Feb
28

Contraception Is Theft




Posted at 21:03 by Tintin

Shorter Jeannie DeAngelis, Ruhnoomurka:
Nancy Pelosi: Vicar of Contraception

  • Non-Catholics should do as the Catholic church says, not as it does.

After noting with approval the Catholic church’s approved method of birth control (“Ladies, keep your legs together when you’re fertile!”), Jeannie then calls all other forms of birth control feticide, apparently heartlessly unconcerned with those poor unfertilized eggs (potential babies all!) that wither in the womb while Mommie murderously keeps her womb closed for business — not to mention her equal lack of concern for the poor spermatoza (potential babies all!) that get washed down the shower drain or sopped up with tissue and flushed down the toilet during this chaste interlude. But this is just old stuff and standard crazy for the Life-Begins-at-Conception-and Ends-at-Birth crowd.

But there is no cause for concern. The reason that we read Jeannie again and again is that she can take the old tired-and-true crazy and whip it up into a confection of jaw-dropping lunacy the same way a skilled chef can turn a hunk of chocolate and stick of butter into an orgasmic truffle. Let’s watch Jeannie at work:

Justifying the federal government’s diktat on contraception and abortion, Pelosi, mother of five and a Catholic herself, has concluded that the church has no right to balk because thus far, when it comes to reproductive matters the Catholic church has not policed parishioners properly.

You’d think that this “diktat” (You know who else liked to speak German?)was forcing woman to have abortions and men to wear condoms rather than just requiring insurers to pay for birth control pills. But her clever reference to the German word used to condemn the Treaty of Versailles is just a distraction from the perfectly reasonable question: why, indeed, should the a bunch of priests and bishops be cramming their views of contraception, no doubt views influenced by the fact that choirboys are unable to become pregnant, down the throats of non-Catholics when they can’t even get their own Catholic parishioners to forswear the pill even after shouting threats of hellfire, eternal damnation, and excommunication from the pulpit for, oh, the last 40 years?

Are you as excited about how Jeannie is going to answer this as I am?

Does the House Minority Leader … believe that the Catholic Church has a method to “enforce” upon those in the pew who can and cannot use contraception?

Er, I think they call it excommunication and the burning fiery pits of hell, but I could be wrong.

How, pray tell, can parish priests keep the 31.3% of women who get abortions from destroying their children?

See above.

Should Father So-and-So spend all day stalking abortion clinics . . .

But, wait, who then are those old guys in clerical drag hanging out all day at the Planned Parenthood clinics? Imposters? Halloween revelers who forgot to take off their costumes several months ago?

and monitoring pharmacies to see who is filling prescriptions for birth control- and morning-after pills?

Well, it would be a better use of their time than curating their child porn collections on parish computers or chasing little Kevin around the sacristy. But, frankly, yes, if these parish mullahs are all torn up about rampant condom and pill use (it’s murder isn’t it?) then they should pull themselves away from watching Taylor Lautner marathons on Blu-ray in the rectory long enough to assure that their own flock isn’t engaged in non-procreative fucking. Yes, they should hang out at pharmacies and examine their parishioner’s prescriptions. If they want to see if I’ve got a condom in my wallet they better damn well start by checking the wallets of all the people that purport to believe in the stuff that the Roman Catholic church is peddling before they start rummaging around in mine.


‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™

207 Comments »

  1. Pupienus Maximus said,

    February 28, 2012 at 21:07

    W00t!

  2. actor212 said,

    February 28, 2012 at 21:13

    Do priests wear condoms when they flock the flock?

  3. paleotectonics said,

    February 28, 2012 at 21:26

    Preach!

    (oh, wait, was that inappropriate?)

  4. Steerpike said,

    February 28, 2012 at 21:35

    Reposting from the end of the last thread, because it’s even more relevant here:

    Note to Santorquemada and Republicans in general:

    Religion is like a PENIS
    It’s fine to have one, and to proudly share it with anyone who’s interested; however it is considered vulgar to wave it around in public, and I will strongly object if you try to shove it down my children’s throats.

  5. El Manquécito said,

    February 28, 2012 at 21:40

    I’m gonna repost too because the badgermin is just so awesome.

  6. kg said,

    February 28, 2012 at 21:41

    sp, I’m going to have that embroidered on a quilt, for picnics.

  7. Thread Bear said,

    February 28, 2012 at 21:48

    I’m gonna repost too because the badgermin is just so awesome.

    Yeah, but does it go to 11?

  8. paleotectonics said,

    February 28, 2012 at 21:51

    But, wait, who then are those old guys clerical drag hanging out all day at the Planned Parenthood clinics? Imposters? Halloween revelers who forgot to take off their costumes several months ago?

    Definitely LARP. Or they think its a good place to pick up chicks, a la Jay and Silent Bob.

  9. Thread Bear said,

    February 28, 2012 at 21:55

    Someone with the appropriate skills and software should download a photo of the Soup Nazi, pshop over it the face of the Pope (or any of the GOP candidates) retitle it “the Sex Nazi” and add the caption “No sex for you!!!”

  10. paleotectonics said,

    February 28, 2012 at 21:55

    the badgermin is just so awesome

    “I’m pickin’ up good vib- owww!!goddammit!!!its got my gurgle fwoat!!!!mommyyyyyyyy!”

  11. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 28, 2012 at 21:59

    Someone with the appropriate skills and software should download a photo of the Soup Nazi, pshop over it the face of the Pope (or any of the GOP candidates) retitle it “the Sex Nazi” and add the caption “No sex for you!!!”

    Definitely must be teh Pope and not the other guys ’cause, y’know, actual Nazi.

  12. Fenwick said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:00

    Tintin: Thanks for the Shorter! Writijng a good Shorter is an exercise is distilling the targeted piece to its nonsensical essence, paring it down to its absurd central thesis. Not every writer has the skill or focus to write a Shorter Of all the posters I’ve enjoyed at SN! over the years, you are the most skilled Shorter writer, imo. Today: One sentence. A dozen words. Precision.

    I am an afficianado of Shorters as an art form in-and-of-themselves, but they also serve a valuable function in the larger construction of an essay: A Shorter provides readers a clever top-line summary to set the stage and draw people into the text of the detailed dissection and mockery of the targeted text.

    The first and most important lesson I learned as a Sadlyville n00b was ….

    Always. Trust. The. Shorter.

    When there is one.

  13. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:00

    And I may have a few moments this afternoon to undertake this project, if nobody beats me to it.

  14. Marco said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:00

    Hey, President Kenyan Thuggish Ruggish Bone is also Archbishop of Abortion, according to Jeannie. She calls him this at the very end. I mention the new title’s placement in the article so you can skip right through the rest to read it. I chose to read it in its entirety and think I’ve been brain raped by the stupid. SAVE YOURSELVES!!!

