The Bulging Mailbag

On June 3  prairie dog published a news brief about some scummy anti-abortion bus ads with the tag line “growing… growing… gone”, similar to the awful image on this page (I saw the bus ad but didn’t have my camera and have had no luck snapping a picture since). The ads were bought by Regina Pro-Life, an organization run by people who apparently think the world is in such terrific shape the only cause needing their whiny moral angst is the plight of pre-human tissue. Children bombed in Afghanistan? Silence. Hungry kids in Regina? Silence. Kids molested by the same priests who condemn birth control, sex education and a woman’s right to choose? Silence. Fetus potentially terminated at nine weeks by a woman with the audacity to make her own decisions for her own body?  FREAKOUT!!! Anyway. I don’t think much of them and they don’t think much of me. But boy, run a story about their crap ads and you set all-time prairie dog reader mail records. We’re at the dimming end of July and STILL getting mail from the no-choicers. Here’s some tasteful tidbits from our upcoming issue’s record-length letters page:

“It is ultimately more unfair to an “unwanted” child to kill them when many couples painfully want children. There are alternatives to choose from (e.g. adoption).”

And:

“Take a hard look at this world and perhaps you will recognize that the world’s worst injustice, abortion, is much worse than the cruel slavery of human beings in the past. And yet you and many others, in a mental slumber, support abortion under the dehumanizing rubric of ‘choice’.”

We also have pro-choice defenders pouring gasoline on the debate:

Do your pro-life readers wish to see increased child poverty and eventual increase in crime rates? Would they be willing to pay higher taxes for bigger prisons and more police to protect them from the hordes of angry, unwanted young men and women who were born, through no fault of their own, to unprepared mothers? Would they be willing to open their homes to adopt or foster these precious souls, some of whom likely have FAS or were born with addictions and other afflictions?  Yeah, I thought not. Economically, legalized abortion was the best thing to happen to this, or any, country.  That’s a fact.

Some reading to look forward to on Thursday!

Besides the letters we’re printing, I’ve also had some interesting e-mail exchanges in the last week like the one that produced these gems from a reader:

I know about unwanted babies but that doesn’t make it right to kill them before birth so the mother continues her immoral life.  Every human has the choice to have sex or not have it as they recognize the consequences.

And:

Stephen, I grieve every day  for the chaos in our world. I am very aware how bad things are.  I know the solution and would be amiss if I did tell you.  We need to get back to God and live according to his direction.

My understanding is that God’s directions are maddeningly obtuse. No one can agree on what they are and  his followers tend to think their interpretations are always right. Does the Bible say masturbation causes hairy palms or is that marrying your sister? Where does Jesus stand on the gold standard vs. the fiat money system? People just can’t agree on the important points. Cue heretic burnings, schisms and other pointless historical stupidity.

Welcome to to the world of organized religion, where all personality disorders and cognitive malfunctions are welcome.

I’m so glad I’m an atheist.

After next issue we’ll be taking a break from the topic on our letters page, because enough’s enough already. Why should the anti-choicers get all the space when there are evolution-skeptics, climate change deniers, dinosaur-hunting creationists and probably a few stray wizards, alchemists and druids with axes to grind?

But for one more issue, there will be flame and ire on prairie dog’s letters page. You’ve been warned (or should I say tantalized?)

Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth will never, ever pass up a chance to make a Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo pun.

4 thoughts on “The Bulging Mailbag”

  1. Ooooh goody! Do I get another bratwurst? Has someone offered to mate with me? Yes yes? Can’t hardly wait! So excited!

  2. It used to be said that sex, politics and religion were the topics to avoid in conversation. Implicit in that advice was the awareness that middle ground was highly unlikely; that polarized opinions held sway. As any discussion of abortion involves all three topics, the polarization and lack of middle ground are intensified to the 3rd power. Interestingly enough, the discussion of climate change is fast becoming (if it hasn’t already) similarly charged. That said, the right to freedom of expression holds for everyone, whether we agree with them or not, or find their means of expression distasteful or unpersuasive. I’m rather glad that there is no right to not be offended.

  3. hey barb, have to object to lumping climate change in with polarized debates like abortion.

    There is a great deal of respectful and honest, while at the same time heated debate about the science of climate change. It’s carried out by scientists though and largely gets ignored (except when it’s being misrepresented by climate deniers in the media). Take the Stoat blog for instance. (It’s on Scienceblogs.)

    Like all legitimate scientists, Stoat knows that global warming is real and human-caused. But, from what I’ve read of his stuff, he’s highly and loudly skeptical of tipping points on arctic sea ice argument. He pushes back hard against any rhetoric that suggests climate change could be suddenly catastrophic.

    His skepticism is science-based, though, so it’s a good, worthwhile read. And I find it somewhat reassuring in the face of all the more apocalyptic stuff I’ve read.

    Compare Stoat to Monckton, Morano, Singer, Ball, etc who basically promote anti-science. Their positions shift from “global warming isn’t happening” (which is patent nonsense) to “people aren’t causing it” to “global warming is good for you.” Because these guys are well funded, charismatic to certain groups, and hold a position many find reassuring, they’re winning the fight for the public mind.

    Meanwhile, the scientists have been conducting themselves politely in public for years. (Although the CRU emails reveal that privately the climate-denier shenanigans were getting under their skin.) They’re the ones who are being dragged through the mud right now.

    You’ve talked on this blog and RUE a lot about “critical mass.” Thing is, up until recently, the facts had been slowly winning out and a critical mass was building to cope with global warming. But a well-funded, self-interested, anti-science backlash has sabotaged that critical mass simply by being very loud and willing to mangle the truth to win their argument.

    You can’t win out against that by seeking compromise.

    If climate scientists and campaigners are sounding polarized and stubborn, I think it’s motivated by frustration.

    Personally, while I think there’s definitely a need for respectful discourse among scientists (and it’s happening), I don’t think the science deniers deserve any respect whatsoever.

    In short, yeah, maybe that debate is polarized. But I’m okay with it.

  4. As are the pro-choice and pro-life advocates (OK with it, that is); you have made my point precisely, Paul.

Comments are closed.