I know, what a general post title. But I just can’t muster anything more interesting about the fact that that a “Terri Schiavo memorial concert” will be happening in Indianapolis in order to spread awareness about the “sanctity of life.”
“We’re holding this concert to do just that,” he said, “but not only to remember Terri, but to remind people that there’s tens of thousands other persons like my sister living with brain injuries today that need to be protected.”
Yes, there are tens of thousands of braindead vegetables out there, far beyond the point of a medical recovery even being possible, and we need to make sure we keep them plugged in, squandering the resources and, indeed, the lives of their loved ones in order to “protect the sanctity of life.”
It’s so strange and grotesque that they call themselves “pro-life.”
Amanda Marcotte was right yesterday when she wrote this:
In this contrast, you really begin to see the perversity of calling the anti-choice movement “pro-life”—it’ an oxymoron. They’re motivated, on a base level, by a hatred of life. Or, life as most of us define it, when we use phrases like “what I want to do with my life”, “living my life”, “life is good”, and pretty much every other use of “life” outside of anti-choice propaganda. Life, for most people, is about being in this world. It’ about enjoying food, enjoying sex, having goals, making plans, creating relationships, loving each other, developing beliefs, thinking thoughts, learning, enjoying a good night’ rest, listening to music, enjoying drama, enjoying quiet, kicking your feet up and petting the cat, diving into your work, making a difference, helping others, selfishly hiding away and doing for yourself, falling in love, grieving a loss, the thrill of winning, the sorrow of losing, the ambiguities of the human spirit, the bright light of reason, the joy of discovery, the curiosity inspired by mystery, a walk in the park, a Christmas with family, a loud concert, a good book.
But when anti-choicers speak reverently of “life”, they don’t mean this. They imagine things that are technically alive, but have no relationship to this word—Terri Schiavo laying in bed with no brain to speak of, a mindless fetus, a fertilized egg, a stem cell. They relate to these beings, who are not really living, and scrounge up nothing but anger and hatred at those of us who are perceived as actually living in the impure, disgusting, life-having world with connections to family and friends, brainy intellectual engagement with reality and of course, dirty, filthy, despicable sex. The impure wetness of real life disturbs them. They dwell endlessly on the medically disgusting aspects of abortion—aspects that exist in all medical procedures—because their minds are enraptured by hatred of the perceived filthiness of human bodies and life. The world with all its squirming, actually living life—it’ bothersome. Better to dwell on the imagined peace of the fetus, the immoveable quiet of a person in a vegetative state. Someone who is recognizably human but not really living—the purest, simplest, least disgusting way of being. Purity is always under threat, from fluoride to uncontrolled sexuality.
Yeah, read that whole piece.
Why am I writing about this on an LGBT blog? Well, for one, because we’re dealing with the exact same group of patriarchal Religious Right goons who seek to keep us from living our lives. Because it’s the same exact fight. To borrow from Amanda again,
…these two fights—for reproductive rights and gay rights—are the same fight. It’ about the right of people who aren’t straight men to have a sexuality without punishment or shame. We’re the ones who deserve the label “pro-life”, because we support the right for gays and women to survive and to thrive—to live. And make no mistake, we’re all up against a patriarchal right that is sadistic and violent.
Yep. The joke about anti-choice groups being “pro-life” right up until the moment of birth is clearly true. They “support life” right up to the point that they can no longer control it, project their insecurities and shame onto it, etc.
Sick people.








The Indianapolis event is, quite simply, a seance.
In seances, people conjure up idealized and distorted memories of the dead and project them outward.
People with brain injuries deserve improved medical treatment — not hypocritical Christian Right seances that are held by people who oppose medical and biological research when such research threatens to expose falsehoods within their naive interpretations of the Bible.