  15. Rick Massimo said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:01

    Should Father So-and-So spend all day stalking abortion clinics . . .

    and monitoring pharmacies to see who is filling prescriptions for birth control- and morning-after pills?

    … they should pull themselves away from watching Taylor Lautner marathons on Blu-ray in the rectory long enough to assure that their own flock isn’t engaged in non-procreative fucking. Yes, they should hang out at pharmacies and examine their parishioner’s prescriptions.

    Evidently Jeannie thinks that’s the government’s job. Which is very small-governmenty and conservative!

  16. Bitter Scribe said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:04

    …views influenced by the fact that choirboys are unable to become pregnant…

    Bravo.

  17. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:04

    Can all these “pundits” and candidates and other gawdbotherererers just get together and do a new version of “Every Sperm Is Sacred” and get it over with already? I’m imagining the full “We Are The World” style collaboration with a teary solo from the frothy one and everything.

  18. Fenwick said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:07

    Thread Bare: (From last thread). Congratulations on being recognized for 15 years of top-notch civil service! If my be-fogged memory still serves, you are an accountant keeping track of the lawful expenditure of the people’s money? On behalf of Teh Taxpayers everywhere, that is double-plus-good! In any event, hurrah, sirrah! (*)

    (*) ‘whatever will be will be…’

  19. Whale Chowder said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:10

    …engaged in non-procreative fucking.

    I just want to go on the record as being pro creative fucking.

  20. Thread Bear said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:10

    If my be-fogged memory still serves, you are an accountant keeping track of the lawful expenditure of the people’s money?

    Not quite. I am in landside operations at our local airfield

  21. Chris said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:15

    Does the House Minority Leader … believe that the Catholic Church has a method to “enforce” upon those in the pew who can and cannot use contraception?

    The bishops don’t have an enforcement mechanism (anymore), so now it’s up to Congress to do their work for them. Sounds about right.

  22. kg said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:17

    President Kenyan Thuggish Ruggish Bone

    *snort*

  23. vacuumslayer said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:23

    I just want to go on the record as being pro creative fucking.

    Well, yeah, so’s just about everyone, but you try getting a spot in Creative Fucking 101.

  24. Thread Bear said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:25

    Well, yeah, so’s just about everyone, but you try getting a spot in Creative Fucking 101.
    You must have at least a 4 year degree in crative fucking before you can even think about going pro.

  25. Thread Bear said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:25

    Or creative fucking, even

  26. vacuumslayer said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:28

    brain raped by the stupid

    You were brain-raped? Dude. I read the comments on Global Warming (denialism) at The Atlantic and Wall Street Journal. I’ve been brain-Aristocrated. Believe this.

  27. vacuumslayer said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:28

    Or creative fucking, even

    That’s what happens when you hang out at my blog, Thread Bear. I rub off on you.

    Wait…

  28. Fenwick said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:29

    Not quite. I am in landside operations at our local airfield

    See? My memory is like a sieve now! (Also my eyesight is deteriorating: I first read ‘landslide operations’ and was completely baffled! Growing old is sorta depressing. Now you kids get offa my lawn!)

    What does ‘landside operations’ entail? How did you get into your line of work?

  29. Fenwick said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:31

    Tagfail. Well isn’t that a bag o tits!

  30. paleotectonics said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:38

    Hmmm. Bag of tits…
    Creative fucking…

    I’ll be in my bunk.

  31. bbkf said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:38

    oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!!! jeannie is my titty farting favorite! imma jump over and read right now!!! that IS a bag of tits!!!

  32. Thread Bear said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:39

    What does ‘landside operations’ entail? How did you get into your line of work?

    Lanside operations covers things like the Rent-A-Car companies and contracts, the parking lots, taxi operations, hotel shuttles, charter and public busses. I also get to be station manager and on-air personality for an AM radio station. (don’t tell anybody that it’s just a small traveler information station that you can only hear if you’re within a mile or so of the transmitter)

  33. paleotectonics said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:40

    Fenwick,

    My memory is like a sieve now! (Also my eyesight is deteriorating

    At least your eyesight isn’t like a sieve. I could use both focals of my glasses to build a noble gas laser…

  34. actor212 said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:42

    …engaged in non-procreative fucking.

    I just want to go on the record as being pro creative fucking.

    I’m fine with boring old run-of-the-mill fucking too, if she’s hot

  35. actor212 said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:43

    I am in landside operations at our local airfield

    Well, maybe if you, you know, built the airfield on flat ground you wouldn’t have to manage landslides.

    Wait. What?

  36. actor212 said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:45

    You must have at least a 4 year degree in crative fucking before you can even think about going pro.

    Points off for splinters.

  37. actor212 said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:45

    I could use both focals of my glasses to build a noble gas laser…

    I prefer peasant gas myself

  38. S. cerevisiae said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:46

    Fenwick, I also read that as “landslide operations” so don’t feel bad. Operating a landslide must take years to learn.

  39. bbkf said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:48

    Because it’s impossible to enforce certain teachings, is Nancy Pelosi suggesting the Catholic faith relinquish moral stances and acquiesce to doctrinal disobedience by joining the federal government in handing out clean needles to Catholic drug addicts too?

    The minority leader’s premise is sort of like saying that just because border patrol has not been adequately able to enforce America’s laws, the government should force ICE agents to pick up Mexican travelers in luxury tour buses and happily drop them off north of the border.

    no, jeannie…i think what we might take away from this is that yes, the church is against unnatural birth control, but since they have no way to enforce it…again, your words jeannie!, then they should probably just stfu about it…

    also, too…i love, love, love the analogy! a phallic bus…a porous uterine fence…all those teensy tiny latino semen and ladies…bravo, jeannie, bravo!

  40. actor212 said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:48

    Operating a landslide must take years to learn.

    Nah. It’s as easy as falling off a cliff.

  41. Pupienus Maximus said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:50

    The bishops don’t have an enforcement mechanism

    No, but Cardinal Fang still has THE COMFY CHAIR!

  42. paleotectonics said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:57

    I answered an FB poll from Minnesotans Defending Their Buttholes From Unnatural Stuff, ‘cuz they annoyed me one day with something that made the local fishwrap. As a result, I get two-three emails per day now, chock full o’ the craziest crazy that ever crazed a bag of tits.

    The question they answered in today’s edition of pass-the-smelling-salts-and-would-you-duct-tape-my-cheeks-shut-this-morning-honey-I-have-to-go-to-Minneapolis is

    Does the marriage amendment ban “Gay“marriage

    Not a promising start. They answered, no, it puts it to a vote by the people. Technically, that answer is correct, it is what the amendment does, and MN is very on the fence about it, according to polling.

    My (likely unread) email reply (I’m hoping to get a person to answer me so I can start to really have fun) is:

    When was it decided that human rights came not from the law, but from popular opinion? Certainly it has happened, see The South, 1680-Present. But could we stop it, now? Really?

