In 1876, the Oglala Sioux were responsible for massacring Gen. George Custer and his men at Little Bighorn, mutilating and scalping them as they went.
What a difference 130 years make. Today the Oglala Sioux plan to massacre their own children, mutilating and scalping them as they go.
Tribe president Cecilia Fire Thunder says that in the event a new South Dakota abortion
ban withstands court challenges, she will plant a Planned Parenthood abortion mill on her reservation.
Meanwhile, NativeTimes.com writer Tim Giago calls the ban "stupid."
Sorry, chief, stupid is as stupid does.
Continue reading my column today, "Sioux tribe plans to scalp its own," on WorldNetDaily.com.
Link to article on South Dakota and Native American law: www.lifenews.com/state1532.html
This column is insulting and not nearly as clever as you would like. This South Dakota law is so unconstitutional, and immoral, I applaud the Tribe for standing up for the rights of its members and other citizens of SD.Posted by: GW Best at March 29, 2006 10:32 AM
I think Ms. Stanek is missing the point entirely....
Either willfully or because she is quite stupid.
Indian Reservations are havens for all kinds of activites that the majority of the people actually want, but paternalistic lawmakers are loathe to give them. Like: legalized gambling, use of psychotropic drugs, cheap tobacco and now abortion on demand.
Years ago, when lawmakers saw how much money the tribes were making from casino gambling (and how much money, influence and power they were giving up) they quickly started introducing state run "educational" lotteries and casino boat gambling.
People want to gamble, people are going to gamble and that activity and the subsequent profits should be taxed. Those taxes then support infrastructure, education, gambling addiction and so on.
People want to have sex, people are going to have sex and no matter how safe they are, unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are going to happen. Abortions are going to happen too. The intial argument for legalizing abortion is still the strongest one. No matter your feelings on the morality of the matter; it is better for everyone...let me repeat that EVERYONE, if we have safe, legal, clinical abortions.
You might suggest that it is not better for the "child". But I will argue that, if it is indeed a child, then it is better for it to be euthanized quickly and fairly painlessly, rather than risk merely mutilating it and letting it suffer for a few days in a botched abortion attempt to only find its end in a hospital operating room anyway.
You might find this a little cold and calculating, but when you are faced with the REALITIES of life, you need to be prepared to accept the cruel and ugly truth of what can happen.
And in case Ms. Stanek still doesn't get it, let me spell it out for her in small simple words and in plain English: The abortions are not just for the people on the Indian Reservation. They are for all the women in South Dakota who want safe and legal abortions. You may not like it, but abortions will happen...always.Posted by: TalkingDog at March 29, 2006 11:08 AM
Quoting TalkingDog: "You may not like it, but abortions will happen...always."
So will homicide. Should we legalize it then and just let it go on, since it's inevitable?Posted by: ac at March 29, 2006 11:53 AM
Jill Stanek makes a great argument for retroactive abortion: hers.Posted by: Eric at March 29, 2006 12:21 PM
Response to AC:
We already have state sponsored murder. The death penalty, innocent civilians killed by soldiers and in cases of self-defense.
All are instances where "murder" has been legalized and is allowed to go on unfettered.
The government has seen that, in certain cases, murder is inevitable. And they have wisely decided to legalize it, since it cannot be avoided. So at least we are agreed on that point.
Next question?Posted by: TalkingDog at March 29, 2006 1:34 PM
To all you "pro-life" folks out there, does your stance stop once the child is born? Tell us, what are your plans for caring for, feeding, educating these kids? Do you have any? Or do you plan on cutting aid to kids and poor folks? Do you still wear your "pro-life" badge when you froth at the mouth for war and kill kids and families who are innocent? Do you have the same passion? "Pro-life" = anti-sex and control plain and simple.Posted by: HNC at March 29, 2006 2:22 PM
Seems like most Americans are Pro-Choice and anti Stanek. Makes sense to me.Posted by: GW Best at March 29, 2006 3:08 PM
Eww. Her sense of history is worse than her use of puns (e.g. scalp). Custer certainly died for this woman's sins. The Lakota were "responsible" for killing an invading army who were after the gold in the Black Hills which are still supposed to be controlled by the Lakota under the Ft. Laramie Treaty.
But never mind the historical context, this cretinous and unbelievably indocrinated woman has the gall to completely ignore reservation conditions in the *social* context of colonialism and thusly producing this work as thought to blend cause, correlation, context, etc.