Piper Laurie, who played the mother in the movie Carrie, has become a campy caricature, especially in the gay community, but the sad fact is, there really are people out there, men and women, who have perverted what they call “Christianity” into a sick, twisted sado-masochistic *lifestyle choice*!
http://www.morethings.com/fan/carrie-sissy_spacek/piper_laurie-roadhouse_whiskey.jpg
Real seances aren’t quite like those in movies, but I stand by my assertion that they (and pentecostal or charismatic Christian ceremonies) may often involve a great deal of self-projection and — therefore — revelation, idolization, or idealization of some aspect of one’s self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S?©ance
I see nothing inherently wrong with that spiritual practice (Christianized or otherwise) when the practitioners are honest. But when they claim to be receiving messages from God or from spirits, rather than from themselves, that’s usually fraud, imho.
I believe there are conscientious anti-abortion people who don’t believe that the Christian Right’s objectives — imprisonment of women and doctors, and suppression of sexual thought and expression — are effective ways to reduce the number of abortions.
There also are conscientious anti-abortion people who, in addition to supporting the human rights of women and doctors, also place a high priority on the issues that matter more: Prevention of nuclear war, environmental conservation and restoration, human rights, and defense of at-risk minorities and children who are killed by the millions through warfare and more-or-less deliberately imposed poverty.
These categories of people generally do not affiliate with the “pro-life” movement, which has evolved into a Christian Right sham which promotes sexual ignorance, unwed pregnancy, denial of alternatives to abortion, denial of the right to die with dignity, reckless environmental destruction, and economic policies which impoverish, sicken, and kill millions annually.
The conscientious anti-abortion people you’re referring to generally consider themselves pro-choice. ;)
Where are all these “pro-life” people when law-abiding, taxpaying, gay Americans are murdered? Does life only matter if it’s heterosexual? I think God might have a disagreement with this very selective, political use of the term “pro-life.”
i’m just curious, how many of you are against the
death penalty? I am constantly amazed at the fact
that the vast majority of you on the left who
support abortion alo oppose the death penalty.
how hyprocritcal! killing is killing. every
one (exceopt the willing ignorant) knows that
the life inside the womb is indeed a human life,
and the unborn baby has a functioning brain
and a beating heart quite early in the gestation
process, so, it doesn’t matter whether it’s
abortion or execution, in both cases you are
stopping a beating heart, and killing a brain.
wait a minute, there is one difference. the
condemned inmate unlike the unborn baby is given
a sedative so as not to feel pain, and is given
a lethal injection, while the unborn baby either
has it brains sucked out, is burned to death, or
sucked out of the womb. killing is killing
please explain to me how you can oppose the
death penalty, and support abortion?
Killing of a fully functioning breathing human being by the state vs. terminating a pregnancy.
Yeah, there’s no difference.
Did you read the piece? Pro-choice people are all about reducing the NEED for abortion, yet pro-life people don’t tend to support things like condoms, birth control, the morning after pill, sex education and the like, because sex makes them feel dirty and shameful inside.
And you really don’t understand how abortion works as well as you think you do.
The more gruesome abortions also tend to be the saddest, because they usually involve women who very much wanted to be mothers, yet something happened medically that made that impossible. Sometimes the pregnancy is threatening to kill the mother, sometimes the fetus is so severely deformed that it won’t survive more than a few days, and parents make the painful, yet often necessary decision to go ahead and terminate the pregnancy. Other times it involves children who have been raped, perhaps by their father, and didn’t know they were pregnant until it was too late for a normal abortion.
And yet, the extremists on your side murder the doctors who care for women in those awful, painful, terrifying situations.
Anyone who studies the issue with an open mind (and reads literature from actual doctors, rather than failed LPN nurses in Illinois) finds that those abortions are the most morally defensible of all, but in order to understand that you have to have a love and respect for REAL life, rather than the dead blank life that the pro-life movement is obsessed with.
AND I’d point out that, if you truly believe that early abortion is murder, then you have to concede that your God (because I assume you believe in a God who controls things) is the greatest murdering abortionist of them all, because far more fertilized eggs simply terminate/fall out on their own, and oftentimes the mother didn’t even know she was pregnant. (Oftentimes she wasn’t, because she’s not pregnant if a fertilized egg doesn’t implant.)
To be honest Brad, I have no problem with murderers being put to death.