    Ugghh.

  43. Thread Bear said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:58

    Not much call for operating landslides down here in flatlands of Florida. Now if you’ll excuse me I think I’ll head over to vs’ blog so she can rub off on me some more.

  44. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 28, 2012 at 22:59

    The bishops don’t have an enforcement mechanism

    I’m fairly sure the bishops aren’t much interested in checking vaginas for IUDs.

  45. paleotectonics said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:01

    she can rub off on me off some more.

    Fecthed it for you.

  46. vacuumslayer said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:04

    Minnesotans Defending Their Buttholes From Unnatural Stuff

    I sniggered.

  47. vacuumslayer said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:05

    I’m fairly sure the bishops aren’t much interested in checking vaginas for IUDs.

    Or really, anything.

  48. Thread Bear said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:06

    Minnesotans Defending Their Buttholes From Unnatural Stuff

    Is that where that band, The Butthole Stuffers, comes from?

  49. bbkf said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:07

    I’m fairly sure the bishops aren’t much interested in checking vaginas for IUDs.

    Or really, anything.

    maybe if they thought there were altar boys hiding in there…or if that was the only way to determine whether a female is a witch or not…

  50. paleotectonics said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:07

    Is that where that band, The Butthole Stuffers, comes from?
    Jesus, well played.

    Will that be 10 yr or 12 yr old scotch, sir?

  51. bbkf said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:08

    Is that where that band, The Butthole Stuffers, comes from?

    no, but we’re very proud of the butthole squards…

  52. paleotectonics said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:19

    butthole squards

    Okay, that’s a new one on me. Is it anything like cow-tipping? Wait, don’t answer that. I am from WI.

  53. vacuumslayer said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:22

    maybe if they thought there were altar boys hiding in there…

    Would somebody get this lady a martini?

  54. actor212 said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:23

    Hm, Thread Bear leaves, vs shows up….

  55. Hogeye Grex said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:23

    I’m fairly sure the bishops aren’t much interested in checking vaginas…

    Speak for your own bishop. Mine is positively fascinated.

  56. bbkf said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:23

    butthole squards

    one day we were mocking some whackdoodle who was on about obama’s death squads or something like that, but instead he wrote ‘squards’…i believe obs made a logo and everything…

  57. actor212 said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:24

    Is it anything like cow-tipping?

    If she’s open to anal, then yes, she gets a tip.

  58. Pupienus Maximus said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:25

    Is paleo amused by http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/poll-shows-scott-walker-in-trouble-against-dems-in-recall.php

    I sure am.

    FYWP

    Slow down, you post too fast.
    Got to make the butthurt last
    just movin down the lib blogrolls
    looking for snark and feeling groovy

  59. vacuumslayer said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:26

    February 28, 2012 at 23:23

    Hm, Thread Bear leaves, vs shows up….

    ALL. ONE. BEAR.

  60. kg said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:29

    That polling data on ole Scotty Walker just about made my day.

    Lets hope the good zombies of WI send that scumbag packing!!!!

  61. Thread Bear said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:31

    Will that be 10 yr or 12 yr old scotch, sir?

    How about four 8 year olds and a 10 year old.

  62. Pupienus Maximus said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:32

    http://pressthink.org/2012/02/npr-tries-to-get-its-pressthink-right/

    OH FUCK YOU WORDPRESS WITH A 24″ ION POWERED ICE AUGUR

  63. paleotectonics said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:33

    Pup,

    Amused? Overjoyed! However, while I still pay attention to all things WI and bleed green and gold, I moved to the cheeseless side of the Mississippi some time ago. Which is cool, but I’m sort of a bumpkin and living in the Cities can be, ummm, challenging. (Where in hell did all these people learn to drive, The Fiery Ball Of Death Traffic School and Hamburger Joint? And where in hell are the fish?)

  64. vacuumslayer said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:35

    How about four 8 year olds and a 10 year old.

    I didn’t know you were catholic.

  65. paleotectonics said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:38

    Thread Bear, Local Hero is a classic! Thank you so very much!

  66. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:41

    Does the House Minority Leader of the party that condones handing out condoms to elementary school children — because kids have sex anyhow — also believe that the Catholic Church has a method to “enforce” upon those in the pew who can and cannot use contraception?

    You know, they kind of do. Couples who are married and not pumping out sprogs should be excommunicated.

  67. The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:42

    I also read “landslide” operations. Maybe because it was in the same sentence with the word “airport”, and I can see the retaining wall they built to hold up all the dirt they trucked in to form the misnamed* “third runway” at Sea-Tac from here. I often wonder what would happen if it gave way, so that’s why my brain was primed for that mistake.

    *In all but perfect visibility conditions, it’s the second runway.

  68. DrDick said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:47

    I thought that the preferred form of birth control by the Catholic clergy was buggering altar boys?

    Also, where is her outrage over the more than 50% of fertilized eggs which fail to implant on the uterine wall? What about the more than 50% of those which do which spontaneously abort (mostly before pregnancy is even detected)? Will she ever address the damning fact that over half of all those spontaneously aborted embryos, zygotes, and fetuses are male? It is a androcidal apocalypse, I tell you!

  69. vacuumslayer said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:48

    s to elementary school children — because kids have sex anyhow

    Where is this happening? It’s sounds like a wingnut viral email.

  70. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:48

    i believe obs made a logo and everything…

    Yes, yes I did.

  71. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:50

    Parody or serious? It’s so hard to tell these days.

  72. actor212 said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:51

    How about four 8 year olds and a 10 year old.

    Father Tom?

  73. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:52

    Yes, yes I did.

    That was a good one.

  74. bbkf said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:54

    Where is this happening? It’s sounds like a wingnut viral email.

    i know, right?! my brain just kinda glossed over this because it is so clearly out there…

  75. bbkf said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:55

    also, i think the wingnuts equate sex ed with handing out condoms…

  76. bbkf said,

    February 28, 2012 at 23:58

    Parody or serious? It’s so hard to tell these days.

    Before accepting food stamps, people would have to carefully consider whether they want to face the loss of voting privileges, the humiliation of shopping at government stores and using government food

    once again, the ‘oh noes, gummint is evil!1111!!’ folks calling for more government run things…i guess it’s only good when it’s regulating the poors?

  77. vacuumslayer said,

    February 29, 2012 at 0:09

    If it’s real…wow. Consider my mind boggled.

  78. vacuumslayer said,

    February 29, 2012 at 0:10

    BTW, I just got a wingnut email comparing post-nuclear Hiroshima & Nagasaki to present day Detroit because FOODSTAMPS.

    I weep for this country.

  79. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 0:22

    BTW, I just got a wingnut email comparing post-nuclear Hiroshima & Nagasaki to present day Detroit because FOODSTAMPS.

