Stephen Colbert creates partial-birth abortion drinking game
For quite some time elements of the Left have been mocking that which they think the Right holds sacred, from burning the American flag to sticking a crucifix of Jesus in urine.
Lately the The Crass Ones have landed on abortion, laughing about aborted fetus cookies and abortion Christmas ornaments while tweeting #abortionclinicplaylistsongs.
Worse, they try to personally hurt people in the worst way possible by going after their children, such as mocking Sarah Palin for not aborting her son Trig and also mocking Rick Santorum for allowing his surviving children to grieve their deceased baby brother Gabriel.
So last week comedian Stephen Colbert thought he would one-up Sarah Silverman’s abortion humor – on steroids – by making fun of partial-birth abortion, a heinous late-term abortion procedure Rick Santorum worked hard to ban when he was U.S. senator…
Congrats, Mr. Colbert, for shocking me, harder and harder to do these days.
[HT: NewsBusters]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
omg why do people watch colbert? hes a jerk like bill maher. hes not funny. abortion isnt funny. ive tried to watch colbert and find humor in him ( prior to hearing this ) and i snoozed off he was so dull. apparently hes also evil wicked and disgusting to boot. what a sicko.
Well, I was prepared to be shocked based on the article. Meh. Much ado about nothing. He wasn’t making fun of abortion, he was making fun of Santorum for supposedly being repetitive on the issue. I say “Yay!” to having Colbert talking about Santorum. No such thing as bad publicity and all that.
Keep it up proabort folks. You do our side a huge favor every time you open your yaps.
Your depravity knows no bounds.
Colbert was making fun of Santorum for being repetitive on the issue because Colbert does not consider abortion an important issue.
AND he was saying…
Partial birth abortion…I’ll drink to that! Salud! Gulp gulp.
On the other hand…merely being reminded of a partial birth abortion would drive anyone to want to drink in excess.
So let us celebrate this pain by making a game out of it.
There’s a reason it’s called “the idiot box.”
I used to watch Colbert, before he crossed the line from “satirist” to “scather” (just as I used to watch The Daily Show back when Craig Kilborn, who is actually funny, hosted). When he was more subtle, I would chuckle, laughing at myself. Maybe sometimes pretend that he was being serious. I think, though, that his “testimony” (and giant waste of taxpayer money) was him jumping the shark. It was an echo of royal courts of old with the jester for entertainment, complete with the “Let them eat cake.” attitude, and that echo was the sound of the liberal congress’ death knell.
(note to Obama and opulent Halloween party attendants: history does have a way of repeating itself. Thanks!)
There really isn’t much that offends me with humor. This was a bit over the top though.
complete plonker. Colbert that is
Just want to know what he told himself before he went on air that justified such depravity and recklessness. So sad.
i actually used to watch chelsea handler until she began her abortion jokes. one i recall ” i for one will never know what any of my kids will look like because i have never carried any of them to term. nor will i ever.” chelsea has had multiple abortions.
He is PATHETIC-only someone who really doesn’t care about preborn children is able to pull off a skit like this, at the expense of the innocent babies. No one should be amused by this hypocrite-I’m sure he was “prouder than a peacock” to be able to appeal to the homicidal pro-aborts in his viewing audience. This didn’t enlighten anyone-just made a mockery of his faith, and perpetuates the idea that unborn children are ours to do with whatever we want-yuk it up with a dearth of witty quips-all the while, pretending it isn’t what it really is- wonder how he slept that night.
I found this very sick and revolting. However, I do find that Stephen Colbert can be funny…. but it is usually because he is so foolish. Smart, but foolish.
This segment was hard to watch… but it is good to know what the other side is up to and how low they will sink.
The bloodthirsty should laugh it up while they still can.
Some people drink to forget, they say. Well, Colbert didn’t have to chug a drop to forget what partial birth abortion is. He obviously never gives it a thought.
I used to never miss him or the The Daily Show, and often watched MSNBC. But around 2005, when they began criticizing us more than them in the War on Terror, I stopped cold turkey.
haha that was hilarious.
Even sadder, he teaches catechism at his home parish.
