It seems to me that the elephant in the living room here is that the weapons under discussion – automatic and semi-automatic assault style weapons – are **not** the kind of weapons you’d use to fight an insurgency against the US military. As has been amply demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, a bag of nitrate fertilizer and a washing machine timer are worth a hundred AK-47′s to insurgents. In case you missed it, the weapons of choice of insurgents have been, from the beginning, IED’s and sniper rifles, not assault rifles. And believe me, that’s not because there’s any shortage of automatic weapons in Iraq or Afghanistan.

            • Fred


    • simeonberesford

      It is true that Ted Nugent is incapable of effective messaging.

  • Guest

    But aren’t you taking advantage of the shooting by taking advantage of a stupid christian in order to promote your own agenda?
    I don’t understand how children would get survivor’s guilt. It’s not like parents go around saying ‘I could have aborted you, you know’ unless they’re shitty parents. I didn’t learn about abortion until I was a teenager. I never had the impression it could have been used on me.

    • VorJack

      Mocking Christians is not an agenda. It’s a calling.

  • http://www.facebook.com/colmjoleary Colm O’Leary

    So, a mythical Cain killed a mythical Abel with a mythical rock, not a gun! Now, you try thowing 60 rocks a minute and hitting something more than a 1/4 of a mile away! Tell that to the mother of a teenager killed in a drive by shoting and see how it goes down.

    • Michael

      It’s true. Guns have made drive-by stonings a thing of the past.

      • Spuddie

        But mailbox baseball remains a classic.