    I dunno, there are ways you could see Detroit’s devastation as an act of war…

  80. wiley said,

    February 29, 2012 at 0:37

    If she wants to stuff a priest up her vagina she is free to do so, so long as the priest agrees. Is that not fair enough?

  81. paleotectonics said,

    February 29, 2012 at 0:38

    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/251fa6410b/women-s-health-experts-speak-out?playlist=featured_videos

    Laughing too hard to figger out HTML bullshit!!!

  82. Major Kong said,

    February 29, 2012 at 0:42

    I just wish I had sex half as often as these people think about me having sex.

  83. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 0:45

    Vintage dirty jokes:

    “Up, Madam, without delay: we have discovered that Isabetta has a young man with her in her cell.”

    Now that night the abbess had with her a priest whom she used not seldom to have conveyed to her in a chest; and the report of the sisters making her apprehensive lest for excess of zeal and hurry they should force the door open, she rose in a trice; and huddling on her clothes as best she might in the dark, instead of the veil that they wear, which they call the psalter, she caught up the priest’s breeches, and having clapped them on her head, hied her forth [...]

  84. wiley said,

    February 29, 2012 at 0:46

    Good one Paleo, just sent that link to Clouds. He laugh-ed much.

  85. vacuumslayer said,

    February 29, 2012 at 0:49

    I just wish I had sex half as often as these people think about me having sex.

    Yes and wouldn’t they be shocked to learn how vanilla some of us are? Plus, I hardly ever have the time to make it to the Weekly Obamanation Orgy.

    One woman Roy quoted said we liberal women are forever searching for our next orgasm. Which is so silly because I already found mine–it was behind the sofa.

  86. John Revolta said,

    February 29, 2012 at 0:51

    OT (yeah right): I just saw the first robin of spring. In February. In Kansas City. ??

  87. vacuumslayer said,

    February 29, 2012 at 0:51

    “Up, Madam, without delay: we have discovered that Isabetta has a young man with her in her cell.”
    Now that night the abbess had with her a priest whom she used not seldom to have conveyed to her in a chest; and the report of the sisters making her apprehensive lest for excess of zeal and hurry they should force the door open, she rose in a trice; and huddling on her clothes as best she might in the dark, instead of the veil that they wear, which they call the psalter, she caught up the priest’s breeches, and having clapped them on her head, hied her forth [...]

    I think it’s filthy but I really can’t tell.

  88. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 0:56

    I think it’s filthy but I really can’t tell.

    This is from those unrecognizable days in which priests and nuns spent their time fucking the opposite sex. Hard to grasp.

  89. paleotectonics said,

    February 29, 2012 at 0:58

    Major Kong said,
    February 29, 2012 at 0:42

    I just wish I had half as much sex as I think of me having sex.

    (honey?! Its a joke! Ahhh, fudge!)

  90. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 29, 2012 at 1:00

    Thread Bear said,

    February 28, 2012 at 21:55 (kill)

    Someone with the appropriate skills and software should download a photo of the Soup Nazi, pshop over it the face of the Pope (or any of the GOP candidates) retitle it “the Sex Nazi” and add the caption “No sex for you!!!”

    I don’t know if I have the skill or not, but I do have the software, so here you go.

    I admit to adding a small embellishment to your desired caption.

  91. vacuumslayer said,

    February 29, 2012 at 1:00

    This is from those unrecognizable days in which priests and nuns spent their time fucking the opposite sex. Hard to grasp.

    Heh, that must’ve been what tripped me up.

  92. paleotectonics said,

    February 29, 2012 at 1:02

    OBS, you are a wonderful human being. Damn that’s nice!

  93. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 29, 2012 at 1:11

    OBS, you are a wonderful human being. Damn that’s nice!

    Aw, thanks, ’twas nothing.

  94. Hogeye Grex said,

    February 29, 2012 at 1:11

    I think it’s filthy but I really can’t tell.

    It’s definitely rather psalty.

  95. wiley said,

    February 29, 2012 at 1:17

    Okay. So the nun put the priest’s pants on her head?

    So, this nun tells the Mother Superior that Isabette may have a man in her room so they went to investigate. When Isabette heard the sisters coming, out of fear that the sisters would force their way into her room, she dressed quickly in the dark and mistaking the priest’s pants for her psalter she put the priest’s pants on her head and then walked into the hall to meet the sisters.

    I suppose it was edgy at the time, but it’s not a joke. It’s a sight gag.

  96. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 1:24

    The happy ending:

    Shamefast and timorous, the culprit essayed no defence, and her silence begat pity of her in the rest; but, while the abbess waxed more and more voluble, it chanced that the girl raised her head and espied the abbess’s headgear, and the points that hung down on this side and that. The significance whereof being by no means lost upon her, she quite plucked up heart, and:—”Madam,” quoth she, “so help you God, tie up your coif, and then you may say what you will to me.” Whereto the abbess, not understanding her, replied:—”What coif, lewd woman? So thou hast the effrontery to jest! Think’st thou that what thou hast done is a matter meet for jests?” Whereupon:—”Madam,” quoth the girl again, “I pray you, tie up your coif, and then you may say to me whatever you please.” Which occasioned not a few of the nuns to look up at the abbess’s head, and the abbess herself to raise her hands thereto, and so she and they at one and the same time apprehended Isabetta’s meaning. Wherefore the abbess, finding herself detected by all in the same sin, and that no disguise was possible, changed her tone, and held quite another sort of language than before, the upshot of which was that ’twas impossible to withstand the assaults of the flesh, and that, accordingly, observing due secrecy as theretofore, all might give themselves a good time, as they had opportunity. So, having dismissed Isabetta to rejoin her lover in her cell, she herself returned to lie with her priest. And many a time thereafter, in spite of the envious, Isabetta had her gallant to see her, the others, that lacked lovers, doing in secret the best they might to push their fortunes.

  97. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 29, 2012 at 1:24

    Speaking of jokes, here’s an update to a classic:

    Q: What’s brown and sticky?

    A: A stick! santorum!

  98. N__B said,

    February 29, 2012 at 1:25

    ALL. ONE. BEAR.

    Hey!

  99. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 1:32

    Mom looking for son: Santorum! Santorum!

    Son: I’m already assfucking as fast as I can!

  100. vacuumslayer said,

    February 29, 2012 at 1:38

    So, having dismissed Isabetta to rejoin her lover in her cell, she herself returned to lie with her priest. And many a time thereafter, in spite of the envious, Isabetta had her gallant to see her, the others, that lacked lovers, doing in secret the best they might to push their fortunes.

    And then the double penetration.

  101. vacuumslayer said,

    February 29, 2012 at 1:46

    101!

  102. Johnny Fuckerfaster said,

    February 29, 2012 at 1:57

    Have a care, Mr. McGravitas.

    If that IS your real name.

