Pastor Swank Asks an Interesting Question

Tha’ Swanksta asks:

Once one defends the unborn child in the womb on a moral base, how then could an ethical individual ever change to becoming a defender of slaying a womb infant?

It’s a really good question, and I’d answer it if I knew what the hell it meant.

Bonus Swankism (emphasis mine):

Today if one stands up in a secular classroom to debate against Darwin, he is derided. Mark it down that liberals are not liberal-minded. They are extremely closed-minded. If you do not agree with their nomenclature, conclusions, linguistic styles, postures and so forth, you are classified as an ignoramus.

Y’think the Pastor’s upset that we’ve been laughing at his syntax? Yeah, me too. Merry Christmas, bitchez.

Luda Clauz sez, “Ho, ho, HOOOOOOOOO!”


Comments: 30


Any friend of the unborn, is a friend of mine, Pastor, but your comments about the way liberals think is a thinly-veiled imitation of my “liberal groupthink” concept. If your going to steal from the good doctor, then by all means, do it with a little more boldness.


Is “liberal groupthink” anything like “rightwing echo chamber?”

Also, filed under needlessly picky: It’s “you’re” not “your.”


I think I’ve figured out the Reverend’s question. It’s “How much wood would a woodchuck chuck” run through medieval Urdu translation software and back again.


Philosophical dilemma:

Once one proves that the Swankster is full of shit how can the Swankster reconcile its belief that it is a moral being with its failure to improve the fate of all mankind by shutting the fuck up?


I have a li’l Alvistide present for y’all….

True story: my mother’s side of the family is Jewish (which means, incidentally, that so am I). But I think we actually have come to define “nonobservant Jew”.

A few years ago, my mom’s sister decided to host a family reunion. It just happened to coincide with Chanukkah, so we were all looking forward to a wonderful evening with family, and then a pretty religious observance at the end of the evening.

My aunt, who is a sweet, slightly crazy lady, is also a stereotypical East Coast Jewish Liberal. So, needless to say, she had the whole thing catered.

Somehow, she neglected to let the caterer know we’re Jewish, and apparently just told him to bring enough food for twenty people. So, after a lovely evening of family and friends, my aunt got out the caterer’s tray and pulled back the foil cover to reveal – a ham.

A Chanukkah ham.

Which the entire family ate with great relish.

So, on this first night of Chanukkah – oh, and that Christmas thingy, too – I hope you all have great fun, and remember never to take yourselves too seriously. Have some Chanukkah ham for me!


The perfect quote for the Swanksta: “Rather than do an interview with me, which would be facinating because of the interesting word usements I structure, I thought we might go out and have a cultural tour of LA.”


Sounds to me that Pastor Swanky Slank is announcing that if you’re pro-life you can’t possibly be pro-war. It’s a statistical certainty that preganant women die in wars.


I think they prefer you use the term “womb-bound Americans”


“debate” against Darwin? That’s a neat trick, debating a dead guy. And yet they still lose…

The reason you get classified an ignoramus, ignoramus, is because your idea of “debate” usually involves zero knowledge of the evidence involved, and is usually regurgitated garbage from people who insist the earth is 6,000 years old. If you had bothered to crack a fucking book, you might have learned that evolution is supported by massive amounts of evidence from a wide range of disciplines. But you don’t fucking care about truth, you just care about a panicky defense of the little reality-bubble you’ve created. Again, fuck you, fundies.


To all of you who aren’t ragingly insane, have a wonderful holiday.


Damn! Left out again!


My question would be something more along the lines of “Once one defends the unborn child in the womb and opposes the slaying a womb infant, how then can he support this nation’s military-industrial rape of those infants and their mothers out here in the light and fresh air?”


I agree that many of us pro-lifers don’t go far enough in our pro-life positions. I am working towards being more consistent in promoting life in all spheres. For example, while we need to keep fighting for the unborn, we must also fight to make conditions better for would-be infants when they are delivered. That’s what this next song, HOMELESS 4 THE HOLIDAYS, my final gift to all of you, is about. Of course it will be a “gift” only to those prepared to receive it. To all others, it will be experienced as a lump of coal.

Dan Someone, I know that you would like to rain on my hit parade, that you’re probably rejoicing that “Black Santa” has slipped to number 30 on the top 50 mp3 downloads at
and that when you hear this next song, you will be hoping it never makes it to any chart at all. (I won’t hold it against you as it is nearly Christmas Day :)).

But that won’t stop me from releasing this song. I have been pregnant with this, my follow-up to Black Santa, for well over 9-months. It’s time I delivered this baby, and played Santa Stork, dropping it off at your door, just in time for whatever it is you are celebrating:

words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2005
performed by Dr. BLT & Michael C.


Let me be the first to defend the slaying of womb infants! Boooo, womb infants! I spit on you! Well, no, that’s not technically right. I spit on your mom, or should I say, your womb baby vessel!

Womb infants are responsible for global warming. They selfishly drive up gas prices. They don’t support the troops! They are not with us, they are against us! Hisss, hiss! Down with womb infant oppression!