This woman doesn't know her ass from salt pork, and she obviously cares more about unborn children than an entire population of living people who suffer from occupation.Posted by: Guerrillasinthemidst at March 29, 2006 4:00 PM
Ummm Jill, are you aware of the US government's program of systematic massacres, land grabs, and environmental destruction in order to exterminate the Sioux. A program that culminated in several soldiers being awarded the Medal of Honor for their roles in the Wounded Knee massacre of a couple hundred starving women, kids, and old folks. Yep, those Sioux are definitely the savages in this story. Disgusting and completely unaware of history. Typical NeoCon Theocrat dribble.Posted by: Truth at March 29, 2006 4:23 PM
Hey AC, are you there? You didn't respond to my comments.
Well, folks there you have it. Counter their ill-conceived, (pardon my pun) desperate arguments with logic and calm and inevitably they have no response. Well, except for their impotent, pathetic attempts at vitrol....and yes, Ms. Stanek that is direct at you.Posted by: TalkingDog at March 29, 2006 6:28 PM
The comments that are made in this article are extremely off base as well as extremely offensive and can also be considered racist! To glorify Custer as a victim of a massacre is equal to believing Saddam is honest and trustworthy.
This person has shown her true colors of being racist by her comments and she isn't doing this in support of the children. Until she has to deal with a situation of life and death for herself or even worse, for a daughter, niece, who made need to end a pregnancy, she doesn't know how it is and what the emotions and feelings are. To deny a woman the option of abortion in the cases of rape and incest is idiotic. A lot of people say that the child is innocent and shouldn't be held responsible for its creation but I can't say that the child won't. A person has to actually experience this to say how you respond.
Unlike most of the above posties, I do indeed live in a world that is as real as it gets. You see, I have this very bad genetic disorder that has left me handicapped. I'm very strongly pro-life because this movement offers hope ... no not a panacea fantasy but hope that life, and love, and faith, and peace are much better than despair, and weakness and stupidity and vitriol.
I suppose a person could call 'racism' here by stretching the word freedom to mean do-what-you-wish to native peoples. But isn't 'murder' a graver moral wrong than impuning someone's pride?
Yes, John, you're right. But you forget a few crucial "details":
What about the genocide? Just because white American's don't have a sense of history doesn't mean Indians don't.
What about the forced sterilization of Indian women in the 70s?
What about the uranium mining on and near the reservations that have made cancer rates, mongoloid babies, and other birth defects skyrocket?
What about the church's state-sanctioned kidnapping of Indian children from their families and indoctrinating them with Christianity? And torturing these children with rape, psychological and physical abuse? What about the survivors of this who take their own lives?
Yes, John, you may live in a world that "is as real as it gets", but let's not confuse the difference between the "real world" and your skewed perceptions of it.Posted by: GuerrillasintheMidst at March 29, 2006 9:03 PM
Thanks for pointing out said difference ... you see I am on the 'inside' of the suffering ... you however are on the 'outside' because all you do is speak for others ... talk to me about illusion when you are the one dying of cancer or you are the one who is raped, or you are the one literally starving. The view from 'inside'is very different than you could ever imagine.
I once heard a Hindu talk about his faith ... he said 'Westerners have a strange concept! They pray to have no suffering at all - that any kind of suffering is a curse. We pray that we may have strength when suffering comes.
As Jill's piece points out (and you have made even more of them) ... native peoples certainly have had more than enough suffering and brutality in their lives (at the hands of the white man). Are we then to understand that killing babies benefits/heals such wounds (especially because a white-doctor will be hired to do this killing)? Many natives help youngsters with a self image. I wonder what an elder would say to the small kids: "well to be truely native means we kill hapless babies - any colour is fine!"
Think about it ...
First off, we don't know each other, so before calling me more or less a "spokesman of the suffering", let's be cautious and a bit more reflective with our words (a problem that got us into this in the first place) before we speak. I am sorry that you have a genetic disorder, but as I respect you as a human being, I will respond to you as one rather than patronize you.
Of course we aren't suppose to "understand that killing babies benefits/heals such wounds". I never even conveyed my attitude towards abortion--I wasn't the one being glib with my articulations, Jill was. Jill's strange tactic was to use "chief" and "scalp" and poor history (lies?) in order to make her point. That does not suggest her "pointing out of Indians' suffering by the hands of the white man". It's like "speaking up for the homeless" while calling them dirty, smelly, and stupid--but worse. If anything, I was pointing out that Jill could have made her point much better (and more persuasively) if she weren't a racist/colonioalist tart.