  103. N__B said,

    February 29, 2012 at 2:01

    I think double penetration looks more like this:

    %=====>0/0<=====%

    than this:

    101

  104. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 29, 2012 at 2:25

    N_B: I’m certain you can come up with something a bit more accurate and/or explicit using the ASCII art generator

  105. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 29, 2012 at 2:30

    I’m not a murderer, the thread was dead when I arrived, honest.

  106. N__B said,

    February 29, 2012 at 2:31

    OBS -

    I lack the requisite input art.

  107. the thread said,

    February 29, 2012 at 2:33

    I’m not dead yet!

  108. the thread said,

    February 29, 2012 at 2:33

    I want to go for a walk!

  109. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 29, 2012 at 2:37

    I lack the requisite input art.

    It’s too bad there isn’t anyplace on the interwebs to find that kind of thing. A shame, really.

  110. paleotectonics said,

    February 29, 2012 at 2:43

    It’s too bad there isn’t anyplace on the interwebs to find that kind of thing. A shame, really.

    lemonparty.com?

  111. N__B said,

    February 29, 2012 at 2:45

    It’s too bad there isn’t anyplace on the interwebs to find that kind of thing.

    I’ve searched everywhere on my AOL portal, but I can’t find anything.

  112. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 2:45

         ⊍
     ⍤⍵☍) ⍧
      ╯♩♩ 

  113. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 29, 2012 at 2:57

    I’ve searched everywhere on my AOL portal, but I can’t find anything.

    Didja check Compuserve?

  114. Big Bad Bald Bastard said,

    February 29, 2012 at 3:01

    lemonparty.com?

    Now that the Tea Party seems to have gone bag of tits up, can we persuade the Red Staters to form a Lemon Party?

    When the RINOs hand you lemons, make a Lemon Party. WOLVERINES!!!

  115. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 29, 2012 at 3:04

    Y’know, lots of people do like lemon in their tea. Maybe you’re on to something…

  116. tensor said,

    February 29, 2012 at 3:10

    pushing the fortune

  117. Thread Bear said,

    February 29, 2012 at 3:17

    Well done, OBS!

  118. Nym said,

    February 29, 2012 at 3:19

    A small Baptist church decided there was a more upfront way to deal with an offending priest than the coverups prefered by the RCC: ban the children.

    No, really.

    http://www.news4jax.com/news/Kids-turned-away-from-church/-/475880/8807406/-/15jjbj9/-/index.html

  119. wiley said,

    February 29, 2012 at 3:42

    Whoa. Well, a lot of the children will probably be relieved by the fact that they will be spared the sexual escapades of the pastor, and be relieved of the message that they were born sinful; but I can’t imagine how this will make most of the children feel about their parents’ judgment.

    I will always relish the day I was released from the burden of attending Southern Baptist church services and Sunday School. Communally enforced self-hatred (if ye be female) and hatred of others is not something I could embrace, to say the least. It was quite an effort to shake it off.

  120. paleotectonics said,

    February 29, 2012 at 3:47

    A small Baptist church decided there was a more upfront way to deal with an offending priest than the coverups prefered by the RCC: ban the children.
    I gotta say, its actually a somewhat refreshing dose of honesty. Birds gotta fly, etc.

    On the other hand, if there is a Prime Mover, I pray all these fuckers burn.

  121. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 4:37

    Just think of how awesome a pastor this guy must be if he gets hired AFTER fucking the kids.

  122. N__B said,

    February 29, 2012 at 4:39

    Suffer the little children.

    So to speak.

  123. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 4:39

    I’ll bet he could burn the church down and bring people to the Lord over the embers.

  124. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 4:54

    And they took strong cities, and the thick darkness. I have heard a voice roareth: he thundereth with the trumpets by the Holy Ghost had given them beyond Jordan: and the Gammadims were in thee do we give thanks, according to all generations. Blessed is he which soweth bountifully shall reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of the Levites, were by themselves in array against the altar of the field, and every man that shall eat their meat in the ears of all your need according to this people? for they were in all the congregation of Israel? For the Egyptians shall know that there is one outwardly; neither is there that day, and not cut down, O LORD. For as the mule, which have not submitted themselves unto the sword; and they were grown? would ye stay for them a daily provision of the children of Azgad, two thousand men. And they were offended at him. The words of the children of Israel gathered the chief priests and the Ethiopians before Asa, and before his shearer, so opened he their eyes, when it brake forth, as if they be not redeemed in these things Jesus went unto Balak, Lo, I come and abuse me. But unto every man hath power upon earth he shewed unto the LORD, happy is every one for another. And he delivered Jesus to shew in the land of wheat, or of the city: and he fled with all the day of the evening sacrifice, that I am merciful, saith the LORD, Even by the things which must shortly come to him, and said, Mark, I pray thee, speak one word unto Moses, saying, Command the priests that blew with the old.

  125. N__B said,

    February 29, 2012 at 4:59

    And they took strong cities, and the thick darkness.

    Pro tip: Irkutsk is the key to winning Risk.

  126. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 5:08

    Another try at the DP:

    sexy guy
    sexy lady
    ?n? ?x?s

  127. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 5:09

    Muffed it.

    sexy guy
    sexy lady
    ʎnƃ ʎxǝs

  128. S. cerevisiae said,

    February 29, 2012 at 5:18

    Question for the night: Will Rmoney be covered in a surge of Santorum? We can only hope.

  129. Fenwick said,

    February 29, 2012 at 5:27

    if there is a Prime Mover

    You have doubts? This was the Wehrmacht’s best. Towed the 88′s.

  130. Fenwick said,

    February 29, 2012 at 5:30

    Command the priests that blew with the old.

    There are old alterboys?

  131. rodert rudis said,

    February 29, 2012 at 5:32

    Is is just me or does anyone else think it odd that we never see any news on the nuns, only the padres? I’m not a Catholic, in fact I’m not anything, so I never had any kind of contact with a priest or other clergy person. However, several years ago I made a trip over to Golfo de Fonseca to see the world’s largest mangroves. While there I caught a launch to take me over to Isla del Tigre. A fisherman told me that the CIA had built a lookout station at the top of the hill and because it had been abandoned years earlier it was safe to visit. From the peak you can see El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
    Anyways, while I was climbing the hill, using a trail known only to the locals, I came across three nude women rolling around on a blanket. I stopped dead in my tracks and made as little noise as I possibly could. I really felt like an intruder and I didn’t want them to think I was spying on them. As I backed down the path I noticed that they had thrown their clothing over some shrubs near where they were sprawled. The clothing was nun’s clothing, habits I guess you call them. I was shocked, really. I’ve never told this story before.

  132. Helmut Monotreme said,

    February 29, 2012 at 5:50

    Interesting story, but it needs a little punching up before it is ready for the penthouse forum. try it again, this time starting with the phrase “I thought that this would never happen to me…”

  133. paleotectonics said,

    February 29, 2012 at 5:55

    There are old alterboys?

