« Return of the Libertarian Democrats | Main | Happy 10th Anniversary, Fox »

October 04, 2006

The Shootings

The gruesome murders and planned rapes of the Amish schoolgirls is a horror that, to be honest, I lack the stomach or courage to fully confront. That it came on the heels of another grotesque rape and murder of a schoolgirl simply compounds my speechlessness. Echidne, however, has a steadier hand than I, and capably unearths the structural misogyny connecting the events.

October 4, 2006 | Permalink

Comments

You are reprinting a distortion. In fact, the "left" is more guilty of anti-woman behavior than any other group, as manifested in the female self-loathing demonstrated in abortion. When it becomes socially acceptable for a woman to "hate" her own fertility, an essential part of what makes her a woman, then that society is on a path to distruction.

Abortion emotionally, physically, psychologically and spiritually scars a woman. Should we decriminalize suicide and self destruction behavior? If not, then why is abortion legal? Perhaps, eugenics?

The massacres of the Amish school children is a reflection of an anti-Christian, anti-child society. Try to blame it on "woman haters" and you are warping the truth. Our society has made a commodity of women, their sexuality, and of children. If a woman and a child are simply a commodity, you can expect more killing. Certainly, the killing of these "unfit" rural Amish children falls directly under the agenda of Peter Singer...

Posted by: stp | Oct 4, 2006 9:19:40 AM

STP is ABSOLUTELY correct. Because women have the right to be fully in charge of making medical decisions about their own bodies, this means that these wimmins had it coming. And it's totally the fault of the feminists who are DESTROYING Christianity and social values and apple pie and baseball with their "equal rights" snake oil. Plus, practicing lesbian witchcraft and drinking the placental juice of their aborted fetuses. Damn leftists.

By God, women and their sexuality shouldn't be commodified, they should be completely subjugated to the will of men. After all, they're much too innocent, naive, and childlike to be able to HANDLE all this "equal rights" stuff. They'd just mess it all up.

And vote for Hitler. Because they're all fascist euthanasia freaks at heart, you know.

Posted by: KL | Oct 4, 2006 9:46:47 AM

Interesting... I can't think of a better description of commodified sexuality than bartering it-- unused, of course, because it loses value otherwise-- for marriage and financial support.

Posted by: latts | Oct 4, 2006 9:53:16 AM

I was just going to say that I had pretty much avoided the details of this story. After reading more about what happened in that schoolroom, I wish I never clicked the link [shudder].

But after reading stp's comment, I have to add something else...

stp,

You have to be fucking crazy to think that executing Amish girls somehow ties into legalized abortion. And for you to try and piggyback on this tragedy with that bullshit is, frankly, disturbed, disgraceful and digusting

Posted by: Mr Furious | Oct 4, 2006 10:06:08 AM

I have a confession to make. Being only a few years older than Ezra (more like MY's age), I have lived my entire life in a country where abortion was legal. And yet, not only do I not feel any of the natural urges to kill or molest young girls, my wife and I are actually thinking of bringing children into this anti-Christian, anti-child society (mind you, the former isn't a huge problem, since we're Jewish).

What is wrong with me? Are there support groups for this? I've tried to explain to her that it is my right to commodify her, her sexuality, and any future children we may have, but she just tells me to shut up and cook dinner.

Posted by: jfaberuiuc | Oct 4, 2006 10:18:48 AM

stp: Should we decriminalize suicide and self destruction behavior?

Yes, actually.

You make a good point, jfaberuiuc. I believe abortion should continue to stay legal in its current state, and yet when faced with the choice to bring a pregnancy to term, I would prefer nearly every time to have the child. There must be something wrong with me too.

Oh and Ezra, I guess linking to a person's opinion is "reprinting a distortion." That like makes total sense, n' stuff. You should, like, um, stop doing that, I guess.

Posted by: Adrock | Oct 4, 2006 11:04:06 AM

I welcome your anger and sarcasm, because it is only proof of the truth to which I speek and your inability to formulate an intelligent response. Abortion is a violence on women. It attempts to reject an integral part of the femine, their fertility. Why?