Only a sociopath would think that is hillarious
I really don’t think he was making fun of PBA, in fact he was actually commenting on how not fun it is… notice the sadness after a drink or 5 to PBA.
Wow. Apparently no one understands Stephen Colberts humor. He is actually very Catholic and very conservative! It’s called political satire. And he was being critical of George Will for making stupid comments about Republicans and the issues that take seriously. Folks. Lighten up. He wasn’t making fun of partial birth abortion. Quite the contrary. He was saying, ‘Oh, yea, George Will, we are just trying to have fun. That’s it. Because these issues, like abortion, are just a hoot!” My goodness.
i agree with you jasper.
Wow, the years have not been kind to Stephen. It’s amazing how much he’s aged in the last 4 years. Cindy, I don’t know how you could possibly think Colbert is conservative. He is liberal to the max and Catholic in name only. Of course it’s satire, but he always dances the line between joking and being serious about the things he says.
The worst part is, some people actually believe it’s a real news show. It’s a standup routine, guys!
You’d have to be drunk, stoopid, bored with a character lower than pond scum to appreciate this kind of stuff.
I can’t see how abortion is really disgusting in principal, just aesthetically. From a utilitarian point of view, a mothers preference will always always always have more ethical value over the whims of something that, scientifically speaking, isn’t really self aware until the last few months in the first place, and questionably so. Consciousness is dependent on physical, concrete, neurological structures in the brain. The fact that it’s a human being or not isn’t what makes it ethical to keep alive/ kill, it’s weather or not it has a concept of mortality and a perception of pain/ conscious will to life. An unborn child likely doesn’t, the science for its self-awareness ranges from not there at all to very limited at best. Even if we were to go with the notion that it has all the ethical and perceptual qualities of an unborn child, I still don’t see how an unborn childs whims are more important than the mothers? When you are a mother, you are growing something that’s attached to you directly. It is a part of you. It’s yours. You aren’t obligated to carry it to term. You literally are growing a human being on your own accord, it is leaching off of YOUR time, your minerals, your food that you put in your body. Without you deciding to conceive, it wouldn’t exist in the first place. I see aborting a child as no more ethically troubling than just not getting knocked up in the first place. At the end of the day, both cases lead to a human being not existing and not being aware of the fact that it does not exist. Ethics-wise, it is more or less the same.
Jochen, I hope you’re never in a coma with a doctor who believes as you do around. Afterall, you wouldn’t have any self-awareness, no concept of morality, no perception of pain, and no conscious will to live. In that case, you must not have a right to life either.
I actually was going to elaborate and say that if someone was in a coma and not self-aware, then it isn’t really ethically incorrect to pull the plug. They arent aware of you keeping them around or not, and the money and time spent on keeping them subtracts from the human beings who are still alive and kicking. If I was in a coma and without self-awareness, I would hope someone would pull the plug. Because I wouldn’t be able to notice the difference between being comatose and being dead, and keeping me on life support just wastes tax dollars. That’s my stance on it. I would have no problem if my mother aborted me, I wouldn’t have known or being aware of my lack of existence. I wouldn’t have the ability to contemplate my lack of living. But i’m not. I’m here today, in the flesh. The past cannot be changed. We live in the now and adjust accordingly. Life is here, it is within my grasp, so I shall live it.
Jochen, what if it’s an induced coma that you’ll come out of in a couple days? Would it still be ok to pull the plug to save the time and resources that would otherwise be “wasted” keeping you alive?
In a couple of days sure, if it is likely that I would service and not a massive money sink that could be best spent helping others. I’d go as far as to say keep people alive for a month or two. I was bringing up the coma thing because I know of a lot of theist-minded folk who believe heavily in souls and human sanctity to the point where they are for keeping borderline brain-dead people biologically alive and functioning when there is no really ” person ” there left so to speak. I see a human fetus in most terms of its existence being in much the same way, technically a human being but lacking a lot of the qualities that we associate with a ” living ” ” person “. Biologically, yes, it is a living thing. Of course it is. It has cells and such and a lot of complexity. I’m talking about the subjective experience of being human and whole. What you would call a soul, I would call consciousness and a sense of self.