    When I was in my last year of high school, one of the parishes that fed my school was, in effect, dying (and did not, in fact, last a great deal longer). Neighborhood graying, etc. Due to a general lack of chillun’s in that parish, the altar boys were drawn from a limited pool, and high school acquaintances, 16, 17, maybe even 18 yeas old, served as servers. So, not really old, but not 12 or 12 either.

  134. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 6:11

    There are old alterboys?

    Wasn’t that Jayne County’s first band?

  135. Pupienus Maximus said,

    February 29, 2012 at 6:25

    We goin old school tonite. Salisbury steak, sort of, it’s my interpretation of the classic. Decadent mashed potates with a metric fuckton of butter and cream. That’s right, none of that milk crap in this household, it’s real cream baybee. The “Salisbury steak” is kicked up with shitloads of umami and a good dosage of fresh herbs. Steamed peas. Froze peas is a gift from gawd, truly one of the highest achievements of civilization.

  136. Smut Clyde said,

    February 29, 2012 at 6:47

    try it again, this time starting with the phrase “I thought that this would never happen to me…”

    Not to be out-done.

  137. Hogeye Grex said,

    February 29, 2012 at 6:54

    I’ve never told this story before.

    Well, you know what they say.

  138. S. cerevisiae said,

    February 29, 2012 at 7:04

    Peas be upon you, Pup.

    Well, not literally.

  139. rodert rudis said,

    February 29, 2012 at 7:13

    I’ve never told this story before.

    That wasn’t necessary. I don’t know why I stuck it on the end of the story. It’s not like it’s some kind of big damn secret, it’s just that I kind of felt like I had invaded their space and just telling the story was a violation of their privacy.

    I decided to spend the night in Amapala, the town on Isla del Tigre, and try the hike again the following morning. That evening while walking back from a little comedor I passed the same three nuns. They seemed so holy, even knowing what I knew. Dress and demeanor count for a lot I guess.

  140. Whale Chowder said,

    February 29, 2012 at 7:41

    Tigris has her own island?

  141. Major Kong said,

    February 29, 2012 at 8:45

    Tigris has her own island?

    Well sure. Where else are you going to build the giant death-ray and hold the world ransom for one…..million…..dollars

  142. M. Bouffant said,

    February 29, 2012 at 9:32

    I already found mine–it was behind the sofa.

    Ahem: Perhaps if you ran that vacuum more often. Now may may I please have a sammich?

    Plus which: “Orgasmic truffle” would be the band name of the wk. Or the crummy restaurant/night club name of the wk.

  143. M. Bouffant said,

    February 29, 2012 at 13:49

    Hello …

  144. John Revolta said,

    February 29, 2012 at 13:53

    Santorum comes in #2!!

    bow chicka wow chicka wow

    If you know what I mean and I think you do!!

    bow chicka wow chicka wow wow wow

  145. vacuumslayer said,

    February 29, 2012 at 15:20

    Wow. The Google doodle today is really cute and cool.

  146. vacuumslayer said,

    February 29, 2012 at 15:44

    Awwwwww, I missed all the DP last night. Bummer!

    Also, M. has apparently never taken note of my nym.

  147. Pryme said,

    February 29, 2012 at 16:04

    Looks like Chris Christie…(*shades*)…isn’t pulling his weight.

    Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!

  148. Major Kong said,

    February 29, 2012 at 16:48

    “Orgasmic truffle” would be the band name of the wk.

    Or the next flavor of Ben & Jerry’s.

  149. actor212 said,

    February 29, 2012 at 16:58

    Or the next flavor of Ben & Jerry’s.

    Well, they’re busy trying to roll out their new Linsanity flavor before Jeremy Lin tanks.

  150. actor212 said,

    February 29, 2012 at 17:00

    OT (yeah right): I just saw the first robin of spring. In February. In Kansas City. ??

    Bah! That’s nothing: Mr Softee just drove around two nights ago. In NYC. In February.

  151. Major Kong said,

    February 29, 2012 at 17:16

    We had to thread our way through a huge line of thunderstorms last night that stretched across several states. In February.

    I think we broke the planet.

  152. kg said,

    February 29, 2012 at 17:18

    I think we broke the planet.

    Maybe, but algore is fat and has a big house that he AIRCONDITIONS!!! so sucket libs

  153. El Manquécito said,

    February 29, 2012 at 17:32

    I think we broke the planet.

    Entirely too little damage in Branson. Great place for a tornado though.

  154. Major Kong said,

    February 29, 2012 at 17:35

    Entirely too little damage in Branson.

    The Simpsons did a sketch about “All those performers you thought were dead are actually in Branson”.

  155. actor212 said,

    February 29, 2012 at 17:44

    The Simpsons did a sketch about “All those performers you thought were dead are actually in Branson”.

    Branson, MO: It’s like Calgary, only less snowy.

  156. El Manquécito said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:04

    Romney pulls it out in Michigan, still dogged by Santorum.

  157. After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Newborn Live? said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:17

    1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
    2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    4Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
    Correspondence to
    Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au
    Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.

    Received 25 November 2011
    Revised 26 January 2012
    Accepted 27 January 2012
    Published Online First 23 February 2012

    Abstract

    Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

    Introduction

    Severe abnormalities of the fetus and risks for the physical and/or psychological health of the woman are often cited as valid reasons for abortion. Sometimes the two reasons are connected, such as when a woman claims that a disabled child would represent a risk to her mental health. However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself.

    A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.

    Such an issue arises, for example, when an abnormality has not been detected during pregnancy or occurs during delivery. Perinatal asphyxia, for instance, may cause severe brain damage and result in severe mental and/or physical impairments comparable with those for which a woman could request an abortion. Moreover, abnormalities are not always, or cannot always be, diagnosed through prenatal screening even if they have a genetic origin. This is more likely to happen when the disease is not hereditary but is the result of genetic mutations occurring in the gametes of a healthy parent. One example is the case of Treacher-Collins syndrome (TCS), a condition that affects 1 in every 10?000 births causing facial deformity and related physiological failures, in particular potentially life-threatening respiratory problems. Usually those affected by TCS are not mentally impaired and they are therefore fully aware of their condition, of being different from other people and of all the problems their pathology entails. Many parents would choose to have an abortion if they find out, through genetic prenatal testing, that their fetus is affected by TCS. However, genetic prenatal tests for TCS are usually taken only if there is a family history of the disease. Sometimes, though, the disease is caused by a gene mutation that intervenes in the gametes of a healthy member of the couple. Moreover, tests for TCS are quite expensive and it takes several weeks to get the result. Considering that it is a very rare pathology, we can understand why women are not usually tested for this disorder.

    However, such rare and severe pathologies are not the only ones that are likely to remain undetected until delivery; even more common congenital diseases that women are usually tested for could fail to be detected. An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down’s syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing.2 This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down’s syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth.