Because it is convenient for men. They can have sex and not have to deal with the aftermath. In addition, nothing works better than abortion to cover up statutory rape.

Shoot a young Christian girl in the back of the head or take a young woman who is a victom of sexual abuse and statutory rape and force her to have a "safe and legal" abortion; both are an unexceptable violence against women, and you SHOULD be outraged, if you condone the former or the latter.

Posted by: stp | Oct 4, 2006 11:07:15 AM

*speak*

Posted by: stp | Oct 4, 2006 11:14:26 AM

Wow, the trolls are out in full force today.

Posted by: fiat lux | Oct 4, 2006 11:15:31 AM

No fiat lux, the trolls are out in full farce today.

Posted by: TJ | Oct 4, 2006 11:38:02 AM

This is my first post here...

To equate the murder of those girls in PA with abortion demonstrates some of the most twisted thinking I have seen for a long time.

Posted by: Tom | Oct 4, 2006 11:49:14 AM

Is there any evidence of a connection between what Echidne rightly complains of and the school shootings? Generalized hate is generally stupid and wrong and should be opposed wherever it shows up (including politics), but is cultural misogyny really the root or enabler in these cases? Are the connections like those some suspect in relation to violence in video games and other entertainment and school shootings?

Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 4, 2006 12:00:26 PM

Wait a second. "Should we decriminalize suicide?"

Suicide is a crime? What's the punishment, execution?

Posted by: Matt | Oct 4, 2006 12:38:12 PM

Fiat and Lux,

Thanks for calling me a “Troll.” Sanpete, most recent reports state that the shooter brought sexual lubricant with him to the Amish school. Now, if you believe all Christian men have an evil plot to keep women bound and gagged in the kitchen, forcing them to cook and clean all day, then you can claim that the shooter is exhibiting sexist behavior of men.

However, I am a Troll because I believe what the shooter did was much more heinous than simply treating women as inferior. In fact, the actions of the shooter display a much larger problem; the objectification of women and children, men too for that matter. When people are treated as sexual objects or objects of possession to either “choose” or “not choose” then these people end up getting treated as disposable possessions.

Thus, I (in Troll-like fashion) had the nerve to present abortion as a parallel example which objectifies women and children, injuring or killing each of them. I find it ironic that many blogging here find the killing of the Christian girls abhorrent in a school room, but find Dilation and Evacuation abortion or Dilatation and extraction abortion just great.

For those who don’t know, D&E, when not cloaked in propaganda, is where a baby, up until the time of natural birth, is dismembered one limb at a time and removed from the mother. D&X, is much easier. Contractions are started, and when the breach baby is nearly born, only the head is left in for “legal” reasons, then the abortionists sticks a medical instrument in the back of the base of the skull of the baby, usually causing the body of the baby in his hands to stiffen in a violent muscular reaction. Then the brains are sucked out, and the baby is then finally removed entirely from the womb of the mother.

While the 14 year old girl is undergoing the “procedure” her faithful father who drove her in waits in the next room, thankful that his dirty little secret, that he is the father of the baby, is not only hidden, but that he gets to keep sexually assaulting his daughter.

It is an honor to be called a Troll by someone who condones this.

Posted by: stp | Oct 4, 2006 12:51:17 PM

STP, I don't think I follow your point addressed to me. Is the shooter showing the sexist behavior of men or just his own sickness?

I think one reason you're greeted as a troll is that you come to a place where you know your arguments won't be well received and make some rather reckless charges, leaving out some crucial steps in your reasoning to conclusions that you know aren't widely accepted here, such as evidence that fetuses have the same moral status as babies, that women who have abortions hate their own fertility, that abortion is self-destruction, etc. A more carefully reasoned and less extremely expressed argument might get you a better reception from some, though you'll still be called a troll by a few just for having a different view on a topic like this one.

Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 4, 2006 1:14:04 PM

stp

Your deliberate use of a graphic description of a late term abortion (which I for one do not support) as a tool with which to disarm the observation that your comparison is false, again shows a lack of clear thinking.

Your first post response to the issue at hand was trollish, made a bad comparison and attacked the left as being more anti women than "any other group"... I wonder what women (as a whole, not just the ones you have been taught about) think of that argument?