I’m fumbling a lot with my words this morning lol. Sorry if it seems like i’m snobby or full of pretense or superficial stuff like that. I meant to say survive, not service. And a few other mistakes here and there, but I think you get the general idea of what i’m trying to convey =P.
So you’re for keeping people alive for a few months when they definitely will regain consciousness. …unless they’re really young?
Also, it seems you believe reality relies entirely on your perception, which is ridiculous. Whether or not you’ve ever seen a rare deep-sea-dwelling creature doesn’t change the fact that it exists. Whether you realize it or not, you are still a human being with innate value. My right to life does not depend on your – or anyone else’s – perception.
I’m not saying there isn’t an objective reality, i’m saying we live in the realm of our perceptions of it alone. When the perception gets entirely cut off, life ceases to be for us. Sure, it’s still there, objectively speaking, other people will still perceive and live life. Our brains are organs who’s job and function makes perception, it perceives. Our brain is an organ of perception. When the brain fails, perception halts. When the heart stops, blood stops flowing. When the lungs stop, you no longer breath. Etc.
I didn’t say when you die reality no longer exists as a whole. I’m saying your perception permanently stops. And you cease to be a person after you rot away. Eventually there isn’t even a corpse. Sure your individual atoms that made you you still exist, but the concept of that person is no longer.
I have innate value in that I exist. A long with everything else that exists in the world. For now.
I’m for keeping patients a live for a little bit since that only costs a few grand and that’s perserving something thats been around for a long time, I know what it’s like to be born and live and everything. A fetus does not. The patient has existed in the world for years and years. When you give birth to another life, you are costing humanity as a whole usually hundreds of thousands. Now, if that child ends up living, you have no real right to remove it from existence at a whim. But a mother does. If it is attached to the mother biologically, it is a part of the mother. The mother has a sense of self and a personhood and life experiences of many years, a fetus has none of that. The mothers well being and happiness over rides the possible and completely optional existence of the pre-born.
“When you give birth to another life, you are costing humanity as a whole usually hundreds of thousands.”
You are greatly overstating the costs of child-birth.
You seem to believe humans’ value is measured by their utility to society as a whole. The problem with this philosophy is that “utility to society” is completely subjective, and the standards you have set are completely arbitrary. I would recommend a quick review of nazi population control policies to remind you of why this is a bad thing. Here’s a link to get you started:
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/disabilities/
Unless a human being has value simply by being a human being, none of us have any real value. It’s completely dependent on others’ perception, and whoever is the strongest/most powerful gets to decide who lives or dies. Clearly, you must see the problem with this.
Our Declaration of Independence states that every person has the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not say that these rights are dependent on age or utility.
“The mothers well being and happiness over rides the possible and completely optional existence of the pre-born. ”
The pre-born exist. There is nothing “optional” about their existence.
I don’t see how you can slag utilitarianism, which a very complex and in depth philosophy that’s well worth at least getting familiar with, yet advocate me to base my moral makeup on the civil law of a nation i’m not even a part of. I’m not American. I’m not from America, and this is the internet. Just because we speak English doesn’t mean we are under the dominion of the red white and blue lol. And no, a human being doesn’t have value just by it being a human being. That’s some very black and white thinking that has no real practical functionality in this world of grey that we live in. Saying I should forsake my utilitarianism because nazis were genocidal maniacs who happened to have a really bastardized version of it ( nationalism isn’t utilitarianism, you aren’t of more value just because you happen to be born in the nation you were born in ) is like saying you shouldn’t have pro-life values because christian have pro life values and a certain sub-sect of christians waged crimes against humanity in the Crusades. It’s silly. I advocate preference utilitarianism for the most part for ALL SPECIES THAT HAVE SENTIENCE. Not just humanity. Humanity doesn’t get special little snowflake treatment just because we’re the strongest. You basically made a cut at the whole ” might is right ? philosophy but i’m sure you assign some kind of special superior value to humanity because we happened to spread our seed really well, almost obnoxiously well. Because we’re ” superior “. You make such huge jumps in logic and reasoning that it just seems like you have a very specific and dogmatic agenda, not so much a value for trying to decipher what’s the best course of conduct to take in life.