    Abortion and after-birth abortion

    Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers3 for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.

    Also medical professionals have recognised the need for guidelines about cases in which death seems to be in the best interest of the child. In The Netherlands, for instance, the Groningen Protocol (2002) allows to actively terminate the life of ‘infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering’.4

    Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down’s syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’.3 But, in fact, people with Down’s syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5

    Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

    In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

    Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

    There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:

    The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.

    It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

    We are going to justify these two points in the following two sections.

    The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent

    The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

    Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

    Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’, a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X. There are many ways in which an individual can be harmed, and not all of them require that she values or is even aware of what she is deprived of. A person might be ‘harmed’ when someone steals from her the winning lottery ticket even if she will never find out that her ticket was the winning one. Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,6 which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.

    Those who are only capable of experiencing pain and pleasure (like perhaps fetuses and certainly newborns) have a right not to be inflicted pain. If, in addition to experiencing pain and pleasure, an individual is capable of making any aims (like actual human and non-human persons), she is harmed if she is prevented from accomplishing her aims by being killed. Now, hardly can a newborn be said to have aims, as the future we imagine for it is merely a projection of our minds on its potential lives. It might start having expectations and develop a minimum level of self-awareness at a very early stage, but not in the first days or few weeks after birth. On the other hand, not only aims but also well-developed plans are concepts that certainly apply to those people (parents, siblings, society) who could be negatively or positively affected by the birth of that child. Therefore, the rights and interests of the actual people involved should represent the prevailing consideration in a decision about abortion and after-birth abortion.

    It is true that a particular moral status can be attached to a non-person by virtue of the value an actual person (eg, the mother) attributes to it. However, this ‘subjective’ account of the moral status of a newborn does not debunk our previous argument. Let us imagine that a woman is pregnant with two identical twins who are affected by genetic disorders. In order to cure one of the embryos the woman is given the option to use the other twin to develop a therapy. If she agrees, she attributes to the first embryo the status of ‘future child’ and to the other one the status of a mere means to cure the ‘future child’. However, the different moral status does not spring from the fact that the first one is a ‘person’ and the other is not, which would be nonsense, given that they are identical. Rather, the different moral statuses only depends on the particular value the woman projects on them. However, such a projection is exactly what does not occur when a newborn becomes a burden to its family.

    The fetus and the newborn are potential persons

    Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.

    It might be claimed that someone is harmed because she is prevented from becoming a person capable of appreciating her own being alive. Thus, for example, one might say that we would have been harmed if our mothers had chosen to have an abortion while they were pregnant with us7 or if they had killed us as soon as we were born. However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.

    If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred.

    A consequence of this position is that the interests of actual people over-ride the interest of merely potential people to become actual ones. This does not mean that the interests of actual people always over-ride any right of future generations, as we should certainly consider the well-being of people who will inhabit the planet in the future. Our focus is on the right to become a particular person, and not on the right to have a good life once someone will have started to be a person. In other words, we are talking about particular individuals who might or might not become particular persons depending on our choice, and not about those who will certainly exist in the future but whose identity does not depend on what we choose now.

    The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends,8 is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence. Actual people’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of. Sometimes this situation can be prevented through an abortion, but in some other cases this is not possible. In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. We might still have moral duties towards future generations in spite of these future people not existing yet. But because we take it for granted that such people will exist (whoever they will be), we must treat them as actual persons of the future. This argument, however, does not apply to this particular newborn or infant, because we are not justified in taking it for granted that she will exist as a person in the future. Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about.

    Adoption as an alternative to after-birth abortion?
    A possible objection to our argument is that after-birth abortion should be practised just on potential people who could never have a life worth living.9 Accordingly, healthy and potentially happy people should be given up for adoption if the family cannot raise them up. Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone’s right but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)?

    Our reply is the following. We have previously discussed the argument from potentiality, showing that it is not strong enough to outweigh the consideration of the interests of actual people. Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero. On this perspective, the interests of the actual people involved matter, and among these interests, we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption. Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief.10 It is true that grief and sense of loss may accompany both abortion and after-birth abortion as well as adoption, but we cannot assume that for the birthmother the latter is the least traumatic. For example, ‘those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss, but natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible’.11

    We are not suggesting that these are definitive reasons against adoption as a valid alternative to after-birth abortion. Much depends on circumstances and psychological reactions. What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.

    Conclusions
    If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

    Two considerations need to be added.

    First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

    Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

    Acknowledgments
    We would like to thank Professor Sergio Bartolommei, University of Pisa, who read an early draft of this paper and gave us very helpful comments. The responsibility for the content remains with the authors.

  158. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:24

    Well darn it, now I WON’T go have that abortion.

  159. smedley said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:26

    I, for one, congratulate the moron for learning how to copy-paste. Here is your gold star. Now you can go back to your room and, maybe, learn how to read.

  160. Major Kong said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:26

    After-Birth Abortion

    We have those already. We call it “Acceptable collateral damage”.

  161. Whale Chowder said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:27

    Well darn it, now I WON’T go have that abortion.

    Yeah, better & more convenient to wait ’till it’s born then crack it over the head with a mallet. Also, the wingnuts won’t be on your case.

  162. Pryme said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:29

    Conclusions
    If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn the government isn’t willing to take care of children that would have been aborted, regardless of reason, then the government should not force women to have children they cannot take care of.

    See? It wasn’t that hard.

  163. After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Newborn Live? said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:30

    Actually, the article is from Australia, a country that has a massive cradle-to-grave welfare state.

  164. Pryme said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:33

    After-Birth Abortion
    We have those already. We call it “Acceptable collateral damage”.

    …and “dead peasant insurance.”

  165. Pryme said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:41

    Actually, the article is from Australia,

    Wait…wait, wait a darn minute; this ain’t even from America? What kind of commie terrorist are you? If you’re gonna insult Americans, you do it with American ideas from American minds!

    a country that has a massive cradle-to-grave welfare state.

    I can’t imagine that their state is that massive if their killing newborns before they can reach the cradle.

  166. Thread Bear said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:41

    After-Birth Abortion

    Wait, what? Did Santorum take the afterbirth home and introduce that to his children too?

  167. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:42

    Note that Trolly McTrollypants is very concerned.
    ~

  168. Pryme said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:43

    Well darn it, now I WON’T go have that abortion.

    It should go without saying, but if men (as they are currently constructed) could get pregnant, there would be an abortion clinic on every freakin’ block.

  169. Thread Bear said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:45

    It should go without saying, but if men (as they are currently constructed) could get pregnant, there would be an abortion clinic on every freakin’ block.

    There would be a stripper pole in the recovery room and they’d serve bee and chicken wings.

  170. Thread Bear said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:45

    BEER and chicken wings.