I also agree that many pro-lifers don’t go far enough in their pro-life positions.

If only we could get them all to stop washing their hands and using antibiotics.


Major Woody, you talk like someone who has never been a “womb infant.”


Not only was Major Woody a womb infant, he was also once a testicle tenant.

You guys all need to stop and think about that the next time you put on those bikini underpants things you wear. Some day, your future children will sue you for child abuse over those.


I’m with you all the way, Jillian. That’s why when someone, on this Boxer’s Day, asks me, “Boxers or briefs?” I reply confidently, “Boxers!” Of course, someday, my answer to that same question will be, “Depends,” but by that time there won’t be anything left to kill.


Swanksta’ says:

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito took a very definite stand against Roe v. Wade. Therefore, that moral stance should remain intact for his lifetime if he is sincerely a moral individual. If he is opportunistic, then anything goes, as in John Kerry the waffler.”

Take that, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms. Shame on you for not standing proudly and resolutely behind your early racist views. You’re not allowed to broaden your vision and change your mind over decades. What’s that you say? You never did change your minds, you just pretended to? Hmmm. I wonder if Alito could be doing that too?


cowalker: Giving up discriminatory practices that deny a whole category of people a voice, and basis for choice, and a future, represents a significant moral step forward in evolutionary terms.

On the other hand, giving up ones inclination to discriminate against the unborn, thus denying an important category of people (underdeveloped though they may be) a voice, a basis (future) choice, and a future, represents a significant step backwards in the process of de-evolution. Therein lies the difference.


The above last paragraph, first sentence, should read:
On the other hand, retaining ones inclination…


Not to nitpick, Doc but wouldn’t a “step backwards in the process of de-evolution” by default be a step forward in the process of evolution?
We must stop the mangling of syntax babies international.


Yeah, you’re right again, mmm…lemonheads. I guess my mind has taken a vacation along with the rest of me. Jury, please strike my most recent two posts from the record.


You’re Losin’ My Mind
performed by
words and music by Dr. BLT & D. Ens

or visit:


Yes, denying rights to things whose very existence cannot be confidently determined would undermine all of civilization.

In fact, in light of this, after having scene a show last night on TLC called “I am My Own Twin” – which is about a woman who contains the remnants of the fraternal twin she shared the womb with in the cells of her body – I demand this woman be brought up on murder charges.

After all, life begins at conception. And that other twin would have gone on to become a born baby, had her body not be cruelly and thoughtlessly absorbed by the blob of protoplasm that became the adult woman in this TV show. She is a womb-murderer! We must stop her before she womb-murderers again!

(If anyone’s really curious, the show was about a woman who has a condition known as “chimeraism”, in which some of the cells in her body were originally part of a fraternal twin that was conceived at the same time she was. Fraternal twinning occurs when a woman releases two ova instead of one at ovulation, and both become fertilized at the time of conception. Because both twins come from separate eggs, they have different DNA, and don’t look any more alike than regular brothers and sisters – they don’t even have to be the same gender.

Sometimes, something will go wrong with the embryological development of one of the twins, and the material making up that twin will be incorporated into the body of the remaining twin. The way this women found out she was a chimera was that she had to have a paternity test run on one of her children, and in the course of the investigation it was determined that the child was not biologically “hers”, despite the fact that it came out of her uterus. It turned out that the egg that produced that child had the DNA of the nonexistent twin – as did several other of her kids.

Or, to put the whole thing more simply – people who want to go spouting off about how “life begins at conception” really ought to learn a little something about embryology before they open their mouths and make themselves look stupid.)


And your point is exactly what, Jillian?: That because nature, from time to time, offers the world genetic freak shows, that we should not, as a society, try to preserve and sustain human life and defend the rights of the unborn to the degree that it is feasible and reasonable to do so?


My point is that this woman killed her sibling.

Look, it’s simple. Either life begins at the very moment of conception, or it doesn’t. If it does, than this woman is a murderer. “Reasonable” has nothing to do with it – either EVERY conceptus has ALL legal rights from the moment of conception, or they don’t.

And if they don’t….well, then, your position isn’t all that different from mine. We just disagree about what “reasonable” is. I don’t think it’s reasonable to make a woman risk her life in a pregnancy if she doesn’t want to. You do.

But then again, your standard of reason includes having conversations with invisible beings that nobody else can hear, so I suppose I ought to make allowances.


“But then again, your standard of reason includes having conversations with invisible beings that nobody else can hear…”
Invisible only to those who are spiritually blind, or those who close their eyes to all things supernatural for fear of what the concomitant light might expose.

As far as reasonable is concerned, all I am suggesting is that we, as a society, seek to significantly reduce the number of abortioins, and work towards providing viable alternatives to women who feel like abortion is their only option. This is a position that even Hillary at least pays lip service to.


BTW, Jillian, Happy New Year!


ROe3GX comment6 ,


(comments are closed)