And yes, it actually is optional for the pre-born to exist. Abortion is as easy as taking a pill and having a miscarriage. That baby will have no less or more of a concept of personhood than if the woman decided to make her partner slap on a condom and completely avoid the whole fertilizing her egg in the first place route. At the end of the day, A person that doesn’t need to be is halted. Why do we socially accept procreation anyways? Because we’re selfish? Because we want to feel justified in spreading our seed no matter the cost? Why not adopt. I don’t see birth as beautiful, I see birth as forsaking a potential kid you could adopt in sake of being selfish and just carrying on your genes. You add ONE MORE CHILD to an already overpopulated earth. You could adopt. if you really wanna preserve the sanctity of human life, then donate to an orphanage or adopt a couple kids and raise em right and happy. Please don’t tell women what they can do with the ( often times unwanted ) parasite thats growing in THEIR womb. The state has no right to interfere with the internal happenings in a woman’s body.
“ Now, if that child ends up living, you have no real right to remove it from existence at a whim. But a mother does. If it is attached to the mother biologically, it is a part of the mother. The mother has a sense of self and a personhood and life experiences of many years, a fetus has none of that. The mothers well being and happiness over rides the possible and completely optional existence of the pre-born. ”
Well, a newborn, two month old, etc… really doesn’t have many things that you have decided are more important than simply being a live human being. Newborns don’t really have sense of “self”, no more than a fetus nine months along does. Happy? Are babies happy? They live on reflexes and biological urges, but they don’t appear to have the awareness that would seem to be necessary for the emotion of “happiness”. They obviously don’t have life experiences, especially since they lack the long-term memory storage, self awareness, and other things that those of us above the age of about two or three do. The only “ethical” difference between killing a newborn infant and a fetus is the pre-born’s biological dependence on the mother. The infant does not live inside it’s mother anymore, but it is still completely biologically dependent on other humans to supply it nutrients, shelter, etc. How is that all together different from the state the same human was in while it was still in the womb?
The topic of independence and dependence to judge the value of a life, such as your coma patient analysis, is a thorny one anyway. I am not opposed to removing life support for those individuals who have stipulated that they would like their life support removed or that no life saving measures be taken if they have passed a certain threshold of injury. I am opposed, however, to removing life support from those individuals who either didn’t stipulate such conditions or asked that they be kept alive/resuscitated/whatever, in the event that they were incapacitated or injured. Otherwise, you are giving some humans the right to end the life of other humans, based on subjective criteria that someone else established, taking away the power of the individual who’s life is in question to make that decision for themselves.
”I don’t see how you can slag utilitarianism, which a very complex and in depth philosophy that’s well worth at least getting familiar with, yet advocate me to base my moral makeup on the civil law of a nation i’m not even a part of. I’m not American. I’m not from America, and this is the internet. Just because we speak English doesn’t mean we are under the dominion of the red white and blue lol. And no, a human being doesn’t have value just by it being a human being.”
I tend to think in a type of utilitarian way, which is exactly why I oppose abortion. Practically, if you remove the right of some individuals to exist, based on the whims of another, you are setting a bad precedent for all of us. Why, for example, could you oppose your own death, even if you were aware and “dependent” (in quotes because none of us are truly independent of others), if society decided that some group that you fell into did more harm than good, and it was allowable or even preferable for you to be killed at will? If you have already stipulated that it is allowable to kill one set of individuals based on some subjective criteria, then how can you disallow society at large from doing so for other sets of humans, whether you fit into the category of uselessness or not?
