Author: has written 5281 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

13 Responses

  1. A Pang
    A Pang July 10, 2006 at 8:40 am |

    One of the best things about it? Comments like this at the pro-lifer’s blog: “I’m pro life, but sweet Jesus you’re an idiot.”

  2. Ole Blue
    Ole Blue July 10, 2006 at 9:14 am |

    Pointing out hypocrisy and idiocy through satire is something I love.

    I have been forwarded items from The Onion by people who believed that the article was true.

  3. Seth Gordon
    Seth Gordon July 10, 2006 at 9:52 am |

    When I was an undergraduate, our campus pro-life firebrand once gave a speech where he described how a doctor in Sweden had sworn off abortions after literally hearing a fetus scream as it was being aborted. A few weeks later, I came across an article in the Massachusetts Citizens for Life newsletter telling the same story, and citing as their source the Weekly World News.

    I’m still kicking myself for not milking that story for a column in the school newspaper.

  4. Mighty Ponygirl
    Mighty Ponygirl July 10, 2006 at 10:35 am |

    That onion article is classic. Right up next to the pro/con “My computer totally hates me/God I hate that b—-”

  5. Kyra
    Kyra July 10, 2006 at 11:01 am |

    Of course, the pro-lifer in question quickly shows its true colors:

    Sorry ma’am, if you hadn’t had sex you wouldn’t have gotten pregnant, it’s not the HMO’s fault for not supporting your promiscuity while not married. . . .

    OK, Mr./Ms. Pro-Life Dipshit Too Stupid To Remember It’s The Onion, let’s get something straight: You’re the one who doesn’t want her having the abortion. Why the hell should she suffer so that you can get that? No birth control pills = more pregnancies = more abortions. The HMO doesn’t “support her promiscuity,” the abortion clinics will, and aside from the fact that it very much is the job of a health insurance provider to pay for the policyholder’s health-related needs, including prevention of certain adverse health complications such as an unwanted pregnancy, it is also the job of everyone who dares call herself pro-life to not deliberately put the precious babies at risk of forming inside a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant.

    Attacking birth control is deliberately manipulating things to maximize the number of “unborn children” put in danger of abortion, illegal if not legal. And it is the height of selfishness to not only expect women to not get abortions but also to give up far more than is necessary to avoid even more suffering at your hands.

    You say you want an end to abortion. I assumed that to mean you’d be very happy if the demand for abortions dropped off sharply. Birth control does that—a sexually active woman on birth control will need far fewer abortions than a sexually active woman not on birth control. But noooo, that’s not enough, is it? You not only want to get what you want, you want us to pay for it, and you want us to pay a much higher price for it than we have to.

    It’s like going to the car dealership with your high-school nemesis, and her demanding you buy her the nice Mustang in the showroom—after she’s switched the price tag with that from a Porsche.

    Selfish things.

  6. piny
    piny July 10, 2006 at 11:22 am |

    That onion article is classic. Right up next to the pro/con “My computer totally hates me/God I hate that b—-”

    My favorite counterpoint ever was:

    Point: You Da Man

    Counterpoint: No, YOU Da Man

  7. ilyka
    ilyka July 10, 2006 at 12:13 pm |

    I’m fond of “Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Must Stop” versus “I Love the Way Your Tits Bounce When You Type.” The sad thing is how many antifeminist arguments are almost indistinguishable from the counterpoint. (“C’mon. I’m only kidding. You can take a joke, can’t you? Sure you can. I’ll bet that’s not all you can take. Cha-ching!”)

  8. johanna
    johanna July 11, 2006 at 12:19 pm |

    Hey y’all-
    the above mentioned dolt who believed this bit is trying to prove that he’s NOT a dolt for swallowing it.

  9. raging red
    raging red July 11, 2006 at 1:08 pm |

    Your link didn’t work for me, johanna, but here’s a link to the poor clueless dude’s blog and another link crossposted at a pro-life blog. It appears he thinks the article was satire written by an actual person, not realizing that the “author,” Caroline Weber, does not exist. He has built up his image of a straw-prochoicer to such a degree that he really, really wants to believe that he has finally met her.

  10. johanna
    johanna July 11, 2006 at 2:00 pm |

    red-
    I tried to comment on one of the places he posted it to tell him that “Carolyn Weber” isn’t real, and gave him a link to the Wikipedia entry for The Onion. They haven’t allowed my comment yet.

    The poor dear.

    Thanks for fixing my link! :)

  11. Erika
    Erika July 11, 2006 at 7:30 pm |

    Why didn’t Mr. Clueless support this new medication?

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.