Posted by: Tom | Oct 4, 2006 1:14:13 PM

Stp,

Here's a quote:
"Because it is convenient for men. They can have sex and not have to deal with the aftermath. In addition, nothing works better than abortion to cover up statutory rape."


So the first problem with this is that it tacitly assumes that all men want to have sex and all women don't, unless there is a baby in the offing. You then seem to have sensed the trouble with that, and tacked on the bit about statutory rape. Of course no one here supports rape, but it doesn't help your arguement, because you've taken a big weak argument, (women as a whole don't like sex) and supported it with a minority situation (women now don't like sex because it's sometimes rape).

The reason this is troublesome is that in trying to argue against abortion, you claim that everyone who is against abortion is for statutory rape, which is absurd. Yes, if a woman who wanted to have the child were forced to abort it, that would be violence against her, but you cannot claim that all abortions are forced on the woman.

In your first post you talk about women, in effect, hating their fertility when they get an abortion. This view can at least be discussed, even if I disagree, but the second reads like an attempt to paint pro-Choicers as supporters of rape, which isn't something that you can really expect pro-Choicers to discuss.

Do I think you're a troll? No. Do I think that you should calm down and read over what you are about to post before you call the "left" anti-woman? Yes.

Posted by: Bottle Imp | Oct 4, 2006 1:47:19 PM

Bottle,
When you say, “assumes that all men want to have sex and all women don't, unless there is a baby in the offing,” you must be referring to when I wrote:
“[Abortion] attempts to reject an integral part of the feminine, their fertility. Why? Because it is convenient for men. They can have sex and not have to deal with the aftermath. In addition, nothing works better than abortion to cover up statutory rape.”
I do not in anyway see how you can read an assumption that all men want to have sex and women do not, based on this quote. I was pointing out that the reason why “legal” abortion was thrust upon America by nine men in 1973 was because it was a convenient way for men to not have to live up to their responsibilities. When I stated, “in addition,” I meant, “in addition.” Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth in order to do away with my inconvenient post.

You continue, “The reason this is troublesome is that in trying to argue against abortion, you claim that everyone who is against abortion is for statutory rape, which is absurd.” I agree with you, which is why I never said that everyone who is “against” abortion is for statutory rape. In fact, I was pointing out that by supporting abortion on demand, a person is creating a system whereby statutory rape thrives unchecked. Certainly, you are aware of the great deal of research in this area. If not, I will point you to the hundreds of phone calls made across the nation where abortion clinic operators instruct young “anonymous” women not to repeat to anyone the age of their “boyfriend” when the come in for the “procedure.”
You claim I make “an attempt to paint pro-Choicers as supporters of rape, which isn't something that you can really expect pro-Choicers to discuss.” I do not believe that those who support abortion on demand intentionally allow statutory rape to go unchecked. I just think they are willing to sacrifice the few victims of statutory rape in order to protect the holy of holies, namely abortion, which is anti-woman.
As Sanpete stated, I do understand that my comments will not be well received here, because most readers here are supporters of abortion on demand, even late term abortion. It is for this very reason that it is critical that I point out the violent nature of abortion to the readers here, even if I get called a “Troll” or worse in the process.

Posted by: stp | Oct 4, 2006 2:36:17 PM

I was pointing out that the reason why “legal” abortion was thrust upon America by nine men in 1973 was because it was a convenient way for men to not have to live up to their responsibilities.

Any evidence that this was the reason, rather than, say, the very carefully worked out legal reasoning given in the court decision? I find your claim highly improbable, to say the least.

Certainly, you are aware of the great deal of research in this area. If not, I will point you to the hundreds of phone calls made across the nation where abortion clinic operators instruct young “anonymous” women not to repeat to anyone the age of their “boyfriend” when the come in for the “procedure.”

That isn't the kind of research that would support your conclusion. You would need research showing that statutory rape has increased, and that abortion on demand is the cause. Do you have that evidence?

If you don't have solid evidence for your claims, why do you believe them?

Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 4, 2006 3:04:21 PM

I love the argument that Roe v. Wade was really the result of a male plot to achieve consequence-free sex. That's a pretty good one.

Posted by: nolo | Oct 4, 2006 3:07:09 PM

Sanpete,

The best evidence, or at least circumstantial evidence, is the LACK of legal reasoning found in the SCOTUS decisions imposing abortion on demand. In their utilitarian arguments, the “legal reasoning” is unimportant, as long as they are able to stop the “unfit” from having children.

No, I don’t need to prove that statutory rape has increased. I only need to point out that abortionists are involved in an organized campaign to cover up statutory rape, which is easy to do. See this copied article:

Planned Parenthood & the National Abortion Federation
are helping adult men to sexually exploit underage girls
by failing to report evidence of abuse as required by law
Evidence of this specific criminal activity was obtained during a recent LDI undercover investigation wherein a series of calls were placed to every Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation facility in country. The calls provided proof that over ninety percent of the time the employees that work at these facilities agreed to cover up the crime of statutory rape and failed to comply with the laws that require the mandatory reporting of this abuse to child protective services or law enforcement.
Please be aware that if your employer asks you to cover up an instance of statutory rape or asks you to destroy documents related to any unreported case of child abuse, you could be guilty of facilitating a felony and/or obstruction of justice.
Moreover, Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation employees aren't the only ones that have to be worried. Evidence was obtained from other abortion facilities and family planning service providers also, which shows that a failure-to-report-rate of over ninety-percent is common throughout the abortion/birth control industry. This evidence is being made available to law enforcement officials around the country and many states are beginning to take a hard look at these crimes.
Beware of policies or procedures that are designed to avoid the mandatory child abuse reporting laws in your state. You might end up individually criminally liable. Furthermore, you could also expose yourself to a civil lawsuit by the victim, a parent of the victim, or a future victim - who would not have become a victim if the mandatory reporting law had been complied with, so the state could arrest the perpetrator.
Encouraging or concealing statutory rape is facilitating a felony. Clinic workers are not allowed to use their discretion as to which cases should be reported and which ones should not. The law requires all such cases to be reported to the designated state agency. After that, it becomes the job of that agency to determine the facts of the case and to decide who will be prosecuted and who will not.
Call 940-380-8800 to request a FREE copy of the Special Report that provides further details of this investigation and the specific evidence that was uncovered, or click here to order a copy online.

Posted by: stp | Oct 4, 2006 3:17:34 PM

STP, even if you were right about the lack of legal reasoning in Roe v. Wade, which you aren't, it wouldn't give any specific support for your claim about the motives of the justices. Again, if you have no evidence to support your claim that a desire of men to avoid the consequences of their sexual license underlies legal abortion on demand, why do you believe it?

Similarly, even if your questionable evidence about Planned Parenthood were correct, it wouldn't show that statutory rape is any more unchecked now than before legal abortion, or that legal abortion is a significant factor in increasing or not punishing it. And even if your evidence about Planned Parenthood were correct, the most obvious solution would be to enforce the legal sanctions against not reporting statutory rape, not to outlaw abortion on demand.

Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 4, 2006 3:51:17 PM

I, for one, am gong to stick to the intended dicussion and that was the post by Echidne that we were all directed to. In that post she has no shame in utilizing this horrible tragedy to push her single minded issue and make all women, once again, victims instead of those who found the wrong end of a murderer's gun.

She is a shameless opportunist.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Oct 4, 2006 4:12:46 PM

"the most obvious solution would be to enforce the legal sanctions against not reporting statutory rape, not to outlaw abortion on demand."

Who is gonna do that? You? Not likely. The more abortion, the better, right?

Posted by: stp | Oct 4, 2006 4:13:09 PM

Sanpete,
The massacres of the Amish school children is a reflection of an anti-Christian, anti-child society. Try to blame it on "woman haters" and you are warping the truth. Our society has made a commodity of women, their sexuality, and of children. If a woman and a child are simply a commodity, you can expect more killing. Certainly, the killing of these "unfit" rural Amish children falls directly under the agenda of Peter Singer...

Posted by: stp | Oct 4, 2006 4:19:18 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.