Every time a mother births a new child, she single handedly increases her carbon footprint by over 20 fold. You pollute 20 times more essentially by birthing a single child than most people ever could by driving a train of diesel hummers to and from work every day for the rest of their existence if they chose not to procreate in the first place. Also, the price of human life ? http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html . Around a hundred thousand a year. We clearly don’t need more. Humanities collective taxes pay for OUR hospitals, our schools, our roads, our technology, our crops. When you bump out another baby, you add more burden. Because unless you have the most productive child in the entire world, chances are your child is more burden then benefit to society as a whole, especially if you’re a well to do consumerist living in a first world country. Which that child will likely grow up to be. Which will be another hungry mouth to feed that our collective farmers will have to support. That little 15 year old kids in south america will have to farm for helplessly low wages in order to meet the huge demand for our overweight first world countries appetites.
So… you should be able to kill humans if they are too much of a drag? That’s not particularly “pro-choice” if you use population and climate demographics to try to scare and shame women into feeling “selfish” if they get pregnant and choose to carry to term. It sounds more “pro-abortion” than “pro-choice”. You also completely ignore any new technologies, which have improved food production and pollution output, and will most likely continue to do so. Basing someone’s right to be alive on how much they cost is seriously one of the more disgusting abortion arguments, in my humble opinion. Seems like a eugenics argument to me. Eugenics as in, if you are poor, disabled, or disadvantaged, you should probably be culled before you cost us too much money, so there will be more for these productive, healthy people.
Forgive me for the false assumption. We’re on a U.S. blog, discussing commentary on a U.S. show, which was making fun of U.S. politics. It was a reasonable mistake.
Secondly, you have undeniably shown that you are a eugenicist, meaning you share a lot more in common with the Nazi regime than you care to admit. You are probably closer to the Nazi thinking than any other “pro-choicer” I’ve ever talked to. I find it difficult to appeal to any sensibility when you won’t even grant that human beings have objective value.
All I really see is “I can’t describe how a newborn is different from a fetus, so I won’t answer the question and rail about how much I hate parents and talk about coathangers.” Lol. First off, a “pro-function” type of society would necessarily involve some type of respect for the individual and human rights and individual liberty or it would collapse, the fact that you don’t think it seems to be necessary is just adorable. Second, you seem to be under the cute impression that other people’s worth is dependent on subjective characteristics. As an uncle to a severely disabled ADOPTED little girl, I find your attitude absolutely sickening and the reason my niece is discriminated against. And last, I believe that you would probably horrify just as many pro-choicers with your rhetoric as you do pro-lifers. So, have a good day, sir/ma’am.
And nice buncha bs about child bearing, I hope you don’t know any pregnant young women, I wouldn’t want them to be terrified by unfounded and flat-out false assertions. And it’s HILARIOUS that you are so concerned about women dying, seeing as they just have to be too much of a drag on the system to be worth nothing in your “utilitarian” way of thinking. Rich women are much less likely to die in childbirth than poor women, but that should be just dandy, right?
Again, I am not pro choice. This isn’t some HURP DURP LIBERALS GURMBLE MUBMLE CONSERVATIVES little battle ground that everybody seems to want to frame every little civil issue as.
Yeah, I know several mothers who have given birth naturally (no drugs at all) several times, and have no reservations about going through it again. One woman has given birth 8 times, her last one was 12 pounds. No drugs, and she’s just fine.
Lol, you have no idea whether I have children or not, so bravo on your assumptions.
Aren’t you population control nuts always screaming and crying about birth control failure rates, because abortion is sooooooooo necessary? So, lol, logic fail.
Good afternoon, you were amusing for a moment, but now your hysteria and lack of reasoning is getting annoying.
“It’ll just ruin young teen girls lives who’s only crime commited is have a naturally active sex life.”
”I don’t make friends with people who I find to be unintelligent or irresponsible. Which I think if you’re young and knocked up, you most certainly are.”
Please reconcile these statements. Someone deleted the comment the first sentence comes from, but I still have the email copy.
Wow… I can’t believe I wasted my time and effort on you. I thought we were actually have a civil conversation for a while.
It’s hilarious to me that you think you aren’t imposing your personal values on everyone.
Jochen: Rants about the poor precious planet (which we only assign value to BECAUSE we are alive and sentient, so double lulz for logical people) and the evil breeders who are destroying it….
Claims to not force his/her values on people.