  171. Fenwick said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:48

    Odd thought that popped into my head about religious tests for holding office: I think the law should bar Xians from holding any elective or appointive office. For example, If the Rapture comes, legislatures would be hamstrung by the lack of a quorum.

    Also Xians should be barred from employment in public-service positions and public-safety positions. We shouldn’t have to risk riding in busses that could become driverless at any moment.

    It’s also a national security issue. The Rapture would screw-up military chain-of-command something awful. Also if TSA screeners disappear, bomb-laden Terra-ists could board airplanes with impunity and crash into our Freedumbs,

    Just sayin’.

  172. Nymstradamus said,

    February 29, 2012 at 18:48

    they’d serve bee and chicken wings

    No thanks. The honey on those wings would be a tad too organic for my tastes.

  173. kg said,

    February 29, 2012 at 19:01

    http://wonkette.com/465077/your-michigan-mitt-arizona-too-election-night-death-blog

    Is subby mcg ghostwriting for Wonkette?

  174. N__B said,

    February 29, 2012 at 19:18

    Bee crunchy. Mongo eat food without exoskeleton.

  175. Pryme said,

    February 29, 2012 at 19:20

    It’s like the guy we have in the White House now is more respectable or something.

  176. El Manquécito said,

    February 29, 2012 at 19:20

    Mongo eat food without exoskeleton.

    The eatin’s not the problem it’s the chitin.

  177. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 19:32

    Is subby mcg ghostwriting for Wonkette?

    My latest Newt is a cutie-pie.

  178. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 19:33

    Fucking Google assholes!

  179. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 19:34

    Grrr.

  180. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 29, 2012 at 19:50

    Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 4:54 (kill)

    And they took strong cities…

    I love that it’s nearly impossible for me to tell if that’s real bibble or janusnode. They both make no sense whatsoever.

    Fucking Google assholes!

    Indeed. Related: I finally figured out how to turn off that stupid new CAPTCHA they implemented. That may finally push my blog up into the thousands hundreds tens of comments.

  181. Pryme said,

    February 29, 2012 at 19:53

    Grover Norquist came of with his Tax Pledge at age 12; he actually admits this.

  182. smedley said,

    February 29, 2012 at 20:04

    Nate Silver has his projections for the 5 big prizes of Super Tuesday:

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

    Gingrich wins Georgia; Santorum wins Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee; Romney wins Virginia. It seems to me, that, if it actually happens like this, that the failure of Gingrich and/or Santorum to get on the Virginia ballot could actually be a big fucking deal.

  183. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 20:21

    Indeed. Related: I finally figured out how to turn off that stupid new CAPTCHA they implemented.

    Yeah, I got rid of mine. The positive is that the spam trap has been really good.

  184. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 29, 2012 at 20:29

    The positive is that the spam trap has been really good.

    Yes, it is good. Turning on moderation for comments on old posts seems to help as well. Which makes me wonder why the hell they made that horrific new CAPTCHA in the first place. Other than trying to take FYWordpress’ place and become FYBlogger.

  185. Major Kong said,

    February 29, 2012 at 20:36

    Yeah, this is really normal for February

    US Midwest storm leaves nine dead and dozens injured

  186. M. Bouffant said,

    February 29, 2012 at 20:43

    bee and chicken wings

    I fucking love bee wings. Talk about light & tasty. And deep-fried? Help me, Jesus!

  187. actor212 said,

    February 29, 2012 at 20:51

    After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Newborn Live? said,
    February 29, 2012 at 18:17

    I thought you didn’t care what furriners did, Troofie?

  188. actor212 said,

    February 29, 2012 at 20:52

    they’d serve bee and chicken wings

    Is this a new thing? Bee wings? Because it would explain the die-off last year

  189. actor212 said,

    February 29, 2012 at 20:54

    Oooh, After-birth abortion?

    Turns out, it’s from a conservative think tank….

  190. Smut Clyde said,

    February 29, 2012 at 20:56

    Actually, the article is from Australia
    Both authors are from Italy. First author now divides his time between Monash and Milan Universities; corresponding author is co-affiliated to Melbourne University and Oxford. Published in an Oxford-based journal.

    a country that has a massive cradle-to-grave welfare state.
    That would be news to Australians.

    Trollypants is triggering my “Ignorant jerk” detector.

  191. Helmut Monotreme said,

    February 29, 2012 at 20:59

    I can only handle the boneless bee wings, something about picking bones out of my teeth just grosses me out.

  192. Pupienus Maximus said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:04

    OH NOES! Davey Jones is dead.

  193. Chris said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:07

    Gingrich wins Georgia; Santorum wins Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee; Romney wins Virginia. It seems to me, that, if it actually happens like this, that the failure of Gingrich and/or Santorum to get on the Virginia ballot could actually be a big fucking deal.

    Holy dog shit. The only thing primary Romney wins is the one where his competition’s not allowed to compete?

    This is bad, bad, bad news for Ovenmitt.

  194. Pryme said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:11

    Davey Jones is dead.

    I can’t daydream believe it.

  195. smedley said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:12

    “OH NOES! Davey Jones is dead.”

    So Bowie can use his real name again?

  196. Helmut Monotreme said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:19

    If Davy Jones is dead, who will collect the souls of sailors lost at sea?

  197. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:20

    OH NOES! Davey Jones is dead.

    Nah, just visiting his locker.

  198. Oregon Beer Snob said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:21

    Dammit Helmut!

  199. Chris said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:22

    Damn you both for beating me to a Pirates reference. Ah, well.

  200. Pryme said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:23

    Nah, just visiting his locker.

    You have no idea how badly I wanted to use that one, but there are some seriously violent Jones fans out there (as the Brady Bunch proved more than once).

  201. Lame Troll said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:24

    ^V

  202. smedley said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:30

    New thread, but, relevant @ about 2:30:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNHJcj4thcc

  203. Cerberus said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:34

    Trolls got you down? Why don’t you try our patented New Post Formula for instant relief. New Post Formula, for that painful itching sensation.

  204. Nymstradamus said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:37

    “OH NOES! Davey Jones is dead.”

    Has Maureen McCormick been reached for comment?

  205. M. Bouffant said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:38

    The positive is that the spam trap has been really good.

    Yeah, but I ‘m sick & tired (also doubtful) of deleting Anonymous from my Gmail.

  206. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:40

    Yeah, but I ‘m sick & tired (also doubtful) of deleting Anonymous from my Gmail.

    I’m not sure why I even use the email option. I keep track of comments via the RSS feeds. This in Firefox (rather than a reader) is clean and useful:

    http://mbouffant.blogspot.com/feeds/comments/default?alt=rss

  207. actor212 said,

    February 29, 2012 at 21:57

    Davey Jones is dead.

    I can’t daydream believe it.

    So Bowie can use his real name again?

    who will collect the souls of sailors lost at sea?

    Nah, just visiting his locker.

    We took the last train to Snarksville.

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()