However, I have come to oppose the death penalty for one reason: The courts are often wrong and condemn innocent people to death. Are you comfortable with this incontrovertible fact?
You see, Brad, once these innocent prisoners are dead and gone, new DNA evidence can no longer exonerate them. And, if we know one thing, there are many innocent people sent to the hoosegow each year. There are many people who receive the death penalty who committed no crime. Wrong place wrong time. Or, wrong lawyer.
We also know that poor people do not often get as good legal representation as rich people. So, they are more likely to be convicted – particularly if the person is black and being judged by white jury.
Clearly, the system is imperfect – and the death penalty makes it impossible to fix errors, as the person is all bones when new evidence is discovered. Brad, I’m sure you would feel diffeenty abour the situation if the skeleton in question was your own.
“We have new DNA evidence to free Brad. Whoops, he’s residing in a cemetery. Sorry about that.”
Brad answer me one question: Conservatives allegedly have no confidence in the competence of government. They don’t even trust them with our mail. So, why do they suddenly have so much certainty that the government magically gets it right in cases that involve capital punishment?
Conservatives are just big, fat hypocrites on this issue, that’s all.
In answer to the question posted above,” Does life only matter if it is heterosexual?”
According to the religious right, in a word, “YES”.
The sooner that we understand that these people want our DEATH, then the sooner LGBT people will become even more vigilant about what these groups are doing in the U.S. and world wide.
Actually the abortion/death penalty consistency problem is far more severe for the “Pro-Life” groups than for pro-choice folks. How small does Brad think the minority is of Pro-life folks who are opposed to the death penalty? I am guessing that 30% would be a rather high number for pro-life folks who oppose the death penalty.
How many pro-life people are demanding that air and water pollution be curtailed to protect newborns who increasingly suffer from severe allergies and water-borne illnesses?
How many are demanding that quality pre-natal care be guaranteed, to give all newborns an equal chance at life?
How many demand that fathers be granted paternity leave, and that working mothers be guaranteed maternity leave?
How many demand that contraception be used until the parents reach an age and level of economic security where they won’t feel forced to seek abortion when pregnancy occurs?
let me ask a hypothetical question: suppose in
the future they discover a “gay gene” and let’s
further suppose that that medical professionals
are abe to detect the presence of that gene in
the womb and women start aborting babies rather
then allow that baby to be born with a “gay
gene” how many of you would be pro-choice?,
would you still support the right of those
women to abort thier babies? by the way evan,
contrary to the propaganda the pro-abortion
side puts out, there are far mor “gruesome”
late-term abortions being formed on healthy
viable unborn babies then what the public is
led to beleive, and airhart, I’ll start supporting paternity leave for fathers just as soon as
they are granted equal say in whether thier
unborn child lives or dies after all that baby
is genetically 50% thiers.
You have not asked an original question. It is a very boring question trotted out by near-illiterate religious right morons all the time.
That being said:
1. The majority of the American public doesn’t consider homosexuality to be a birth defect. Public acceptance of variations in sexuality grows EVERY DAY, and there’s no reason to believe that will change, because the more people know gay people, the more they know that everything the religious right has ever said on the subject is a knuckle-dragging lie.
2. The only people who will be left in 50 years who still hate gay people will be a KKK-like minority who will still be clinging to their sexist notions of the patriarchy, and they’ll still be fiercely anti-choice. Your idea of pro-choice liberals not wanting gay children is a farcical fantasy.
3. You don’t know a damn thing about late-term abortion, so stop talking. I swear to god. Not. A. Damn. Thing. You simply have the pigheaded ravings of functionally illiterate, non-medically trained demagogues, and you’re obviously scared of the idea of a woman as a full sexual being who gets to make her own choices. Well Roe v. Wade is never going away, but Scott Roeder is about to go away for life like the pathetic child he is.
4. Your last statement betrays the utter misogyny of anti-choice men. You somehow think you have a right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term just because you successfully stuck it in her? Your sperm is not an accomplishment.
Yes, I don’t buy this “the baby
is genetically 50% theirs” BS. Men bare none of the responsibility and risks of pregnancy, they have no right to dictate what a woman does with her body.