Herp a derp, this thread is comedy gold, better than Colbert. Really, thank you. I am usually civil with people I disagree with, which gets old. It’s refreshing to find someone that I can be an a$$ to. :)
1. You are the only person who has even mentioned anyone needing to have children. All we have said is “don’t kill people.”
2. No one has called you any names. I have merely pointed out the obvious similarities between your logic and the logic of actions that have been long established as “bad.”
3. No one is trying to control women; Another issue only you have talked about.
Jochen: Claims to care about individual right’s and the well-being of humanity…
Thinks that babies created by human’s not in his/her elite echelon of responsibility don’t have any right to exist, and in fact should be killed as much as possible.
I seriously can’t make this stuff up, where is Moronic Pro-Choice Quotes when you need him/her?
So what’s your stance? do you think abortions should actually be illegal? Or do you just not think they should be funded.
I can explain what I believe very simply:
1. Killing an innocent human being is wrong.
2. Abortion kills an innocent human being.
3. Abortion is wrong.
Yes, I believe it should be illegal, just like murder of post-born humans is. I know it won’t go away, but neither has any other thing we make illegal. That’s not the point. We don’t make things legal just because they happen anyway. If that were the case, nothing would be illegal. We also don’t make things legal just because someone might be harmed doing it. Bank robbery is also pretty dangerous, but we wouldn’t make it legal so that it could happen safely.
Then yes, you are for controlling women. It’s as simple as that. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s noble or worth it or the ends justify the means, at the end of the day, you think what a woman chooses to do with whats inside her body should be grounds to have her put in jail, and I assume be held accountable for man-slaughter. It’s at this point where I say yes, you are in fact sexist.
Jochen, is it also “sexist” and “controlling women” to say that a woman cannot shoot another innocent person at the bank?
Until you have the ability to carry a child inside of you, you have no say on what a woman can do with her body. Period. If its child inside that body, that is property of hers. Until that baby is out, it is property. an extension of the body. I wouldn’t throw a woman in jail for trying to kill herself, why would I for trying to kill a baby thats inside her ? It’s literally her body. She built it from the nutrients of her body. It is a parasite thats only way to possibly live is by building off of the nutrients she can provide. I have no sympathy for fetus’s . I never will. I do enjoy the sweet smile of a child though.
Your last comment never made it on the site. I’m pretty sure you know which word most likely triggered the filter.
I’ll respond to it anyway. Sperm are not human beings. Neither are eggs. It’s when they unite that a distinct living human comes into being. Surely you know this.
“No, because it’s not only women who can shoot and kill. It’s ONLY women that can be pregnant. Not the same.”
But if a man kills a pregnant woman, he is charged with two counts of murder. Or if a man punches a woman’s stomach and causes her to miscarry, he is charged for murder. That’s sexist. You can’t have it both ways. Is it killing an innocent human being or not? Geography has no bearing on the right to life.
Jochen,
I have deleted several of your comments. There is no swearing allowed here.
Clean it up.
“Until you have the ability to carry a child inside of you, you have no say on what a woman can do with her body. Period.”
I love it when pro-choicers say this. It’s intellectual suicide. Did you know that abortion has been made legal by men? They struck down all existing laws on abortion and chose for everyone – including unborn women – that unborn people can be killed.
I don’t have it both ways. I think it’s entire bull that you can get a double manslaughter charge for killing someone just because that someone had to be pregnant. Because a fetus aint a person. And geography doesn’, but simple biology and moral phillosophy does.
Not that I want to get involved in an actual debate with a classist, elitist illogical person who hilariously claims to support liberty while whining about people choosing to have kids, your logic fails hurt my head and I simply must address them.
A good portion of pro-lifers are agnostic or atheists. I am, a few people who regularly comment here are… in fact there is a whole website named Secular Pro-life which caters to those of us in the movement who tire of the religious sentiment! I love it when people make sweeping claim based on their limited experiences and claim they are true.
Anyone who thinks that laws governing one gender are automatically sexist, without considering the implications of the law, is amusing as well. Human beings simply cannot gestate anywhere else. If technology progresses to the point where embryos can be transplanted into men or mechanical wombs, most pro-lifers will still feel the exact same way about abortion. I have my personal problems with the fringes that seem to think that women should be compelled to not use contraception or prevent pregnancy, but that isn’t most pro-lifers.