What does an old-timer's help with a child's self-image have to do with this? If the U.S. lived up to its promises, then I bet you there wouldn't be a percieved NEED for abortions at all. My point was to get to the heart of the problem, you see. A world without these conflicts would be a good start, but slamming Indians for it is the wrong way to go about doing it.
*By the way, according to the law, on Pine Ridge, if a white person commits a crime (in this case, an abortion), then they will pay the penalty in white courts.Posted by: GuerrillasintheMidst at March 30, 2006 7:06 AM
The biggest complaint seems to be I am somehow ignorant of history by not specifying that Custer deserved what he got (guerrillasinthemidst, 4p; truth, 4:23P; web, 6:57p); i.e., Custer had it coming, he was a threat, an invader, perpetrator, a bad man.
Given that criteria, how does one justify preborn massacre?
Truth, 4:23p, appears to justify Native American preborn massacre of their own because the white man started it. Interesting defense.
Guerrillasinthemidst, 7:06p, also thought the use of the term "scalp" was inappropriate when describing abortion. He must never have seen one.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 30, 2006 9:23 AM
Firstly, my own beef with your the veracity historical "assessment" has nothing whatsoever to do with your acknowledgment of whether or not Custer "deserved what he got". This is yet another case of how good you are at miscontruing facts. The Sioux were defending themselves and their land, plain and simple. I won't speak for the others, but my guess is that it doesn't matter whether or not Custer "got what he deserved" but what does matter, is your abuse of historical fact to demonstrate your point.
If anyone was using "bad man" as a criterion for "preborn massacre", you're correct that it does not follow as preborn humans simply cannot be judged as "good" or "bad". But it is clear that noone was using this as a criterion, and even if they were, it wouldn't be the only one being employed.
Yes, I've seen enough pro-life literature and the removal of grey matter, etc. etc. Had you actually read my piece, I was suggesting that the pun (SCALPel?) was inappropriate not about abortion, but about Indians. Let's not forget who brought scalping to the area--take a look at Britain and Ireland's history.
You set-up your article with an interesting (but inaccurate) parallel. If the parallel--dare I say foundation--of your piece is bogus, then the rest of it is on shaky ground, which it is.
Rather than misconstruing surface features of others' arguments, perhaps you need to address my point, which was the fact that if conditions on reservations were improved by the US's living up to their promises, then abortions wouldn't even be an issue. If you really got to the heart of the problem, then perhaps you'd work towards a world where people didn't feel abortions were necessary.
Truth be told (which was hinted at in one of my previous posts), I consider myself to be pro-life and my friends also consider me pro-life. But I'm also keenly aware that you, the U.S. government, and most who "celebrate" Christian faith are most certainly NOT pro-life if the term is actually employed with reasonable parameters.
"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Matthew 7:1-5Posted by: guerrillasinthemidst at March 30, 2006 10:07 AM
Yes, I do have another question for you.
Your quote: "You may not like it, but abortions will happen...always."
So will rape. Should that be legalized as well, since it is inevitably going to happen?Posted by: ac at April 1, 2006 3:23 PM
"Oh, really. Tell me, Bob, how many handicapped babies have you and your ilk adopted? How many pregnancy care centers have you and your ilk launched? How many self-funded missions trips to Indian reservations have you and your ilk forfeited vacations to go on or donated money to?"
I pose the exact same questions to you, Ms. Stanek. When was the last time you went to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation to help the poverty-stricken children you're oh-so-dedicated to defending? How many of your children are adopted?
EVERPosted by: Rose at April 7, 2006 9:33 AM
Strange "Ever" repetition. Either way, I'd like a truthful response from Ms. Stanek.Posted by: Rose at April 7, 2006 9:34 AM
My Name is Leon and I a pro-life Lakota man living on the Pine Ridge Reservation. I have been reading and researching what the Tribal President is saying nationally. She says children are sacred but so are women and I guess what she is saying we should kill all the babies. We are working on a Crises Pregnacy Center in Pine Ridge. If anyone would like to speak to me about this or Jill wants to know more about what is going on here in Pine Ridge she can contact me at my email.Posted by: Leon at April 11, 2006 11:38 PM