I suppose that women should have no say on… well anything to do with men, since you don’t have the necessary equipment to do so? Gender-baiting is a good distraction tactic, because you get to ignore the fetus and just try to scream sexism. But I already know that you can’t ACTUALLY debate the issue, since you sidestepped logical arguments to rant on about how no one should have children.
Simple biology, interesting…
You are completely ignoring “simple biology” by insisting that sperm are the same as fetuses, and fetuses are not living people.
All living human beings are people. The only times in all of history that we have classified living humans as non-people were times of great atrocities, (slavery, the holocuast, etc.). I would love for you to name one example that wasn’t.
What’s actually “juvenile” is trying to pretend that the fact that someone is somehow incapable of complaining is a justification for killing them. This list would include young infants, some mentally disabled people, etc, etc. It’s juvenile as well to think that people have an absolute right to do with their bodies as they please. I am probably one of the more socially liberal people who comment on this blog, and even I recognize that our rights to do what we please is inhibited by causing harm to others. Even if they can’t complain.
you go jack b. ;) * clapping*
In response to another deleted comment:
“And we didn’t choose anything lol. You can still have a child. You don’t have to abort. This wasn’t choosing for all women, as this effects NOT A SINGLE WOMAN who actually wants to follow thru with the birth. Not a single one.”
Are you serious? Do you know how many women are coerced into having abortions to cover up for rape, incest, guys who didn’t want to have the responsibility, or kids who just didn’t want their parents to find out? 64%
http://stopforcedabortions.com/forced.htm
Jochen sure seems to ‘know’ everything. He makes statements about the fetus as if he were God. Reading his diatribes makes me feel sad for him and anyone who has the misfortune to be in his life. Hopefully, for his sake, there are people around him who love him and pray for his conversion, because one day, when his life is over, he’ll discover the truth, and, hopefully, it won’t be too late for him. He’s obviously impressed with himself and thinks that he has found the exclusive channel to truth. To the other bloggers, don’t waste your time trying to change his mind, because no matter how lucid your argument is, he will deny it. Pray for him. God bless you Jochen!!
Sometimes I wonder If the judgment for abominable acts like Colbert’s or being pro-abortion will be to spend eternity witnessing EVERY ABORTION THAT HAS EVER TAKEN PLACE IN THE WORLD.
If its child inside that body, that is property of hers. Until that baby is out, it is property.
Wow. First Nazi utilitarianism, now “People-As-Property” slaveholder arguments!
You’re too funny. Stephen is that you?
It’s not sexist to demand that the law protect all children and that those children are cared for and protected by their parents. You’ll notice that MOST of the commenters here (myself included) are women, and we are on a blog ran by a woman. If outlawing abortion really was the “sexist”, “misogyny” you claim it to be, we certainly wouldn’t be working to do away with its legality. However, fighting for human rights for all human beings is not sexist. It’s just. We do so because our children and all children deserve protection by law at every stage in their lives, regardless of where they happen to be, how old/developed they are, or how dependent upon us they happen to be to continue their lives.
Xalisae: yes!
Haven’t I read that Colbert was an active Catholic? He should know better. Sarah Silverman, an atheist, should not.
Bubba,
Don’t sell atheists short. EVERYONE should know better than supporting the killing of children by their own parents.
secularprolife.org
Is it just me that read Jochen’s comments in the voice of Peter Lorre?
Whew! That was a mind-blowing hour. Compliments to Andrew and Jack for fighting the good fight.
Now on to checking out Jochen’s deleted comments. It will be a pleasure to delete them myself, since their parasitically taking up space in my inbox! :)
yeah i second what hans said. its nice to see real men stand up for life. pro choice men are just cowards!
Yep, its satire.
But, substitute gay pride or gay propaganda anywhere into one of his skits… oh wait, they don’t do that… you can’t even satirize the gay agenda. Huh.
yeah i wonder if colbert had cracked a joke about rape. how well would that go over? maybe a beat a puppy to death joke. oooooooooh what a hoot it would be;/
Steve Colbert is a horses ***.He is neither conservative nor a devout Catholic..how can he be…he mocks things that are serious issues..abortion is no joke and poking fun at a real Catholic like Rick Santorum who does not hide his faith nor compromise it like the weak little limp wristed Colbert and other liberals truly shows his true colors.He is a weak little man who hides behind humor in attacking someone who actually has faith and morals.Hey Colbert…remember this..he who stands for nothing ..falls for everything.Liberals live in anarchy..they have no moral compass and no structure..in an anything goes society they will soon be the first to go.Their time is coming to an end.I wish everyone would stop watching tv and hollywood and end support for these devils who feed us continual trash and call it entertainment.
[Edited by moderators]
Wow….grievously sad….there is NOTHING funny or humorous about partial birth abortion. God help us. We all must be a light in the darkness. Bring on your glorious light O Lord! Shine it into the dark places.
I believe his satire was directed at Rick Santorum. It is great that Rick is so pro-life with the unborn, but does not give a hoot about all the babies he advocates killing over seas. He is a prime hypocrite.
Ron Paul is 100% prolife.
Carol, how many children have died overseas because of actions that Rick supported (and how many lives were saved)?
Now compare those numbers with how many have been killed by abortion in the U.S. alone: over 53 million.
Please explain to us which one you think is the more immediate problem and why.
Also, Ron Paul is almost as pro-choice as anyone else. He believes the decision on abortion should be made by the states. Why? Do we allow that for murder?
And abandoning our efforts at peace overseas will only cause all progress made at such a great cost to vanish overnight.
Everyone who thinks this is funny or “no big deal” should be required to watch a video of the actual procedure…the process of delivering the head of a living (almost full term) human child, holding back the complete delivery and while piercing the back of the skull and suctioning out the brain…watch the life become lifeless.
If you can still find any humor in citing this procedure for comic effect…reduced (and repeated) here to the simple term… “partial birth abortion”…you have lost your humanity.
The bottom line is that when an abortion takes place it is a human being who is being killed. You may say that this per-born human being has no self-awareness, but there is no proof of that. We don’t know how aware the pre-born developing human being is. However, self-awareness is not the issue. A person in a nursing home with advanced Alzheimer’s may not be self-aware or have awareness of the world around him. Your chilling utilitarian logic, Jochen, would lead to euthanasia. If person (whether in the womb or in a wheelchair in a nursing home) is inconvenient, costly, or burdensome, then he/she should be killed. This was the philosophy of the Nazi. Nazism was a cold, utilitarian, eugenicist philosophy. We know what it led to. Your philosophy is very similar. And because you have no moral authority higher than yourself, you cannot realize what a horror your philosophy truly is.
Some people obviously don’t believe there is a HELL. But what’s worse is that they’re running toward that end with open arms and anxious enthusiasm.
It was not offensive at all. People are blowing this way out of proportion.
ctd,
To help you understand, let’s try an analogy:
Let’s say your mother was murdered quite violently, chopped up into pieces, and her body parts strewn all over some public place. Now let’s say this murder was so heinous that it was given a name in the media: “The butcher murder.” Now, watch that video again, and pretend that instead of the words “partial birth abortion,” they’re saying “the butcher murder” every time. Would that still be funny and non-offensive to you?
This is exactly what is happening in that video, except instead of one murder, they’re talking about thousands, maybe millions.
I think that Colbert was trying to be ironic, not make fun of partial-birth abortion or Santorum per se. I believe the Colbert himself IS pro-life, and by mentioning PBA over and over again, he’s educating his 20-something audience (who get the bulk of their “news” from programs like his) on what PBA is. It reminded me a little of The Onion’s story on PBA, where they “interviewed” a woman who claimed that the graphic used on the Senate floor of a partial-birth abortion was that of her child and she “wanted it back.”
Mary, please quote the parts of the video that were “educating his … audience … on what PBA is.”
SATIRE, by a Catholic. Colbert for president, we at the convent of the Immaculate support his bid.